The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. the Member for St. John's South raised a question about the awarding of a tender for the refurbishing of buses owned by the St. John's Transportation Commission, to a company located outside the Province. The member referenced the Provincial Preference Act, suggesting that a local company, East Coast Fleet Repair, should have won the tender. I committed to look into the matter and report back to the House. On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who is today on the beautiful island of Fogo, I am doing that for her today.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very specific preference policy in place under the Provincial Preference Act. It is intended to give companies located in this Province an advantage in bidding for work under tenders issued by any government body or agency in the Province. The advantage is based on a calculation which is comprised of a Provincial Overhead Allowance number, the local labour content, and the local materials content of the bid. This local content information must be supplied as part of the bid before the tender is opened if the company wishes to avail of local preference. These preference rules have been in place for many years and are generally well understood by the supplier community.

As in any bid on a tender call, it is the responsibility of the bidder to fully understand the terms and conditions of the tender call, and to comply with the applicable legislation. It is by this means that the fairness of the bidding process is maintained. The bidder must come to know these things before placing the bid and not afterwards, as was evidently the case here. I have checked with officials who administer the Provincial Preference Act and other public tender legislation and they have advised me of a number of factors relative to the bid of East Coast Fleet Repair.

First, this company did not consult government officials with respect to the local preference requirements of the tender call before the tender closed. Second, in a legal opinion, the Department of Justice advised that, once the bids are opened it is not possible for a bidder to re-submit on any part of the bid, including the local content portions. Third, the legal opinion stated that the sort of labour referred to in the tender call - refurbishing buses - may not, in any event, be within the spirit or intent of the "provincial labour content" as it is defined in the Regulations under the Provincial Preference Act.

The owner of East Coast Fleet Repair, Mr. Stamp, is quoted in the newspaper as saying his failure to understand the rules of provincial preference cost him the contract. This is an unfortunate turn of events for him. However, I would reiterate that there is no way that changes to the bid submission may be made after the tender closing time.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Preference Act helps businesses compete for work in the Province. But it is essential that suppliers be aware of the requirements of the Act, and I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I think this Provincial Preference Act has been around for some ten or fifteen years. As a matter of fact, I believe it was brought in by the Peckford Administration.

Officials are more than willing to assist suppliers in this regard, but the onus is on suppliers to request relevant information.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister, on behalf of my colleagues and the members on this side of the House for supplying the Ministerial Statement just before the House opened. The issue here is not one of the legalities, I say to the minister; the issue here is our concern that there has been a breakdown in communications between the government and its regulatory agencies and the local business community.

I would ask the hon. the minister, on behalf of the government, to assure that its regulations, relative to public tender and the local preference policy be well communicated through the Chambers of Commerce and through the Boards of Trade and that kind of thing so that all businessmen in the Province have an opportunity to know the regulations. While Mr. Stamp admits his failure to be fully aware, what that says is that Mr. Stamp, who is an experienced businessman, who owns a business in Donovans Industrial Park, if he and his group of people don't know the policy, then we ask the question: How many more people do not know the policy? So I ask the minister to do a little bit of public relations and do your job to keep jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador and let us make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen because of the failure of communications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess this is an example of provincial regulations being in place but people not fully understanding how they operate and being able to take advantage of them.

It is a very sad thing to see a number of buses being driven from here to Ontario to be fixed up and driven back to be operated when someone locally can do the work, and I think it is, certainly incumbent upon government to make sure people are aware of these programs. Obviously, businesses have that responsibility too. People in this Province, Mr. Speaker, need all the work they can get and this government has the responsibility to make sure that they know how to get it.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the honourable House of Assembly of the forestry resource road contracts that have been awarded to private contractors throughout the Province.

To date, Mr. Speaker - and I emphasis that this is to date - $378,000 has been awarded for resource road construction involving the construction of four bridges and road upgrading, plus the construction of approximately twelve kilometres of new roads. These resource roads provide critical access to both commercial and domestic timber harvesting operators. I would also stress, Mr. Speaker, that these roads are used for silviculture purposes, as well as by recreational users such as cottage owners, hunters, ecotourism operators.

Mr. Speaker, the resource road program is now completely funded by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a result of these contracts, Mr. Speaker, approximately sixty-six jobs will be created, scattered across the Province in areas where forestry harvesting and forest management work is underway. This will result in 375 weeks of employment.

Mr. Speaker, the following list outlines the project locations and weeks of employment created: the first one on the list, Mr. Speaker, is Baie Verte. That upset the member for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Twenty weeks of employment; Bonavista North, my district, only twenty-four weeks of employment and then we get to Bonavista South - how non-partisan are we - fifty weeks of employment. The highest on the list, the Member for Baie Verte (inaudible). Conception Bay East & Bell Island, twelve weeks of employment; Humber Valley, twenty-five weeks of employment; Lewisporte, forty-eight weeks of employment; Straits - White Bay, twenty-three weeks of employment; Terra Nova, forty-nine weeks of employment; Windsor - Springdale, twenty-one weeks of employment. The highest district, Bonavista South. The Member for Port de Grave shakes his head.

Mr. Speaker, in these times of economic uncertainty these jobs are of great value to the families living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the work being carried out provides for the continued viability of our forest-based industries and for the long-term management of our forests.

I wonder if the Member for Baie Verte can stand any more good news this morning?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say to the minister I was hoping that the $6 million for road transportation could be a bit more spread around, seeing that out of $6 million there was one culvert for Bonavista South.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I agree that this road access is critical to both commercial and the domestic harvesting practices in the Province and we certainly agree with that. It is also for silviculture purposes and recreational purposes and so on, Mr. Speaker, but I would also like to remind the minister that there are some very serious concerns in the forest industry right now and of course the harvesting and the amount of jobs that are being lost this summer because of harvesting practices of the harvesters. That is something that the minister should draw his attention to and he will hear it Sunday when he visits my district.

Although this is critical, that those practices have to be adhered to and listened to, the minister should address the very important issues in the forest industry, one of those being the practices of the harvesters in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; my questions today are for the Minister of Education.

The Senate, yesterday, unanimously decided to hold public hearings on Term 17 and report back by July 17. Will our own government, therefore, now release the legislation it wants passed before September - that is Bill 8 - and use the interim between now and the middle of July to let people see what exactly is in the bill?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are two issues, actually; I am glad the hon. member and Leader of the Opposition raised the question. There will be some pressure of time with respect to a date of mid to late July with the Senate giving its full deliberation to the matter of something that is of great importance to Newfoundland and Labrador, which is passage of a constitutional amendment enabling education reform to proceed, and I understand completely that all members of this House are fully supportive of the initiative and want it to conclude at the earliest date.

The position for the government to debate, and we will be doing this early next week, is again whether or not it is appropriate for this particular Legislature to try and presume what the Senate might do as a result of its hearings, and then a vote following that, or whether we will totally respect the authority of the Senate to go ahead with its hearings, some of which will be held in the Province, and then bring it to a final vote, and after the Senate has completed it bring forward legislation.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will explore the issue with further questions, as he usually does, because I would hope that he is not suggesting that in the interim legislation, which is all we are going to bring forward to deal with two issues, the establishment of ten interdenominational boards instead of twenty-seven denominationally based, which everybody agrees with in principle, including all of the leaders of the churches and so on, but that does not mean that somebody might not find some reason to quibble or haggle over a few of the words that might be in a piece of legislation giving rise to those ten boards. That is a different issue, and that is what the Cabinet has been dealing with and that is what we will decide, as to whether or not it is productive for us here in Newfoundland and Labrador to be having any kind of a discussion where people have already indicated, when we saw some sign with respect to a framework agreement that suggested the kinds of things that might occur, that people can disagree over words, even when there is full agreement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - over the basic principle of ten boards and a construction board.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What exactly is the hold-up? The Premier said I would have a copy as soon as Cabinet has seen it. So, I am understanding -

AN HON. MEMBER: They haven't.

MR. SULLIVAN: They haven't! Do you mean to tell me that Cabinet still has no idea as to exactly how it plans to reduce school boards and establish a school construction board by September. They don't know now! You are telling the Senate to get on with it and your own Cabinet hasn't even considered the bill, that we wanted that passed by the end of this month. I say to the minister: Why aren't you ready?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government and the Department of Education, Mr. Speaker, have been ready to proceed on this issue since before the last election. That is why there was a clear statement in the mandate of the government of the Province led by Premier Tobin at the time and endorsed by the people of the Province or the large mandate that is reflected in the make-up of this Legislature indicating that we would proceed with ten boards instead -

MR. J. BYRNE: Answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - of twenty-seven denominationally based boards, and that we would proceed, Mr. Speaker, with a single construction board rather than have monies for construction passed out on a per capita basis by denomination.

However - and here is the crux of the matter, Mr. Speaker - the Cabinet itself has not yet dealt with the details of the language that would enable that to occur, because when you deal with the language even - let me make this suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the House - even the Leader of the Opposition, who fully supports the principle, might find some reason to haggle or quibble over a few of the words that give effect to it. That is what a debate over legislation leads to and that is why the Cabinet will consider and continue to consider whether or not it is productive and useful and constructive for us to be debating the details of the legislation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - prior to the Senate concluding its deliberations on the matter.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, every single person on this side of the House in the PC Official Opposition were here, present and voted, when that was dealt with to move expeditiously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Members of your side scrambled out the door before the vote and they aren't all united on that issue, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Now we are committed. I say to the minister: You have admitted now. Won't you acknowledge that the only thing to prevent government from now sending Bill No. 8 to a legislation review committee is that the government isn't ready for educational reform?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, the government is completely ready for education reform. It has been endorsed in a general sense by the people of the Province. What we have is the government recognizing and respecting the parliamentary processes that are in place, one of which is that the Parliament of Canada has not yet completed its deliberation with respect to the amendment to the Constitution.

Even while there is general consensus, as I've been pointing out, with respect to the notion of ten interdenominational boards instead of twenty-seven separate denominational boards, a single construction board instead of giving money out for construction on a pro-rated basis by denomination - while those principles are agreed, and I believe unanimous in the Province, there has already been indication, even in discussions we have had with the representatives of the denominational education councils, when we have discussed the matter with representatives of the Yes Means Yes committee and others, that there is never unanimous agreement as to the actual detailed words that would put those things into effect. That is what the legislation provides for.

The Cabinet has not dealt with and given final approval to legislation that the Department of Education has put forward with respect to this issue. It is a continuing debate. We will again very early next week be reconvening in Cabinet to deal with the issues of what happens with respect to the Senate; how would the Senate and the Senators feel with respect to the Province going forward with legislation prior to them having a full, open and clear debate of the issues as they know them to be, and whether or not that will be advantageous with respect to proceeding with education reform that we all want.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and the minister were the two happiest people that the Senate delayed this bill. He said here today: We are not ready with the wording. We are quibbling over wording. He said: We are not yet ready to deal with it. Now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I did talk to my buddies. I wrote the House Leader of the Senate, the PC Leader of the Senate yesterday morning. I wrote and I got a response thirty minutes after the Senate closed yesterday from Senator Lynch-Staunton requesting expeditious passage of this. I dealt with that in the House yesterday evening and the minister agreed with it, and complimented us on our proactive approach to getting that through the Senate yesterday. I had numerous conversations with Senators over the last two days and with the Senate Leader for the PCs.

I ask the minister: In light of what the minister has just said, he has just indicated government is not ready yet to deal with it. Did the minister not realize that a finalized draft of Bill No. 8 would be needed earlier than today in case the Senate had passed Term 17 after just two days like the House of Commons did? Didn't he realize we would need that bill ready and it is you who is delaying the process?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no delay. The fact of the matter is that regardless of what the Leader of the Opposition would like to suggest with respect to provincial legislation, in any event, none of it would have legal effect until the Parliament of Canada is finished its deliberations. That is not finished yet. There is going to be a public dialogue in the Province, televised as I understand it, where the Senate will have at least - the last I heard was sixteen or seventeen groups which will present and discuss the reform issue and the need for the amendment.

What we want to do at this point is make sure that everybody is clear and hopefully united in terms of appearing before the Senate committee to guarantee that the Province wants, almost unanimously, the amendment to proceed so we can get back to a debate in this Legislature with respect to our own legislation.

With respect to the issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I think again I would like for the public record to compliment the Leader of the Opposition, and also the Leader of the NDP. But most recently the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, in a very trying circumstance, for the betterment of the Province and on behalf of the people of the Province, put forth an extraordinary effort in contacting members of the Senate who were Progressive Conservatives. Intervening on behalf of the people of the Province yesterday, he put partisan politics aside, asking them to be reasonable with respect to their approach in finalizing their consideration of Term 17 -

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

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - and as a result, Mr. Speaker, we will have the hearings concluded by July 17 and we can proceed with legislation very quickly after that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and the government have orchestrated a nice ploy to divert attention away from their inability and incompetence to prepare this legislation by talking about Meech Lake. Senator Rompkey indicated he heard nothing about Meech Lake and the Liberal Senate. That is a figment in the imagination of the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Now I ask the minister: Why is the government setting itself up to ram it through this Legislature by mid-July without hearings? Doesn't the minister know by now, that for the framework agreement, this kind of secretive behaviour just gets you into trouble?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think there can hardly be any suggestion of any secretive behaviour.

The next thing that needs to occur, with respect to education reform proceeding in this Province, is to have the amendment to Term 17 pass the Parliament of Canada. In order for it to pass the complete Parliament of Canada, it needs, Mr. Speaker, to pass the Senate. There is going to be absolutely nothing secretive about the Senate debate, it is going to be televised here in the Province with representations and there is really not much point or purpose in the Opposition now trying to suggest that there should be - and this is what the government is still puzzled at, Mr. Speaker - how the Leader of the Opposition can be so completely supportive in one breath, of going ahead with reform and having ten boards and having a single construction board, and then suggesting, as he is today, that there needs to be some kind of extended, protracted debate on a piece of legislation that does nothing else except accomplish those two things which are, to have ten boards and a single construction board.

Now, the view of the government, Mr. Speaker, is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are sick and tired of this debate and would rather that we just, even if we did it the day after the Senate is there, because there is not much point before hand, they may defeat the amendment yet, Mr. Speaker, that is a possibility, but we hope that is not the case, but that we go ahead, Mr. Speaker, and pass the thing.

The suggestion is that there needs to be some wide-ranging debate in the Province about a piece of legislation that establishes ten boards and a construction board, and I would ask the question: Why would anybody suggest that we should debate that for any more than thirty seconds, have it passed and have it done with, so if the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is suggesting that they will pass that this morning, without debate and we can carry on, then get the amendment passed, the Cabinet will convene, I am sure, before twelve o'clock, we can have it done and we can have the Newfoundland portion of it finished before twelve o'clock.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the minister that if we see it now, and when it comes to this Legislature that it won't be beyond two days, it will be through this House; I will give him that guarantee. And there are two reasons why I want to see it now, I say to the minister, in response to him. Number one, the Premier promised in this House, he would provide me with a copy of the draft legislation before it is tabled -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- and secondly, if there is nothing of major importance in it, why not let us see it now?

I ask the minister, is the framework agreement that you announced on April 17, the basis of this legislation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Leader of the Opposition now is dreaming of some romantic days in the past.

It is clear in the Province that, first of all, the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, tried to suggest that they, for some reason, in education didn't understand the concept of a framework agreement when they understand it in all other context.

A framework agreement, as everybody understands, lays out the principles that you hope to accomplish and it laid out that we hoped to accomplish ten interdenominational boards and a single construction board. On the other issues, Mr. Speaker, that are going to be debated next Fall in a major way in this Province, with respect to viability, the expression of parental preference, all of those, Mr. Speaker, were spelled out in the framework agreement as issues yet to be addressed, and for some reason, some people, including the Leader of the Opposition and a few others, jumped on it and said: Oh, this is awful, this is shocking, this is an abandonment of what the referendum was about.

The Premier has stated consistently, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation does nothing more, nothing less than deliver exactly what is provided for in the amended Term 17; that is what it will do, Mr. Speaker, and if that is the case, and we can have passage in two days, we will convene the Cabinet shortly, bring it in this morning and we will have it finished by Tuesday.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the framework agreement were the principles, yet it was a lack of principle and commitment to the people of this Province that occurred in that framework agreement, I say to the minister.

Now, will the minister reaffirm the commitment that the Premier gave here in this House last month, and again this past week, that this legislation will reflect what people voted for last September?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and that has been confirmed in this Legislature several times, and the amendment itself, the legislation will deal with exactly that. Even in the absence of the Premier I am confident that I can say again to the Leader of the Opposition that if he is suggesting and committing now that we could have a debate in this Legislature concluded in two days, by next Tuesday, we will convene the Cabinet this morning, finalize the legislation, contact the Premier, and have the debate over with by Tuesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said before, and I ask again: What is wrong with submitting it? It is completely within the confines of the Legislature of this House to refer the draft legislation to a Legislation Review Committee so we can have public hearings on this starting now, so we are ready to deal with it in the House within two days.

Will the minister commit to allowing a legislative committee of this House to have public hearings to deal with this legislation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now we understand again, as we see, the Leader of the Opposition speaks out of one side of his mouth and says: We agree, we can do it in two days; and then out of the other side of his mouth says: We have to have a major public dialogue and discussion about ten boards and a construction board.

The issue again for the government, if that is his request, if he wants it dealt with expeditiously, if he wants these basic principles enshrined in legislation in a couple of days, and wants it over with on behalf of the people of the Province, that we can accommodate. If he thinks for some reason that there is a need in this Province to have a major debate about whether we should have ten boards instead of twenty-seven, and a single construction board, instead of dividing the money by denomination on a per capita basis, then that is the only reason why we would think there would be a need for any kind of Parliamentary committee of this House to tour the Province. We think those issues in the Province have been decided; they are finalized. We will certainly bring in the legislation if we want to pass it in a couple of days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. GRIMES: If we want to have some kind of a committee travel around for two or three weeks, then we have to have another debate about the issue.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; my question is for the Minister of Education.

Yesterday the Board of Regents at Memorial University met to discuss many things, but certainly it met to discuss the impact of the provincial government's budget. Let me ask the minister: Can he inform the House today of what the Board of Regents decided with respect to tuition increases?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I could if I had had any official contact with the university this morning. I had a preliminary discussion with Dr. May yesterday afternoon when they were getting ready to conclude their meetings and were left with one item yet on their agenda, which was the tuition increases. I have not had a direct contact with them at this point in time. I have some information indirectly with respect to the decisions they have made on tuition increases, and I understand that the University, which is the appropriate organization, will be making their decisions public this morning in a press conference, and I believe it would be inappropriate for me to be suggesting - because some of the information I have gotten indirectly may not be exactly what the final decision was. Even while I have some information that suggests what the increases might be - and there will be increases - I believe it would be inappropriate for me to be announcing them on behalf of the University, which is going to do that publicly, because it is their role to do so, in short order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

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

My information tells me that the increases have gone through as I have presented in the House in terms of undergraduate fees.

Let me ask the minister: While it is the University's role to deal with the funding that government provides it, and then decide how they use the funding, it is certainly the provincial government's responsibility when it comes to student aid and ensuring that people have access to a quality post-secondary education. Can the minister give a commitment today that he will introduce corresponding increases in the amount of loans available - and he knows that it is loans only - corresponding increases in the amount of provincial loans available to students that will match the increases in tuition that Memorial will be introducing?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that particular question, because I think that is an issue that the government, through the Department of Education, has some latitude to try and assist students in borrowing more money to offset increased costs in tuition.

Because there has been projected for some while, ever since the government reduced its grant to the University, that there would likely be tuition increases, we have had officials in the Department of Education and in the Student Load Division look at what flexibility we do have in the program to increase the loan portfolio and the capability of students to borrow more money on a weekly and semester basis. With the final numbers that are going to be available to us today, Mr. Speaker, in short order, probably in the next week or ten days or so the officials in the Department of Education should be able to finalize the limits and extent to which we can potentially increase the borrowing capability under the Canada Student Loan Program.

There is indeed, Mr. Speaker, some flexibility in that program. There are monies available in the Budget contemplating some potential increases because of the decrease in the granting from government; and the details of that should be worked out within the next week or ten days. I believe it would be appropriate at this point to suggest that students, in all likelihood, could expect to see their capability to borrow increase somewhat to offset some of these tuition increases.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my information says that standard undergraduate fees at the University will increase by 15 per cent and those in professional schools will go up by about 32 to 33 per cent. So, is the minister making a commitment today that his department and the provincial government will match exactly the amounts that tuitions have gone up, because there are significant increases; the minister knows that, government knows that. If student aid does not rise in a matching fashion or corresponding fashion, then accessibility to education for many people will be denied.

Is the minister saying today, can he confirm that he will ensure that the tuition increases, while going up a certain percentage, that student aid, the provincial grant portion, will also go up exactly the amount that tuition goes up, to ensure that each and every student in this Province has an opportunity to go to Memorial or any other post-secondary educational institution?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately I can't answer that it would be exactly in step, but the information that we have in a preliminary fashion, and the study that has been done in the last couple of weeks, is that the vast majority of the increases at all levels, undergraduate and in the professional schools and so on, can probably be accommodated through some increased capability in the Canada Student Loan Program. It won't be dollar for dollar, Mr. Speaker.

The information, I think, maybe using a number that is fairly close to accurate - there is a phrase that the hon. member is aware of, that even today there is what is known as an unmet need with respect to student loans, that the student loan doesn't cover 100 per cent of the fundamental costs of a semester at the University or at one of the trades colleges, the community colleges or even at one of the private schools. There has always been a category of unmet need of some portion of it.

Mr. Speaker, it is expected that somewhere in the range of three-quarters or more of the increased unmet need might be able to be accommodated by increases in the Canada Student Loan Program. So it doesn't seem as if the Student Loan Program has the capability to offset 100 per cent of the increase, but it certainly seems that there is a capability to offset the greater proportion of it, so that there again would be the least negative impact upon the students that can possibly be dealt with through the Canada Student Loan Program.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite government's difficulty with legislation on education reform, there is a piece of legislation that the government can pass and can pass very quickly. My question is to the Minister of Environment and Labour who is also responsible for the Human Rights Code.

Is the minister prepared to commit to bring in an amendment to the Human Rights Code this session that will have the effect of including sexual orientation as one of the prohibitive grounds? Mr. Speaker, this change has been made in almost all the jurisdictions of Canada; most recently, in the House of Commons. Will the minister do what he said a couple of weeks ago he would do, make our own amendment and not rely on the Supreme Court to tell us what to do? Can he tell he is bringing in an amendment now to just merely add sexual orientation to the list of prohibitive grounds in the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Code?

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

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

I want to thank the member for the question. I would also like to thank the member for his letter that he gave me yesterday with the request.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the government has decided to bring this matter to the Legislature as quickly as possible. Our people in the Legislative side of the House of Assembly are getting the amendment ready and Cabinet will review that amendment and bring it forward in due course. I would expect that we will have it ready for fall session, as quickly as possible, as quickly as we can bring it forward, for a vote in the Legislature which will be, and it is a commitment by the government to do so for the first time in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: I appreciate the commitment that the minister made for the first time, as he says. It is a bit surprising that it can't be done more quickly, Mr. Speaker. The government has been in court fighting the Human Rights Commission over this issue last year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: They have had this issue before them for many years, why can't they do it sooner and why can't they bring it to the House now? It is a simple amendment basically adding two words to a list several times in the act.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to debate the simplification of the amendment. The government has given a commitment to bring this matter to the Legislature to deal with the matter, to have a vote on the matter for everybody in this House of Assembly and we are going to do that. We are drafting, people are getting the amendments ready, Cabinet has to have a look at it and then we will bring it forward to the House of Assembly. So the House Leader will soon, in very short order and in due course, have an amendment that we can lay here on the Order Paper for the House of Assembly to have a vote on for the first time. Yes, it is about time that we brought it forward, Mr. Speaker, I totally agree.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this morning are for the Minister of Health.

Some day between now and the end of 1998 the government tells us the contents of the Janeway, machinery, records, staff, patients and all, will be uprooted and transferred to a facility in, on, under, connected to or not far away from the Health Sciences Complex. Somewhere that's right, the government apparently has not yet made up its mind. Two years is a very short period of time when we are talking about moving an existing hospital to a non-existing setting. At what stage, Mr. Minister, are the blueprints for the new facility and the plan for transferring the guts of the Janeway from point A to point B?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the question, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot help but say that the question is far from original. The question has been asked in this House half-a-dozen times at least in different forms. Let me tell the hon. member again, for the record and for the information of the House, that plans are proceeding exactly as were laid out last June 29 when we announced restructuring. December 31, 1998 is the proposed completion date to have all of the restructuring done.

In terms of the specific plans for the new space over at the Health Sciences that will accommodate a new paediatric children's hospital, the programming has been completed or is being completed as we speak. By the middle of July, latest end of July, I will have before me the programming information and the conceptuals as to the amount of space that will be required, what that space will look like, where it will be added to, contiguous with, adjacent to the existing Health Sciences and all of that will be made available, not only to me but as quickly as I can thereafter, to the members of the public as well. We are on schedule. The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South need not worry or lose any sleep, it is in good hands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: That's what frightens me.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister anticipate inviting proposals to design, build and lease this new facility as it did with the Trans City health care facilities or will it follow the usual course by first calling for design and then calling for tenders on the work itself?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once we have received and decided on what the scope and extent of the actual construction project will be we will move forward in a manner that is consistent with government policy meeting all of the requirements of public tendering as will be appropriate at that time. We will do what is right and we will do it in a right and proper manner so that we will maximize the value of the taxpayers dollar in terms of the return we will get for the investment that we will make in the new capital construction that has to go forward.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the annual report for 1995-96 of the Canada Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board and in so doing wish to state that since this is a report sent jointly to me and to the federal minister, it is also being released in Ottawa today. I table the report.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economic Commission Act." (Bill No. 18)

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today on the last day of the week for a growing list of names on the food fishery from the great District of Exploits. Botwood, Point Leamington, all that area, almost 800 names in this petition. I haven't had a chance to count them exactly yet but approximately 800 names. Another petition, a petition that continues to grow by the minute.

I will read the prayer first of all: We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, do hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support our petition to open a food fishery for the people of this Province. Every ocean bordering province in Canada except Newfoundland and Labrador - and now of course including St. Pierre and Miquelon. We the undersigned take strong exception to the treatment we are receiving from the government. We did not destroy the fishery and object to the fact that as a people our heritage is being taken away from us. We do not believe that a small hand line fishery would damage the recovering stocks.

That last line, Mr. Speaker, is especially for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Because it is really strange, it is like he is flip-flopping all over the place on this particular issue. He tries to use a smoke screen. Every now and then I listen to the minister in the House and he starts to make some sense and he is right on track, and he even sounds like he is back to his old Newfoundland self, speaking with his fists grasped on behalf of Newfoundlanders. Then all of a sudden he turns it around again. Yesterday was the most ridiculous statement that the minister (inaudible). Honest. I couldn't believe the statement the minister made yesterday. He said to me: Why don't you present petitions for the commercial food fishery? Commercial fishery!

There are two points why I haven't presented a petition for the commercial fishery. Number one, because I haven't got one. I have a petition for the recreational food fishery.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will make it official in this House that I did not go to any doors. As a matter of fact I will give the minister the name of the man who heard me say it somewhere and he sent me 810 names. He said: Keep it up, boy. Keep it up for God's sake, you have to have somebody fight for Newfoundlanders.

This is not a commercial food fishery. That is one reason I did not present commercial fishery petitions because I do not have one. That is an obvious one. The other one is it is chalk and cheese. We are talking about less than 1,000 tons of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: If you want me to tell you, you will be quiet. If you wanted me to give you the reasons I will give them to you. I'm not afraid to say them. I said to the minister: I will talk to you anywhere on them any time. I'm talking about a commercial fishery and the minister knows it. It is just a big show going on here now, that is all it is, Mr. Speaker. A commercial fishery -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and I started it when I didn't know who was supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I started saying this two years when I had one petition with twenty names on it. I didn't know who was there. It is on record in this House, the petitions I presented two years ago when the principle of the idea -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is getting on with malarkey. He knows bloody well that I'm just as concerned - and I would say more concerned than the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture about people getting back to work in this Province. That is foolishness. That won't wash. He knows that.

The truth is there is a principle involved here that the minister is trying to hide behind. The principle is that a man should be able to go out and jig a fish. As far as hurting recovering stocks, he listened to my point the other day and now he is investigating, he said on the open line. The truth is we don't know the research of the bay stocks and offshore biomasses. We do have research on the biomasses. That is why we are in a moratorium. That is why I do not support a commercial fishery until our scientific research is done and shows that we can support a commercial food fishery. But there is no evidence that tells us the bay stocks can't support 1,000 tons. That is the whole key to this. A measly 1,000 tons is what it is, it is a principle.

The whole bottom line to all of this is this: It is discrimination that is going on. Whether we should have one or not, whether we can support or not a sustainable fishery, the point is the principle of discrimination. It is bad enough that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick - we have argued that for two years, but the minister knows and I think he agrees on this, but he flip-flops around, that St. Pierre and Miquelon, with borders off our Province of only three miles, can go out and jig a fish. Mr. Speaker, if those people can go out and jig one fish - if it is open down there to jig one fish - then the principle of discrimination has to be questioned, that people just three miles off our shore can jig a fish to eat. Are they hurting recovering stocks? Are they worried about jobs rebounding? The minister knows that he cannot compare the commercial food fishery with the recreational food fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I want to make a couple of points in support of the petition.

First of all, I have listened to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the last week on this issue, and he was astounded yesterday. He said that members on this side had not presented a petition for a commercial fishery - and neither will we. We do not support a commercial fishery at this time - at this time.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. E. BYRNE: Because of conservation. The minister will have a chance; he will he hear me.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is, as he knows it, we support conservation. The second reality is that members over here do not go out and knock on doors getting petitions ready to bring into this House. If people bring petitions to this House, we have a responsibility to bring them forward. The Member for Baie Verte has brought them forward.

The real question is this: Would a food fishery interfere with conservation of the stock? That is the issue that has to be answered. Now, if you use the logic that is emanating out of Ottawa from the federal Minister of Fisheries, you would think it would not. Other provinces in Atlantic Canada are allowed to jig a codfish. St. Pierre and Miquelon, three miles off the coast of this Province, are allowed to have a food fishery. Now, if we use that logic coming from Ottawa -

MR. EFFORD: It didn't come from Ottawa.

MR. E. BYRNE: Where did it come from?

MR. EFFORD: France. You don't even know what you are talking about.

MR. E. BYRNE: Indeed I do.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: A food fishery for the rest of Atlantic Canada came from France? Is that what the provincial Minister of Fisheries is saying, that a food fishery allowed in the other Atlantic Provinces and in Quebec did not come from Ottawa?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, no, that came from the Government of France; I understand that.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. E. BYRNE: Because that is along their corridor.

MR. EFFORD: Who made the decision?

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. EFFORD: Who made the decision (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: The Government of Canada negotiated -

MR. EFFORD: No, it did not.

MR. E. BYRNE: Who negotiated it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) had nothing to do with negotiations. You don't know what you are talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they out there jigging fish or not? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is, I don't think the minister supports a food fishery in St. Pierre and Miquelon - I am sure he doesn't - and I am sure that he does not support a food fishery in the rest of Atlantic Canada. The real question for the minister to answer is this: What representations has he made to Ottawa to stop it? That is the real question. And what research can he lay on the table to show that the stocks in the bays, which are not part of the overall biomass, will affect the overall stock? It will not. He knows it; he alluded to it on the Fisheries Broadcast the other day - I heard him - and what he is doing each and every day in responding to these petitions is trying to make cheap political points. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not even have to think about making cheap, political points in this House, because that is totally the objective of members opposite, because that is what they are doing on a day-to-day basis in presenting petitions for a food fishery in this Province. Out of one side of their mouth they are saying they are concerned about conservation, and out of the other side of their mouth they are saying we should have a food fishery.

Let me give you some figures. You would think the members would research this before they back themselves into a corner. Let's suppose we call a food fishery open tomorrow morning. I would suspect there would be at least 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out hand-lining or jigging cod, whatever they would prefer to do, but let's say there were 20,000 - use those numbers as an example - and let's say they were allowed to catch ten fish each. Ten times 20,000 is 200,000 fish, minimum, that would be taken out of the water on the very first day. Now, put that on for fourteen days, or put it on for twenty days; that is 4 million fish; multiply that times an average of five pounds of fish, that is twenty million pounds of fish, and they tell me they are concerned about conservation? They are only jokes, Mr. Speaker, jokes.

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

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

Today I rise in my place to present a petition from areas in my district, Logy Bay, Middle Cove, Outer Cove, concerning the Literacy 2000 Program. We have a letter attached that I will read into the record, Mr. Speaker:

We, the parents and teachers of St. Agnes School, request the reinstatement of the Literacy 2000 Program for 1996-'97 Kindergarten class, which was scheduled to commence in September. We all know our youth of today will have the responsibilities of our future endeavours. We have an obligation as today's adults to ensure that our children are educated to handle the challenges of the 21st Century.

Eliminating this process now, is a step backwards if we are to bring our education standards up to average with the rest of Canada. We ask that you please reconsider your decision and proceed with the original plan for the sake of our children and for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we are to compete globally, we must make the investment today. The letter is signed by a number of the parents at St. Agnes and the PTA.

The petition to the House reads: The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS we have an obligation as today's adults to ensure that our children are educated to handle the challenges of the 21st Century; and

WHEREAS the cancellation of the Literacy 2000 Program for the 1996-'97 Kindergarten class is a step backwards in educating our children;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Literacy 2000 Program for the 1996-'97 Kindergarten class.

This is signed by over 120 people.

Mr. Speaker, this program was piloted by the government. There was a two-day seminar on it and I think they had a lot of support from the primary teachers from the schools in the Province and the various boards. This program, as I said, was piloted by the government; obviously, they had to have supported it themselves. From what I understand, the program in place now has been in place for seventeen to eighteen years and the parents, teachers and the boards find that this present program is ineffective and doesn't do the job it is supposed to do.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, that is what I have been told. I am repeating what I have been told, it is ineffective - you will have your chance to say - Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Education, he will have his chance, but I have been told that it is ineffective, it is old.

I have been talking to principals who want this new program reinstated this year, the sooner the better. As a matter of fact, I have been told that teachers actually bring in their own materials. Because the materials that they are using in the present program are ineffective and they are bringing in their own materials to help educate our children.

This new program, Literacy 2000, is seen to be an answer to the problem; it was scheduled to go in place this September and because of the Budget cuts, of course, we saw the Literacy 2000 Program being cut. And from what I understand, it would not take a great amount of money to put this program in place.

This government has maintained in the past that the solution to our financial problems in this Province is Education and if the government is true to that statement, then obviously, we must start at the very beginning of our education program, with the Kindergarten class. Mr. Speaker, I have been told by a number of people that they feel that the government of today, by cancelling this Literacy 2000 Program is leaving our children high and dry.

I want to say, and make it publicly known, that I believe this program should be reinstated this September and I call upon the Minister of Education to reach down into the financial pockets of this administration and come up with the money that is required to put the Literacy 2000 Program in place this year. I will say to the Minister of Education again, I support the petition of the people from Logy Bay, Pouch Cove, Torbay, Flatrock, Bauline and St. John's. We have over 120 names on the petition. These people are genuinely concerned that this program be put in place this year and I call upon the minister to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of the petition presented by the Member for Cape St. Francis.

The issue of Kindergarten education is of paramount importance to our young people. Perhaps the minister can confirm this but the information that I have is that the Kindergarten program in this Province has not been changed in nineteen years. When the Member for Baie Verte was in Kindergarten nineteen years ago, that was the program that he was studying. So, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in all areas of education, surely this is an area that needs to be upgraded and updated. The theories of education have no doubt changed and the technologies have changed considerably. What the children are exposed to prior to going to Kindergarten has been changed, whether it be computers or Sesame Street or whatever it is they watch.

As a recent father of a young child, I am obviously very aware of the kind of learning that goes on in pre-school for children, and obviously that has changed over the last nineteen years. And for this government to say: Well, we have had this program for nineteen years, we have been studying it, restudying it, we have some new programs coming out but we are not going to implement them, we are going to postpone the implementation for some other reason, the government is taking away an opportunity to improve, at the very important pre-school age, the quality of education for young children. I know that some schools and some school districts have made tremendous efforts to try to improve the pre-school atmosphere for children.

I know, on Bell Island seven or eight years ago, a group formed that was very interested in providing some enriched environments for kids who might otherwise not be exposed to the kind of learning that goes on in a pre-school and have gone out of their way to try to bring children into the school at the age of three and four for a pre-school environment in order to enhance the ability of those children to succeed. Studies time and time again have shown that as early as Grade I, teachers can identify those children who will succeed well in school and unfortunately, identify those children who will have great difficulty succeeding in school.

The Member for Waterford - Valley instills his teaching experience and educational expertise into the debate by suggesting age three. By age three they don't even see the school, Mr. Speaker, because there is not any adequate pre-school program in this Province. But when we get to Kindergarten, the government seems to be sort of flip-flopping. Last year or a year or so ago the Minister of Education was going to insist that the Kindergarten program be imposed; full day Kindergarten was going to be imposed, just like that, on all schools in the Province immediately. Now, this Minister of Education is saying: Well, we have a nineteen year old Kindergarten program. The Member for Baie Verte went to Kindergarten under that program and if it was good enough for him it is going to be good enough for the crowd that are coming in next year. I just don't think that that is the proper approach to the outstanding problems that we have in education in this Province. We are all struggling with the difficulties of reforming the overall education system and we want to enhance that education system to make it possible for more dollars to go into education or as the former, former, former Minister of Education would say: More scholar for the dollar. That was his favourite phrase in this House with respect to education reform. Mr. Speaker, it is not simply a question of more dollars for education, it is a question of having a program that meets the needs of modern educational theories and meets the needs of Newfoundland students. If we are going to improve performance at the school level, obviously, an enhanced Kindergarten program is very necessary to that task.

I support the efforts of the petitioners who are quite concerned about their own children and about the children of this Province and want to see this program implemented. It is, I understand, a good program. It is one that PTAs across the Province are concerned about, not just in the District of Cape St. Francis. I have heard representations from others and I have had correspondence and calls from people who are concerned that the government, at both ends of the spectrum - at the Kindergarten level they are reducing programs and cutting out new initiatives and at the post-secondary level as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, to ask the minister to change this policy.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few brief comments with respect to the petition. While the thrust of the petition is quite understandable, Mr. Speaker, from the point of view of parents being concerned and some of the teachers, there are a couple of comments that I would like to make. I would invite the presenter of the petition, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, to get a copy of Hansard and pass the response back to the petitioners so that they will know exactly what I have said.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I will, I definitely will.

MR. GRIMES: I think there are some teachers concerned about this issue, and appropriately so. There are some parents concerned about the issue and appropriately so. Nobody, Mr. Speaker, would want to be taking these decisions. We would like to change the curriculum materials and move to more modern and more updated curriculum materials. But, Mr. Speaker, I think that the teachers themselves, in making some suggestions here, and other petitioners, and the hon. member in presenting it, have done a great disservice in terms of suggesting that the current program has been ineffective. It is nineteen years old, Mr. Speaker, but let me tell you the track record of what has happened in the schools when the students -

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, why do you want to change it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Because change is necessary from a point of view, but the point, Mr. Speaker, is whether it was essential this year and whether or not we absolutely had to put the money in the Budget to do it, or whether it was an effective enough program to be used for one more year.

Mr. Speaker, here is the record of nineteen years of this program: In nineteen years, where this program is used to give the fundamental introduction to reading at the Kindergarten Level - some students come to school already with a capability of reading and others have had very little involvement and experience with books, with literature and with the printed word and start from scratch. Some are pretty advanced readers. There is a program in Kindergarten, Mr. Speaker, a literacy program, that gives the students the opportunity to make sure that all of them, before they leave Kindergarten, know the fundamentals of the alphabet, of literacy, the fundamentals of the beginnings for reading as a skill, which is essential to all the other learnings that you would do.

In the nineteen years that this program has been used, rather than be ineffective, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen are literacy rates amongst the school-leaving population higher than ever, as a result of this program being used for the last nineteen years. The rates for dropouts are lower than ever because the people have a better foundation and their beginnings in school and other programs are there. The percentage of students graduating, who started their school experience with this program, is higher than ever in the Province, Mr. Speaker. The literacy levels of the students are higher than ever.

Then for anyone to suggest that this program is ineffective, as the hon. member mentioned in his presentation with respect to the petition, is total, absolute disservice to the great program that has been in place for the last nineteen years. Because the fundamentals of the program, Mr. Speaker, are not scheduled to change, it is a matter of having more updated materials that relate to current types of characters that young people today might identify more readily than some that were in vogue nineteen years ago.

The fundamentals of the program are not scheduled to change even in the new program. It is just that we would have more colourful, brighter, more modern materials, which we would like to have. But Is it essential? Will the students be in a position where they will not learn basic literacy skills in Kindergarten? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is definitely not. This was one of the very easy budget decisions that we could make, to defer implementation of a preferred curriculum resource for one more year because we do know that it is an effective program, it does serve the needs, it has served the needs well for nineteen years. It could serve the needs, Mr. Speaker, for another fifty years, because the fundamentals of the program are essentially the same as will be in any other program. Those fundamentals in learning how to read largely don't change. For anyone to suggest that it has been ineffective is doing a disservice to the students, to the teachers and to the program that has served the Province extremely well for the last nineteen years.

Our hope is that next year we will be able to bring in a new program that has already been piloted, has been shown to be maybe and probably equally as good, and we would hope that we would have these new materials for a year's time. Unfortunately, due to the Budget consideration, we are not in a position to fund them for September of 1996. In some areas, rather than parents sign petitions, they have gone out and actually purchased these new materials themselves and donated them to the school.

I was in a school in Port aux Basques just last week where the parents themselves, when they heard that the government didn't have the money to put the new materials in place, they have raised the money themselves and they put the new materials in the school for the use of the Kindergarten students.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: What a minister! Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that he take that funding out of his leadership campaign fund because it will never be active again. There will be no need for it. He has a few dollars there that he can spread around.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a petition.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador: that

WHEREAS the new Crown lands prices are so great that many people with low incomes will not be able to afford to have a cabin or cottage; and

WHEREAS many cabin owners who have invested a great deal of energy in cleaning up their land may find their investment is used against them when the land is appraised; and

WHEREAS this Crown lands money grab is an attack on a way of life that Newfoundlanders have enjoyed for years; and

WHEREAS the government that promised to listen to the people neglected to consult with people before making this decision;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to revert to the old system of charging reasonable leases on lands so people with limited means can have ownership of cabins and recreational areas.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition with I think about 180 to 200 names taken from one particular road, if you would, in my district and in the District of Terra Nova. People asked me if they took up and circulated a petition if I would present it to the House for them. It is a situation where those people are very upset. Now, they are going to be faced with bill of some $2,500 to $3,000 for a remote cabin lot - or not a remote cabin lot, but it is a lot that they have to - it is accessible by car so it is not considered remote. But it is a lot that they thought they would have to pay only $75 a year as an agreement that they had entered into with government for a lease on this particular land.

Many of those people are living on a fixed income. Many are not working at full-time jobs. Many of them are seniors and don't have access to $2,500 or $3,000. Some of the statements that are being brought forward are not very clear. I know that the minister suggested, or the minister has every intention of getting information out to cabin owners. First, I would suggest that he do that with the greatest speed that he can so people will be able to understand exactly what it is he proposes to do.

The other plea, I suppose, that I would make to the minister is that he give those people ample time to consider their options. I don't know if many of them will have many options. Because I know a lot of them will not be able to pay the $500 a year over five years, or the $2,500 down payment that he will be looking for in order for them to have ownership of the land. Most of those cabin owners don't need ownership of the land. They don't want ownership of the land. They are quite satisfied with the agreement that they have already entered into. I think that should be allowed to happen.

When you look at some of the work that has been put into many of those cabins, the way that the particular land has been enhanced, the river streams, the brooks, the ponds, the lakes that have been cleaned up by those people, I think they have already done an excellent service to the department by enhancing the landscape and beautifying the area. Now, all of a sudden, the government sees a way to have a money grab, and they reach out, once again without consulting, and say: Here is a way that we can make some quick money.

I think this is wrong. Many of those cabin owners did not go and hire contractors to go in the woods and build their cabin. They could not afford to do that, I say to the minister. Most of them went and cut their own logs, and borrowed or bummed or bought second-hand furniture, second-hand building supplies, in order to build a cabin. They did not have the $2,000 or $3,000 then, and they don't have it now. For those people it is the only vacation, the only outing, that they get in their lifetime, many of them. They cannot afford to go to Florida every year; they cannot afford to go to Disneyland. The trip that they take into their cabin is the enjoyment that they get out of life, and now the minister has seen fit to reach out and take that little bit of enjoyment away from many of those people who will probably have to, if the minister puts the heavy hand of them, vacate the cabins and the areas into which they put so much work.

I don't know how he is ever going to go out and deal with the cabin owners who are living on or residing on registered land, or unregistered land, because now, once again, the people who did not break the law, the people who said: In order for us to build a cabin we are going to do what is right; we are going to do it above board; we are going to go and apply; we are going to get our land surveyed; we are going to pay the government the fee - and now they are being penalized, and they wonder if it always proper to do what is right. Maybe it is better to take the shortcuts, and at the end of the day you might be much better off. You would certainly be better off as far as dollars and cents in your pocket book are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he would seriously consider this piece of legislation, or regulation, that he is about to introduce. I ask that he would look at the cabin owners' situation and see what their ability is to pay. I ask if he would consider what people out there today are calling a cabin. I have no problem with him dealing with the people with mansions built in the woods, where they land their helicopter on their helicopter pad -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: In fact, those are not cottages; those are places almost like condominiums in the forest where people go, and they can afford to pay, and maybe they should pay, but we certainly should not go and look at those low-wage earners, look at those senior citizens, and reach out and demand that they pay $2,500 to $3,000 when they don't have the ability to pay.

I ask the minister if he would seriously look at this piece of legislation, and look at changing it so he can accommodate those people who are voicing their concerns.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise in my place today to support the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South concerning the situation with the Crown land cabin lots. We have had a lot of discussion on this with respect to petitions and public meetings and so on, called by this side of the House. People are quite upset. There has been a lot of media attention to this issue, and the people in the Province with cabin lots are quite upset that they are being forced now to try to come up with money by October 31 to apply for a grant.

This issue seems to be in the media a lot with respect to cabin owners, but there are more people involved than just cabin owners; there are people with residential leases involved in this money grab also. I have brought it up and asked a number of questions in the House of the minister with respect to this issue, and I did not get the answers that the people of this Province expected to get. You would expect an answer, but really we did not get any answers.

We know the history over the past couple of weeks of how this policy has been developed as time went by. But I want to get back to two issues. One is the snow job, I suppose, that has been presented by the department with respect to now saying that people can get their land, their leases, converted to grants, and they will own the land at the end of the situation. I want to be quite clear that the people of this Province know that that policy is in place this very day. It was in place before the new policy was brought into being. People who had the leases, once they met the conditions of that lease, they could have applied for and got a grant. So to try to have this snow job cover up and say now that people can own their land at the end of the deal is trying to put something forward to the people to confuse the situation and not to clarify the situation at all.

We had a public meeting last Wednesday night at the Holiday Inn and the minister attended. I appreciate his attending the meeting, and I think a number of the people were pleased that he showed up, and displeased at the same time, because of the answers that were given. The minister did make a commitment, and I want to hold him to it, that he would bring this back to Cabinet. The biggest concern at that meeting was the time frame in which this policy was to be put in place and how people would be forced to come up with upwards of $2,000, $3,000 within ninety days, basically, of October 31. Because they do have ninety days once the application is made. If they made their application on October 31 1996 they could qualify for this new program. If they didn't make application, well, then, they would be nailed to the cross, so to speak, with the new rates where they would have to pay upwards of thousands of dollars depending on the location of their property.

I want the minister to confirm that he has brought it to Cabinet and if not, when he is going to bring it to Cabinet. I think at the meeting the public was expecting to hear back from the minister within at least two weeks. There is a week and two days gone by now and we haven't heard anything yet. At least, I haven't heard anything. So, I hope the minister will speak to this petition and let the people of the Province know when he is bringing it to Cabinet if he has not already done so, and if he has done so, what the results of that Cabinet meeting were. Will the people be given at least three to five years to come up with the money that they would have had to come up with say, by the end of January 1997? I would like the minister to address that if he feels he would like to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) -

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

I believe the Minister of Government Services and Lands would like to speak to the petition.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of issues on the Crown lands policy. That policy is in place. It was brought in as a budgetary item. In response to the hon. the Member for Bonavista South, we have started the process of notifying everybody who is a leaseholder who will be affected by this policy. In response to the Member for Cape St. Francis, I will be taking to the Cabinet the request from the meeting at the Holiday Inn in due course.

We have, to date, tried to deal with every person who has a lease who has requested the department to deal with it. We are dealing with all of these on an individual basis because the majority of those are all of different circumstance. We need to ensure that each person receives the proper information with regard to the leasehold that they now have. I would ask the Member for Bonavista South if all of those whom he mentions are actually a part of the program that we have in place. Remote cabins are not a part of this particular Crown lands policy. There are a number of components through commercial leases, residential leases and cottage lot leases that are underneath this particular Crown lands policy.

With regard to the residential leases, as the member probably is already aware, the people who are currently paying $50 for residential leases can continue to do that. They are not required to apply by October 31.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, if they don't (inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: They are required to continue to pay fifty dollars a year on their residential leases.

In regard to the extension, once the Cabinet has dealt with the information and the request that we will be putting forward to Cabinet to extend the payment period for cabin owners, we will be notifying hon. members opposite at that particular time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, during Notices of Motion, I neglected to give a motion. I wonder if I could have leave to revert to Notices of Motion?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to revert to Notices of Motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Packaging Material Act." (Bill No. 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I just want to draw hon. members' attention to Bill Nos. 3 and 4 that were passed in Committee last night and reported back to the House. In order to make sure that we have a clear record on this, and that the record is complete, I am going to ask the Clerk to read the bills for a third time.

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 Income Tax Act." (Bill No. 3)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act." (Bill No. 4)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 7. I believe we have agreed to do second reading and that we will move to Committee immediately after second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 7.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Safety Of The Public With Respect To The Use And Operation Of Elevating Devices, Amusement Rides, Pressure And Electrical Systems." (Bill No. 10)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the previous administration started a process of regulatory reform, and as part of that process the government decided to establish government service centres in which all of the inspection portions of government services would be done under this one roof. Mr. Speaker, the result of that accommodation is the repealing of a number of these acts into one which makes it much more reasonable for the government to deal with these types of inspections. This bill is basically the result of a number of acts being repealed into one because of the fact that we have gone to one department to administer all of the legislation in these particular acts. They are all being done now by the government service centres thereby not requiring a whole bunch of different acts in order to be able to inspect these types of establishments and mechanisms.

There will be a continuing effort to further consolidate other bills in the process as we move along into a government services department which will further lessen the requirements of a whole list of other acts being out there in different departments.

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

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

I have a few comments relative to the general intent of this particular bill. To facilitate matters, I may advise the minister that I may direct some questions to him which he may want to comment on at this stage in the proceedings. We have agreed, Mr. Speaker, together with the Government House Leader, that we will permit a ten-minute rotation if that is agreeable to all hon. members. In that way we will permit a number of speakers to be able to speak and we will not unduly delay the proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, are very conscious of the need for safety in all parts of our communities. Mr. Speaker, I just want to note that data which has been supplied to me from the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting Prevention Program tells me that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of all the accidents in this country could be prevented. In the data which has been supplied it indicates that if we were to have a real good prevention program we could have significant savings in our health care. For example, data supplied to me from sources within the hospital administration systems in Newfoundland and Labrador say that $220 million a year could be saved in this Province if we could cut down on the number of injuries and accidents. So, Mr. Speaker, we want to encourage the government to be always conscious of the need to protect our citizens and the need to make sure that we do all we can to reduce the number of the people who are injured, not only for their own personal benefit which is of course a priority but also because of the extensive cost it has in our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I still have a couple of things I wanted to direct the minister's attention to, in Section 3, on page 6 of the bill - if the minister is following there - when you mention there that the bill has application for, "the design, manufacture, construction, installation, operation and maintenance of," and you list out, "amusement rides; electrical systems; elevating devices; and pressure systems." I am wondering if you included here the chair lifts for example, that are at the various ski resorts? If that is included there under amusement rides? Maybe yes, maybe no. What are the regulations relative to the inspection, maintenance and the continued upkeep of chair lifts at the ski resorts and at other places where there might be elevating devices used? It is not specifically mentioned here but it might very well fall into that very same category.

In Section 4, again on page 6, it says, "Where, in the opinion of the chief inspector, exceptional circumstances exist making strict compliance with a regulation impractical, the chief inspector may grant an exception from compliance with that regulation in individual cases, so long as the exception is, in the opinion of the chief inspector consistent with safe practices." Now, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know what documentation there might be required of that for the exceptions? When exceptions are made, where is the documentation filed? We know who makes the decision, is there public knowledge of those exceptions? For example, on amusement rides if there is an exception made, with the device, is that posted somewhere in the area? Where would the people know and how would the people know that exceptions have been made whether it is to an elevator, an amusement ride or any other systems that are mentioned here? Where would the knowledge come from?

In Section 6, I want to direct the minister's attention to the fact that says, "The chief inspector for the purpose of carrying out his or her duties under this Act may require the production of and inspect drawings and specifications of a system or device." Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. minister when we use things like, `may require' and that's used twice in that particular section, I have misgivings about that because surely goodness when we are talking about electrical systems, elevating devices, pressure systems and amusement rides it should not say `may' because that becomes a loophole. We should be saying things like, `must require' or it is again absolutely needed because `may require' will give some cases, I am sure, the temptation to probably not enforce the regulation to the absolute limit. So I always get, shall we say, a little bit less than comfortable when I see things like `may require' and then. you can have all kinds of exceptions made to it.

In section No. 7, it says for the purpose of the validation of a certificate issued under this Act or the regulation, the chief inspector may order the inspection of or testing of or re-testing of a person or a system or a device; but what I don't see in the regulations here and I haven't given them the greatest of scrutiny but when we talk about the testing of a person, I was wondering what are the regulations talking here in terms of the testing of a person. Are we saying that we have to have set procedures for certification and that from time to time, a person who does not meet those procedures then that person will have to be re-tested? I am wondering what the regulations are, relative to the testing of a person. I can understand system or a device but to say the testing of a person, I want the minister to, if he could, when he rises again to comment on that particular part of it and tell us where the regulations exist for the testing of a person.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to refer as well to the fact that I see in section 19, on page 11, I would say to the minister, you have financial responsibility which basically says that a person is not entitled to a certificate relating to amusement ride under this Act until he or she has shown the chief inspector proof of financial responsibility.

I want to say to the minister: what will be the kind of documentation that will be put forward, is there a consistency in the kind of financial responsibility that you will be expecting from people when they own or operate these devices, and in that case, I want to particularly refer to the responsibility of amusement-ride operators going around the Province from place to place and that kind of thing.

So, Mr. Speaker, what is the role here of municipalities for example? Does a municipality have to show proof that they have adequate insurance or does the operator have to show the municipality proof that he has adequate insurance and that the insurance is up to date and that kind of thing; what are the particulars of the proof of financial responsibility, to whom do they have to show that and, does that include the municipality before they have the permit granted?

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, I would again ask the minister to reflect on these when he speaks to close this part of the debate and I think my hon. colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis has a few comments before we ask the minister to make his concluding statements.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few comments on this bill and ask a few questions of the minister as we go through the bill.

Basically, it is a housekeeping bill in my opinion and of course, anything that has to do with the safety of the people in this Province has to be taken very seriously and I believe the minister made, in his introduction of the bill, which was very short actually, I thought there would be more to the minister's comments because there are something like eighteen pages of this bill -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We can go over it word for word, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Now, seeing that he said that, I think I just might.

First Session, 43rd General Assembly, 45 Elizabeth II, 1996. BILL 10: An Act To Provide For The Safety Of The Public With Respect To The Use And Operation - I am reading it word for word now, I will be here - how much time do I have? ... word for word - You see, that is what you get for opening your big mouth. That is what you have when you open your big mouth, you put people on to get them upset and then they have to come back, so we will go word for word - received and -

MR. EFFORD: When you read, can you speak (Inaudible), shore?

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, that is something for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, to make a comment to someone about the way he speaks. Enough said, I will say nothing else on that topic because it only leads to people getting upset and some insults thrown back I would advise the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, not to make any comments about the way people speak in this House.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill No. 10, under section 3, the Member for Waterford Valley said a few words with respect to section 3. He addressed some of the concerns actually that I had. That is: "This Act applies to the design, manufacture, construction, installation, operation and maintenance of: (a) amusement rides; (b) electrical systems; (c) elevating devices; and (d) pressure systems."

With respect to the elevating devices, my colleague mentioned about chairs or lifts for ski resorts and what have you. I think that would come under elevating devices and not really amusement rides. I would imagine that those chair lifts are regularly inspected and if not they should be, of course. The minister can address that when he gets to his feet. With respect to the amusement rides I often wondered about these amusement circuses or whatever coming to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, well, they should be. They should go on a few of those fast slides downhill, I would say to the Member for Baie Verte. The amusement rides coming into the Province, Mr. Speaker. I've often wondered about the safety and the inspections and how often the inspections are done with respect to those amusement rides.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, if he is going to be asking questions don't ask a question when it is quite clearly what has been stated unless he wants to pay attention. He is out of order because he is not in his chair. He can stand and speak to this bill which I doubt if he will. He may.

MR. EFFORD: By the time you finish reading there will be no time for anybody else.

MR. J. BYRNE: Hopefully we won't have too much time for you. I'm sure this House is sick of listening to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

We are on second reading of a bill. I would suggest the hon. member stick to the second reading of the bill.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker - well, okay, I will accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section 4(2) says: "Where, in the opinion of the chief inspector, exceptional circumstances exist making strict compliance with a regulation impractical, the chief inspector may grant an exception from compliance...." Now again, the Member for Waterford Valley brought that up, the exact same point that I had highlighted here, that I think needs to be addressed. He referred to the documentation. Is any documentation required with respect to that section? I think that is a point that needs to be made and I think the minister should address it.

Under section 6 again I think my colleague the Member for Waterford Valley brought it up. The point seems to be, throughout this whole bill, and I had concerns with it, and he did address it, is that it says: "The chief inspector for the purpose of carrying out his or her duties under this Act may require the production of and inspect...." That is a problem. I have a problem with a number of sections here where the word "may" is used instead of the word "shall." That refers to drawings and inspections. I think the word "shall" should be included in most areas here where we have the word "may."

In section 7(2): "Where a certificate or a permit has been issued under this Act, the chief inspector may suspend or cancel the certificate or permit for just cause." If that is going to be open to interpretation, I suppose, what is just cause? Who will decide it? Is it going to be the minister? Is there any regulation set in place for what just cause will be, Mr. Minister?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will just move on. I will try to ignore the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, like most people in the Province do.

Mr. Speaker, section 8, which refers to shop inspection. That of course to me is just a clear statement that the government would be reacting responsibly in requesting that the inspector make shop inspections on boilers and what have you. That is only again acting responsibly and is a motherhood issue type of thing.

Section 8(2) again gets into: :...[T]he chief inspector may arrange for the shop inspection...." I don't think that word should be there. It should be: shall arrange for shop inspections.

Again under section 10 it says: "The chief inspector may require an owner, vendor, contractor, manufacturer or designer... to maintain a quality management system that meets the requirements that may be prescribed by regulation." The chief inspector shall, as far as I'm concerned, require (inaudible) maintain a quality management system. Again it goes on throughout the whole bill, that type of wording.

Under section 14: "Where an inspector is not satisfied with the design, construction, installation, testing, condition, operation, maintenance..." - it goes on and on - "the inspector may" - `may' -"order in writing that the system or device shall not be operated."

Again, if the system is not safe, it should be that it `shall' order in writing that the system or device shall not be operated.

I think that although the intention of this bill is good, it should be reworded to be a bit more forceful, a bit more authority given to the inspector in that he `may' - and I think it is too much open for interpretation with respect to this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: At least I am saying something.

Under section 15.(1): A person shall not use or operate a system or device in an unsafe manner or in a manner that does not comply with this Act or the regulations. (2) A person who has reasonable cause to believe that a system or device is unsafe... shall not use or operate it or permit it to be used or operated.

Here we have the word `shall' - shall not use or operate it or permit it to be used... The question I had here, it says: A person who has reasonable cause to believe that a system is unsafe.

Again, if we have an amusement ride, and a person in the public comes in and pays his fee and wants to use the system, and he believes that the system is unsafe, what steps does he take? He cannot close it down, I wouldn't say, so obviously there has to be something in place in these regulations where a person, if he feels it is unsafe, can approach an individual, an inspector or whoever is in charge, and say: I want that machine closed down because it is unsafe, and they should be required to do so.

Under section 18: A person shall not sell, construct, install, control or operate a system or device or supervise... This is with respect to the certificates. Again, it is a motherhood issue here, so I won't say too much on that.

Under section 25 it talks about appeal boards: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint an appeal board to make decisions regarding a person aggrieved by an action taken under this Act or regulation.

Again, I think an appeal board should be in place where a person who is aggrieved by actions taken under this act can approach the appeal board. I would imagine there is a standing appeal board in place, I would say to the minister, and I would like for him to address that. Section 26 again deals with the appeal board.

There are a few other items I will just address here now. Fees, under section 30: "An owner, operator or installation contractor of a system or device shall pay the fees, expenses, charges or levies that may be set by the minister, and, where the issue of a certificate, licence or permit requires the payment of a fee, the person requesting the certificate, licence or permit shall pay the fee set by the minister."

I don't know if we saw any increases in these fees with the new Budget that came down. I know there was a rack of fee increases, and I would like the minister to address that if he could, when he gets to his feet to conclude debate on this bill.

Under section 34: "For the purpose of carrying out this Act and the regulations, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may adopt by reference the whole or part of a published code, rule or standard recognized by the Standards Council of Canada..."

Again, it says, "the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may adopt" - and that deals with the approval of designs, the manufacturing, the construction, alteration, installation, the operation and the testing. To me, again, I think it `shall' adopt by reference the whole or part of the published code, the CSA standards.

The second-last one that I wanted to address was section 35: "An inspector or other officer is not personally liable for anything done or omitted to be done in the performance of his or her duties under this Act..."

Basically, what he is saying is that if a person is employed by the government and he or she goes out and does not do his or her job, or they omit something to be done, or they omit an inspection that is supposed to be done on a regular basis, and someone is injured, that person is not going to be held liable. I really don't know if that is just or not. I don't know if that is fair. I think it would take some of the responsibility away from the individual, or the inspector, or the person involved. So, to say if they omit to do something, Mr. Speaker, they will not be held responsible, is going a bit far. So I think the minister should address that and give the reasons or the logic behind that section, if you can. That is a very important point, I would say to the minister. Section 36(d) is with offenses and penalties and, of course, in any act, if they are violated, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I don't. How much time do I have? Do I have half an hour or not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Half an hour?

MR. J. BYRNE: At least.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I was going to get up only for three or four minutes. If you want to thank anybody for that, thank the Minister of Fisheries and ask him to keep his mouth closed and not be trying to irritate people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That's the second time this week, I say to the minister, that's the second time this week. I must be doing my job and I must be doing it well.

I am getting to the point - I was almost going to sit down. I only had one line left and now I have to start all over again, some of the sections I did not do.

This is a very serious matter. It deals with the safety of the people of this Province, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: And you loved it, right? Yes, sure you did.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old night crawler, is it, they call you, `John'?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, going around the grass with the flashlights, slithering around the grass with the flashlight down there, I know. Down on the White Hills was it? We heard about it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I would not lower myself to follow in your footsteps or in the tracks in the grass - and you know what else makes tracks in the grass?

With respect to Section 36, "A person is guilty of an offence..." There are two penalties here, Mr. Speaker, one is $50,000 for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, there are two points I want to make and that is the one with respect to the penalties, "...is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000...". If the offence is serious enough that it causes injury or is a potential to cause injury to the people of this Province, to tourists or visitors to this Province, there should be a fairly stiff penalty, I say to the Government House Leader. Of course, there is another fine of $5,000 for each day during which the offence occurs. So this can rack up a pretty big bill for people who do not follow or businesses who do not follow this act, Bill 10.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands that if he could - if he kept up with the statements and the concerns I had, I would like for him to address each and every one of those when he stands up to conclude the discussion on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Member for Kilbride, I would like to remind hon. members that we are in second reading of a bill. The rules of the House are very clear on this, that second reading of a bill is to debate the principle of the bill. The Committee part of the proceedings of this House provides for detailed analysis of the clause-by-clause study of each bill. I would request of hon. members, when they are in debate on second reading, that they stick to the principle of the bill. There is ample opportunity in debate, in Committee, for detailed analysis of each clause and it is in the Committee of the Whole House that we make amendments to the bills. So I remind hon. members that we are on second reading of a bill which is the principles of the bill. So it is a general discussion rather than a specific discussion on each clause of the bill.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I am not going to take up too much time. I just want to say that I support this legislation in principle. It consolidates a number of government acts into one act that will make it clearer for the public and those people who are involved in the details of the bill as outlined here. It will make it more clear for businesses and inspectors in terms of what their roles, responsibilities and duties are.

I say to the minister, this is part of government's overall regulatory reform. This is one piece of legislation that is emanating from that process, that ongoing process. As he indicated in his bill or in his opening remarks, it deals with government's approach to one-stop shopping in various areas and I think that the public has been well served by the concept of one-stop shopping. As we move forward to working out some of the bugs that with any change in terms of approach move on, in terms of approach, Mr. Speaker, on principle, one-stop shopping is good. It provides an opportunity for the public to move in, get what they need to get in terms of inspections, certificates, into one area, not deal with four or five different bureaucracies that really hold up, I guess, many initiatives by the general public, both from a private company point of view, corporate point of view, or from a private citizen's point of view.

I want to highlight, however, for the minister just a couple of sections that I think he and government should be concerned about. Certainly, on page 8 of the bill, dealing with inspection, section 13(1). It says: "An inspector may, for the purpose of this Act and at reasonable times on production of proof of appointment as an inspector...." In dealing with that it seems to me that the bill is saying that a government inspector going in to inspect, whether it be an elevator or elevating device, amusements rides, has to produce proof that he is an inspector - which is fine on the one hand, but it seems from reading the clause, that he has to make an appointment with any business or corporation or entity that this bill entitles to; that the chief inspector or inspector has to make an appointment to let them know that he is coming in to actually inspect their premises or the devices outlined in this bill.

The only concern I have with that is that in terms of operating devices, if there are devices that are not operating properly or according to the rules and regulations as set forth by government, why would an inspector of the Department of Government Services and Lands have to make an appointment to go in and do an inspection? I may be off, but that is how I am reading that section of the bill.

With respect to appointments of appeal boards, I would like the minister to provide some more detail, because his opening remarks were very brief. I would like him to provide some more detail dealing with the process of appeal boards. From what I understand, this act will eliminate appeal boards, probably four different appeal boards - I could be wrong - but this act will eliminate appeal boards emanating from four different act previous to this one, reduce it down to one appeal board. But I want to ask him, can he enlighten the House - I know, at Committee stage, we have an opportunity to get into debate on clause-by-clause of the bill, but I would like him to generally outline the process by which this appeal board either will be appointed or if it already has been appointed.

The only other section that I would like to deal with is the whole question of liability. Liability is very important. As we have seen in the Westray mine disaster in Nova Scotia, for example, the inspectors in that government, and that government department - certainly, while the judgement has not been rendered on that issue, it is clear that inspectors of government really did not necessarily do their job. The whole question of liability, who is responsible, enters into question.

While this is a housekeeping piece of legislation it is often times that the smallest details in government end up being some of the most important ones. When you are dealing with occupational health and safety, you are dealing with elevating devices, you are dealing with amusement rides which many children and adults use throughout the Province, and if the inspector is not liable, then who is? The minister, I think, has an obligation to answer that. It says here in section 35 that: "An inspector or other officer is not personally liable for anything done or omitted to be done in the performance of his or her duties under this Act or the regulations."

I think that what I would like - again, we will have a chance to debate that in the clause-by-clause stage of this piece of legislation. But I would like the minister to enlighten the House and members, and through the House the general public, on the whole notion of liability. Somebody has to be responsible for decisions made or not made. We have seen too many times in government where that has fallen down and the burden of proof lies on the victim rather than upon those who have been entrusted to make the correct decisions and who should be liable for the decisions. If officers or inspectors are employed by the Crown or by this Legislature or departments, then they should be liable. If there is any omission in the duties as set forth by this act, then liability must lie with those officers for that omission.

With that I will sit down again and just ask the minister if he can highlight those concerns, or deal with the concerns that I've raised certainly in a general fashion. I look forward to the clause-by-clause debate on this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Before I recognize you, I would like to welcome to the public galleries this morning, nineteen students from Grades IV to VI, from Leading Tickles Elementary in the District of Exploits, accompanied by their teacher Dennis Simms, Wayne Emiry and their bus driver, Wayne Parson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to say a very few, brief words. I see the Opposition House Leader looking over his glasses at me and wondering why I rose up but there are a couple of concerns that I would like to bring to the minister's attention on this particular bill and now is the chance to do it I guess on this second reading.

First of all, it is a good piece of legislation I say to the minister. When this government decided to do away with electrical inspections and boiler-pressure vessel inspections, I was the first one who raised a lot of concerns about it because that has been my background and I know some of the things that can happen. I know that most of the time, when you are involved in any occupation, in any business, Mr. Speaker, the thing that drives that particular business is profits, and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, people have been known to take short cuts and do things to create a larger profit margin and not considering the safety aspects of that particular job and as you know and I know, that when you hear of house fires and other industrial fires today, minister, most of them are electrical related, and that gave me great concern.

I understand that it is working well and it is not new today because this system now has been in effect for some time, and there is no reason why responsible people cannot go out and work responsibly and I suppose if you would be responsible for the safety and the operation of whatever it is that they perform, but one thing that bothers me, and I have heard it said many times - and this is the only issue that I will raise and I don't even know if it is covered under this piece of legislation - is the filling of pressurized oxygen tanks. I would imagine that it is.

A lot of places today, especially fire departments are getting in to filling their own oxygen tanks. I don't think it is a problem, it doesn't appear to be a problem with fire departments as those people seem to be very safety conscious if you would, and they make sure that what goes into the tanks are good and the filters are clean and that they are only pressurized up to a limit that they are capable of holding. However, the one thing that has come to my attention and many of the people who fill those particular tanks are the sports divers, the sport that has become very popular today.

I understand from talking to some people that it is not uncommon for some people to want those tanks filled to much higher pressure than they are capable of filling so that they can get the maximum length of time when they participate in this particular sport, and if it is, Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder about the safety instructions that some of those people have received as it relates to what can happen with those particular tanks should they be overfilled or over-pressurized. That is the one issue that I would like to bring forward, and if it is something that falls under this piece of regulation, I think the minister should be cognizant of that.

Mr. Speaker, as well, when we take away something, if it works very well then it seems like we always want to take away a little bit more and a little bit more, so even though inspections in the electrical and in the boiler pressure trades are not what they used to be, we still have inspections and so we should. I don't think that we should allow the whole thing to be opened up and not have inspections and leave it to the discretion of the owners or the contractors. That is the other thing that I would caution the minister about and that is, not to relinquish inspections altogether; make sure that we maintain some form of responsibility where, people must have inspections whether it is on a continuous basis or whether it is a situation where it is only spot checking; at least then, people will know when they perform those duties that there will be an inspection done, they will be held accountable and maybe, their own contracting ability or their own licences if you would, will depend on that. So as long as the minister is cognizant of those couple of items, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and allow the minister to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate on this bill, I would say to the hon. House that the prime intent of this bill is to insure that public safety is met to its maximum and by consolidating all of the Bills that are out there, we certainly are trying to insure that this will be the actual fact that happen's at the end of the process.

In response to a few of the questions that were asked by the members opposite. Under Section 3, I would certainly indicate to the hon. members that all forms of amusement rides and ski lifts would be either included in the elevating devices or amusement rides. Under one or the other we would ensure that these are inspected, that would be simply the case.

Under number 5 and number 6, in indicating that you should use the word shall instead of may, in some areas may is a better term simply because if you use the word shall you would require that drawings and specifications be hauled out on every inspection and in a lot of cases it is not necessary because the inspectors are very well educated in that particular process.

In terms of the electrical inspections, certainly it is a requirement that we have been studying, as the member from Bonavista South indicated these inspection processes were changed just a few years ago, but I would like to ensure him that we will and we are always reviewing that process to ensure that we are doing the required inspections. We may need to, in fact, increase the number of inspections if we find that there is becoming a problem because of the numbers that we have indicated now are not sufficient. Mr. Speaker, we would certainly be ensuring that this is done and if the member opposite has some expertise in that particular field, we would certainly welcome his input into identifying for us as to whether or not these inspection levels now are sufficient in that regard.

With respect to the appeals boards, once that legislation is repealed then obviously everything within that piece of legislation is repealed with it. What would happen is when the new act is in place then naturally sufficient appeals boards will be put in place to replace the ones that were under the other legislations if that is so required.

But, in summing it up, I certainly duly note the concerns raised by the members opposite. I have marked those, I have indicated those and I am sure that they will come up for discussion in Committee debate as well.

I would like to say in closing that this Bill, we feel is a good piece of legislation in terms that it provides for government the maximum amount of public safety that we can attest to in terms of the legislative requirement under inspections and alike with the government service centres which has the responsibility to carry out the legislative requirement under this particular Bill.

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Safety Of The Public With Respect To The Use And Operation Of Elevating Devices, Amusement Rides, Pressure And Electrical Systems" read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House now. (Bill No. 10).

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

Motion, that the committee report having passed the bill, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is back; Order No. 2.

CHAIR: Bill 9; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, since introducing this piece of legislation into the House of Assembly, and reviewing it, and listening to public consultation on this, and still listening to the reviews of fishermen, we realize there are a couple of things that we wanted to change in the bill because of the demands that are going to be put on once it passes through the House of Assembly. I want to introduce a couple of amendments this morning and give just a brief explanation as to why the amendments are being introduced. I will give an explanation after I read the amendments.

Bill 9, Professional Fish Harvesters Act, paragraph 5.(d) of the bill is amended by striking out the words `environment and labour relations', and by substituting the word `education'.

Number two in Bill 9 is further amended by renumbering the clauses of it as required by adding immediately after clause 18, the following: appeal panels.

Clause 19.(1): For the period of eighteen months from the date that this Act comes into force, this section applies to an appeal from a decision of the board with respect to a refusal to certify a person, or with respect to a certification that is given by the board, notwithstanding sections 14 to 18.

(2): The minister may appoint two or more appeal panels consisting of three members, two of whom shall be professional fish harvesters who are not members of the board, chosen from a list provided by the fish harvesters organizations.

(3): The third member of the panel shall not be professional fish harvester and shall serve as the chairperson.

(4): An appeal panel shall only have jurisdiction to hear appeals from persons resident in the part of the Province of which the minister makes the panel responsible.

Clause (5), sections 14, 16 and 17 apply to an appeal to the panel as if the appeal were being made to the board and to a panel as if the panel were the board.

Clause (6): An appeal lies to the appeal board from a decision of an appeal panel, sections 14, 16, 17 and 18, applied as if the appeal had been won from a decision of the main board.

Section (7): This section shall have no effect eighteen months from the date that this Act comes into force.

Number three, subclause 21.(1), formerly 20.(1) is amended by striking out the words `Code of Professional Conduct', and by substituting the words `Code of Ethics'.

Mr. Chairman, except for the changing in the wording of education, not by department, and in this case the code of professional conduct, code of ethics, which is routine, the reason for bringing in the amendment on the appeals - because in the initial bill there was one appeal mechanism set up for the whole Province. We feel, with the introduction of this new piece of legislation, in the first eighteen months there is going to be a heavy demand on the board to hear appeals on behalf of fishermen, so we have decided that we will set up a number of appeal boards in different regions of the Province so we can allow and give the people who have appeals, allow them to be heard in an efficient manner. After eighteen months we feel that the number of appeals that are going to be on the demand of the board will not be as great, therefore we revert back to one board. So it is just for the eighteen month period the regional will be set up around the Province and that's the reason for introducing these amendments in the House this morning.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just stand to rise for clarification to the amendments that the minister had distributed this morning here in the House, Bill 9, the professionalization of fish harvesters. I say to the minister, it is a good idea because there is no doubt that once this starts to come into force and with the number of fishers out there you are certainly going to have a busy schedule. I ask the minister, if the final board or if a board is going to be allowed to exist after the eighteen months, is going to be put in place right from the beginning or are we going to just see three or four regional boards with the final board put in place after? Maybe he can just respond to that one?

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, for the members information the main board will be put in place and the regional appeal boards will be put in place as a body of the part of the main board. We have to keep the main board. The main board has to be put in place for the reason that we have to have a consistency of a decision. We cannot have appeal boards going around the Province making decisions depending on the region which they are in and the circumstances. So the decision has to be consistent and in order for the decision to be consistent we have to have the main board in place. So the main board will be set up immediately and then the appeals board will grow from that and they will report back to the main body.

MR. FITZGERALD: That's the concern that I detected in reading this. So if I understand the minister correctly, there will be several boards in regional areas. People will go and appear before the board but the original board or the existing board will be the board that makes the final decision. They will report back to that board and then you will not have somebody in Bonavista dealing with a particular board and somebody up in Baie Verte dealing with somebody else on similar circumstances having a different answer.

MR. EFFORD: Exactly.

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry as amended? The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, clause 5 says, "The board shall consist of 15 member appointed by the minister." Now that gives me some concern when I hear this minister appointing anybody to any board. I am wondering if the minister will take into consideration or will accept the decisions that are passed on by the people who are going to be putting forward their suggestions on who serves on that board. Number one, the question I am asking is who is the minister going to call on for suggestions as to who will be on the board? Will he be calling on the representatives of the fish harvesters and the FFAW? Will he be calling on HRD? Will he be calling on the Co-Op to submit their proposals? Will the minister appoint the people that have been directed to serve on the board or will he do it in his usual, political, partisan way and appoint people of his choice? I have great concerns when this minister is allowed to be part of any structure that might affect anybody's lives out there in rural Newfoundland today. You would do a good job, I say to the House Leader.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, since 1989 my five-and-a-half, almost six years as a minister, I have done what is reasonable and what is fair in the best interest of the Province. The people that I will appoint on the board, I will have full consultation but at the end of the day I will have the confidence in the people that I appoint, they will be very knowledgeable and capable people. We know who those people are in the Province, the capable Newfoundlanders we depend upon for day-to-day advice.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 5 as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 6 through 18 carry?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, section 13(3): "The board shall renew the certification annually of a professional fish harvester who pays the fee that the board may set and who continues to meet the criteria for certification."

Obviously, it is quite clear according to that, that the board will set the fee. I ask the minister if he would probably inform the House if he is giving any thought or if anybody is giving any thought to what this particular fee might be. Because I understand that it is a user-pay fee, if you would. The fees that they pay for certification are going to be paying for the executive director and for the travel of the board, and other things that have to be done in order to give it accreditation. Does the minister have any idea what the fishermen out there today can expect as a certification fee?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the fee that will be put in place will be in line with the cost of the licencing fee now that they personally pay to DFO. I will not, as minister, make the determination today or make the final decision on what the fee will be. The fee will be the decision of the certification board once it is put in place. It will be in line with the cost of registration. Because this fee will be, the fee that is now being paid, the amount that is now being paid to DFO, so there won't be two fees. They won't be paying a DFO licencing fee. They will be then paying that fee to the certification board. That is the change. So we will be accepting the monies. There will be no monies paid to DFO.

On motion, clauses 6 through 18, carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 19 as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 20 carry?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, clause 20(5): "The board may, where it determines that the disciplinary proceeding against the professional fish harvester is substantiated, take disciplinary measures that the board considers appropriate, including...," and it goes on to list several there - including: "(e) impose upon the professional fish harvester a monetary penalty not to exceed $10,000...."

Just for a point of clarification, I don't know what this means. I wonder if the minister will explain that. Is this going to be a situation where a fisher or a professional fisher goes out and defies DFO rules and regulations and will now be charged by DFO, and will also be charged by the disciplinary board, this part of this professionalization of fish harvesters? Or is it a situation now where the professionalization of fish harvesters disciplinary board will be taking over some responsibility from DFO? Or does it only go against the criteria that is going to be brought forward by this board as it relates to the professional conduct of fishermen? I'm not so sure what to read into that and I wonder if the minister would give me some clarification.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of setting up a certification of professionalization of any industry, in particular the fishing industry, is to ensure that the people involved in the industry act within a professional manner by a conduct and by which the standards of that certification process is set up.

If a fish harvester does not follow the professional act, then he or she comes under a - (inaudible) breaking a rule, or not following according to the certification of professionalization act, would be subjected to a fine that would be laid down by the certification board. What if - the federal DFO, if there are rules broken outside or a penalty imposed on the laws set down by the Federal Government or the Government of Canada in relation to quotas or something else would be dealt with by DFO, but within the professional act, the professional conduct of the board, they could be subjected to fines up to $10,000.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, is the minister saying that there may be duplication here of fines being imposed? If I am a lobster catcher and I go out and decide that I am going to take a meal of small lobsters home to cook for myself, and I am caught and charged, am I going to be charged now by DFO and also have to pay a fine because I go against the conduct of the professionalization fisheries rules and regulations?

MR. EFFORD: The hon. member is talking about two different things here. You are talking about number one, breaking the law, the laws of Canada set down by DFO. The thing that we are dealing with here in the professionalization of fishermen is that we are dealing with people acting in a professional manner and it is two different things. If you are part of a professionalization of a group and you do not follow according to the way in which this act is written, you do something not in the professional manner, but if you go out and break a law in something that is not overlapping or duplicating, you cannot break a law, the laws of the land - because you are in the certification board does not give you the right to go out there and break laws and only be subjected to - according to the certification act, it is two different things.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am still not clarified. I realize it does not give me the right to go out and break the law and then come back and just deal with my own group. The question I ask is: If I do break the law, am I going to have to deal with the two groups? Because, on one hand, I am breaking the laws, the rules and the regulations of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, on the other hand, I am not being professional about the profession that I am involved in and maintain the code of ethics that they have put forth and accepted. So, is it going to be a situation that if I am charged in one court, then I am called before the bar of the certification board, the appeals board, and they say, Because you have done that, now we are also going to charge you, so you pay one fine and then you have to go and probably pay another fine to the professionalization fisheries board.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this act is to get people to ensure that people in the industry are going to respect the industry and act in a professional manner. If an individual, if a fish harvester goes out and fishes against the laws of Canada set down by DFO, then he or she is subjected to the law, acted upon by the courts. But then the board can make a decision to reject that individual or take away that individual's right to continue on as a professional fisherman. In other words, if you are going to be professional, you are going to follow the rules set down by the legislation, or you are not, and if you go out and you are not acting in a professional manner, then that board has the right to take away your right to be, but you can appeal it.

MR. FITZGERALD: They can do that?

MR. EFFORD: They can do, yes. Set out on page 14, section 1: The board may, where it determines that the disciplinary proceeding against the professional fish harvester is sustained, take disciplinary measures that the board considers appropriate including,

(a) suspend the certification of the professional fish harvester for the period the board considers appropriate;

(b) cancel the certification of the professional fish harvester permanently;

(c) impose upon the professional fish harvester a monetary penalty not to exceed $10,000;

(d) impose those other conditions or limitations that the board considers appropriate.

So, there is a number of things that the board has the power to do if it is found that a professional fish harvester is not acting in the manner according to that set down by the board.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 21 as amended, carried.

"An Act To Establish The Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board And To Provide For The Certification Of Professional Fish Harvesters", (Bill No. 9).

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

CHAIR: Motion 1, Bill No. 14.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill No 14 - again, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is out today but this is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation. It is a bill that will authorize the government essentially to raise $150 million by way of borrowing for the purpose of the consolidated revenue fund.

The essence of the bill, Mr. Chairman, is to give the government authority to borrow money to, in essence, carry on with its day-to-day business operations in terms of running the Province. Most of the members of the House would know, of course, that even though we don't have a large borrowing program on current account this year, there is always a necessity to go on borrowing money to refinance, in essence, existing debt, and government needs and must have the capacity to borrow, to roll over debt that it can't liquidate, that exists on its books, and in some instances, to take advantage of maturing debt when we can find borrowings to replace existing debt with a better interest rate than we are now currently paying. So, for these reasons, Bill 14 is before us and, as I said, it is very straightforward, it is rather routine and housekeeping, and I would move that we debate this and get through it today if we can.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the bill and agree with the minister that the intent is straightforward and that the process is standard procedure for any government, be it provincial, federal or municipal.

It is merely the matter of consolidating the capital monies that are required and, of course, when certain funds become due. However, Mr. Chairman, we do have great concerns that with the general finances of the Province - and this morning, in Question Period and after Question Period, there were comments that were made, and in particular, with the petition section of the agenda today, talking about the Kindergarten programs in this Province, and the statements made by my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, in response to the plea of the Kindergarten teachers in his district and the parents.

I find, Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that we would be talking here about raising $150 million to consolidate the revenues of the Province and to do extra borrowings, and while we understand the purpose of that, we still have great concerns that, $1 million of money could not be found to bring in the new Kindergarten program.

It has been piloted, it has been under discussion for some years in fact, so much concern was expressed by the former Minister of Education, that at one point, he rose in the House and said he was going to bring in this new, full-day Kindergarten program. And under questioning, he said there was no big deal to be made of the fact that they had not had a solid curriculum in place, because he knew that in New Brunswick he could find a Kindergarten program already in existence and they could just bring it over here and transplant it and put it in the schools. He didn't quite realize that there was a little bit more to it than that, but that was the response he gave to a question that I asked a few years ago.

The government was moving full speed ahead. They were going to really focus on early childhood education and we regret to note that when push came to shove, and when we had to do something about early childhood education, that the children, the very youngest children find that their programs were sacrificed. So I find it very difficult to be able to stand and support any initiative of a government that, by its own statements, has sacrificed, in its budgetary process, the fundamental needs of the youngest children in our society. It is very regrettable, as the member said earlier today, that we have a kindergarten program which, somebody said seventeen years, somebody said nineteen years - it seems as if it was so long ago that people have not even got the documentation right as to when it was actually implemented.

We have a program now, a new program. It has been piloted and there have been good responses to it. Many teachers have gone out of their way, through their fund-raising programs in the schools, to be able to bring in supplementary materials and to have this program ready. Certainly, as a former educator myself, and as many more people here in the Legislature are educators, they know the importance of early childhood education. I would remind members that if we don't get a good solid foundation when we are at the very earliest of our years it will have an effect upon our whole life.

For example, Dr. Julia O'Sullivan, who was one of the leading researchers in this Province and is on the faculty at Memorial University, has said that the optimum time for intervention - and this is the latest research - to correct and identify learning difficulties is between the ages of eighteen months and thirty-six months. Now, Mr. Chairman, these children are not even in school at that time. What the latest research is saying is, if you are going to have the optimum opportunity to be able to identify, be able to correct learning difficulties, it is occurring between eighteen months of age and thirty-six months. So, Mr. Chairman, when we see a government that is not willing to keep within the expenditures $1 million for a solidly based program for Kindergarten, we wonder where their priorities lie.

Mr. Chairman, we could continue. I know one of my colleagues here wants to have a few words on this as well. We certainly would want to remind the government that when it is establishing its spending programs that they keep in mind the comments that we have made here, particularly as it relates to all of the Budget debate that we have had. We spent seventy-five hours on the motions in Supply and we have spent the maximum time allowable in the Budget debate. I don't have the exact hours but it certainly has been a significant amount of time.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot support this because of these decisions that have been made by the government to affect young children, not to mention, of course, all of the other health care cuts, social services cuts and all these kinds of measures. So we cannot support this particular measure on this side, as much as we recognize the need for the government to consolidate its revenues. The principles of the bill are okay but decisions made by the government, we find are not in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the Province the sum of $150,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew or refund securities issued under an Act of the province or that may be paid into the Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province." (Bill No. 14)

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

MR. TULK: Motion 2, Bill No. 5.

CHAIR: Motion 2, Bill No. 5.

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations."

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill No. 5, "An Act To Amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957," is again essentially a routine piece of legislation in a sense. It is a little more detailed in terms of the content than the previous bill, but it is no more complicated or expansive in terms of what it is actually doing.

The members of the House would know, of course, that from time to time government is involved in either providing direct loans to private industry for whatever purpose. In some cases we do not provide direct funding, but we do provide support in terms of loan guarantees. That is not something new, of course; it is an historical thing that has been done by governments over many, many years.

This bill comes forward at this time to allow government to be able to extend some existing guarantees that have been in place for awhile as they exist, to adjust the limits of some guarantees that are in place; but there are no new guarantees being contemplated in this bill in terms of adding -

AN HON. MEMBER: Increasing.

MR. MATTHEWS: Increasing. No, there are no new guarantees in this bill that bring new guarantees into the government's portfolio. In other words, all of the companies and/or organizations that are cited in this bill are presently doing business and have received, in the past, some level of government support.

Some guarantees that government provide are time-limited, of course, and they have to come back to the Legislature to be extended, and that is also part of what this bill does.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is necessary for me to go over all of the effects that this bill will have, because it is outlined quite clearly. There are guarantees currently existing for the Marble Mountain Development Corporation. There are guarantees in place at the moment - I am sorry?

MR. E. BYRNE: Could you go through it clause by clause very quickly?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, yes, I could if you wanted me to.

MR. E. BYRNE: It may take a bit more time on your end, but it may -

MR. MATTHEWS: Cut down on your end?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, I will attempt to do that for the hon. Member for Kilbride. I am not suggesting that I know a lot more about it than you would know yourself, but I will certainly go through it for you.

There is a loan guarantee that currently exists for the Marble Mountain Development Corporation in the amount of $1,813,000. That guarantee was given to enable them last year to buy a high speed detachable quad chair-lift. That has essentially taken place.

There is a guarantee in place at the moment - I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: There is a guarantee in place for the Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Limited. There is a significant guarantee in place for the Marystown Shipyard, under the corporate structure of Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited, and that guarantee is being adjusted in terms of levels and extension in this particular bill.

There is an additional guarantee to a very successful operation in Central Newfoundland, A.L. Suckless and Sons Limited, who have been for many years involved in the wood harvesting and processing sector, sawmilling and that sort of thing, and government wishes to continue to lend its support for that, I would say, one of the most successful operations in terms of the private sector being involved in the harvesting and milling of wood products, sawmilling, and that sort of thing.

There is also a loan guarantee that has previously been in existence for Smith Seafoods Limited; we are dealing with that one here. In addition to that, there is to be the extension given to a loan guarantee that is in place for Earle Brothers Fisheries and for the Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra. In some of these cases you will notice that the loan guarantee, while it continues, is being in some cases reduced. That is one instance where the guarantee is being reduced somewhat.

Mr. Chair, there are some other aspects to the Bill beyond the ones which I have just mentioned. There is a loan guarantee that has been in place for quiet a while for the Hotel Buildings Limited and that one continues at a different level than the current one. I do not think I need to say any more about them because, as I say, the notes in the bill are quite self-explanatory as to whether we are dealing with an extension of current guarantees and whether or not these extensions are involving either an increase or decrease in the amount of funding that will be so guaranteed under the bills. Once the members on the opposite side speak to the bill, if there is any question that arises that need further clarification I would be happy to undertake to do so before we rise this morning.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you Mr. Chair.

I just want to rise for a few moments, again to note the explanations given by the hon. minister and to say to the minister that we on this side have some general concerns about the Province's general finances. I do understand and appreciate the fact that there are no new monies allocated here. We do have some concerns about the Marble Mountain Development Corporation, the amount that is there, the fact that the loan guarantee has no expiry date and the fact that it simply does not have any time limit to it. So, we wondered on that particular matter why that loan guarantee to Marble Mountain would have no expiry date. It is to the amount of $1.83 million. Mr. Chair, maybe the minister, when he replies, could indicate that.

I do believe that my colleague here, who was previously engaged in some discussion with the hon. Minister of Tourism, is now ready to have some comments on this particular matter as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I wonder if I can get the attention of the Minister of Health for just a moment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to get your attention just for a moment. I have a couple of questions dealing with the loan guarantee, with this act.

Item 1, Marble Mountain Development Corporation, Order-in-Council 221-'95 authorized a loan guarantee for Marble Mountain Development Corporation -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The authorization, ...to enable it to acquire a high speed...

Basically what the minister has indicated is that is just an extension to what has been approved; is that what you are telling me?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Right.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: So government is only extending that loan guarantee; is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, we are extending it without (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is there some reason that it is being extended without an expiry date? Does it involve maybe the tendering process, or is there some problem with supply of the equipment that is necessary?

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chair, to be quite honest, I am not sure whether that is here - I think the reason that may be here, and I have to get clarification when the Minister of Finance returns, it could be that guarantee is now a time specific guarantee with an expiry date, and in order to extend it and legitimize it, we are moving forward now to do that because the time has expired and it is now going forward without a specific time limit on it.

Most of the guarantees you will see here, and most of the loan guarantees that I have been dealing with in my experience at Treasury Board, have been in the context of one-year guarantees, and this is why we have to keep coming back to the House with some of these that you see here today. I believe the issue here may be that it is a time-limited guarantee now that we have to extend, and we will be extending it on the basis of a non-fixed expiry date as it is indicated here. I believe that is the explanation, but I would be happy to undertake with the minister when he gets back to affirm that.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is just a point of interest more than anything, so if you can -

With respect to clause 7, I would like to ask the minister as well - it says: The Schedule to the Act is further amended by amending Item 1 - Hotel Buildings Limited -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that?

MR. E. BYRNE: Clause 7, I believe.

...the Act is further amended by amending Item 1 - Hotel Buildings Limited - as enacted by chapter 9 of 1995 by striking out the statutory amount of "$500,000" and by substituting the statutory amount of "$1,500,000".

Who are Hotel Buildings Ltd, and what is the reason for the increase in terms of the loan guarantee?

MR. MATTHEWS: Again, Mr. Chairman, at the risk of not being able to speak with absolute certainty, the answer to the first question: Hotel Buildings Ltd., to my recollection, that is the company that held or owned the hotels that were in the Province, the Holiday Inns if you like, and as you know, the Province has divested itself of these hotels or most of them, and I believe what we are doing here is facilitating that divestiture; but why we would need to go from $500,000 to $1,500,000, I don't think it involves any extra borrowing, I think it means facilitating the purchase arrangements that we are entering into with the new purchaser.

It is my understanding that once the total divestiture has taken place with these hotels, that in effect, we would be out of the business of needing to provide any guarantees whatsoever to Hotel Buildings Ltd.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, maybe it is me, but I am still at a loss. We have divested ourselves by selling the Holiday Inns mostly to Fortis and another private group, one of the inns; and I am really unsure why an increase in a loan guarantee of $1 million would be necessary to facilitate - there is probably a very legitimate explanation in terms of why we would need to increase to a private company or to increase our guarantee by a million dollars when we have already divested ourselves of the Holiday Inns. The minister has said that this probably has something to do with facilitating that divestiture. It is still unclear to me why government, why the Crown, on behalf of people in divesting itself of an asset like the Holiday Inns, would have to increase its guarantee from $500,000 to $1.5 million when we are dealing with a company like Fortis or any other private individual, it just doesn't make sense.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with the hon. member's proposition that it seems inconsistent that we would be divesting on the one hand and increasing a loan guarantee on the other hand; and in the absence of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and the first alternate minister, not that he might know any more -

MR. E. BYRNE: Or any less.

MR. MATTHEWS: - but I have asked the officials at the table to check with the officials in the Department of Finance for me as quickly as he can - and he has gone out to do so now - as to exactly what this extension or revision in amount means, whether or not it is something that is a technicality to facilitate the purchasing and there needs to be a bumped up guarantee for an interim period of time, I don't know. But let me get the information and I will provide it to the hon. member as soon as the official returns or the official from finance comes over to speak to me. I apologize for not having that information available to me but the fact of the matter is that I don't, and I have no difficulty in saying that, but I will get it for you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Clause 2 of the bill which would amend the scheduled act, as enacted by chapter 31 of 1987 dealing with Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited to $38,800,000; another increase to $55 million; further increase to $57,400,000 and then again to $62,400,000. Would the minister be able to give some more detail? I know it is Marystown but would the minister be able to give some more detail as to why the increases, in terms of the schedule of increases to loan guarantees? Does this deal with the recent announcements on Marystown or does it not? I don't think it does. That is the recent announcement of $5 million plus the performance bond that were requested in order for Marystown to get access to that large contract that we are after. So does this reflect the recent announcement? If it does not can he explain what the increases are for? If it is not reflected in the bill, what does the new announcement actually mean to this piece of legislation? Would we need to amend it again, for example?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Marystown Shipyard, which is what Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited really represents, has been in existence for twenty-five years, I believe, and during that period of time they have been unfortunately, continuously losing money and accumulating debt that the Province has had to either support by way of guarantees or actually directly fund.

The changing of these figures reflects the level of increase that government has had to provide in terms of a guarantee support to the Marystown Shipyard over the past year or two since last we had to visit or revisit this issue. The matter of bringing the guarantee up to $62 million covers only the guarantees that Cabinet has approved up to now. It does not include anything that we might have to put in as a result of the announcement this week. This week's announcement, I believe the Premier indicated, would cause us to be infusing by way of a guarantee at least another $4.7 maybe $5 million to the operation of Marystown. That commitment has been given, of course, on the basis of a do-or-die proposition in terms of trying to reduce expenditures and create new efficiencies at the yard based on the announcement that was made. I believe the union president, Mr. Butler, indicated quite clearly that he does not ever expect again or does he ever hope to have to again, come back to government and look for additional support once they have gone through this restructuring and efficiency-finding exercise.

To answer the question directly, the $62 million takes us to where we are today in terms of commitment in guarantees. It does not take us beyond where we have already been, and anything that we will have or might have to put into the operation of Marystown on a go forward basis as a result of this weeks announcement would be in addition to what is reflected here in this bill.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not want to be misconstrued, I just want to be clear, because we are dealing with significant amounts of money in terms of our commitment to Marystown Shipyard, as a Province. I just wanted to be clear, and the reason I asked the question in terms of what government's announcement today - we do not really need to come back and amend this piece of legislation. Basically, it is just a further extension for a specific contract that we are really going after as a Province. That would be a fair assessment, I guess. I am going to just sit down for a moment, Mr. Chairman, because I believe one of the Clerks at the Table are giving the minister an answer to a question I asked a few moments ago. I will just wait to hear his response.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, if I can, at this point, take the liberty of going back to answer your question regarding the Newfoundland Buildings Limited, the guarantee increase from $500,000 to $1.5 million.

What this actually represents, Mr. Chairman, is expenditures of funds in the past that had to be undertaken by Hotel Buildings Limited to bring the hotels, I believe, in St. John's and Gander up to an operational standard that made it possible for us to go to the market and sell it. Simply put, the Holiday Inns in St. John's and Gander needed substantial retrofitting in terms of ventilation and some other things in the past and we had to increase our loan guarantee in order to do that work. This is to legitimize what has been done in the past. What has happened since this, is that we have sold these hotels -

MR. E. BYRNE: What did we get for them? What was the price?

MR. MATTHEWS: I think we got somewhere between $5 million and $6 million, if my recollection serves me right. They all went at one time. Fortis bought some of them. I am just trying to think now. Fortis bought them all except the one in Port aux Basques. The one in Port aux Basques I believe we divested to a separate operator. But this really legitimizes the money that was borrowed and spent to do upgrading on the hotels that have since been sold and we have been paid and the money is back. I gather that this guarantee is now just to legalize and legitimize the money spent. We have spent the money, we have sold the hotels, we got our $5.5 million back, so, in essence, that to me translates into us having paid off the $1.5 million that was owed. The rest went into the general revenues of the Province.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we have really done is politically cover ourselves here to ensure that that divestiture has taken place, legally cover ourselves to ensure that monies that were spent on the hotels to upgrade or refurbish, as he said - to make them more marketable, I think he said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Very good. Those are all the questions I have on this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I move that the Committee rise and report substantial progress on those bills, and report that we have done a great morning's work and passed several bills.

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report having passed Bill No. 10 without amendment, and Bill No. 9 with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time.

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 Provide For The Safety Of The Public With Respect To The Use And Operation Of Elevating Devices, Amusement Rides, Pressure And Electrical Systems". (Bill No. 10)

A bill, "An Act To Establish The Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board And To Provide For The Certification Of Professional Fish Harvesters". (Bill No. 9).

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted resolutions Nos. 14 and 5, recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit again.

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the Province the sum of $150,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew or refund securities issued under an Act of the Province or that may be paid into the Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund."

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Authorize the Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province," read first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 14)

MR. TULK: Bill No. 5.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 5, as well.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 5)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that we stop the clock. We have agreed to that already.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

MR. TULK: By leave, I would move first reading on Bill Nos. 18 and 17.

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Packaging Material Act." (Bill No. 17)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill No. 18)

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

DR. GIBBONS: With the pleasure of members of the House, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully while we may still have a few of our media friends listening, I would like to do a little promotion for next week. We have the Twelfth Annual Oil and Gas Show on next week, starting on Monday; the Newfoundland Ocean Industry Association's Twelfth Annual Show, Monday and Tuesday at the Delta Hotel for a great conference to get an update on everything that is happening in Eastern Canada. It includes the Grand Banks, Newfoundland; West Coast Newfoundland and Offshore Nova Scotia, and a great lineup of speakers from industry; and at the Stadium, from Tuesday until Thursday, one of the biggest trade shows we have had probably in the last five years or so, with a great turn out.

I would encourage people to try to make time on their agenda next week to attend and I would like to inform them that our colleague, the first alternate minister for Industry, the Minister of Environment and Labour, Mr. Aylward, is arranging some passes so some of us can get to the trade show, I think, and maybe invitations to the reception that is on Monday night from six to nine at the Delta. Come down and learn about oil and gas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I would like to just say to the acting Opposition House Leader, the Member for Baie Verte, that we are not exactly sure what we are going to be calling on Monday but I will certainly let him know on Monday morning. I want to thank him for his co-operation and tell him that Her Majesty is very grateful for the few dollars he has given her in the last two or three days.

I move that the House adjourn until Monday, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until Monday, June 17, at 2:00 p.m.