The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in this House, Your Honour made a ruling regarding comments by the Member for Cape St. Francis. On December 6, points of privilege were raised by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace and Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Your Honour, referred to Beauchesne's 6th Edition, §409.(7) which states: "A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it." Subparagraph 481.(e) states: that a member, while speaking, must not "impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a Member." Your Honour ruled that there was no point of privilege and we respect and concur with that decision.

Also, on December 6, two members of the Legislature, the Member for Bay of Islands and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace raised points of order. Your Honour ruled at that time, on December 6, as indicated in Hansard that there was no points of order and business continued.

Mr. Speaker, your decision yesterday referred to unparliamentary language by the Member for Cape St. Francis. I advocate that the only two points of order raised on December 6, and indicated here in Hansard, were ruled out of order by Your Honour at that time. The only question that could have been taken under advisement was the question of privilege, and your ruling yesterday indicated there was no point of privilege.

It is unprecedented to revisit and render a ruling on a point of order that was already ruled on at that time, on December 6. If such a precedent is followed every future decision on every point of order can be revisited at any time in the future, rendering Parliament ineffective in maintaining order to conduct the people's business.

I ask Your Honour to review Hansard, to take into consideration my comments, and exonerate the Member for Cape St. Francis because the decision was already rendered on this point, on December 6.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I am surprised that the hon. the Opposition House Leader would stand on this very, very important issue. I would suggest that Your Honour, in making the ruling on the point of privilege, was faced with all of the options that came there under and could have ruled that it was a point of privilege, or that it was not a point of privilege, which Your Honour did. I expect His Honour decided that although it did not meet - in his view was a prime facie case and met the rules of a point of privilege but decided that what the hon. member did was certainly unparliamentary and that is the context in which I took it, without reference to the various points of order.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to be clear on the statement made by my colleague and the Opposition House Leader. There have been many occasions, I say to the Government House Leader, in this House that we have come back, after a ruling has been made by His Honour, and asked and sought clarification on a ruling. This is part and parcel of the place we sit in and the rules that we abide by. The point made by the Member for Ferryland and the Opposition House Leader today is a very legitimate one, in our view, and a very serious one, I say to Your Honour, and we respectfully put it forward in that context.

I believe in the latter part of the member's statement he asked very clearly that you review, if you would, to give us further clarification on the matter of your ruling because we believe that the ruling itself could set precedent and in any way, shape or form in future - other speakers, parliaments, governments and other Houses of Assembly may be impacted by that very ruling. In summary I will say this, that it is a legitimate point that the member raises, one that seeks clarification from the Chair, and in no way meant to be disrespectful or discourteous of the Chair, but one that seeks clarification. I believe that is what the member has asked for and I applaud him for seeking that clarification today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point raised by the hon. member, I will certainly review Hansard and the comments that have been made.

I just want to remind members that making a precedent in the House is not unusual, or setting a precedent is not unusual. Many Speakers make rulings that set precedents in the House, so the issue of setting a precedent is certainly not a point that one would consider. Even with precedents, Speakers have often changed precedents in the House because of the circumstances and the time.

The point of order that the hon. member raised in the beginning - I think it was the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace - I had ruled at that point, no point of order, but the comments that were made by the member occurred after that point of order was decided on by the Chair. In reviewing, I saw that the comments the member had made; but, in the meantime, a number of people had interjected, somebody else had raised another point of order, and the Chair had decided that we would take points of order and points of privilege after the Question Period.

I will certainly review the point that the hon. member has raised, and take it under consideration.

Statements by Members

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

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

I would like to take a couple of minutes today, in Statements by Members, to wish a Happy Birthday, but I think it is a very special Happy Birthday. I did take time last year to do the same thing, and I am glad to say that I can do it again this year and hopefully again next year. It is to Mrs. Helen Chipp, in King's Point, who was born in 1892, on December 29. She will be 108 years old on December 29, 2000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: She will be 108 years old on her birthday, on December 29, so this is the last chance today to wish her a Happy Birthday.

I just spoke to her daughter, who is seventy years old, who she still lives with in King's Point. She is still very healthy. She has a little bit of failing eyesight but, other than that, she does not complain very much. She was born and originally comes from Bobbys Cove, which was a small fishing community on the Baie Verte peninsula. There is nobody living there now at this time. She has three surviving children, and five deceased.

I had the chance and opportunity - and I will again this year, I hope - to drop in with my children. She sits with us, talks with us, remembers the good old days to even my children, and cracks a joke every now and then, so I was really glad to hear this morning from her daughter that she is still fairly healthy. We hope we can all wish her that Happy Birthday on December 29, and hopefully again next year I will be able to do the same thing in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: I would like to move that the Speaker convey, in the form of a unanimous motion of this House, that we all want to wish this lady, who will be 108 years old, a very Merry Christmas and certainly an especially Happy Birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I would certainly want to be associated with the remarks of the Member for Baie Verte and the Premier, in that the unanimous greetings from the House of Assembly would go forth for the wonderful age and longevity of this woman, and continued good health.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion but I need to know, when the best wishes go out to this individual of 108 years, who will be signing it. Will it be Your Honour, or will it be Santa Tulk, I say to the House? Because if it is Santa Tulk, we will have to do something ourselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to talk about an accomplishment by a group of young people from the North Coast of Labrador. The boys volleyball team from the little community of Hopedale took part in the regionals in Goose Bay and, after winning the regionals, they traveled on to Random Island to compete in the Single A Volleyball All Newfoundland and Labrador Tournament. Nine teams were entered, teams from every riding of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The volleyball team from Hopedale won the All Newfoundland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is the second time in three years that they have accomplished this feat.

There are many times when we hear of statistics from the North Coast that we rate number one in the wrong way, but this is one time that I can stand and tell this hon. House and all the hon. members here, on behalf of the coach, the members of the team, the community of Hopedale and the riding of Torngat Mountains, that we are number one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

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

I would like to provide an update to the Members of the House of Assembly concerning the Christmas tree and wreath industries. These industries are in the early stages of development and it is a long-term venture very similar to the orchard industry. There are approximately 3,000 locally cultivated trees on the market this year. The cultivated tree industry consists of approximately twenty-five growers throughout the Province.

In addition, the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods provides permits for a wild harvest. These are the trees that you will find for sale in tree lots throughout the Province. There are approximately twenty-six cutting permits allocated up to this date.

The government believes there is economic potential for this industry. It is estimated that approximately 17,000 trees are imported annually from Atlantic Canada for an approximate value of $400,000. In 1998, government formulated a policy with respect to the development of the Christmas tree industry. Over the past two years, training workshops have been held across the Province to encourage and provide technical assistance to potential growers.

In 1998, in addition to local sales, there were approximately 10,000 wreaths exported to mainland markets. In the fall of 1998, two pilot projects were initiated to explore the wreath industry. There were many positive results from these projects, and accordingly there has been a lot of interest generated throughout the Province. Export and local sales increased significantly in 1999, as interest continues to grow in this sector. The forecast for 2000 is encouraging, with an increase in the number of producers and continued product diversification.

The wreath industry has the potential to create considerable seasonal employment with respect to the harvesting of balsam fir tips and the tying of the wreaths. In New Brunswick, this industry offers employment to approximately 2,500 seasonal workers.

Christmas tree and wreath farming is labor intensive and requires limited capital investment, which is the type of venture that can be especially attractive to rural areas where unemployment rates are higher and new business opportunities requiring limited investment are rare.

Newfoundland and Labrador has an abundance of balsam fir which is the species of choice in the wreath industry. The removal of tips for wreath production, if done in the correct manner, has no measurable effect on the production of wood fibre that would raise concerns for other forest industries. Departmental staff are confident that this industry will prosper over the next few years and provide much needed employment, especially in rural areas.

I encourage all Members of the House of Assembly and fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to buy local Christmas trees and wreaths, and I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for forwarding me a copy of his statement earlier. Even though this is a good thing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, some of these facts stated here are disturbing to me when I see 17,000 trees imported and 2,500 jobs in New Brunswick, when we could be using those 2,500 jobs here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Even though we are probably on the right track, I would like to encourage the minster to continue to enhance the Christmas tree industry, and not only that, the wreath industry. There is a lot of potential in that industry for people in our Province to create lots of jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I myself received a number of calls in the past two or three weeks from people living on the mainland who were wondering about coming home and starting up businesses in wreath tying. Even though this is good, I encourage the minister and his colleagues to enhance that industry, and bring back a lot of our people who are living away, to get involved in this industry. Then the next time that statement is made, the 2,500 jobs will be right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing more indicative of the lack of diversification of our forest industry than to see the comparison between the import of Christmas trees and those grown locally. There is nothing more obvious and disturbing to those of us who are concerned about making sure that work and resources are maximized in this Province. It is a bit of Johnny-come-lately for us, but I commend the minister for whatever initiatives can be brought forward to encourage this type of business development in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the Opposition in such fine spirits. I just want to heighten their mood by telling them about the significant developments that are occurring under the Mineral Exploration Assistance Program that the Province brought in a few years ago.

As members know, in 1999 the government extended the Mineral Exploration Assistance Program from a three year to a five year program. Along with this extension, we took the decision to inject an additional $250,000 into the mineral exploration sector. It is important to note that this was one of the key recommendations emanating from the Jobs and Growth Mining Forum.

This program is now a $22 million/five year government and industry initiative to encourage increased mineral exploration and development activity throughout the Province. This program, which has three separate components, is achieving great success.

Since the Prospectors Assistance Program's inception in 1999, approximately 200 prospectors have received funding totaling $527,000. This program provides grants of up to $4,000 to individual prospectors working in Newfoundland and Labrador. They then spend at least a matching amount of "in kind" expenditures.

To date, thirty-seven grants have been issued under the Junior Company Assistance Program totaling $1,964,000. This program provides a 50/50 cost sharing of eligible costs to junior exploration companies that have achieved and advanced exploration projects on known mineral prospects in the Province. The department enters into project specific agreements with these junior companies to cost share eligible expenditures up to a limit per project.

To date, ten grants have been issued under the Dimension Stone Incentive Program totaling $310,500. This program provides for a 50/50 cost sharing of eligible up front costs of new quarry and plant development for dimension stone projects.

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see the growing interest in our mineral exploration sector. The strength of our industry relies on new exploration. As more people begin to explore the mineral potential of this Province, we will witness new discoveries that will hopefully lead to new mine developments. This will result in an increase in investment, employment and revenue for the Province.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Mineral Exploration Assistance Program is an excellent example of the commitment and confidence that government and industry have in the future of the Newfoundland and Labrador mining sector.

It now gives me much pleasure to table the names of those recipients who have received grants under this program.

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.

This is, indeed, positive news for the mining industry in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: And we see no buts, there are no buts.

We have 200 prospectors which have benefitted from this program. As we all know in this industry, there is an element of risk and when companies in this Province undertake this risk, it is only reasonable and appropriate, I would say Mr. Speaker, that government offer some assistance to those companies. As we are all aware, and I am sure as the minister is aware, the vast majority of exploration companies in this Province are junior mining companies and I am sure, on their behalf, this type of assistance is well received. This is positive news and, in fact, I congratulate the minister for making this announcement today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was a time when the minister's predecessor was known as the minister of mine and energy, singular, but that has changed in the last couple of years. One of the means of continuing to change it is to have support for mineral exploration. We support this as a kind of initiative that needs to happen for us to have new mineral discoveries in this Province.

We would also like to take this opportunity to ask the minister when he, and his government, are going to remove and change the amendment to the Mineral Tax Act, which provides a tax free holiday for up to ten years for any new mineral exploration. There is no cap on that, and that has to change; but we support this initiative and hope it leads to further mineral discoveries in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, today I stand to update my colleagues on the $23 million Northern Coastal Labrador Strategic Initiative announced in March of this year, for the five communities of Nain, Hopedale, Rigolet, Makkovik and Postville. Approximately $8 million of this initiative has been allocated for a housing component with another $6 million for roads, and $9 million for water and sewer servicing.

Mr. Speaker, our government recognized the need to provide and upgrade basic infrastructure in these communities to meet current needs and respond to future growth. This work is being done in partnership with the Departments of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Works, Services and Transportation, and with the help of my colleagues, the hon. Ernie McLean, Minister of Government Services and Lands, the hon. Rick Woodford, Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and MHA for the area, Wally Andersen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The co-ordination of this initiative and consultation with communities has been overseen by a Strategic Initiative Team. The team is chaired by a senior representative of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, and includes senior regional officials from Municipal and Provincial Affairs and Works Services and Transportation. Mr. Speaker, the continued commitment and partnership of the local communities in the development and delivery of this project has also been a crucial factor in enabling the project to move this quickly.

While time constraints meant that year one focused on the delivery of basic family housing, the next two years will provide an opportunity for additional consultation in the community to best meet the needs of residents. I am very pleased to advise that, in its first year, the housing component of this initiative has provided eighteen families with new homes. Another fifty-seven families have undertaken repairs and renovations to their homes. Construction began in August of this year, and completion of the new houses and the majority of renovations is expected within a week.

The focus on new homes was in Nain this year, where ten houses were constructed. Home repairs were emphasized in the other communities. Over the three-year life of this initiative, we expect that about sixty-five new houses will be built and approximately 125 homes will be renovated.

Within the next few weeks, we expect meetings to take place for the planning of the housing program for years two and three. A plan for year two will be presented for approval to the advisory committee early in the new year. In addition to family housing, it is hoped that we will be in a position, in consultation with the community, to address special needs requirements with groups such as seniors.

Mr. Speaker, in the community of Makkovik, almost fifteen kilometres of road work was completed this year. A contract for 8.7 kilometres of local road upgrading in Nain has been awarded and work has begun. Next year, road work in Nain and Makkovik will be completed. In addition, the design work is in place to call tenders for the remaining $3 million of work to upgrade local roads in the three communities of Postville, Rigolet and Hopedale.

This year, $3 million was spent on water and sewer services, with minor clean-up and restoration work remaining for next year. This funding has provided for new serviced lots in four communities including: seventeen in Nain; twenty-four in Hopedale; twenty in Rigolet and ten in Makkovik.

Engineering work for next year's project has been commissioned and is proceeding to allow an early tender call and the start of the construction next spring. This work will allow for the construction of new serviced lots and houses, especially in Hopedale and Nain. We expect that an additional twenty new serviced lots can be provided for Hopedale, ten for Nain, ten for Rigolet, ten for Makkovik and five for Postville.

Mr. Speaker, through this initiative, approximately $7 million has been spent in this area this year. This has provided much needed infrastructure, and this initiative will continue over the next two years. This initiative has also created numerous employment opportunities for the local construction industry, generated a variety of associated spin-off jobs, and stimulated economic activity in these Labrador communities. We look forward to a continued partnership with these five communities over the next two years as we improve infrastructure to the benefit of the residents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for a copy of her statement today. Certainly, we support this initiative. It is long overdue, in a lot of people's minds, certainly with the problems we have had in Northern Labrador and throughout the Province, that basic infrastructure is a basic need, I say to the minister, as in roads, water and sewer and so on, especially in the harsh climates of Northern Labrador. It certainly has to be a better class of living for the people who live there.

I would also say to the minister that overall, throughout this entire Province, if we are going to encourage development in all parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, basic infrastructure is a must. If we are going to entice people to live in our communities, we have to be able to tell them that they have proper water and sewage and that they have a good road to drive over. When we look around the Province and see 900 kilometers between the Island portion and the Labrador portion of this Province that are still gravel roads, it is certainly a concern.

Yes, it is a move in the right direction. I believe we should move towards it in a more rapid way than the government has been doing in the past years. If we are going to continue to develop rural Newfoundland and Labrador in the way that is should be developed, the first thing we have to start with is basic infrastructure. It is well deserved. I hope that the project is on target and that we can span out into all parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador until we see the same effect.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When this money was budgeted last year in the budget, this past spring, we certainly applauded the allocation of money to the North Coast to provide the services that, in many cases, most of us in this Province take for granted. It is good to see that a substantial amount of work has already been completed this year.

I agree with the minister when she says that this money and the work that is taking place there has created an economic boost for the area. Probably even more important than that, it has provided, in my opinion, a great moral boost to the people of the area as well who, many times, being so remote from St. John's in particular, probably feel left out of the provincial activities for a large part.

Again, it is great to see the money being utilized in this respect. I am sure that the Member for Torngat Mountains is to be commended. I am sure he is proud of the involvement he had in making this possible.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the President of Treasury Board. I will get to the outgoing Premier in a few moments. Hang in there. Patience. 'Tis the season. I will lobby you a couple of balls in about five minutes, I say to the Premier.

A couple of days ago, the President of Treasury Board stood in this House and, in Hansard, said that the true balance of government's books last year was a $13 million deficit, and not $221 million as the Auditor General reported. In view of the information that has been laid on the table by the Auditor General, can the minister stand in her place today and still contend that the real deficit for this Province is only $13 million and not $221 million, as the Auditor General has indicated?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day in the House, in response to the Leader of the Opposite, the deficit that we showed, as a government, was $13 million. I also said that we are on a cash basis system of accounting. What you are referring to is an accrual basis. The difference - I think you quoted $221 million - that is contained in the public accounts.

I also want to tell you that most jurisdictions across the country do no include their unfunded liability for their pensions. The adjustment interest alone for unfunded liability in our pensions last year was over $200 million, which accounts for the figure in the public accounts.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the $221 million has absolutely nothing to do with the real deficit. Any board in this Province that this government is responsible for also is responsible for the debt.

I would like to refer the minister, in case she does not know, to a report that was tabled in the House this week, a document called the Public Accounts, Volume 1. On page 7, if she would like to have a look at it, of the report of the Comptroller General - the Comptroller General, Mr. Williams, is a certified accountant and the government's own internal auditor. Will the minister confirm that Mr. Williams, in his audit of the public accounts of the Province, puts the deficit for 1999-2000 at $221,334,000, which is exactly what the Auditor General said it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what I would say to the Leader of the Opposition is that he is trying to make a play on the numbers today. He knows full well that this House of Assembly votes on the annual Budget which is based on a cash basis. The amounts owing by boards, which include hospital boards, school boards, and all other Crown agencies, are located in our public accounts.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I do know a couple of things; there is no question about that. The minister stands in the House today. We know full well that the House of Assembly votes on it. Did we vote on $70 million passed at the Cabinet table, that was not tabled in the House of Assembly? No, we did not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is at stake here was the play that this government made last year, the charade that talked about a low deficit. How can the minister stand in her place and continue to insist that the deficit was only $33 million, barely 15 per cent of the real audited deficit?

Let me ask her: What authority can she give to the people of the Province to back up her claim that the deficit is only $33 million, when the only two people in the Province, both of whom work for this government, indicate that the real numbers are $221,334,000? How can you back up that claim, Minister?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition just stood in his place and said that the amount of $70 million was not voted on in the House of Assembly by the people sitting here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, it was only two days ago that was voted here in this House by these people, so obviously they do not know what they are talking about.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable. This is the President of Treasury Board who stands in her House and tries to spin to the media and the people of the Province that the unfunded liability -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - is included in this $221 million, when it is clearly not. The Comptroller General is an official of your department. He sent his audited report to the President of Treasury Board in November. He sent it to the Minister of Finance. He knows exactly what I am talking about, and he knows that I am right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Here is the signature. Your signature is on the document, Minister, President of Treasury Board. Page 7 shows the real deficit.

Let me ask you if you will stand in the House and back up the professional audit of the public accounts done by a top official within your department, that did confirm that the real deficit for this Province on this year is $221 million? You knew it back in April. Will you stand up and admit it right now?

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, for the interest of the Leader of the Opposition and members sitting opposite I think I am going to have to give you a lesson in accounting today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to ask her if she would give one to the Controller General.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the Institute of Chartered Accountants across Canada have been looking at accounting in all jurisdictions. Not all jurisdictions in Canada use the cash basis, and not all of them use the accrual basis. We, in this Province, use both as a standard of our measurement.

Mr. Speaker, if you were to check with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, no jurisdiction across the country uses the unfunded portion of liability of its pension, which is the interest. In fact, it might be interesting for you to know this, we have an unfunded pension liability of $3 billion in this Province and the adjustment on the interest alone, on that portion of unfunded liability, was in fact, $221 million last year. If we take that away we would have ended up with a surplus of $5.8 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: There is no point in trying to discuss or describe it to you, you don't understand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to have to go to the Minister of Finance, I can see that now.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance, his name is on it as well. I have been beaten up so bad lately, let me try him. Will he confirm that his own officials, government's own auditors, say that these consolidated summary financial statements of the Province are prepared in accordance with the applicable legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I asked him: Will he confirm? He goes on to say, I am quoting directly: ... are based upon information provided by the various government departments and Crown corporations, boards, and authorities? Will he also confirm that his own officials said: together they present fairly, in all material aspects, the financial position of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for 1999-2000? Minister, while confirming that, on what basis do you and your government challenge the Comptroller General's findings when they have been confirmed in every detail, every minute detail, by the Auditor General of the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of trying to keep the discussion, the debate, and the level of information flowing back and forth as simple as we can for everybody to understand, I think it is sufficient to say, to some extent, that we prepare budgets and we present financial information relative to the position of the Province, at any given time, against generally accepted accounting principles. There is more than one way to prepare a balance sheet depending on what you include or exclude on a general, and on an continuing basis, with respect to laying out your financial position.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we budget year over year on a cash basis. We do not, as a Province, present a balance sheet that includes all of our assets and liabilities that are extended throughout all of the Crown corporations and agencies of government. If you want to take all of these assets and liabilities in and put them on a balance sheet or put them in a financial statement, it would be quite a different proposition than presenting and reporting to the people of the Province what - on a year to year basis - our financial cash flow is, as against our expenses.

Mr. Speaker, what we present through our reports is accurate. What we present as a budget is accurate and we operate within the context of generally accepted accounting principles that lays out, in a fair and balanced way, what our financial position is in any given time frame on a fiscal basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

What is becoming evident and clear to the people in the Province are the principles that this government operates by: hide, charade, unaccountable, not transparent, will not release information, all to serve their own interests. That is all that is going on here!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: What purpose, Minister, to what purpose? To what purpose does it serve for the government to continue with the charade, to pretend that the real deficit for 1999-2000 is only $33 million in the face of the statements by the Auditor General, and statements provided to this House by the Comptroller General? Why do you continue to distort the financial position of the Province when your own employees tell a very, very different story?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, would describe generally accepted accounting principles as the equivalent of presenting something in the fashion of a charade. I think if he has a problem with this government, on behalf of the people of the Province, presenting financial information in a way that is accepted by the accounting profession - given the type of business we are in, not being a corporation with a proper loss bottom line, but an entity that is collecting money to provide services and operates on a cash basis - if he has a problem with that, he should address his concerns to those who lay out generally accepting accounting principles that we accept as a basis on which to operate.

I would say to the hon. member, there are differences in cash items and non-cash items, in terms of how things are presented. There is a difference in a cash basis as opposed to an accrual basis when it comes to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: There is a difference in a cash basis and an accrual basis of accounting. If the hon. member believes there is something in those statements -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Minister of Finance to now conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: If the hon. member is suggesting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is suggesting or intimating that there is something fundamentally inaccurate, fraudulent, or incorrect with respect to anything that we have said in the House or that is presented in the statements, then let him very specifically put it forward and we will address it; but to try to spin a perception that we are operating and reporting in an inaccurate or in a false manner is beneath, I believe, the dignity of this House and, I believe, it is beneath the honour that the hon. member really wants to reflect from his own persona.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. For the record, I want to apologize to the minister. I did not infer anything, nothing at all. I stated it. The reality is, I did not infer; I said it. I said it Tuesday. I said it Wednesday, and I will say it to you again today, that purposely this government put out a spin of information on its April budget saying the real deficit of the Province would only be $33 million. We said at that time it will be approximately $200 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is now confirmed by the Auditor General and by the Comptroller General of the Province. How can you stand in your place and say otherwise, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we stand by the presentation of our budget. We stand by the information as presented on a somewhat different basis by the Comptroller General of the Province. You are not comparing apples and oranges. When you get to the point of knowing an apple compares with an apple, and identify the two of them as being one and the same thing, then you will get the concept that is in play here and you will more clearly understand what it is that is being laid before you.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. They involve an issue on which he and I have been working on for some time, namely the effort to win approval for a Long Island causeway in my district.

The minister knows it cost about $1 million a year to operate the Long Island ferry and the estimated cost for construction of a causeway, to replace that ferry, is as low as $10 million. It is sound investment, but the problem is getting the upfront capital to construct it. Even though the party's seem to agree it makes sense, there has been much federal-provincial squabbling over who will pay what, and under what program.

I would like to ask the minister, can he tell us whether he has found a solution under some combination of federal and provincial programs to turn this good idea into reality in the near future?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the member on one of the figures he mentioned about $1 million a year to run that service. It is between $500,000 or $600,000 a year to run the service on Long Island. Nevertheless, if you take into consideration schools and everything else on the island, you may run it up between $700,00 and $800,000.

Having said that, the committee for the Long Island causeway approached me approximately a year ago and asked for a meeting. I said: No problem. They came into a meeting, and I explained to them our position on it and they explained theirs. They asked me if I could come up with some money to try to build a causeway. I said I did not have the cash, I did not have the money to do it for that kind of capital funding.

They questioned me on the surveys and estimates that we had done. I told them it was over $15 million. Plus, they wanted an estimate done; so I told them to go back, I was not providing any money to do any estimates on the causeway. They went back and put together some money to do it themselves. They came back to me after and told me that they had it done. They said it would cost between $10 million and $12 million. I said I had no funds to do it. I told them that if the feds came up with at least 80 per cent of the funding, regardless of what it was, somewhere between the $10 million, $15 million or $16 million mark, that I would revisit the project.

I never, ever said that I would provide funding for it. I left the people with that information. I left that information for them to take to their federal member at the time, and told them that if they came up with 80 per cent of the funding that I would revisit the project, nothing more.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows, as well as I do, that Mr. Baker, during the last eight months and just before the election, was trying to make contact with his office to show where he could supply 80 per cent of the $10 million, or more. For a 20 per cent investment of $2 million, this Province could alleviate the problems of the people of Long Island by providing that causeway and eliminating one ferry where you could save - yes, maybe not $1 million a year but close to it at times. Your officials have told the causeway committee that it could cost up to $1 million a year, at times. That came from the causeway committee, Minister.

Mr. Baker did tell me personally, and he told the media before the election, that he had his 80 per cent, if he could get co-operation from the minister of the Province to come up with their 20 per cent. A 20 per cent investment sounds like a good idea to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: Minister, do you foresee having a meeting with Mr. Baker in the near future? If not Mr. Baker, do you foresee having a meeting with Mr. Tobin, who also was out and met with the causeway committee and promised that this causeway is a doable deal, when he was the Premier of this Province? What is the change in the attitude and in the minds of this government now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I had no request from Mr. Baker to meet with me. I had a request from the Long Island Causeway Committee to arrange a meeting with Mr. Baker. I did just that. I offered him - the Friday before the Federation of Municipalities meetings in Gander - I offered all that weekend at the Federation of Municipalities meetings in Gander, and all the next week or any day thereafter. I have not had that call.

With regard to 80 per cent, I told the people at the Humber joint council meeting in Deer Lake, one time last year - and I also referred to this particular project as well, because there were some concerns about the La Scie highway at the time, and I was told by the federal member that: Oh, we got the money to do it.

Well, I issued a challenge that day to the federal member, that if he came up with his 80 per cent by dinnertime, I would have mine by suppertime, and I would issue that same challenge today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, do you not agree that you should be taking the initiative to make sure that this 20 per cent invested by the Province is a good idea to save the taxpayers of this Province almost a million dollars a year for many years to come?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks, does the minister think it is worth spending 20 per cent of this project? I do not operate the contracts. I do not operate any piece of capital, whether it is roads, ferries, aircraft, or anything else in my department. Based on 20 per cent of what? Twenty per cent of nothing. Twenty per cent of $200 million is big bucks. It is my budget for two years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Twenty per cent of whatever was in that agreement.

I told the feds at the time, and right at the meeting, I told the Long Island Causeway Committee meeting when they came in to meet with me: You acquire help through the federal government to get 80 per cent and I will revisit the project.

Now, if it got up over $20 million, $21 million or $25 million then it would not be viable, but within the $10 million, $15 million mark, I said that if you come up with the money I would revisit the project. That challenge stands today.

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Education. The Department of Education has a policy of replacing only 10 per cent of textbooks issued each year to students in our schools. Now, teachers and students are complaining about the condition of the books. They are marked up and they are ripped up. Many times they are marked with obscenities and issued to children in primary and elementary schools.

Has the minister heard these complaints, and is he prepared to do something about the situation so that our students have decent textbooks which will give them a positive attitude towards education?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, to her very specific question of, have I heard regarding these complaints? No. The answer is: I have not had any representation any time since I have been responsible for the Department of Education, with respect to either the level of replacing books or the quality and the condition which books are in. If books are being circulated or recirculated, and have obscenities or inappropriate language on them, that is certainly an administrative matter that I am sure the school principals, if it came to their attention, would deal with.

In terms of quantity of material being available, or the schedule upon which we replace old books with new materials, I have not had any complaints. If there is an issue with respect to that, I would expect to hear from either the NLTA or the NLSTA, or even my officials within the department.

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

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

I have with me today, a textbook that was handed out to a Grade VI student. Here it is, right here, marked with obscenities. This is a book that was issued. Parents, teachers and students have been complaining to the Department of Education about this. I want to know when the government is going to get serious. If you have not heard it, your predecessor has heard it. This has been an ongoing problem for ten years. When are you going to get serious about the education of the children in our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would make two comments. Number one, it is totally and completely unacceptable to us as government, to me as minister, to have any type of book circulating among students that has language or that has obscenities on it. That is unfortunate, . I regret to hear that, and I can tell you now that I will take it up with my officials to ask if, in fact, this is an ongoing and serious problem such that it needs to be addressed.

With respect to the millions of books that we have in our system throughout all our schools, the millions of books we have that are used year over year, if the hon. member is suggesting that this is representative of the material that is out there -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: If that is what she is suggesting, I would ask the hon. member, in fairness to the issue - because it is an important issue, it is a serious issue - to provide to me not one book that can be held up in the House of Assembly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if I may finish the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: If that book, or those two books, are representative of the millions of books that are there, I would ask the hon. member to bring me some substantive demonstration and affirmation that is the case and I will be the first to take under consideration how we should address the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I believe, on balance, that many of the books that are circulating in the system are in reasonably good shape and get the job done. If that is not the case, I believe I would have heard from others long before now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. It is very cold outside today, and the high cost of home heating is a strenuous, obvious and increasing burden to seniors in this Province, to low income people in this Province, and to pensioners such as those who were protesting out here today who have not received an increase in eleven years from this government.

The federal government has made a modest move to provide some relief to people in this country who are in receipt of the GST rebate. This is the minister's last opportunity before Christmas to respond to this growing heartfelt concern and request on behalf of the people of this Province to provide some relief. Will the Minister announce now that his government will participate in a rebate program to the people of this Province of a portion of the 15 per cent that this minister collects on each and every dollar of home heating fuel or electricity used for home heat in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue that the hon. member raises is a very serious and important issue. It is one that we have thought a lot about over the last year-and-a-half, two years with the increase in fuel prices, particularly for home heating oil. I am very specific when I refer to home heating oil because it is something that affects everybody in a more general way than diesel, or even gasoline.

We have been looking at the fluctuations in the price of the product. We have seen the price of furnace oil go up. During the last few weeks we have seen the price of gasoline go down a little. We have not seen that reflected in furnace heating oil prices, yet. We are hopeful that we will see some decreases in the prices of furnace oil, but I have to be honest, I am not confident that in the short-haul we will see a serious improvement in the price of furnace heating oil.

I say to the hon. member, yes it is a concern of mine. Yes, it is a concern of this government. Yes, I am telling you today that I am seriously considering what, if anything, by way of programming we should be entertaining, looking at or propositioning to ourselves in consideration of the people who are affected by this furnace oil problem. At what point I come to a conclusion as to some recommendations to Cabinet, I will be moving to Cabinet and asking for a consideration of some sort of a relief program. I believe it is time we move in that direction and I am prepared to make that commitment to the people of the Province today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to table copies of the performance contracts and the annual work plan reports of the twenty Regional Economic Development Boards in this Province.

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the annual report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service Commission for the year 1999-2000.

Thank you.

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

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

I have the honour today to present the annual report of the Newfoundland Medical Care Commission for the year ended March 31, 2000.

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

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

As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee - the best Public Accounts Committee in Canada, according to the Premier. I present today the report of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts on Department of Education -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Let me just say, it was the best Public Accounts Committee in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I say to the Premier: It still is.

The report of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts on the Department of Education transfer of school board assets and liabilities; the Avalon West School Board.

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition signed by over 2,000 people. This petition is asking government to direct the Western Health Care Corporation to set aside their three-year plan. I will read the prayer of the petition that illustrates quite accurately what the people on the West Coast of this Province want under the Western Health Care Corporation.

WHEREAS the government of this Province, in its capacity as the funding agent for the Western Health Care Corporation, hereinafter referred to as, the Corporation, has directed the Corporation to recover its $9.1 million debts; and

WHEREAS the Corporation in its three-year action plan has proposed to accomplish this by closing beds, laying off health care workers, shortening hospital stays and privatizing services currently provided by employees of the Corporation;

THEREFORE let it be known that your petitioners request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador provide the funding needed to cover Western Health Care Corporation's $9.1 million deficit and direct the Corporation to maintain its current number of open beds, staffing levels, and length of hospital stay; and

FURTHERMORE the petitioners request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador direct the Corporation to refrain from privatizing services currently provided by its employees.

Mr. Speaker, 2,004 people have signed this. They know full well what is happening in health care in our Province. Since 1989 there have been 1,300 beds closed in this Province. In the last couple of years alone there have been several hundred beds closed in this Province. There are people out there today - I am not exaggerating - who have died waiting for services because the waiting period was too long. In the past I have provided to this House and made references - I have provided names in the public forum. Their families have contacted me. Many families are out there pursuing legal channels. There are numerous law suits out there. There are dozens and dozens of more in the works.

A person was desperate and called me today on a similar topic. I sat down on my lunch hour and listened for one hour on the plight of what is happening out there, that people are not getting the medical attention they need, and they are laying off people. There are ninety-eight less jobs in the Western Health Care Corporation; forty-eight less nurses working there. Everybody knows full well that you cannot convince people that ninety-eight less positions in the corporation are going to give us a better service. If you use that rationale - I have said it before - by laying off you get better service; by laying off more you should get even better service. That is founded on a fallacy. It is not based on any actual facts. I ask that this government listen to the wishes of thousands of people out on the west coast of the Province who are asking that their voices be heard, and allow them to get the level of care that they should expect today in a modern society.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: I do not want to interfere with the hon. member's time. I should have done this earlier, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to rise on a point of order arising out of Question Period, and trying not to interrupt the ebb and flow of Question Period I did not rise then.

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to comment on the complete disorderliness in Question Period, but I will not do that today, hopefully another time.

I wanted to comment on the display of exhibits by the Member for St. John's West. Clearly, members are not allowed to display exhibits in the House. I realize that what the member had today was a very serious matter, but in the interest of the future, members should know that we are not allowed to bring exhibits into the House. It was a good point to raise it on. What the member had today I do not find offensive, but one has to do it in the sense that we could, in the future, be bringing in any kind of an exhibit. I wanted to bring it to the attention of members and to the attention of the Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: To a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a point with respect to the Government House Leader. He is correct, I understand in terms of exhibits, but from time to time - again this is obviously something for you to rule upon and your judgement in ruling will stand obviously - but today in Question Period, I say to the Government House Leader, I, too, held up a book. It was the book of the Auditor General. I also held up another book, a book provided by the Public Accounts, Volume I and Volume II, relating to government's finances.

I want to be clear, in terms of speaking to the point of order, that from time to time all members in this House hold up documents, books, or things of that nature. I do not know, the Speaker will have to rule, but I am not sure that would classify itself as a major exhibit in the House of Assembly, and I look forward to the Speaker's ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the point that the hon. member raises is a good point because from time to time rulings have been made on displays which have been brought into the House and they have been ruled out of order. However, in this particular case I would want to take the point raised under advisement and give it some consideration, but generally, displays that are in the House are unacceptable and are ruled out of order.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition today signed by home care workers in Labrador West and it reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly showeth, and it deals with personal care and home support workers, and the plight that they find themselves in.

We have raised this issue on three or four occasions during the past two weeks in this sitting of the House, and the reason we have raised it on three or four occasions is because it is a very important issue that needs to be dealt with. Home care workers themselves are in a very difficult position to try and advance their cause and improve their lot in life simply because of the structure and the way they operate independent homes, in isolation from each other.

Home care workers in this Province are definitely in need of a wage increase and they are definitely in need of coverage under workers' compensation. They are among very few workers in this country who are not covered under a workers' compensation or an insurance program. They should not be put into a position where the only option they have, should they have an injury as a result of their work, is to go through the courts. They should not be in that position.

Home care workers provide a valuable service in our communities. I would suggest that, in the long run, it probably even saves government money by people being in their own homes rather than being in institutions. Home care workers in this Province are among the lowest paid in the country.

Many workers have taken training courses to avail of employment opportunities in the home care industry, and they have done that at times and expense to themselves. These workers are looking after, what I would call in many cases, special people. Home care workers themselves, by the nature of their work, by their humanity, by their commitment to the people who they work with, are indeed special people as well.

I know that other MHAs in this House of Assembly have been contacted by home care workers in their districts as well, and they are lobbying to try to get the other MHAs - whatever side of the House they might be on, because I do not think that this issue is a political one. I think it is an issue of great importance. I think that no matter what side of the House we sit on in the House of Assembly, it is in our best interest - and certainly in the workers and patient's best interest - to do something that will improve the situation that they find themselves in today.

Home care workers throughout the entire Province are facing, what I would call, a crisis in the sense that many of them are reviewing their commitment because they can no longer afford - particularly those who are raising a family and the rate of pay they receive right now is $5.84 an hour, which is a dismal low paying job. They need to be given some ray of hope by this government that their wages and benefits will increase in the near future.

We have $4 million that was set aside in 1997 to improve conditions and wages for home care workers. As I understand it, $3 million of that was used to bring their wages from $5.41 an hour to $5.84 per hour. I think we all understand, sitting in this House, that $5.84 an hour is certainly not a great deal of money and is certainly not reflective of a wage for the type of work they perform. Their work, in my opinion, is undervalued, underpaid and under-recognized from a monetary perspective, and I think this House and this government needs to address this on their behalf as quickly as possible.

I encourage all members of this House to support this petition. As I said, it does not matter which side you sit on. It is not a political issue, it is a human issue with real faces and real people who are suffering unduly and should not have to be suffering in the way that they are.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would ask that all members raise this matter with their particular caucuses -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS:- with the intent of supporting the initiative to improve wages and benefits for home care workers in the Province.

Thank you.

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

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

I have a petition today on behalf of the residents of the Shea Heights area. I will read the prayer of the petition. It reads:

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the honourable House of Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area. We are asking the government to consider the fact that people with disabilities, and their families, need to be able to utilize the support of family and friends within the community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced to live in units outside the community, it compromises the help and support families so vitally need.

We are asking that serious consideration be given to the construction of wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area, so families with physical disabilities may avail of essential support networks.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented petitions such as this in this House on a number of occasions and it is a serious issue. It is a serious issue because in the Shea Heights area there is a very large percentage of the residents in that area who are living in housing units. I know of at least three families who are living in housing units in the Shea Heights area, who have disabilities. That compromises their ability to live comfortably within their own homes, so it is a serious issue.

Government and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing may say that they can avail of wheelchair accessible housing in other parts of the city, but we do have to recognize that the community of Shea Heights is a community within the city. It is a very special community. It is a community where families in that area consider themselves as a micro-city within the city of St. John's. It is a very close-knit community. To ask people to remove themselves from that community and live in another part of the city does affect the support networks that are available to them by families, friends and neighbours in this very close community.

Shea Heights is an area of the city where almost every resident of that community knows each other. It is very different than other neighbourhoods within the city, where oftentimes you do not even know your next door neighbour.

It is a very serious issue, and it is an issue that I ask government to reflect upon and give serious consideration to. I ask government to very seriously consider asking Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to construct wheelchair accessible housing units within that community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition today signed by numerous residents of the Town of South Brook, and their supporters. Let me read into the record of the House the prayer of their petition:

WHEREAS there is only one exit lane from the Trans-Canada Highway where it passes through the Town of South Brook; and

WHEREAS residents cannot safely enter or exit the Trans-Canada Highway west of the South Brook bridge; and

WHEREAS there have been accidents when motorists tried to enter or exit the Trans-Canada Highway which is west of the South Brook bridge;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide an exit lane from the Trans-Canada Highway west of the South Brook bridge so motorists can safely enter and exit the Trans-Canada Highway from both sides of the Town of South Brook;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, last week I presented a petition from the Town of South Brook, and the residents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: Just before I presented that petition last week, a school bus entering that area narrowly escaped a serious accident, with children on that school bus.

I think the responsibility of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is to make sure that the safety of our school children is certainly a big concern of that department, and I urge the government and the minister to make sure that something is done in the very near future so that our children will not be subject to such a dangerous situation.

Mr. Speaker, having spoken on that last week, I still continue urging the government to look into this situation and correct this situation as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of 791 residents in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile who are concerned about the rising cost of home heating fuel.

This is a very timely topic. In fact, the lady who organized the petition, Marigold Cooper, had brought it to my attention and I had intended to have it actually entered in the spring sitting; however, the House was cut short and I did not get that opportunity. Notwithstanding that, it is certainly a very timely petition today. I am not sure it is not only the 791 residents of Burgeo & LaPoile who are affected by the increases in fuel oils, nor just in my District of Burgeo & LaPoile, but it is a Province-wide issue; in fact, probably a national issue.

The petroleum price increases that we have felt in the past year have been driven, for the most part, by substantial increases in crude oil costs. The cost, as it occurs to the wholesaler, of course, is totally outside the influence of any government body. It is directed solely by the producers of the oil themselves, and in that regard we are at the beck and call of some foreign countries more so than our own in terms of what the production levels are, and it is a matter of supply and demand. As the demand increases and the supply decreases, obviously the prices rise.

In addition to that, of course, reflected in the cost at any given time is what a retailer tacks on as his profit element; and, of course, you have the taxation element that is built in on the product as well.

This is obviously a matter that affects every householder in the country who heats their home by fuel. That is the reason I have been asked, no doubt, to present this here. Regardless, if one is a member of government or a member of opposition, constituents are entitled to have their concerns brought before this House. The options, I guess, are what is important here. We all know the problem. We would much rather be part of the solution than part of the problem, and that is what we are geared to here.

I have advised the spokesperson for these petitioners that there has been ongoing consultations. I have had numerous consultations with my colleagues in the caucus and in the Cabinet, and I am very enlightened and pleased to see today that the Minister of Finance has indicated, in response to a question in Question Period today, that he will certainly be considering this matter further and bringing it to Cabinet for further consideration.

The options include, of course, regulation. We have had the P.E.I. method of regulation, which albeit regulates the price but does not do anything over the long haul to give consumers a cheaper product. We have also had the Nova Scotia situation where they offered rebates, which was a nightmare administratively last year not only for the government who tried to give the $50 rebate but also for the participants who tried to claim the rebate. I notice from the media this past Tuesday that the Government of Nova Scotia has decided to reintroduce this $50 rebate and hopefully they will -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. I say to the minister, right from the very beginning, that it is not in the form of a petition that is usually brought forward in this House, but the intent is clear. The language in it conforms to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member asking for leave?

MR. FITZGERALD: I am asking leave to present a petition signed by 227 employees who are supposed to be relocating, because of a decision government made some months ago.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Government House Leader, the wording certainly conforms to - and I have read the prayer - language that is acceptable here in this Chamber.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, the prayer is lengthy and I think the prayer will suffice in explaining the petition as well.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was written on September 27, presented to me today, and it is addressed to Mr. Beaton Tulk, Deputy Premier at that particular time. It reads:

In the September 1, 2000 edition of The Telegram, you are quoted as saying government has not yet heard from any employees who are not relocating. Well we, the undersigned, would like to make it clear to you, other Cabinet ministers and the Premier, that we do not wish for our positions to be relocated out of St. John's to other regions of the Province, and we want this callous, ridiculous decentralization decision reversed. We are people, not positions, and we have homes and lives rooted in St. John's and surrounding areas. For many of us, your plan to move our positions from St. John's is creating a great deal of stress and turmoil in our lives. Approximately 70 per cent of effective employees are from two income families, thus meaning that many will have to give up one income in order to move. For most, this is something they just cannot do. Many, as you can see below, are unwilling to move for various reasons, family responsibilities, financial, et cetera.

This will leave government with many vacant positions that will have to be filled by inexperienced people. Surely, any one employee is replaceable, but the same is not true for a entire division of government. The disruption in service has already begun as affected employees have lost motivation to work and most are having difficulty concentrating on their work responsibilities. This disruption in service will surely continue over the next several years as experienced employees, who are unable to move, will have to be replaced by new inexperienced staff.

Is government willing to live with this disruption? More importantly, are the people of this Province, whom you represent, willing to live with this disruption?

Furthermore, the undersigned affected employees would like to make it known to you and your counterparts that we do not like the way government has treated us and the way it has dealt with us on this matter. To have no consultation with its employees and to treat us with no respect, government should be ashamed of itself.

Again, we are people, not positions, and we deserve to be treated with some degree of respect and compassion. Thus we are asking that the decision to decentralize 278 government positions be reversed immediately so that affected employees can once again have some peace of mind and stability in their lives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just two sentences left, Mr. Speaker, if you would?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: The fact that the undersigned employees and their families have had to go through the past two months with the stress and turmoil associated with this ridiculous decentralization announcement is shameful. Government should reverse this decision immediately, and apologize to its employees for the anguish it has caused.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is brought forward by 226 employees who are unwilling to relocate and would like to ask government to reconsider this decision, and I fully concur with their request.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to present a petition signed by 610 home support workers. I just want to say at the beginning that it is petitioning the House of Assembly, but it also says, and the House of Commons. It is a petition that reads:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the hon. House of Assembly and the House of Commons.

I addressed it with the Table there initially and I do not think we can - if they are petitioning both, obviously it cannot be in two places and they do mention it here first. I am the Government House Leader won't have any trouble with that, in case there are any doubt. I would like to proceed.

They are petitioning the House of Assembly - and it says the House of Commons - for an increase in wages for personal care and home support workers. Persons in this field are responsible for the care of people with various medical conditions. The duties carried out by these valuable workers are stressful and demanding in nature. Without the aid of the home support workers, hospitals would be further congested and medical staff would be further strained. We, therefore, wish to petition the hon. House of Assembly and the House of Commons to facilitate in negotiating an increase in wages for personal care and home support workers.

That is basically the prayer that was on the petition that arrived and was circulated, I guess, among all different regions here. They are coming in from Twillingate and (inaudible) and they are from all over. Basically, all different parts of the Province have been sending them to my office.

I just want to say, with reference to the petition, that these workers are paid $5.84 an hour in most cases around the Province. The bulk of their hour is $5.84. For certain personal care, you can get as high as $7.01 an hour and that is probably for only an hour or two hours a day, in some cases, depending; very minimal. The rest of it is more general care.

We find this creates a great problem. For instance, here in the City of St. John's - I will use that as an example - it is very difficult to keep home support workers at that price, and there is a continuous turnover, and there are concerns with the training of these people. There have been numerous reports done on that. There was a report done, the Shallow Report, and there was a support submitted by these people, by their representative to government, to look at those particular concerns. The Shallow Report that was done is a very well written report and it puts those concerns into focus.

There are a lot of people out there, for $5.84 an hour, Mr. Speaker, who have to have a very taxing day. For some is a little lighter. It varies, just like the spectrum on various levels of care. Some may need two or three a day, some need many more. There are people who cannot get out of bed, they have to be lifted into wheelchairs, have to go through narrow halls and corridors in older type houses, have to practically be lifted body and bones downstairs. If they are downstairs and the rooms downstairs are not made accessible and the amenities there to be able to enable them to live downstairs, there is loss of stress. There are a lot of people without Workers' Compensation costs, people lifting people with increased back injuries, and people do not have basic coverage at all in many of these cases or any benefits from Workers' Compensation.

In my district many of these workers, 120 of these people, worked out there in the home support -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just, probably, twenty or thirty seconds to finish my line of thought.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: In my district, a couple of years ago, they went on strike to get better benefits, they had an agency there and what happened? They never got an increase and the agency fell apart. Now, when you are employed and the person you are looking after dies, you are out of a job. There is no support structure. People doing similar jobs in institutions around here are getting up to $11.44 an hour while other people are getting $5.84 for this type of work.

I think it needs to be addressed, it is critical. Government need to look at a report, to have a study. No affirmative action has come on it. It is a very important cost efficient part, within the numbers of our limits within our Province, and is something that is being supported by the health care industry, for people to be in their homes if they can function in their homes with not too high levels of care.

In closing, I say Mr. Speaker, it is not the expectation that you go in and care for people twenty-four hours a day in their homes and so on at considerable costs. You are looking at $60,000 a year to do that. That is a very expensive, but there are avenues whereby we can get adequate service given to people there. Every member, I am sure, around this Province understands or has calls on the concerns that have had come on these. It is something that needs to be addressed and it is something has to be done expeditiously. A move has to be made to move it from where it is now, a least to a level that would entice people to be retained.. Ultimately, the purpose of this is to provide care for people who are in need of care and just don't have the families and the support around to be able to give them that care.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Order 5, Mr. Speaker, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 20).

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to be able to stand and say a few words on third reading of Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. While the act does not take up a lot of room on the Order Paper, it is an act that has to deal with something that is important to many people in the Province and certainly to many families in the Province, and that is the fact that it is falling in line with changes that have been made in Ottawa in relation to the EI changes that came forward there a short time ago as it relates to parental leave for those people out in society today who would like to - families, couples - start a family or add on to their family with a new child. This piece of legislation will give the opportunity for those families now, and especially mothers - in most cases mothers - who are out in the workforce and through this piece of legislation that we have before the House today, will now have the opportunity to spend some quality time, very important quality time, with their newborns, and that is in the first year of their lives.

This is a progressive piece of legislation, something that we fully support on this side of the House. We believe also, as speakers before me have touched on, that it is important to assist in any way possible the nurturing, the growth of children. Certainly, we all know from reports that we have read, stats that we have seen, that the most important part of a child's life is those first couple of developing years. To have a piece of legislation that falls in concert with a similar piece of legislation, that is on the federal government's papers and plans, is something that, as I said, we fully support.

There are a lot of concerns that are raised by, especially young parents, Mr. Speaker. Now, in a lot of cases, they come out of university, or are married and trying to start their families, and they are saddled with debt from trying to get their education, from the loans that they have received to further their education. By the time they get to the point where they are ready to settle down and begin their family, the debt is a major burden on them. Both the husband and the wife or the couple have to go out and try to find jobs and try to begin their life together - whether it is a mortgage payment, a car payment, or just groceries, whatever the case may be.

In many parts of Newfoundland we have many two income families where both parents are out trying to take money into the household to meet the daily needs that they have and meet the demands that are on their budget, Mr. Speaker. Because of that a lot of parents do not get the opportunity or feel that if they try to start a new family, or add on to the family they already have, because of the financial situation that they find themselves in, they cannot take the chance on doing that.

Therefore, we bring this piece of legislation before the House today to alleviate some of that concern, to alleviate some of that burden that is placed on couples, to alleviate the worry. With this piece of legislation that we have before the House today, extended parental benefits will be available through the Labour Standards Act to extend that period of parental leave and to fall in line with the Employment Insurance Act of Canada.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is an excellent piece of legislation. It now gives the opportunity for couples to plan for that first year. They will be able to take part in the new act from the federal and provincial government. They will now be able to stay home with their new born child for that first year. As parents - and in most cases we are all parents here - we all know how important it is to be able to spend time with our children, certainly, in those nurturing, developing years, in the first couple of years of their lives.

With this piece of legislation we have today, parents will now be able to spend that first important year with their children without any financial burden being placed on them, because of the fact that this piece of legislation will improve the Labour Standards Act to reflect the federal piece of legislation that we have. Because of that, there will not be a financial burden on parents who want to begin their families. Certainly, as I say, we fully support this piece of legislation.

As the same time, we think that there is always room for improvement. Certainly, we have heard in this House time and time again the concerns that people have raised about student loans. In a lot of cases, it is young parents that relate to this piece of legislation today, that are saddled with student loans.

I had a young couple in my office in November, and between the two of them they owe upwards of around $60,000 in student loans. They are trying to start their lives together. They are trying to begin a family and get their feet planked solid upon the ground, but because of this major debt that they are saddled with - just in student loans alone, apart from anything else - the fact is that the student loan debt they have is keeping them very down, depressed and causing many - financial stress is one of the most major stresses that anyone could have. Certainly for a young couple, I am sure that financial stress is something that it very difficult to deal with at times.

I think that hopefully the government, in the next year or so, will come forward with a piece of legislation which will do something to alleviate some of the concerns on student debt and especially, as I said, for couples who are trying to begin their lives. It is certainly a major concern on this side of the House, and I am sure there is not a member here in the House of Assembly who has not heard from a constituent as it relates to student debt. In a lot of cases they are young couples who are having a very tough economic situation because of student debt.

While this piece of legislation, that we have before the House today, is something that will alleviate some of the financial burden on couples, there are other things, there are other pieces of legislation, there are other opportunities within government to alleviate some of the concerns that these people have. I certainly think one place we should be taking a serious look at, as Members of the House of Assembly, is student debt; not only for what it can do to improve people's ways of life but it is a major burden on the students themselves, on their parents in some cases, and indeed on their families as a whole.

I think we have a responsibility here, as members of the Legislature, to do what we can. While we all understand money is not there for everything, every concern that is raised here, every concern that raised out in the public eye, most of the time the way to handle those concerns is to put a cheque there. We understand that not all can be taken care of with a cheque but at the same time, there are opportunity there for government to do something to help these people out. Certainly we think that this piece of legislation we have before the House today is doing that. It is a step in the right direction. It is fully supported by this side of the House and we hope, Mr. Speaker, that it is the beginning of doing something for young families, young parents in this Province, which will give them a leg up on their future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on this bill as well. I will not belabour the point but I think it is important enough of a change that it warrants some words spoken.

I would like to say that it is a welcome change, a proactive change in the employment insurance act to allow for extended parental leave. As was said by other speakers, this is a very important time in the life of a newborn and the parents. The extended leave that is provided is certainly one which will go a long way towards alleviating a lot of the concerns of parents during that first year when they have a newborn child.

I think it is also important to recognize that for many years a lot of workers in this Province, and other provinces, particularly women workers, paid a price for having children. That price involved taking leave for pregnancy, taking time off following the pregnancy and then returning to work and they now find themselves years later - or found themselves years later, at one point in time, where they probably had twenty-five, twenty-eight or thirty years seniority with the employer who they worked for, but really only had twenty-three or twenty-four years of pension service. I think that women, in particular, paid a price on that.

We talk about the changes to the employment insurance act and what is required, I think it is a bit ridiculous now with the surplus that is in the employment insurance fund that people are not allowed to utilize it for, particularly educational opportunities when they meet every other criteria that they are required to meet under the eligibility of the rules of the employment insurance fund. I know, myself, as well as I am sure other members of this House, spend lots of time representing constituents on appeals, at board of referees or the umpires, on this very issue.

When we talk about the level of student debt, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, we sometimes forget another important part of the debt that students incur, or their parents incur, while students are in post-secondary institutions. That, Mr. Speaker, is the price that is paid sometimes by parents who pay for the education of their children, but at a great sacrifice to themselves personally and financially in terms of their retirement. Many times, Mr. Speaker, a family's retirement is put on hold for five or six or seven years until they are able to recuperate from the cost of paying for their children's education, and there are no absolutely negligible claims that they are able to deduct from their income tax returns when they file them at the end of each year. So, I think there is a whole series of issues that we have to look at when we talk about employment insurance, EI, the Income Tax Act, and all the other things that are associated with education.

Speaking directly to the point that we are addressing here today, we certainly agree with the change, Mr. Speaker, we think it is long overdue, we welcome it, and we look forward, in the future, to other positive changes coming as well.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 6, Mr. Speaker, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St . Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, once again, to stand and make a few comments on Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to stand on the Highway Traffic Act and we got kind of carried away a bit on that one, due to the fact that the other side of the House were very anxious at the time. I think it was last Tuesday, if memory serves me correctly. I got up to speak on the Highway Traffic Act and some members on the opposite side of the House, when I started talking about the possibility of a new Cabinet coming in after Christmas - I think it was this piece of legislation. It was too; last Tuesday, December 5.

MR. E. BYRNE: You were talking about the road they (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I was talking about the highway that the opposite side of the House was on and some members got really, really excited because there is a possibility - the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I remember, last Tuesday when I was up speaking on the Highway Traffic Act, got kind of concerned. He got concerned because I said that he could be Minister of Health and he told me afterwards that he wanted to be Minister of Tourism. I called Danny Dumaresque when I left but I couldn't get through to him, so I can't promise the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, even though I would like to be able to give him that for Christmas, I can't promise him that he is going to be the Minister of Tourism. I will, the first opportunity I get to contact Mr. Dumaresque concerning the new Cabinet - I would say he will be back to me during Christmas, Mr. Dumaresque.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I know, and that is why I had no hesitation in putting your name forward, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think you will be (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I am quite comfortable where I am. The people of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: See, here we go again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I ask for protection. As soon as I mention the possibility of a new Cabinet everybody gets excited.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Look, the former Minister of Tourism himself, and I have to come forward today and tell something, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. LUSH: I would like to say we are into third reading and it is rare enough that we have debate on third reading. It is very rare and when we do, third reading should be specific to the bill and I ask hon. members to adhere to the rules (inaudible). It is very rare that we debate in third reading in this House and when we do it ought to be specific to the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Before continuing, just to remind the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's that on second reading we allowed considerable latitude to the member. We discussed many different roads but we did not speak a great deal about the bill, so if we could have a little bit more relevancy on third reading.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling, and all I can say is I was trying to tie it all in. If memory serves me correctly - in all due respect to you in your position in the Chair - you, yourself, were a bit upset that I had not mentioned you last Tuesday. When I went across the House afterwards you were a bit upset. I told you I could do it but now you have ruled me out of that position, so the fact that I will not be mentioning you now is your own fault, and I cannot say that.

I am talking about the Highway Traffic Act and just alluded for a moment - and certainly the Government House Leader has a right to stand in his place, but I can control myself.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I can control myself, I say to the Government House Leader. Can you control that crowd over there, because they are all jockeying for a position? I am certainly doing my best to control my comments and speak on the Highway Traffic Act, but the Member for Twillingate & Fogo gets really excited every time we are talking about the Cabinet. As soon as I mentions Danny Dumeresque's name, up he gets and gets all excited; but I say to him, time will tell about the highway that you are travelling over there in relation to the Highway Traffic Act. I do not know if there are any rules or regulations on the highway that you are travelling but it is going to be a very bumpy road, I would say. I say with all sincerity to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that there may be a possibility that you may get a bump or two yourself along the way.

I have to say as Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries, I give credit where credit is due. I have no problem whatsoever saying the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has done quite well and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not even (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What is that?

- in good standing. He has done quite well as a parliamentary assistant, certainly in a time of transition that is going on here in our hon. House, on both sides of the House. It is good to see some junior members getting the opportunity to partake in our democracy in such a way, and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has exemplified that he can stand on this feet and do what needs to be done as a Minister of the Crown. If everything was fair and square there would be no problem, I would say, for the Member of Twillingate & Fogo to become a member of Cabinet. The fact is that you have decided to put your support behind the wrong person in this race and that is what is going to put you down, but I cannot help that.

Now, the former Minister of Fisheries may look back at what you have done over the past couple of weeks and he may take that into consideration when he is putting together his Cabinet. The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is also very concerned about what is going to happen on the highway and again, whether there are any rules or regulations on the highway that the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace is on, I will have to get back to that later.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Bay Roberts.

MR. MANNING: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Bay Roberts.

MR. MANNING: In regards to doing that, but I just say: look, I am here today trying to make a few comments on the Highway Traffic Act. I am having a very difficult job to make a few comments on the Highway Traffic Act with the members opposite. I do not know, maybe it is the fact that it is the Christmas season, but if I could have an opportunity to make a few comments on the Highway Traffic Act and just go through the Explanatory Notes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I can control myself. I am asking members opposite to let me discuss the Highway Traffic Act. The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island waits in anticipation. Well, he has been waiting in anticipation now for several years and has not come knocking yet, but there may be an opportunity now. As I said the other day, I believe that the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods are on a suicide mission because of where they have placed their support for the leadership; a political suicide mission.

Mr. Speaker, if I could get into the Explanatory Notes on Bill 26. "Clause 1 of the Bill would repeal and substitute section 4 of the Highway Traffic Act to remove the requirement for officials of the division to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council."

We do not have many concerns with that. We discussed it ourselves. Certainly, we have no major concern with clause 1 of the bill being repealed and substituted with section 4 of the Highway Traffic Act.

"Clause 2 of the Bill would add section 42.1 to Part III of the Act to provide an exception in that Part to the common law rule that before a more severe penalty can be imposed for a second offence, that offence must be committed after the first conviction."

While we understand that everybody is innocent until proven guilty, we understand where this piece of legislation is coming from. While we have raised concerns earlier on with parts of this legislation, we understand what, I guess, the minister is trying to do here in relation to bringing this forward. When a person is brought before the courts of the Province for any reason or other, that they have the opportunity to a fair trial, that they have an opportunity to tell their side of the story, that they have, as we say here in Newfoundland, their day in court. We, certainly, do not have a major problem with that. We think, along with most people here in the Province, that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you are before the courts on a certain motion that you should have the opportunity to have your say and to debate and, certainly, to put your best foot forward in whatever the case may be that is before the court. In doing that, while a second offence may occur during that time, again, we believe here in democracy that the person who is found or brought before the court, once again, would have the opportunity to state their case and have their day in court.

What we understand on this side of the House, the reason for clause 2 of the bill adding section 42.1 to Part III of the act, is to provide an exception in that part to the common law rule that before a more severe penalty can be imposed for a second offence, that offence must be committed after the first conviction. We believe that is the purpose of the bill has put forward. Once again, we believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty and everybody should have the opportunity to step forward in court.

Another part of the bill that we have before the House today is: "Clauses 3 to 11 of the Bill would replace the references to the sequence of offences in Part III of the Act with references to the sequence of convictions and update the references to sections of the Criminal Code."

Again, we do not have any problem with that. We understand where that is coming from. We agree also, from a point in relation to impaired driving in the Province, that there are many people who have some major concerns, and rightly so. We agree that many lives and many families have been destroyed on both sides of the equation. It is not always on one side of an equation. On both sides of the equation many families and lives have been destroyed or have been marred for life because of impaired driving in our Province; not only in our Province, but indeed across the country and throughout the world.

Certainly, any piece of legislation that comes before the House of Assembly that would do anything in any way to help curb the concern of impaired drivers, to curb the concern of people out there who are affected by impaired drivers, is something of which this side of the House is fully supportive.

We understand that there are many groups and organizations, including MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, including other groups, that have been pushing for this type of legislation and have been asking for harder rules and regulations and tougher guidelines and tougher laws due to the fact, as I said before, that many lives have been destroyed because of drinking and driving. Certainly, a piece of legislation that comes before the House that does anything to assist that, or does anything to improve that, is something that we can support.

We have to ask ourselves many times, as a society - it is not socially accepted any more, and it should not be legally accepted any more, that anybody would be allowed to partake in drinking and driving. In most cases we luck out and do not get into a major concern, but we hear story after story after story in this Province where we have situations that have caused many headaches and heartaches for a lot of people. As the Opposition in the House of Assembly, we have no problem whatsoever in supporting a piece of legislation that would do anything against that.

Again, there is no piece of legislation that is perfect. There are always ways to improve the highways in our Province, and it does not necessarily have to be a piece of legislation to improve our highways. I would like for you to bear with me for a moment, if you would, as I talk about some of the highways in the Province, and certainly some of the ones that are not, as far as I am concerned, acceptable by today's standards, and that have caused some concerns. There are many of those roads throughout the Province.

One of my colleagues, earlier today, talked about over 900 kilometers of roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that is yet unpaved. Especially at this time of the year, this causes some grave concerns for people.

We are in the year 2000, and we are moved into the new millennium. It is an opportunity for us to put forward the concerns we have, as members of this Legislature, and put forward the concerns we have as individuals who are out on the highways of the Province, traveling around the Province day in and day out. We have an opportunity to stand here today and do something - anything - that would improve the highway system of the Province.

I think we have to look seriously at a federal-provincial infrastructure agreement that would bring funding to the Province. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would, in turn, then be able to put money into the roads in the Province to assist in any way he can in improving the driving conditions of the Province and therefore, to all intents and purposes, improve the highways of the Province for every person on it.

There are a lot of safety issues here. The piece of legislation we have today deals with one of those what we would call very serious situations. That is the fact that there are people who drink and drive on our highways. That is a very serious situation, and not one to be undermined in any way, shape or form. At the same time, there are other things that we need to do in this Province to improve the system of highways that we have so that people are safe while they are on the highways. I do not necessary mean now, talking about drinking and driving; I am just talking about regular driving on the highways. You may not have anybody coming at you or behind you who has anything to do with alcohol, but it is just the condition of the highways that cause us problems. It is certainly something has been raised here in the House and will continue to be raised.

I am pleased today to have the opportunity to stand and support this piece of legislation and to say that we, on this side of the House, once again have no problem in supporting a piece of legislation that does anything for the - because, the number one concern that we all have, I am sure, as Members of the House of Assembly, is the safety of people on our highways. Whether that is filling in potholes, putting up guardrails, improving the highways, paving, none of it compares to this piece of legislation here today. The importance of a piece of legislation here that would do anything to improve the highways in our Province and make them safe is something that this side of the House of Assembly is pleased to support.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to close off my comments by saying that while this piece of legislation addresses a major concern in the Province, there are plenty of opportunities by this government, if they want to, to improve the highways in this Province. Therefore, hopefully over the next little while, into the next year, we will, as I touched on earlier, be successful enough in getting a federal-provincial infrastructure agreement that will address some of these concerns in the Province, that will make our highways safe, comfortable for people to drive on, where they will not feel, in any way, shape or form, that they are in any danger.

With that, I am pleased to say that we, on this side of the House, support Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, and hopefully that future progressive legislation will come forward in the House to address some of the concerns I have raised today, and certainly to address some of the concerns that the groups, the parents, the people of this Province have raised, the people who have been affected by drinking and driving in this Province. It is a piece of legislation that we support.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 7, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: Order 7.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place today to say a few words on third reading of Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. This bill basically, as I have said in the past, in the previous readings, is housekeeping to a certain extent, but it is a fairly important piece of legislation, albeit short in content but important in what it is saying.

Again, as in previous bills, and I have said so many times in this House of Assembly, oftentimes when we bring legislation to the House and try to rush it through the House of Assembly, sometimes things are omitted, mistakes are made. Again, right in the bill itself, it says, "This provision was inadvertently omitted from amendments stemming from the Regulatory Reform Project."

I remember when that was before the House of Assembly. There were many, many changes made to the legislation, and at the time we said: What is going to be missed? What is going to be omitted? What is going to be in there that should not be in there, and what have you? We constantly see legislation come to this House of Assembly because of that attitude. This is one of those, and it is a fairly important piece of legislation, as I said.

This amendment also has an impact upon the fees that are being charged under the Services Charges Act, which were addressed under the Condominium Act. The Condominium Act - actually, we see now, with respect to the fees, this legislation will change the fees from thousands of dollars down to hundreds of dollars. Of course, that is always a positive thing, when we have less fees to be charged to the public for whatever reason.

We see now, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, more people purchasing condominiums. I have seen more of it myself, in recent years, with respect to seniors in particular and younger retirees who want to have a different style of life. Most of the condominiums that I am aware of are in and around central St. John's. If they purchase these condominiums - I remember seeing an individual who worked with one of the local TV stations, on the news one night, who decided to buy a condominium downtown for a different style of life, where he would not have to have an automobile, he would not have the cost of gas which is so high today, insurance costs. If you wanted to travel in and around St. John's, you had the taxis and the busing system, the Metrobus. This is all important to those individuals, especially the seniors who are usually on a fixed income with their pensions and what have you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I know.

The Minister of Government Services and Lands says he gave the Opposition House Leader a schedule of fees. As I said to the minister - I do not know if he heard - actually, the fees are reduced from thousands of dollars to hundreds of dollars. Again, I commented on that and said it was a positive thing.

As I said, it is a short but serious piece of legislation for the people involved. Some people would never give a hoot about this piece of legislation; but the people now, as I said, the young retirees and the seniors, are going more towards condos in Newfoundland and Labrador. We often hear of the condos down in the States, down in Florida and what have you, but now people are starting to use these as their main home in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in and around St. John's.

In my previous life, I suppose, before I got into politics, I was in a business of my own. We used to be involved with surveying, of course, and the regulations with respect to condominiums and the layout of condominiums was quite detailed. Any time that we make changes to those acts, those rules and regulations, there are very serious concerns.

We discussed this a fair bit previously, so I really do not see much more that we can say on this bill, other than we support it. We see no problems with it.

Madam Speaker, my comments are concluded. I don't know if anybody on this side of the House would want to add a few words. The Opposition House Leader might want to say a few words on this; I am not quite sure.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have just a few very brief comments on that bill. I spoke with the minister, too. I think the fees vary up to several thousand dollars, I understand, under the current structure. Now, I think, depending on the situation and size, anywhere from $150 to a maximum of $600, if I remember correctly, in our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. That is the number of condos, the number of units system, right? That is going to be way cheaper and, in comparison with other provinces, we are right in the ball game. Some were a bit cheaper but others were a little more expensive. We are right up in the lead, in the top part of the pack on that. I think that is positive because there was really a double hit occurring. There were extra costs occurring there.

With reference to that, certainly that is why I think not only with the example here, but I guess looking at a parallel situation too, people out there today - take health care, for example. Those personal home care owners in different parts are hit with different taxes. Some charge them a certain business property tax that is extremely high, and they really have no margins. They can hardly function. I know the Member for Topsail has some in his district. Some municipalities really cannot afford, under the structure, to pay at all, and others are down at a very modest level.

We see discrepancies. This would be across provinces here, and I think we have to look at realistic amounts. It is indicative to have a unit number, I think, reflective in the fee there. That is certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The rest of the country? Yes, and I think the schedule that the minister provided showed that we are very competitive now. So, like my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, we certainly support this particular bill, An Act To Amend The Trustee Act.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act," read a third, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 40)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Order 3, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act." (Bill 38)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I had some brief comments earlier on this particular bill. Again, I think it is important and I feel an obligation to have a few comments again at this reading of the bill, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act.

In this particular bill, as is stated in the Explanatory Notes and subsequent clauses, prohibits smoking in food establishments in public places. I went out to lunch today in a restaurant, and they come up and ask you: smoking or non-smoking? I always say non-smoking. I sat down in the section, and just next to it they were smoking. I do not think it should be allowed. Not only for youth should it be established; it should not be permitted.

I am not an advocate for smoking. In fact, I am a strong advocate against smoking in public places. Anybody who has known me over the years knows that. In school, with young school kids in our high schools, it is something we stress very strongly. As a science teacher - actually, there used to be, and I do not even know if they are in the curriculum, what is there right now. I am a little removed from that. I am not education critic, but I guess as health critic I probably should know a little more about what is in it. I know at lower levels there is emphasis. In the higher levels I am not sure any more, but one time in high schools there was a section in high school and in teaching biology where it talked about health and nutrition and proper eating. There were sections on smoking, and it looked at the effects of smoking. There was a chapter that dealt with the effects of smoking, and cancer. Most people think that, with smoking, cancer is the big link. That is not really the main thing overall, the cancer. The main effect of smoking is really on the heart and respiratory diseases, lungs. The whole functioning of the body itself is severely affected by smoke.

If someone wants to smoke on their own, they have a legal right and there are legal ways to do that. If they want to go to themselves and bother nobody else, that is their prerogative; that is their right. They should not have a right to do it to other people in public places.

When we came in earlier, we talked about limiting smoking. I felt, at the time, it should be reflected there in legislation. I am believer of that, to go the whole gambit on limiting at the time, but I guess we took a first step and eliminated half. I guess half a loaf is better than no bread, but it still did not solve the problem, and now we see legislation back that is hopefully going to solve the problem. At least it is a positive step.

It is not a healthy sign, people out around buildings, smoking. You go into hospitals now and there are people smoking. You know, people have rights. They have been depending on it. Some of them are terminally ill people, and you want to give them as much comfort as possible, but there are concerns. There are places establishing separate smoking areas, a smoking room. You go in there, and if everybody wants to go in and inhale all their smoke, let them go in and do it if that is their desire; but it is messy, there is a smell of smoke when you go out - even outside the building here, outside hospitals, and in lots of public areas - and it is not healthy, it is not good. I tell lots of people, when I see it - people I know - that I do not agree with it. I respect the right to smoke, but I think it should be done in an area that is not open to the general public. I think we need to take every step possible to ensure that it is limited to children, because children are at an impressionable age. They can pick up addictions early. A lot of them regret that they are ever addicted to it in later life, but they just cannot kick the habit. There is a dependency there as with many things, whether it is drug dependency, or alcohol which, I guess, is a drug, various dependencies; if somebody has a physiological dependency, a psychological dependency, or whatever the case may be. We have to do our utmost, as legislators, to prevent that from happening.

I would have endorsed this eight years ago and I endorse it today. I think we have to be conscious and I really think we have to start making a concerted effort. I must say the former minister did initiate it with youth there, and I applauded that. I think it is a very positive step, you getting involved in teens' affairs out there, because people are more likely to listen to their peer group to see what they are doing, to see that they realize it is harmful. You have to start at the grass roots. If you start down in a system and develop it, you develop positive attitudes and proper habits.

I know when I was teaching school, we did surveys and encouraged people on not smoking. Would you believe there was hardly a boy in the whole school that smoked. Hardly one! The smoking population was almost exclusively female at the time. What it is now, I do not know, but I know there are increasing numbers of female smokers. I do not know, right offhand, the full statistics now for our Province, but I am sure the ministers would know them exactly. I think we have gone down 20 per cent in the male smoking in our Province. We were up to the thirties. In Quebec - it was extremely high across the country compared to others, but we have seen a downward trend. I guess, with less young people and if a certain amount smoked - there are less people being born and lower numbers moving through the system - I guess it doesn't take as many to give you a certain per cent anymore. These per cents can be tied into the massive numbers, and smaller numbers with lower populations give varying per cents.

I think we need to look at emphasis within our system. The provincial offences act is positive. Being able to take direct action on ticketing an offence is positive instead of going through a longer legal process. That would certainly improve, we would hope, compliance with the act.

Once again, it is important, I think, to look at access, not only to children, which is covered here, but the whole public. The whole public has a right to be able to sit down and have a meal in a smoke-free environment. That is not too much to ask, when we do know there have been proven links, strong proven links, to ill effects on health by tobacco. We have to take the necessary steps to ensure that the enforcement mechanism is in place, and this particular bill here certainly does that.

I do not take issue, actually, with any of the clauses here, but I do want to declare emphatically that, as health critic, on behalf of our caucus, we strongly agree with it, we agree with the action. It is overdue. We agree with that too. The quicker it is implemented the better. January 1, 2000; we agree there needs to be a period of time for the regulations and basically informing and education and public relations on this issue, advertising, and establishments getting due notice to act accordingly. So, it is important. In our point of view, 2002 will not come fast enough in terms of seeing these regulations and this legislation come into effect.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I, too, would like speak on Bill 38 and reiterate some of the remarks that I made the other day.

Clause 1 of the bill amends section 5 of the Smoke-Free Environment Act to prohibit smoking in food establishments and in public places that are frequented by children. These places may be further clarified by regulation.

There are a couple of points in there that I would like to address. One, is the further clarification by regulation. There are a couple of establishments out in the city now that I make reference to. One is the Curling Club. How would that be designated, the St. John's Curling Club and the Bally Halley Golf and Curling Club? These places are frequented by children, but they also have bars there. Therefore, although they are complying with the rules in having half and half for a bar, but are they a food establishment, are they a sporting establishment, or are they a bar? That designation would have to be clearly defined because children - there is a school boy and girl curling program on there four or five afternoons a week, children are frequenting the place and we know what the toxins and the carcinogens from second-hand smoke do to children. I would also like to address the fact that smoking will be prohibited in places frequented by children.

We all know the effects of second-hand smoke, children and adults alike. There are adults who have emphysema, asthma, and other lung diseases that have been caused purely by their exposure to the toxins and carcinogens that are in second-hand smoke.

We also have to be aware of the employees who work in these establishments. Most of them are women and most of them are single mothers who are out there working at minimum wage who are constantly exposed to this second-hand smoke. I realize that it would be quite difficult to toughen the legislation now because of the phasing in for these establishments and the loss of revenue. But what is more important, the loss of revenue or the lives of these people who we are exposing to these dangers in the workplace? I would suggest that if there were any other workplace out there that was exposing its employees to the dangers that employees in places where smoking is allowed are exposed to, the Department of Environment and Labor would have addressed it long ago.

It is a proven fact that second-hand smoke is a major contributor to breast cancer in women and that women who are exposed to second-hand smoke one hour a day over a twelve month period, their chances of getting breast cancer is terrifically increased.

Another issue that I would like to address: how will this legislation be enforced? We already have an act, a Smoke-Free Environment Act, where restaurants are designated half and half, bars are eighty-twenty or seventy-thirty and there are other places out there where smoking is prohibited. I know for a fact, and we can all attest to the fact, that this present legislation is not being strictly enforced because when you go into any of these establishments you see the legislation being violated, both by the patrons and, obviously, by the operators who are allowing the violations to take place.

These are my concerns about this bill. I heartedly agree with the bill, but I strongly say that the bill does not go nearly far enough in protecting our adults from getting exposed to second-hand smoke and our employees from being exposed to second-hand smoke over such a long period of time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 38)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 4, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act." (Bill 39).

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

I want to have a few brief comments on a few of the clauses in Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act, in particular, clause 5, prohibiting the sale of tobacco by pharmacies. I certainly support that. I feel that it should not be sold in pharmacies. The impression you get in going to a pharmacy is it is a place that is going to enhance your health, you get a prescription, hopefully, that is going to deal with a medical problem you have. I know they deal with more than the medical end, but, traditionally, that has been the way they have increased their large retail in numerous items now in pharmacies. Originally, the whole purpose of a pharmacy was, hopefully, to provide certain medicines and formulas that would maintain or enhance the health of people. Having tobacco products there, I do not think does anything for the image of it. It does not do anything for the promotion of it.

I really feel that accessability to something that has an effect upon the usage. Increased accessibility increases usage. Ready access to alcohol, I think, increases the chances of young people using it. Increased tobacco has the same effect, even though it is not restricted for the purpose of just young people in this particular act. I think that is a positive step.

It goes on to mention that, "An inspector may, at all reasonable times, with or without the help of other persons enter upon the business premises of a retailer or a wholesaler or upon the premises where the retailer's or wholesaler's tobacco or records are kept so long as it is reasonably necessary to determine in compliance with this Act...". In other words, they have permission to go in and carry out - the proper leeway and flexibility, to ensure compliance with the act.

We have an increase in administrative suspension of a license to sell tobacco for a period of three months. Currently, it says, it is two months. It would create uniformly with a penalty a court may impose under section 7.1 of the act. So it is brought in so we can have an appropriate uniformity within the act.

Proof of age is required. I think it made reference earlier that it is not just for the sake of liquor, and I think the minister clarified that earlier. It says, an identification card issued under section 205.1 of the Highway Traffic Act or a driver's license. I guess the liquor control board issues - and I am not sure if they still do or not. I think proof of ID is important. If somebody wants to go in and buy cigarettes for somebody else and give them to youth, that is wrong to give or sell them to youth. It is improper to do that.

I made this point earlier, and I am still not reconciled with this particular point. I know the former minister made a comment, at that time in discussion, that we do not want to make criminals out of young people. Of course, we do not. You do not want young people being charged with offences. I will make it again, because I have not heard a sufficient explanation really to satisfy me. It is illegal to sell alcohol to somebody under nineteen. It is illegal to sell cigarettes to somebody under nineteen. It is illegal to possess alcohol when you are under nineteen, but it not illegal to possess and smoke cigarettes. Two of the substances are substances that we have regarded as not being legal for youth to have below a certain age. What is the age on cigarettes? It is sixteen to eighteen, I think. Under sixteen you cannot, if I remember correctly, in the legislation. Under sixteen you are not allowed but sixteen to eighteen you are allowed to smoke, but no one is allowed to sell them to you or give them to you. So, how do you get them? Anybody sixteen to eighteen cannot buy cigarettes so they get them illegally or they are given to them by somebody. If a custodian gives them it is not an offence to do it. Maybe if a parent gave their seventeen year old child cigarettes, what can we do? We cannot do anything about it. If you want to make a criminal out of them - if you give them alcohol, you make a criminal out of them. You are not allowed to do that. Still, that particular point, I think, is important. I think we need to look a bit further at that. I think it needs further discussion, and I would like to hear further arguments or suggestions put forward on this particular (inaudible) to show that there is some uniformity. I do not see the consistency from one act to another in the definition of legality and possession. The legality aspect is the fine of selling. The possession aspect has different standards among illegal substances. If a substance is illegal to consume and it is not illegal to possess, and in another case it is illegal to have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You are going to make me what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a marshall.

MR. SULLIVAN: A marshall of what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not on my list of aspirations. I do not really -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your decision.

MR. SULLIVAN: My decisions will be my decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know you want me to - sure, you have all said that is already determined. I did not deny it to you. I figured we would ask the Member for Bay of Islands. He is good at it. He is good at giving up his seat. Maybe one of the things that is wrong with people around too long - maybe I have been around too long too. Maybe some of you are too. Maybe it is time for me to retire and give it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I won the first time by 125 votes, and I was told that the first one is always the worst. For anyone who loses, I said, the last one is always the worst. That was my response. That was my answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Indeed it is. It is always the worst, unless a big blue tide sweeps in and goes across the Province. Who knows? You could be drowned in that tide.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That happens. Get off the tracks. We were told in 1996, there is a huge train leaving Ottawa. Get off the tracks, John Efford, or you will be run over. That is what we heard. We heard that coming out back in 1996.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

MR. SULLIVAN: He got off the tracks, but he is not getting off the tracks this time! He is going to get delegates in Trinity North. He is going to win delegates in Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, and he is going to win them in numerous areas of this Province. He is on the track. He is on the right track and is going. Danny Dumaresque, Danny the great, will be down in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair robbing delegates from under the nose of the current Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. That is going to happen. When you add up your twenty-four delegates, you will have seventeen for you and seven for Danny the great down there. Add them up. That will happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, no, he is Danny the supreme. There is a difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is good to be great but it is unique to be supreme; that is what I would say. Many aspire to greatness but there is only one who aspires to supremacy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It could be; who knows? I never said it was not. There was a guy who stood in this House in 1996 and -

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: If I could have leave to pay tribute to the Opposition House Leader, this member has made a great contribution to this House over the years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: He has been an excellent performer, a great debater, but he has also been a very great compassionate individual. As a matter of fact, he could have been a Liberal at any time. I am sure today, right now, he is standing in the House, giving his last speech in this Assembly, and he is going to be leaving this House and letting Danny who? - Dumaresque, is it? - run in his district.

I think we should suspend the business of the House and pay tribute to this great member, because this is his last speech.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am moved by the comments of the Member for Bellevue. Many people have to die for people to know that they have achieved greatness. Some people do it, achieve it, and get rewarded while they are still alive. I am delighted he recognized that. I haven't died to be told that he appreciated my contribution to society. I am living proof that you do not have to die to be rewarded. Is that it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure. Probably. Who knows?

I tell you, we will let the people of Ferryland decide if I am dead in the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I was going to be dead the last time.

MR. E. BYRNE: So was I; I was gone.

MR. SULLIVAN: We were going to go down; we were going to be run over by the one train.

MR. E. BYRNE: I don't think we lost a poll between the two of us, did we? Not one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said, like Jean Chrétien: I might run until I am eighty-five. Then they turned around and the Liberal Party went in and shuddered. They made a statement. I read it. I said, he will retract that tomorrow.

Sure enough - well, he may step down after a couple of years because the Liberals shuddered at the thoughts of Jean Chrétien for five more years; they wanted Paul Martin. You have to correct that statement. Here he comes out and says that he may step down after two years. Now, again, he is going to serve another full term. We have you hoodwinked now! I am going to be here; you are not getting rid of me for five more years. That is what the Prime Minister of Canada said. What a game, what a charade they played!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I told the people in Ferryland that I will do two things. On the day I ran, I said: I will give you two guarantees. Nobody will be more accessible, and nobody will work harder in your interests.

I said that in 1993, and I was successful in getting the highest per cent in the Province, 74.1 per cent. I said it in 1996 again, and I had the second highest votes in the Province, next to Madam Speaker, who is sitting in the Chair; and in the last election I was fourteen votes from the most in the Province and twenty some -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Roger Fitzgerald was one. Second, I think, was John Efford. Third - and twenty some of mine were forced to vote in Kilbride district. (Inaudible) in there said. They told them that they were not in my district at Crockers Bridge in the Goulds, on the Back Line in the Goulds. I said you are in Ferryland district, and they forced them to go up and vote in Kilbride district. I said, if I had to get them twenty-some back, who knows? I might have had the most.

Anybody who won by a squeaker - I won by 125 votes. It does not make a difference. I won the first election by 125 votes, a by-election in 1992, so it does not make any difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who ran against you?

MR. E. BYRNE: Tom Best.

MR. SULLIVAN: Tom Best ran against me. He ran against me again in 1996, and he had 20-some per cent of the vote his second time around, so he got worse. How could Tom Best get worse? But Tom Best got worse, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know, maybe not. I tried. That is for them to judge.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, where would you want me to carry it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know about popularity. He will just get in like any member of the House. Lots of members over in the House won it comfortably.

All I say is, if you get elected once it is in your hands to a certain extent. Getting elected the first time is tough in many areas, in many districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Bellevue said he is really going to miss me, and I am sure he will, but I will invite him after the next session to come into the Speaker's gallery any day at all and not to feel too sorry. If he feels a little lonely when it adjourns, I will let him come in and sit down in the seat, or wherever it is. I would not want him to suffer from withdrawal symptoms, you know. Withdrawal symptoms are symptomatic of too much smoking. I do not have to tell the Member for Bellevue about this bill on smoking, because I am sure he knows quite well. I think you have kicked the habit, have you?

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you kicked the habit and that is commendable. Sometimes it even takes a scare for somebody to do it. I have seen people give it up because a member of their family or spouse died because of it. I know that. I have seen it happen very close to me, and I have seen other people give it up when they got that scare. That is why we should be very cognizant and we should push to ensure that young people do not get into a position where they are put in a situation where they become addicted; because once they are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) alcohol.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, it a good point, and it is a point I raised. I will not get into it now, but I made the same point today to the Minister of Justice in a discussion on the same point that the Member for Bellevue now is saying to me: Should we ban that and do something about alcohol, the same as cigarettes? I raised the same point, actually, with him in a discussion earlier today, in which I will not get into the details, but I did indicate that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, it possibly does but most people attribute smoking to the effects of cancer, but look at heart and circulatory disease. They are the biggest killers of people today, the respiratory ailments occurring from it, and the overall system by having all those agents within second-hand cigarette smoke. Anybody who has followed and read, I subscribed to a few medical ones - I have subscribed to the Mayo Clinic newsletter for years, and to the Berkley California medical letter, and I follow a little bit on some of the effects of some of these things, and the different environmental factors that are found in smoke, I think, are very serious. If people really knew it - I really think we need to get an intensive education program going at early stages. We need to limit access to a lot of those drugs because that is basically what it is.

I got carried away there, I say to the Government House Leader. I got carried away a little bit, because he praised me up and it went to my head. I apologize for getting praised up.

I will just conclude by saying that we support this bill overall. I do not see any clause in this bill that we would want to amend. I support it, and I will just leave with one thing again, a final statement. Maybe the Member for Belleville might be able to answer it. I have not gotten an answer to it yet that satisfies me. I will say it one last time and you will not hear me say it any more. It is illegal to sell alcohol to someone under nineteen. It is illegal for someone under nineteen to consume alcohol. It is illegal to sell cigarettes or tobacco to someone under nineteen, but it is not illegal to use it and so on, and possess it, if you are sixteen to eighteen years of age. I see some discrepancy in there.

Number one, we said it is an illegal substance to sell. That is an illegal substance, but you can use it; but you cannot use it in this case. The former Minister of Health said, in response, when I spoke on this in an earlier reading, we do not want to make criminals out of young people. I do not think any of us do. We like to see them not use it, instead of making criminals out of them. We do with alcohol. Cigarettes are harmful to young people. Young people getting into alcohol before they are mature, there are probably a lot of things can happen, even tragic or accident wise, things out there, but cigarettes are a slower death. You die a slower death from cigarettes, basically, and that is probably why -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) alcohol.

MR. SULLIVAN: Not necessarily, but there are also a lot of factors of bills and legislation coming before this House that limit the consumption of tobacco in public places because it is known to cause dangers, deleterious effects, on the health of others.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, not necessarily. We are telling people right now, in the law as it currently sits, that a seventeen-year-old and an eighteen-year-old can go out and smoke in public. You are allowed to do that if your are sixteen, seventeen or eighteen, but not under sixteen. You are allowed to do it; so we are really, in a sense, condoning it by not limiting it to under nineteen. You either condone it or you limit it. You are either for it or against it, and we have not taken that stage. Maybe it is a step we should take. That is why I wanted to end on this point, because it is one to which I still have not gotten an answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).


MR. SULLIVAN: Yes I will, and I will probably have another one before I finish here today.

Thank you.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 8, the third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Trustee Act. (Bill 37)

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

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: If we could, Madame Speaker, I mentioned to the House Leader if we could do the bill that was going to be done, Bill 43, because I was going to send for the critic. I had a comment - and I will have him here shortly.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: We will change that to Order 9, the third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Family Law Act. (Bill 43)

MADAM SPEAKER: Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Family Law Act.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Madam Speaker, just a few comments on a bill, An Act To Amend The Family Law Act.

This particular piece of legislation was introduced a number of days ago, and in the introductory comment by the minister it was pointed out that the significance and the importance of this bill deals with the issue of the expanding of the definition: ‘spouse' and adding to that definition, or adding to that terminology, the word: ‘partner.'

As was indicated in the preliminary debate, this is largely a result of other jurisdictions that have followed in line with a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada, whereby much of the legislation, both federally, and in various jurisdictions, provincially, had to amend legislation dealing with the word, ‘spouse' to ensure that the expanded definition of ‘partner' was included.

Perhaps the section which best encompasses the change is section 36 of the amendment, which states: "Every spouse and partner has an obligation to provide support for himself or herself and for the other spouse or partner, in accordance with need, to the extent that he or she is capable of doing so." It seems to me that this one section tends to exemplify what this amendment is all about because it addresses the issue of an obligation of a spouse or a partner to support his or her spouse or partner, and, as I have indicated, tends to outline for us the significance of Bill 43.

It was brought out in debate during a previous sitting, section 10, and I would like to refer to it. It is on page 5 of the legislation and, in fact, it is section 4.(10). It states: "The obligation to provide support for a spouse or partner exists without regard to the conduct of either spouse or partner, but the court may in determining the amount of support have regard to a course of conduct that is so unconscionable as to constitute an obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship."

It seems to me that this in some way departs from much of the legislation dealing with issues of support found in perhaps either the divorce act or in the previous wording of the Family Law Act where the whole issue of fault was not to be a factor in determining the quantum of support or maintenance that was to be paid with respect to one spouse and another. Therefore, it is interesting to see that in subsection 10, it basically introduces the whole concept of fault being taken into account by a court, by a judge, in adjudicating whether or not, I guess, support and what the amount of that support would be in accordance with the provisions of this legislation. What it attempts to do is introduce the whole concept of fault, which, as I see it, is a departure from what we have seen in other corollary relief legislation.

Generally speaking, Madam Speaker, we have no difficulty with this legislation. It is a result of previous judgements as were found, in particular, in the Supreme Court of Canada. Other provincial jurisdictions have enacted similar legislation to deal with the expanded definition of spouse to ensure that an individual, whether it is a man or woman, whether married or cohabiting with another partner of the same sex, to ensure that the provisions and the safeguards that are found in family law legislation in this Province will be afforded to not only a spouse, but a particular partner of either himself or herself.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

PREMIER TULK: Order 8, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Trustee Act. (Bill 37)

MADAM SPEAKER: Order 37, An Act To Amend The Trustee Act.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Once again, I say it is a pleasure to be here in the House of Assembly and have a gracious lady like yourself in the Speaker's chair.

I am pleased today to have the opportunity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I am not allowed today, they tell me.

I am pleased today to have an opportunity to stand and say a few words on Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Trustee Act. I look (inaudible) the Minister of Justice and I hope that he enjoys his Christmas holidays that are coming up. Certainly, it was a great conversation yesterday evening at the social. It was great to have the opportunity to - I see that the Minister of Mines and Energy is busy on this side of the House looking for delegates.

Just for a minute, if I could, touch on the Explanatory Notes. Once again, I would like to go through the Explanatory Notes.

"Clause 1 of the Bill would repeal and substitute section 3 of the Trustee Act to replace the rules permitting investments only in listed types of property with a prudent investor standard." Again, we do not have any major concern with this piece of legislation and certainly that part of it.

"Clause 2 of the Bill would repeal sections 4 and 5 of the Act which dealt with permitted investments."

"Clause 3 of the Bill would remove references in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act to restrictions on a trustee's power to invest."

"Clause 4 of the Bill would amend section 9 of the Act to make reference to the report of an appraiser of property in place of a surveyor."

Once again, we have a piece of legislation before us that is trying to improve the opportunity for people to invest in our Province, and invest in Newfoundland and Labrador. We, on this side of the House, have no concern with it.

I must say that the level of discussion here in the House is loud, especially on this side of the House. I see that we have the Minister of Mines and Energy over with us, he has graced us with his presence. He figures he is going to have more support or more luck on this side of the House looking for delegates than he is on the other side. So, it is just as well to come over on this side of the House. The Member for Cape St. Francis is promising all his delegates to the Minister of Mines and Energy. Then we have one of the lieutenants from the other camp sitting in the Leader of the Opposition's chair, over looking for some delegates, seeking some delegate support on this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the Tories candidate here -

MR. MANNING: This is the Tories candidate on this side of the House, Madam Speaker. It is interesting to watch all of this unfold over the past couple of weeks, and indeed to look forward to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say which party (inaudible)?

MR. MANNING: The Minister of Mines and Energy has us puzzled on this side of the House because we are not sure what party he is seeking the leadership of. We know he is over here looking for delegates because he is not going to get much support on the other side of the House. We all know that you think the leading candidate on that side is the wrong candidate. You do not have to come over and tell us that. You do not have to tell us that the Minister of Health is the wrong candidate. That is your view, but how come it is not the view of twenty-five members of your caucus, that the Minister of Health and Community Services is the wrong candidate? Why is it only the view of two members of your caucus, thunder and lightening: the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods? How come they are the only two who think that the Minister of Mines and Energy has an opportunity, a chance, at gaining the leadership of the Liberal Party of the Province?

I said, the other day, they are on a political suicide mission, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, and the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is lightening?

MR. MANNING: I am not sure.

Then we have the Member for Bellevue, who is over trying to get some delegates in Ferryland. I know what the Member for Bellevue is at. He has been over the past couple of days talking to different members on this side of the House, trying to get a few delegates for the minister - well, I am not sure who you are supporting. Oh, yes, I know who you are supporting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) eighteen.

MR. MANNING: Eighteen? No, I would say that the battle lines are drawn in Placentia & St. Mary's. I have information that the battle lines are drawn. The Minister of Fisheries is going to get the majority of delegates in Placentia & St. Mary's. I know, from listening to conversations that have been ongoing, that the Minister of Fisheries is going to get that.

I would say that it is going to be an interesting day when we get the opportunity to sit down here and the former Minister of Fisheries is the Premier of the Province. It is going to be an interesting House of Assembly, and we certainly look forward to coming back in the spring.

If I could get back to the bill, there are some concerns that we have with Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Trustee Act. I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to make a few comments on the Trustee Act. The Trustee Act is all about trust. It is important that we have the trust of colleagues here in the House of Assembly. It is important that we have the trust of our families and friends, because relationships -

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I cannot hear the Government House Leader, Madam Speaker.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible). We are into a rare situation of debating in third reading, I point out again, a very rare situation. I do not mind. That is a rule of the House, that we can debate in third reading, but in third reading it is very restricted. The hon. member should keep himself to the bill. All hon. members would tolerate third reading if people debated the issue, debated the bill, but to be off meandering around on topics that are superfluous to this bill, superfluous to the House - I would ask the hon. member to get serious and let us get on with debating the bill.

MADAM SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that discussion should be relevant to the bill.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have to say in all honesty to the Government House Leader that I am very serious when I get up to speak in the House of Assembly about matters that concern the people of this Province, matters that concern the future of this Province. We are not blind on this side of the House. We are not dumb. We are not stupid. We know what is going on, and we get on our feet. When we have the opportunity to say a few words, we take it.

We are talking about the Trustee Act. Well, I have the opportunity to say a few words. We all know what is going on. We know the race is on, and therefore if you think we are going to be able to stand in the House and not make a comment - we know full well what is going on. The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace knows full well what is going on, I say to the Government House Leader. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo, sitting right next to you, knows full well what is going on. The Member for Trinity North knows full well what is going on, because he is heading down a bumpy road in August. We know full well what is going on.

I understand where the Government House Leader is coming from. We have some bills coming before the House today on committee stage, and I am sure that we will have the opportunity to discuss those. We watched over the past couple of days what is going on, and we are very concerned, on this side of the House, about the future of that side of the House. That is why, when we get the opportunity, when I get on my feet, like I did last Tuesday, I made some comments as they relate to different Members of the House of Assembly. Those members then get up on their feet and get upset because I did not mention them, I did not comment on them, or I didn't mention their names, such as the Member for Bellevue, who gets upset because I did not put him in the Cabinet. Then he gets upset because Danny Dumaresque is not going to put the Member for Bellevue in Cabinet. I know that without a doubt in my mind, that the Member for Bellevue does not have a chance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: You are going to be taken care of; you need not worry.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to say that the act that is before the House today, An Act To Amend The Trustee Act, is something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: It is hard enough to be here on your feet, trying to debate and make some comments on a piece of legislation, when you are receiving barbs from that side of the House on a continuous basis, but to have these people over on this side throwing barbs. They are over here behind me now. It makes it very difficult for one person to get the opportunity to say a few words. It certainly concerns me, as a member of the House, that we have a member now from the other side of the House over here trying to disrupt the House, take the House on his back. The Member for Bellevue is over here trying to take the House on his back, disrupting the few comments I am trying to make here. I say it is very disheartening indeed, but maybe the Member for Bellevue wants to get used to this side of the House.

If I could comment first on security of property, "Trustees lending money on the security of property on which they can lawfully lend may contract that the money shall not be called in during a period not exceeding 7 years from the time when the loan was made, provided that (a) interest is paid within a specified time not exceeding 30 days after a half-yearly or other day on which it becomes due, and (b) there is no breach of a covenant by the mortgagor contained in the instrument of mortgage or charge for the maintenance and protection of the property." That is to make sure that the property is secure. Certainly, again, we have no concern with that.

I would just like to make a comment also, if I could, that on report of appraiser. It goes something along the lines: "Subsection 9.(1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: A trustee lending money on the security of property on which he or she can lawfully lend shall not be chargeable with breach of trust by reason only of the proportion borne by the amount of the loan to the value of the property at the time when the loan was made provided that (a) it appears to the court that in making the loan the trustee was acting upon the report as to the value of the property made by a person whom he or she reasonably believed to be a qualified appraiser or valuer instructed and employed independently of an owner of a property, whether that appraiser or valuer carried on business in the locality where the property is situated or elsewhere...". Again, we have no concern with that.

Section 9.(1)(b) states, "...the amount of the loan does not exceed 2/3 of the value of the property as stated in the report....". Again, we have no concern with that part of the legislation either. Section 9.(1)(c) states, "...the loan was made under the advice of the appraiser or valuer expressed in the report." Once again, we have no concern with that part of the legislation.

If I could just touch on, for a moment, bearer certificates, section 8, if we get back to the Explanatory Notes, "Clause 3 of the Bill would remove references in sections 6,7, and 8 of the Act to restrictions on a trustee's power to invest."

If I could read those in and just make a comment or two on them, section 8.(1) reads along the lines of, "Securities payable to bearer that are retained or taken as an investment by a trustee not being a trust corporation or the Registrar of the Supreme Court..." - this is kind of interesting - "...the Registrar of the Supreme Court shall, until sold, be deposited by the trustee for safe custody and collection of income with a banker or banking company."

We think that is a very progressive piece of legislation to have before the House today, and we on this side of the House certainly have no problem supporting that.

That is subsection (1), "Securities payable to bearer that are retained or taken as an investment by a trustee not being a trust corporation or the Registrar of the Supreme Court shall, until sold, be deposited by the trustee for safe custody and collection of income with a banker or banking company." Again, Mr. Speaker, we do not have any concern with that and no concern with the piece of legislation that is before the House today.

On bearer certificates, subsection (2): "A direction is an instrument creating a trust that investments shall be retained or made in the name of a trustee shall not be considered to be an express prohibition against retaining or investing in securities payable to bearer." Again, we have no concern with that piece of legislation that is before the House today.

Subsection (3) certainly raises some concerns, and the Member for St. John's South just told me he has a few concerns about subsection (3) and that is: "A trustee shall not be responsible for loss incurred because of a deposit referred to in subsection (1), and a sum payable in respect of that deposit and collection shall be paid out of the income of the trust property." The Member for St. John's South may want to elaborate on his concerns on that if he gets an opportunity at a later time.

The part that concerns us most on this side of the House is subsection (4) and that is: "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council has power upon the application of a trustee to convert debentures issued under the authority of an Act of the province payable to bearer into debentures payable to the registered holder and to order that a register be opened by the Minister of Finance for the registration and transfer of those debentures." That certainly is something that concerns us because when you get to that section here in the act, that you are giving more power to Cabinet - when you are putting more power into the hands of Cabinet it concerns us on this side of the House. That is why the Member for St. John's South touched on subsection (4) with me also. I did not have a chance to read it before he mentioned it but a concern that he had with subsection (4) was the fact that - and I can understand where the Member for St. John's South is coming from - in subsection (4) we are giving more power to the Cabinet.

MR. T. OSBORNE: They already have too much.

MR. MANNING: The Member for St. John's South says they already have too much. I agree, the members of Cabinet have too much power, and subsection (4) in this piece of legislation here is putting more power into the hands of the Cabinet, and that concerns us on this side of the House. After watching this Cabinet since 1989, and we have a piece of legislation that is putting more power into the Cabinet in any way, shape or form, that concerns us as members of the Legislature on this side of the House.

Overall, when we look at the amendment to Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Trustee Act, it is something that we believe is in proper form, in most cases. I raised a few concerns that we had but certainly it is something we can live with on side of the House. Again, it may be a step in the right direction in regard to making some amendments to an act to improve the opportunity for people to invest here in the Province; to give people the opportunity to invest and improve their way of life. Certainly, we on this side of the House, while we have some concerns that have been raised in first and second reading, and now as we go into third reading hopefully comments are made to improve the bill and make amendments to the Trustee Act that will give us some improvements overall.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. LUSH: Order 10, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 45.

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

MR. MANNING: I am very pleased to be on my feet again in the 2nd Session of the Forty-Fourth General Assembly to make a few comments on Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, and brought forward to this hon. House by the Hon. Ernest McLean, Minister of Government Services and Lands.

We are very pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments. The minister is not in his seat today. Oh, he is up in the other seat. He should get used to getting in the back benches, I say, with the MP for Labrador fully supporting Mr. Efford, and him being on the other side of the fence is something that he should get used to - the back benches. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse better get used to the back benches too because when Danny Dumaresque comes back to the House she is going to be in the back benches for a long time too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, if I could, because I do not want to get off the topic of the bill.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: You are going to be okay. I know where you are going. I know where the Member for Torngat Mountains is going, Mr. Speaker. I know full well where he is going. You are going to be taken care of, yes. After the next election, the Member for Torngat Mountains is the only person who is still going to be on that side of the House. I know where he is going.

If I could get back to the Explanatory Notes for a minute: "The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Prepaid Funeral Services Act does not apply to a church, place of worship or non-profit organization that operates a cemetery." Prepaid funerals are something that you would not hear tell of years ago. It is certainly something that has arisen in our society over the past number of years, that people are preparing financially for their funerals because of the burden that comes on the family at a time of a death in the family. People are preparing for their funerals in more ways than one, and they are doing that because funerals are costing a lot more these days; the cost to family members.

Just recently we seen a funeral home on the west coast that had some concerns raised about that funeral home in relation to prepaid funerals. I say to member's opposite, there are a few funerals - not really the funerals that nobody wants to go to - that are coming up on that side of the House that some members should be getting ready for too. I can see a funeral for you as members.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands that I think you have stepped out on the wrong side of the tracks because your funeral is coming. Your political funeral is coming. The political funeral is coming and it is going to be prepaid, all the way to the cemetery gate, all the way through those doors there; a political prepaid funeral. I have half a belief that he is not going to be cremated; he is going to be toast. It is going to be interesting to watch over the next little while.

Now I want to get back to the act. I do not want anybody to get upset on that side of the House because I am not talking about the act. I am talking about prepaid political funerals. I say to the Member for Bellevue - I look over to the Member from Bellevue - I am telling you, you won't have to worry because you will not need a suit for your prepaid political funeral. It is going to be interesting to watch over the next little as the universe unfolds as it should.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you coming over, or (inaudible)?

MR. MANNING: Oh, we are doing okay. Don't worry about that. We are staying right here in the House. We are not leaving the House. The only difference we are going to make is over on that side. The sad part about it is that most of you know it but will not admit it.

Anyway, I will get back to the act, Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, which was brought before the House today. He is throwing me off when I am up here talking about it.

Basically what it is doing here is, it is allowing that the act does not apply to a church, a place of worship or a non-profit organization that operates a cemetery. We do not have any big problem with that, or anything that would improve the prepaid funerals in the Province, anything that would make them more legitimate, anything that would protect the people's money in relation to prepaid funerals, anything that would put the people who have chosen prepaid funerals at ease, anything that would put their minds at ease in relation to their money that they have earned over their lifetime.

Funerals are not cheap. Some funerals now are up in the $7,000, $8,000 and $9,000 range. It is a major financial burden that comes on families at a very difficult time in their lives. Therefore, like I said, many parents, especially older people - we have an aging population here in this Province now and prepaid funerals are becoming a thing that a lot of people are dealing with. To think that they are going to take their money, pass it on to a funeral home or pass it on to another to take care of their funerals, to ensure that money is protected, to ensure that the future services they have purchased, even though they may not know much about it at the time, the future services they are buying, to ensure that their money is protected for the future, and indeed not only for the person who would pass away but indeed to protect that money and protect that investment and protect that piece of mind for the families that are left behind.

Again, if there is any way that we in the House of Assembly here on this side of the House can alleviate some of the concerns and the worries that people have out in the Province - we talked on different bills here today about the concerns that people have, and we have a piece of legislation here that addresses some of those concerns - certainly we have no problem with supporting this piece of legislation.

I would just like to say, in closing, that prepaid funerals are something that has come up over the past couple of years in a lot of cases, and we have and a lot of people taking that route. To have a piece of legislation here before the House that deals with that particular part of society is something that we have no problem in supporting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 45)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 12, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 12.

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

Committee of the Whole


CHAIR (M. Hodder): Order, please!

An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 44).

Shall Clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise today to speak on Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. In the first introduction of this bill, I did have some concerns as to the intent of this particular Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. Since that time, I have been given some information as to the nature of the amendment. I am very pleased to say that the support will come from this side of the House regarding this amendment, because in actual fact what this amendment does is that it puts us on an even playing field with the other provinces of this country with regard to entering into agreements with foreign schools, be it in the United States, Europe, or perhaps in the Far East. It allows for the minister, at the minister's discretion, to be able to accredit or give credit to students - not necessarily students of Newfoundland and Labrador, by the way; these would be the foreign students as well - but to give them a heads up on the credits, curriculum, or the subjects that they need in order to enter our country, in particular our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to be able to take advantage of some of the post-secondary offerings, be it at CONA, Memorial University, or any other of the private post-secondary institutions here in this Province.

Again, I expressed some concern the last day about any agreements that are made on behalf of this Province with regard to giving credits, giving a secondary school diploma or certification to students who are not of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Having had it explained to me, I am very confident that this amendment will only be for the good of this particular Province, especially with regard to the entry of foreign students into our post-secondary education.

Madam Chair, while I am on my feet, I cannot help but make some comments regarding the Schools Act because again it is the act which governs the delivery of education in this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a former educator, again I cannot help but make some comments with regard to the state of affairs with regard to - as we found out from my colleague today, textbooks within our particular schools, especially from K to VIII and indeed from K to XII, there are serious deficiencies with regard to the supply of these textbooks.

I thought it necessary to bring to the attention of this House that, when it comes to textbooks - in these times when we are talking about delivery of curriculum - textbooks are perhaps not as important as they were even as we were educated in this Province. We know that in times gone by textbooks were a focal point of most teachers with regard to outlining the learning that was going to take place in any particular classroom at any particular time.

When we look at this amendment, which is talking about looking at our curriculum, allowing it to be used in other countries - perhaps in other foreign countries - I shudder to think that we would send the textbooks over with these, I guess, accreditations; because I would be very ashamed if we were to send over the curriculum to a place like Japan, or even to the United States, and, in sending over the curriculum, they would ask that we send over the textbooks. If we were to pack up the type of textbooks in the condition that was shown to this House today, and sent them over to a foreign country, my God, we would be the laughing stock of the modern world.

In looking at the amendment, I am glad and I am heartened to understand that it is not the textbooks that we are going to be sending over. Thank God it is not going to be the textbooks, I say to my colleague from Bellevue. Thank God it is not the textbooks, it is only curriculum. If the textbooks are to be sent, I would suggest to the Minister of Education that he or she look very, very closely at these textbooks to make sure that amongst them is not the type of textbook that students in this city are using even as we speak - and not only in this city. My colleague today brought up from a particular school in her district, but I say to this hon. House that the textbooks that are being used throughout this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we would hope, would be of a standard that they would have covers on them, that they would have all the content intact, and that any smut or otherwise defiling of the particular text book, if any of that was on it, that it would not be used in the classroom. Unfortunately, I cannot stand on my feet today and say to this House that every child, every student from K to VII in Newfoundland and Labrador, has textbooks that are fit to use. Because you see that in this educational reform we were led to believe they would never allow this sort of thing to happen. Never, ever, in our wildest dreams, did we think that in this day and age, in this technological age, in this age where supposedly with the flip of a button you can get access to any information, that there are children who are using textbooks with covers gone off them, with sheets missing, with smut written all over them. It is absolutely -

AN HON. MEMBER: This didn't happen before educational reform?

MR. HEDDERSON: With regard to educational reform - I did not say it never happened before, I say to the hon. colleagues on the other side. I said there was a promise made at educational reform that it would never, ever happen again. There were deficiencies in the system that go back to a time, I guess, when we first started educating students in this, first of all, country of Newfoundland, and as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but what I am saying is that in the year 2000 - I say this, and I emphasize it - a mere decade from when this reform started, that we do not have in our schools adequate resources - for example, textbooks - and in a shape that is decent. We do not have the resources to deliver the curriculum that this government is now talking about perhaps sharing with a foreign country. I think that is embarrassing, to say the very least, that it should not be happening, and the resources that are necessary to action the delivery of education, especially - and I say this textbook that was brought into this House today was from a Grade VI classroom, from a Grade VI student. Can you imagine how that student feels to be holding, to be carrying back and forth, this particular textbook? It is embarrassing. I would not want it myself and I do not think that any member here in this House would want it, not only for themselves, but if they had a child in Grade VI.

We have to be sure - again, if we are talking about sharing curriculum, sharing with regard to other countries. As I said on a previous day as I stood in the House, we have to take care of our own house. We have to make sure the children of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are certainly given the best of the resources that are required. Not only textbooks, but they have to be given schools with a roof that does not leak; that has an indoor environment that is not going to seriously impair their health; that they are going to have proper desks they can sit in; that they are going to have proper surroundings. Again, that not only includes textbooks but access to the Internet; and that they have access to the teachers who are required to bring about their particular educational program.

In reference to Bill 44, I am glad that the Schools Act was opened up in this particular House, at this particular time because it certainly gives us an opportunity to reflect on the other aspects of that particular school act and the promises that this school act - certainly when it was enacted in 1997 there was a great hoopla to it and support for this act. There was definitely support for this act from both sides of the House because it was absolutely necessary in the mid-1990s as it began with the William's report in 1992, that there was an absolute need to make sure the Schools Act, which revised the previous one, would cover all bases to make sure that the students of this Province - and it does not only cover the K to 12, it covers the post-secondary as well. The Schools Act had to make sure that things like textbooks, clean schools, the right teachers, the right allocations, and basically the promises - and I will get back to what was mentioned before, a promise is a promise is a promise.

A promise was made in the mid-1990s in this House with regard to educational reform, that within a short period of time, certainly within the next year or so, there would be no child in this Province who would be disadvantaged because of the school they were in, the community they were part of, that everyone - and if they could not be actioned with direct allocations through other supports, that the children of this Province, by the turn of the century - which has turned and gone by now - would indeed have as good, if not better, a system of education than any other province, indeed any other country of the world; but that promise which was made by this Administration has not been fulfilled. A classic example today was a display of a textbook, as simple as a textbook, to indicate that the resources are not there. They are not being allocated and as a result the reform, as far as I am concerned and in my opinion, has not even begun.

Madame Chair, in cluing up, Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, indeed appears to me to be a positive direction with regard to helping students in other countries have access to our post-secondary institutions. I see that as a positive thing because with the support of students coming in and the tuition fees they are bringing in, and the experience and culture that they are bringing in can only improve the whole post-secondary education in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Having said that, Madame Chair, I certainly recommend that the amendment to the Schools Act would move forward, and I leave it at that point right there.

Thank you, Madame Chair.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997." (Bill 44)

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 13, Madam Chair, Bill 31.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a brief word on Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992. As indicated in previous readings, this is legislation that we wholeheartedly support on this side of the Legislature. This is a bill which has received the strong support of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and of course, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association.
Basically, what it does is seeks a remedy to collective bargaining and provides an opportunity for labour disputes to be resolved in accordance with the wishes of presumably, both government and the members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association.

What we have seen in the past, Madam Chair, were examples of where there was a breakdown in communication and perhaps leading in a real sense of mistrust between both sides because of labour relations between both government and the RNC. It is hoped that, by virtue of this legislation, we will see an improved relationship between both parties. We will see an improved morale, as evidenced by members of the RNCA, as they conduct their duties and carry out their work in the protection of the people of this Province.

So, Bill 31, as was addressed in the earlier reading, is legislation that we support and we feel it is appropriate that it receive the final reading at this time.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992." (Bill 31)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 14, Bill 46.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to rise to say a few words on Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. This bill is a very serious piece of legislation. In reality, it is a bill that is going to be restricting access of alcohol to various communities in Labrador and it will be controlling the transportation, purchase, sale and consumption of alcohol within the municipalities. Of course, they are talking about appointing an alcohol committee which would have the authority to restrict a person's access to alcohol in Labrador. Again, there has been discussion on this in committee today in first and second reading, but we have to be very careful, I say to you Madam Chair, when we are doing something like this. I can certainly understand the necessity for this piece of legislation. I think we, on this side of the House, will be supporting it and have supported it.

When you are talking about restricting any product to any individual within our Province it is something that has to be taken into very serious consideration. Here we are talking about prohibited areas, unrestricted and restricted areas, and within those areas there are different authorities given to different individuals. We have the alcohol committees and the municipalities within the area. A municipality can make regulations with respect to allowing alcohol to go within that community. The alcohol committees can make regulations with respect to the access and transportation of alcohol within the communities. The municipality and the alcohol committee can impact one upon the other.

Also, we have a situation where they are talking about the voting. When a regulation is being voted upon. It says here under section 132.(1): "Where, at a meeting of the council called for the purpose, a majority of the members of the council do not vote in favour of the board issuing a licence, no further vote shall be held by the council on the same or a similar subject within 3 years of that vote."

Three years is a very long time to consider when you vote on something. Circumstances can change within any given area within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, they are talking about when they do not vote in favour of cancelling licences it can go for eighteen months. If someone within that group, municipality or community decides that they are going to vote against issuing a licence or cancelling a licence it cannot be brought forward again for eighteen months. These are very serious rules and regulations, but I understand where they are coming from. There are some serious problems there, we know that; and I know the government is trying to act responsibly on this but I hope we do not see, in the spring sitting of this Legislature, amendments coming forward to change some of these regulations and to change some of the time frames. I hope there has been proper due consideration, investigation and consultation done with the people to whom this bill applies.

With that, Madam Chair, I will just say this all on this bill for me.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to rise to raise again some of the problems that I pointed out the other day with respect to this legislation and how it might operate in the communities that are affected. I think we all recognize that, first of all, there is a very serious problem in these communities and that alcohol plays a significant role in these problems. Secondly, I think we have to recognize that the leadership of the community has taken responsibility for trying to put forth solutions to these problems and to seek solutions in the community and provide some leadership of their own on these issues. Thirdly, that they have asked specifically the government for help in a particular form. We are providing powers and taking measures here which will have the effect of prohibiting individuals from possessing alcohol in communities in Labrador, restricted to one particular district.

I am very concerned as to how these rules might operate in practice, and how they are contrary to the request that the Innu leadership has made. I am concerned, for example, that they might operate, as the previous speaker has said, that you can have a vote on one particular occasion to prevent the licence from being granted and you cannot have another vote for another three years.

I am a little concerned that it might operate against one licence but not another, and that the rule would be inflexible. I am concerned that the individual members of council might get caught up in the community politics of which side of the issue they may be on, or voted on, or their families are part of, or how their own history may affect their vote and their own attitudes, and how people in the community might react to them after a vote.

I say to the member for Torngat Mountains, I have that concern, that if you say to the council that you are the ones who are going to be making this decision and taking responsibility within the community for it, I think you are going to have problems.

The leadership of the Innu group, the LIA, have already identified this as a problem. They want to have a plebiscite. They can ask for a plebiscite; I understand that. They can hold their own plebiscite. All of this is tied up into the rules that are specified here, and puts the burden on the town council of these communities.

Why can't we have a provision that allows the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to say that we will hold a plebiscite, and the decision will be made as a result of that. That has been the request.

PREMIER TULK: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

MR. HARRIS: This is not a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that what we are saying to the community here is: You decide.

If they ask the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to do a plebiscite, we will consider that. We are saying to them: You make the decision. How you want to make this decision is your choice, as a community.

The council, obviously, is the one body that is now in place legislatively to make that request. If the LIA wants to form self-government, I think it would be, once it gets self-government, the group of people to make that kind of request. At the present time, the legislative authority rests with the council.

When you say to the community - the community includes the LIA and the town council - with this kind of social problem, you take the responsibility; you tell us what you want to do and we will see that it is done, that is all the legislation says.

CHAIR: I understand this is a clarification and not a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Madam Chair, I have listened to what the Premier has said and I am afraid I do not really see that in the legislation. I do not see in the legislation, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council holding plebiscites as part of the regime. I would be very happy if the legislation said that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could issue one of these bans of prohibitions without a town council vote.

PREMIER TULK: We don't want to tie their hands (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Premier is saying we do not want to tie their hands. What they are saying is that their hands are tied, that they did not want one single institution, whether it be the LIA or whether it be the town council. They want to have a plebiscite. There is no question about it. I think for an interim period, until the terms of any land claims, arrangement for self-government, came into effect, I think that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could manage this by itself having the right to pass these bans at the request of the community through a plebiscite.

I see the legislation, and this is where I see a problem: In looking at clause 129 of the legislation, it does authorize - I guess it is all in clause 1, but I guess the new section, 129.(2) says, "The board shall cancel all licences to sell liquor in a municipality where the council passes a resolution in favour of cancelling the licences or where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council declares the municipality a prohibited area."

That seems to be a broad power. Perhaps I might need to get some clarification from the Legislative Council representative here in the House, the Law Clerk, on this issue. If that gives a total power to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to pass such a prohibition under any areas, any opportunity, or by his own motion, that is fine; but the next section says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall declare a municipality a restricted area where the council passes a resolution approving restrictions, and shall declare the municipality a prohibited area where the council passes a resolution approving the prohibition of possession, purchase, sale, consumption, making and transportation of liquor within the municipality.

It seems to me that the conditions under which the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall make such orders are when the town council makes a request but not otherwise. The concern here is that the legislation, in fact, is not flexible enough to allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to order a plebiscite and then make an order outside the town council - outside the town council.

Let me ask the question, and I will ask the Premier to clarify this for the record, because I think it is important and it may be important to be on the record for the purposes of the community of Nain or other communities which might be affected, that if the town council, instead of making a resolution or holding its own plebiscite through its own rules and under its own agents, asks the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, ask the Cabinet or the Premier, would the government conduct a plebiscite, as they had requested, and if the majority of people voting in such a plebiscite asked for a prohibition or a restricted area, would the Lieutenant-Governor in Council then act and make a declaration, a prohibition, or a restriction under this legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: The answer, Madam Chair, is quite clear. If the community asks the government to take an action, we will do it. If the community says: We would like to conduct a plebiscite. Would the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, conduct a plebiscite? Would the government conduct a plebiscite? The answer is yes. All we would do is put the mechanism in place to help them do it. It is so simple.

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

MR. HARRIS: I thank the Premier for that clarification. Unfortunately, that is not the way in which I see the scheme of the act, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I hope the Premier is right, and I hope we will not be back here this spring amending this legislation because someone decided, some lawyer decided, within government or without, that the legislation does not authorize the Premier or the government to do what is being proposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) silly.

MR. HARRIS: I am being accused of being silly, Madam Chair, but I am saying to the Premier that in my reading of the legislation - I am not offering a legal opinion - it does not appear to be that broad; but, if the Premier is advised that is the case, and is willing to try and act on that, then that may provide some direction to the communities affected so that if they do not feel like conducting their own plebiscite, they can say: Look, we want some resolution here; we think that a plebiscite is the answer and we want the government to do it.

If the Premier is willing to carry out such a plebiscite and take whatever measures flow from that plebiscite, I take him at his word and I thank him for it.

PREMIER TULK: All you are doing is helping them implement their decision.

MR. HARRIS: I would agree totally, that it would be helping them implement their decision, but I would take no pleasure in being here this spring and saying I told you so, if it turns out that there are legal problems in terms of the way the legislation is interpreted. I hope that the Premier is right. I take him at his word. Based on that, I am assuming there is no point in trying to make amendments to this legislation on the floor at this point in time.

Having said that, and raised my concerns, which are the same concerns that have been raised by the leadership of the LIA, that government has not listened to them in terms of what they wanted and is trying to impose a different solution. If the Premier says he is prepared to be flexible on that, I would take him at his word and hope that they would respond promptly to any request for a plebiscite in the community of Nain or any of the other communities that might wish to have one.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That is all I have to say on that subject.

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill 46)

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. LUSH: Order 15, Bill 47.

CHAIR: Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act No. 2.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a brief comment that I want to make on this bill. I said before, in earlier stages of this bill - I moved an amendment to refer it to a legislative committee, which was defeated by government. I felt that getting a bill on Monday, passing it on Tuesday and wanting to move to committee - we wanted an opportunity to have a due process there and to make an informed decision, as a Legislature, to make a wise decision on it. We did not have the time to do it. We are not going to be obstructionist in holding up this bill because of that but I do see, on the surface, certain merits to it. We could very well have yield unanimous support when we heard all sides. We have not had an opportunity for that due process to occur in one day, basically. It was received on Monday, debated on Tuesday.

When I made the point we would like more time to hear stakeholders out there, I know certain groups are in favour. The minister introduced the bill and indicated Mothers Against Drunk Driving were very understanding of those concerns. We feel there are a lot of positive effects to it out there. We have not heard all the in-debt arguments. I just wanted to indicate that we object on that basis, not necessarily with the content of the bill at all but with the time frame and limits there on that - so we can have a process to digest and hear that.

We do see merits, and having run through the process we might give unanimous support for that bill. We are not going to be obstructionists and delay the bill. We will now permit it to move through this stage of the bill.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do want to say that this piece of legislation is brought before the House without any notice at all, a new topic up for discussion, asking for a -

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not sure what the Government House Leader's intentions are. I know his intentions, but I want to mention that at 5:30 p.m., if the clock is not stopped, the House would adjourn and we could come back at 7:00 p.m. tonight. Is it your intention to finish this Committee and then move into third reading on those four bills? If it is then maybe a motion to stop the clock would be in order, if that is the Government House Leader's intention.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: We agree to stop the clock. We thought we would have had it finished by now.

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

MR. HARRIS: We agree to stop the clock at 5:30 p.m., Madam Chair.

I just want to say about this bill, we have this legislation before the House without any notice. It is kind of a last minute request. I presume it has gone through Cabinet, I don't know. It is not something we have had time to consult with anybody on or consider. It is, basically, a measure that has some serious implications for competition in the marketplace and for decisions that individual bar owners or operators might have. It is something that we have not discussed widely in this Province, although certain bar owners and other groups may have requested this in response to a request initially from bar owners who had competitive concerns.

I think that it is undemocratic to have a legislature of forty-eight people, with all of our collective experience, without having an opportunity for this measure to be studied by a Committee of this House, to make use of the collective wisdom and talents of the people who are here in judgement, to allow for a consultative process, to let people come forward with their arguments, pro and con. We ought not, government ought not, and our Legislature ought not to take measures such as this without an appropriate level of consultation.

We have had questions about the short nature of our session of the House this fall. Now we understand that there are certain reasons this fall why the House might sit for a shorter period because of an election. There is no real urgency in this legislation. We do not have any pressing reason why this should be passed today and not next session, why it should not be considered by a committee of this House, why the legislative review committees have been totally inactive since this government came to power. Not one committee has met to review legislation, have hearings, listen to witnesses, go through a legislative process that we are elected to perform. I think it is shocking that all of the collective wisdom and experience of the elected representatives of the people really are not given an opportunity to debate and have a say in the matters of this nature. This is not something that is a matter of high government policy. I don't even know if Cabinet considered it. I suppose they did. If they considered it, they considered it pretty lightly because it was not even on the agenda when matters were being brought before the House. In fact, it was not even on the agenda when the Liquor Control Act - which again was a very late decision. Bill 46 was only decided a matter of days before the House came into session because the Premier was on record as saying we were not going to amend the Liquor Control Act at all. They had the agreement -

PREMIER TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You were, yes. I have a release here from the Premier saying there was no need to amend the Liquor Control Act, that the groups in Nain, Labrador had agreed to work within the existing Liquor Control Act. They were very surprised that the LIA departed from that. I do not know if the Premier read his release but I certainly did. It came out the same day that the -

PREMIER TULK: Jack, (inaudible) and all that but I was contacted by those people and asked if I could do something about it, and I said absolutely!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Well, I am only going by what I read.

PREMIER TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Premier might say that today, Madam Chair, but I am only going by an article I read in the newspaper about two weeks ago. The same day, in response to the article in the newspaper, there was a press release from the Premier's office. The very same day.

PREMIER TULK: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: The truth of the matter is, Madam Chairperson, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the people in this Province do not want to see young people on drinking binges. They called said: Will you amend the liquor act?

I have to say to the Leader of the NDP that there is no time for dilly-dallying. You act, you go to work and you amend -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TULK: They are up again. They are awake again, Madam Chair. They are up and awake. They are up and on the go. They are over there now, look. You would swear that by them coming on like that, that I was going to sit down, that I was going to leave the House. You would swear that they were going to come at you enough that you would leave the House in fright, shaking. Some chance! Now, are you quieted down or do I have to stand and wait for the Chair to protect me? Are you quieted down?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

PREMIER TULK: Children, be quiet.

The truth of the matter is, I say to the Leader of the NDP, when we were asked to act on this legislation, we said yes, we will.

AN HON. MEMBER: And we are.

PREMIER TULK: And we are.

Now, say your piece and then you have to stand and vote for or against it. It is up to yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: In vain I listened for the point of order, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Now that the clock has stopped, I am sure I have unlimited time, too, Madam Chair.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is your time up yet?

MR. HARRIS: No, it is not up, unlimited time. It is only 5:30 p.m.

November 29, that was not very long ago. On November 29, 2000 - I think the House opened on the fourth, or was it the fifth? - the Premier responds to LIA proposal for local control over alcohol. As government recognizes the desire of the people of Nain to find solutions - Premier Tulk - pointing out that the officials from Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, the Newfoundland Liquor Commission, were exploring how the existing legislation could be used to address these problems.

Rather than pursuing this approach, the town council chose to work with the Ulapitsaijet steering committee in developing the proposed amendments. While government's review is continuing, provincial officials are prepared to work with the people of Nain to explore how, in the interim, the existing legislation can be used to address their concerns.

It is pretty obvious -

AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't fast enough.

MR. HARRIS: It was not fast enough, exactly.

What I am saying, Madam Chair, is that even Bill 46 was only brought in on very short notice because obviously they had no intention of bringing it in on November 29.

I am sure the Premier received a copy of my press release issued the same day, calling for immediate action, immediate legislative action, calling on the Premier to take immediate legislative action. Legislation should be passed in the upcoming session of the House to respond to this urgent request and not be delayed, as the Premier is suggesting.

In saying that the Premier changed his mind, I want to thank him for responding not only to the request of the Inuit leadership but also to my press release issued the same day.

The point is not that the Premier responded ultimately to the LIA but bringing in the wrong legislation; the issue is whether or not we should be taking immediate action on a legislative request from the Liquor Control Board on the restriction on prices in a urgent fashion. It is something that we really think ought to receive deliberation; deliberation from the members of this House who have the collective wisdom. We can meet next week, if you like; we can meet New Year's Eve, if you like, or we can come back in the spring or come back in January.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) next week.

MR. HARRIS: Next week, sure. I would be happy to come back next week. That is not a problem for me.

It is not difficult to see that we have to have some consultation on this issue, next week, the week after, January. There is nobody doing anything in January. There are a few people on that side trying to gather a few votes, but January would be a good time to come back and debate this issue; or, we can come back next week. It doesn't matter to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Monday.

MR. HARRIS: Monday is fine. I have no problem with that. If you are willing to come back, we will certainly be back here debating this legislation, and whatever other legislation the government would want to bring forward.

The point is that we have a Legislature of forty-eight people elected from different constituencies -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I do not think my time can be up, Madam Chair, on a point of order, because the clock has stopped at 5:30 p.m.

PREMIER TULK: It is 5:40 p.m., Jack. You are still in the real world.

MR. HARRIS: Well, if it is 5:40 p.m. then we are not here.

PREMIER TULK:(Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will sit down and give the Premier an opportunity to speak, because then I will go back again.

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentleman, and everybody else on that side, if they want to come back on Monday because they have not had time to go through this legislation or any other piece of legislation that is here, we are perfectly willing at this point to adjourn -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). If everyone agrees?

PREMIER TULK: Absolutely. We are perfectly willing to adjourn the House and be back here on 1:30 p.m. on Monday. If the hon. gentleman on the other side feels that he needs more time for anything on the agenda, then please feel to do so.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would certainly be happy to come back next week or any other time to debate it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Don't razz me about people who do not live in St. John's. I was asked whether I would come back next week to debate it and I said, yes, I would.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) hon. member's time is up. I heard the Chair distinctly tell him that his time was up.

CHAIR: He is speaking on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is speaking on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Could I have order in the House, please?

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

If the Member for Belleve wants to come back here all night, or razz me about it, let him do it. We will come back here all night or all day tomorrow or anything else.

I want to speak on a point of order, to the point of order made by the Premier.

MR. E. BYRNE: If you are going to speak to it, then speak to it.

MR. HARRIS: We are in Committee. We can go back and forth all night, if you want. Just stop your razzing and we will have a sensible discussion.

The Premier wants to know why I would want to be back on Monday. I would be happy to come back on Monday. I would be happy to come back tonight, next week or the week after. That is not the point.

The point is that this legislation was brought to this House with no notice, with no public discussion, with a suggestion by the Official Opposition, which I agreed to, that it should be sent to a committee to be discussed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It does not have anything to do with debate in this House today, tonight or tomorrow. It has to do with the functioning of this House, and whether or not this House is going to use the legislative function that it has to hold committees, to have committees -

PREMIER TULK: A point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

MR. HARRIS: I am on a point of order. You can't have a point of order (inaudible).

PREMIER TULK: How long are you going to go on? Are you soon going to be finished or what? Because I have to reply to you.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier wants to try and bully this House, or bully this member, then he had better forget about because I am entitled to make my point of order in response to his lengthy point of order about whether we should sit next week or tomorrow. The political issue is whether or not we should use this House in the manner that the government is proposing to do or whether we should allow measures such as this, which might require some public input, to actually have happen and send this to a committee for consideration and not to deliberate it today, tomorrow and next week.

PREMIER TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I would be very happy to sit tonight. If the Premier wants to sit tonight or tomorrow, let him do it. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not legislation should be brought to the House lickety split, passed in a matter of a couple of days, or whether it should be sent to a committee for study and have proper deliberation, and let the people who are elected to represent the people of this Province actually do their jobs. This Premier and this government wants to ram this through. Then we say: Oh well, we had a short session but we have fifteen bills passed, sixteen, twenty or whatever it was, and to beat his own breast. That is the point I want to make, Madam Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down.

MR. HARRIS: If you want to tell me to sit down I will stand up again.

That is the point I want to make, Madam Chair, and I am satisfied that I have made it.

CHAIR: There has been no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that if he needs tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday or half of Monday to decide whether he is going to vote for this bill, or if he needs us to hire him a good lawyer then we will do that for him. I will pay for it myself. If he needs to come back on Monday, feel free to come to this House. All he has to do is convince everybody in this House that he needs to come back on Monday and I can tell him that at 1:30 p.m. we will be here.

MR. HARRIS: To that point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: There was no point of order.

MR. HARRIS: New point of order, Madam Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: On a new point of order, Madam Chair. If the Premier wants to be silly, then he can go ahead and be silly. This is not an issue of whether or not the legislation is understood, this is an issue of whether or not due process of passing legislation and consideration of legislation by committees takes place. If the Premier does not intend to allow committees of this House to consider legislation then let that be part of the record. The issue is not whether we are going to vote on it today or tomorrow, or whether this member is going to vote for or against it, the issue is whether or not committees will be allowed to operate. If the Premier does not want to allow committees to operate, well let that be part of the record and we will deal with the legislation when it comes for a vote.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act No. 2." (Bill 47)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I just wonder if hon. members, since we are into the stop-clock mode, would be willing to look at Order 11, Bill 41.

CHAIR: Order, 11, An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chair, I am responding to a request by the Government House Leader. He has not requested that Order 11 be called. He has asked if we would agree on calling it. I have spoken with the Government House Leader before and indicated that we would certainly agree to move to third reading of those four bills and pass them without discussion on our side. We have had opportunity to discuss them in committee. We do not feel it is necessary - we spoke in third reading on bills today that we did not speak on in committee. We are prepared to move out of committee now and deal expeditiously with third reading, so you will have nineteen of the twenty bills that were presented in this sitting. We are prepared to do that but we are not prepared to spend all night here. We brought in rules in this House that we would adjourn at 5:30 p.m. We have extended that now. We brought in a Parliamentary Cabinet to get some order into this House so we can recess at least a week before Christmas. We had an opportunity to sit in September, October, November and -

PREMIER TULK: By the way, your leader agreed (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said we could have sat in September, October or November. We should not do what is traditionally done. That is why we brought in this, to avoid being back here two days before Christmas one year, dealing with legislation.

I agree with moving out of committee now and expeditiously dealing with those four bills in third reading.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I accept the hon. member's offer and I will just make a further request to him. I think I told him that this bill is very important to government so I will make the sincere request to him that if they needed more time to study this particular bill, would he agree to return on Monday just to do this bill?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chair, I have indicated that already, what I said here earlier today. I do not intend to give leave and no motion has been served in compliance with our parliamentary calendar, section 2, under practice recommendations, that this House should adjourn. If he wants to go on, and the minister wishes to call it, it is his prerogative. It is not what I was led to believe. We can withdraw leave and come back tonight. It will go through the regular Cabinet which means the bill could not be completed today. We have had no discussion, to this point in time, on this bill. It is beyond the eleventh hour. The eleventh hour was at 5:30 p.m. today. It is beyond the eleventh hour and the committee has just been called on this bill for the first opportunity and rush it through. We have had opportunities on all these other bills. We do not agree -

PREMIER TULK: Do you want to come back on Monday?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not agree to come back on Monday.

MR. LUSH: Okay, alright.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have made that very clear. I intend to follow the parliamentary calendar that we adopted to get order into this House, and we intend to follow that. I think that is loud and clear. We have already extended it now by twenty-one minutes beyond the parliamentary calendar. I am prepared to go a bit farther to get these four bills done. To end up with nineteen out of twenty bills is not bad for six days of debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the request of the Government House Leader, I would like to have it on the record that we would be prepared to debate the legislation with respect to the Tobacco Control Act and the amendments that are related to that. It is something that we support and would like to see advanced.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, again, I was just simply offering Monday to the hon. the Opposition House Leader to ensure that they have time to study, but I understand if he wants to follow the calender. It was just an offer to give them the time from now until Monday but if his offer is still to follow the parliamentary calender, that is fine.

Madam Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bills 44, 31, 46 and 47 passed without amendment.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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 Schools Act, 1997." (Bill 44)

A bill, " An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992." (Bill 31)

A bill, " An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill 46)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act No. 2." (Bill 47)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that we do third readings of Bills 44, 31, 46 and 47.

MR. SPEAKER: We have done third readings of those bills.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that they were going to get done.

MR. SPEAKER: They are done.

MR. LUSH: His Honour is waiting to do the bills. There are some routine duties we would like to do. Probably we would ask His Hnour in to do his, and we can do these things after. We will call for His Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor takes the Chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour a bill for the appropriation of Supply granted in this present session.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2000 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 27)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (A.M. House): In Her Majesty's name, I thank Her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this bill.

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

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 13)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Income Tax." (Bill 29)

A bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province." (Bill 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 30)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act." (Bill 4)

A bill, "An Act To Establish Holocaust Memorial Day In The Province." (Bill 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act." (Bill 38)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act." (Bill 39)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 20)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act." (Bill 40)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Trustee Act." (Bill 37)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act." (Bill 43)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act." (Bill 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992." (Bill 31)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997." (Bill 44)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act." (Bill 46)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act No. 2." (Bill 47)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: In Her Majesty's Name, I assent to these bills.

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

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor leaves the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their almost total cooperation. Had we gotten the last bill it would have been total cooperation, but thank you for your cooperation. We have had a very productive session, I would say, as productive a session as any two-week session at any time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TULK: I haven't heard anybody say bring back Beaton or Ed.

MR. LUSH: Well, we almost had four bills read for the third time twice.

I would like to thank all hon. members, the Speaker and his staff, the Hansard staff, and I wish everybody a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have one thing to say to the Government House Leader. The former House Leader left bills on the Order Paper, too, the last session. I will leave it to our leader to have some comments.

I will just end with one joke for the Christmas season, and this goes back to the Smallwood government. Back in the 1960s, Mr. Careen of Point Lance wrote the Minister of Agriculture and said, "We, the people of Point Lance, would like to have the services of a government ram."

AN HON. MEMBER: A true story.

MR. SULLIVAN: Everybody knows the story on agriculture. "The people in St. Brides have a government ram, the people in Branch have the services of a government ram, and we here in Point Lance should have the same privileges."

The minister wrote back and said, "Dear Mr. Careen, it is with regret that I inform you that you cannot have the services of a government ram. Your community only has 167 people, and you must have 250 people in a community to avail of such services."

Mr. Careen wrote back, "Dear Minister, it is not we, the 167 people of Point Lance, who want the services of a government ram; it is the 750 sheep!"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I would just ask the indulgence the House for a second. When the Legislature returns this spring, the complexion of the place is going to change dramatically. Certainly from my perspective, as the Official Leader of the Opposition, my role is about to change significantly. It has been three years ago, I guess, today, since I assumed the position.

I want to take the opportunity, just for a few moments, with the indulgence of the House, to say a couple of thank you's.

I recall, first of all, the day after I was officially the Leader of Opposition. I phoned the former Premier, Mr. Tobin, and said I wanted a few minutes with him. He said, "What do you want to talk about?" I said, "Well, I think we need to have a chat about a couple of things, how this House is going to operate, and the tenure of the House." He said to come up, so we went up. At that time, we sat in his office and I posed this question to him: How is it going to be? How is this House, under your leadership and mine, going to operate? Is it going to excel itself and raise the bar in terms of debate, issue oriented, and stick to that only, or are you and I going to decide today that - will we lower the standards or the bar on that? Will we delve into each other's personalities and become personal?

We made an agreement that day and it is one, I think, that 99 per cent of the time we have stuck to, in that when it comes to the role that we play here, in terms of this side of the House, that the bipartisan nature of this place is what makes it work only if it is aggressively pursued on public policy matters. Never should it be pursued from a personality point of view. There have been occasions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to think, and I believe this truly, that in the last three years that is what we have tried to bring, and that is what I have always tried to bring to the level of this House, both the debate and political life in this Province, both inside and outside this House.

It has been a tremendous experience, and I mean this genuinely and sincerely. Both parties, obviously, are going through a leadership exercise. There are three people who are interested, three ministers. It is a challenge at the best of times, but it is truly - it has been for me - a very rewarding experience to get an opportunity, as a leader of a party, to put forward a policy platform, to run it in an election, and to aggressively debate it in the thrust and throw of the place. It is an experience that, if anyone aspires to it, I could only encourage them to do it.

I remember one important story and I will end there. I have a little something for everybody here in the House: the Speaker, the Commissionaires, the Pages, those who are in the media -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

I recall that I received that advice on a trip to a Public Accounting Conference, when I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, with the then Vice-Chair, who is now the Government House Leader, who provided that advice to me and it was good advice, I say to the Government House Leader today.

I particularly want to thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have not always agreed, but I think we have played a role here in trying, where we thought that we could, to seek clarification on rulings, that we have done that respectfully; and to the position that you hold, and to the understanding of how you and the position of Speaker in this House keeps it together, that is so important for all of us.

I want to say to the Premier that his role is obviously going to change. For me, he has been an interesting study over the last seven years, a very interesting study. I have learned much, some by what he had done and some by what he has not done. I will say to the Premier -

MR. SULLIVAN: A good constituent.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, he is a good constituent of mine, there is no question about that, but I have always enjoyed the frankness of the relationship that we have shared in my role as Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Party, and your role as the former Government House Leader. You have been open and accessible, and the commitments you have made, I will say to you that you have lived up to them 100 per cent of the time. I respect that and appreciate that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: There are just two other points I would like to make.

Certainly to the media who are left, you play so much a critical role in what we do here. Most of what we do, the public gets to see it through what you say and what you report, and generally it is fair. I appreciate the role that you play, and urge you to understand critically how important it is. To the people at the Table, who make the House happen for us, I want to particularly thank them as well, and to the people in Hansard who get it done. Finally, I want to thank my caucus over the last three years. Every caucus has its own dynamics. Yours has yours; ours has ours. In the last three years, in my view, this caucus has jelled together, has grown, has matured, and has experience. I want to thank my House Leader, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Baie Verte, the Member for St. John's East, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for St. John's South, the Member for Bonavista South, and the Member for St. John's West, who are the older members of the caucus; and the newcomers to our caucus after the 1999 election: the former Premier, Tom Rideout; the Member for Windsor-Springdale; the Member for - I don't know if you would call him new. What would you call him?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

As a token of my appreciation - I know the Premier got his face on The Herald. I wonder if I could get the help of the Pages for a moment. I have a CD, a Christmas disk, for everybody in the House. It is all Newfoundland music.

From myself, to the minister's Cabinet, thank you very much everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a couple of minutes first of all to wish all hon. members a Merry Christmas and to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Sergeant-at-Arms, the staff of the House of Assembly and pages for their continued good work in seeing to the smooth running of the House. I also take this opportunity, having seen in this particular session a new Government House Leader, I want to welcome him back into the role that he has played and to say that he has been very forthcoming, informative and cooperative in sharing the plans of his government for this session and I thank him for that.

I also want to recognize that the Premier is in a new role. He has done his very best to be Prime Ministerial and has succeeded, except for the last five minutes or so of the day.

PREMIER TULK: (Inaudible) back to normal.

MR. HARRIS: He is practicing for going back to normal, he says. I am sure we would welcome him in whatever role that he may play in the new administration after the end of January, early February but, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we have seen the Premier in various roles in the last number of years in this House and none better than this one as Premier. I am sure he will be recalling, with great affection, his time as Premier of the Province.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that he has performed his role with great tenacity and courage, and I commend him for that. It is not easy being in opposition. It is not easy being the Leader of the Opposition. You have to score your points where you can and sometimes you do not have all the information that you need in order to do it. Your job is to try to make your points anyway, to put forth alternatives to the government and challenge the government and its ministers on their role and policies, and on their accountability to the people. I will say that you have done a good job as Leader of the Opposition and I commend you for your efforts.

We will see a new House the next time we are here. There will be a new Premier and maybe a new Cabinet. I am sure there will be some changes over there. We will have a new leader of the party but I do not know if we will have a new Leader of the Opposition sitting in the House. Hopefully, if certain things occur to allow that to happen, certainly we would welcome to see the new Leader of the PC Party in the House and performing his role here. We do not yet know who that will be. If it happens to be my former partner, I would certainly welcome him to the House of Assembly to play an important role in the future of this Province in the Assembly.

I want to let you know that I, myself, celebrated my 10th anniversary this week as a member of this House. I have seen a few premiers come and go, a few leaders of the Opposition come and go and -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are still here.

MR. HARRIS: I am still here, and I have seen members come and go but each and every session of the House has brought its differences, its moments of interest and concern, but we have all been here. I can say that to a person that I have seen in this House in the last ten years, that we have all been here for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to achieve what is best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as we see it. We may differ as to the pace of that. We may differ as to the goals in some respects. We may differ as to how it can be achieved but I think it is important, when people are cynical about politics, that sometimes we, ourselves, contribute to that. It is important to recognize that is why we are here. That is why we seek to get elected and represent our people.

As a former member of this House, now a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, said to me when I first contemplated and announced that I was running for public office - and it was with the House of Commons, not here - he regarded the practice of politics as a noble calling. That was the very opposite of the cynical view that many people in our society seem to have cultivated towards the practice of legislation, being a legislator and a person in politics, but it is the view that I have sustained throughout my years as a member of this House and as member of the House of Commons, that it is indeed a noble calling to be able to participate in making the laws that govern the people, your community, and your Province and country. I think that is worth remembering as we are in the hustle and bustle of fighting on one side or the other for particular policies. It is something we all share in common. We recognize that while we have different political philosophies and parties, we have that in common. We have friendships in common and we have our common calling as politicians to represent our people. I think we have seen that in the Member for Kilbride, the Leader of the Opposition, we have seen that in the Premier in his various roles, and the Dean of the House, the Government House Leader for twenty-three years in the House of Assembly, and I think that is something we can all take with us no matter what our futures in this House, or elsewhere, might be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just quickly say that of the three leaders of the various parties in this House, I suspect that the other two know far better where they will be sitting in this House than I do. I might say to my friend from Placentia & St. Mary's that, indeed, I could end up, once again, in the nosebleed section.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TULK: That will be a choice for whoever becomes Premier of this Province, gets elected at a leadership convention in early February, but, the nosebleed section is no stranger.

I do want to say to the people on this side of the House, certainly, I want to thank them for their support in the last couple of months. I am sure it will be there for the next couple of months. The strange thing is that is not a job which I aspired to in this House. If you go back to 1979, when I first got elected, one of the things I said was: I want to be a minister in a Liberal Government. That took some time. It happened in 1996, and then this year I was quite content, to be frank with you, in the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, and as Government House Leader in (inaudible). Suddenly, I ended up on the eighth floor. It is a unique position to be in. A fellow who was elected, at one point in my district, said that everybody should aspire to it. If you want to be a good politician in the Legislature then you should aspire to be Premier. I never did.

I do want to say, though, I have been around here twenty-one years, with the exception of one enforced vacation in 1989.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TULK: I do want to say that the Legislature is a special place. I will go back to the office now to be frank with you, and I cannot get anything done after 3:00 p.m. When I leave here after Question Period and go back, the next thing is, I have to go down again. This is a very special place, and the people who come here are very special people. Like the Leader of the NDP, I have seen a few leaders go and come as well.

I frankly do not know if I have met somebody in twenty-one years in this place that I did not like, that I did not somehow see some good in. All of us who serve here, come here - yes, we are a certain breed of people. We have certain egos, but I think most of us come here to serve the people who elected us and I think that is what makes all of us special. There are tremendous hardships on the families. There are tremendous hardships on people who are (inaudible).

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, he made me put together my best point of privilege that I ever put together in my life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TULK: I will tell him this evening that it is a textbook piece of work. I am proud of it. While we have been political foes for the past two, three or four years, I believe that somehow we have become - and we don't talk to each other that often - good personal friends and have come to respect each other. I want to say to him that I think he has done a marvelous job as the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TULK: I want to thank him. I have spent ten years in Opposition and I want to thank him for his service because the Opposition is very important in parliament, probably more important than government because it keeps the place moving. It is not as much fun, I have to say to the hon. gentleman, but it is probably important.

I want to say to the media in the Province that we do not always agree with what they say. None of us in this place always agree with what they say. When they write a story that we agree with, we praise them. When they write a story that we don't agree with, or they take a little knock at us, we criticize them and we don't agree; but I want to say to them that they, too, are a vital part of this parliament, this Legislature, and I want to wish them a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I want to thank, again, my colleagues for their support over the last couple of months. I want to thank the officers of the House. John Noel has become a fixture in my mind. I see him every morning when I wake up. Elizabeth Murphy, I want to thank you, and especially you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Hansard people, the pages, and especially say to everybody have a good Christmas, a safe Christmas, a Happy New Year, and we will see you back here in March.

I do want to say before I leave, about my long time friend and colleague, Thomas Lush from Gambo - because he calls himself the other fellow from Gambo. Tom Lush is a person who has served this Legislature since 1975. Mr. Speaker, when he occupied the chair that you occupy, he brought a dignity to that place. If I may be so bold, Mr. Speaker, as to say like no other. That does not take anything away from you, Sir, but the hon. gentleman has a certain something about him that belongs in parliament and that lends something to parliament.

A former premier of this Province once told me, Brian Peckford, on a flight from here to Gander, we were talking about elections - he had retired - he said: You know, Beaton, when Tom Lush declared for a district I knew it was no good to try to defeat him, he does not have an enemy in the world. That is Tom Lush, and I want to thank him for the job that he has done for this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TULK: Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and we will see you back here in March, hopefully.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: We are not finished just yet. I don't want to delay you, I just wanted to say when the Premier called me and offered me this job, I said to him: Sir, you are a man of unequal judgement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I was in Nova Scotia and I asked him what was the quickest way of getting there, driving or flying back to the Governor's House so he could get sworn in. I want to thank him and say it has been a pleasure serving with him. He has done a commendable job. All of our colleagues have been impressed with the tremendous job that he does.

Mr. Speaker, when this House adjourns it stands adjourned at the call of the Chair. I now make that appropriate motion that the House be adjourned and that it does adjourn at the call of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I put the motion I want to take this opportunity, as well, to extend to all Members of the House a very Merry Christmas, and trust that you will have a very enjoyable and great New Year.

I know the Premier said he wrote a textbook, a presentation there, but at that time, reflecting on what had happened there, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition being new to the position and myself being new in the House and new to the position, I am not so certain that I would say it was a textbook response; but I want to wish him well, too, as he continues to serve the people of Kilbride and thank him for his support and for his contribution to this House of Assembly in the number of years that he has been here, I wish you well.

As well, I want to thank the staff of the House of Assembly, the pages, and extend to the library and Hansard people a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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