May 15, 1997              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLIII  No. 26

 


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today, twenty Law and Democracy students from St. Michael's High School in Grand Falls - Windsor, along with their teachers, Edgar Power and Madonna Sparkes. As well, we have in the gallery today, fifteen participants from Youth Services Canada in conjunction with the New Perlican Water Protection Program in the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde, along with their co-ordinators, Ms Gwen Mahaney and Mrs. Betty Tuck, and work term student, Ms Jackie Cole.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a former member of this House, the late Greg Power, who passed away early this morning at the age of eighty-eight. The former MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's, Mr. Power held several portfolios in the Smallwood Administration, including Minister of Finance and Minister of Highways.

Perhaps better known as a leading supporter of Confederation during the national convention, Mr. Power was one of former Premier Smallwood's closest associates through the 1950s. As an avid writer, Mr. Power's pro-confederate efforts found a home in numerous Letters to the Editor in The Evening Telegram, clearly proclaiming Confederation as the best solution to the Province's social and economic problems. Together with Joseph R. Smallwood and Harold Horwood, he founded his own weekly publication called The Confederate. In fact, he authored a column in that paper called: The Sacred Cow and used his satire and wit to lampoon his anti-confederate opponents.

Greg Power is the author of several books and his poem Bogwood, has been called one of Newfoundland's best literary achievements. In addition to his exceptional political and literary accomplishments, Mr. Power was inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall of Fame in 1983.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all members of this House and, indeed, all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when I express our sincere condolences to his wife, Mary, to their seven children: Greg, Dawn, Gerry, Geraldine, Ethel, Roberta and Rosemary. Greg Power's vision for Newfoundland and Labrador as part of a united Canada was critical to the Province's economic and social well-being. Today we rise to express condolences to his family, but we rise as well, to salute a life well-lived in the service of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too, on behalf of our caucus, join with the Premier in sending our condolences to Mrs. Power and her family on the loss of a great Newfoundlander, a respected Newfoundlander, a well-known Newfoundlander, a person who served here in this Legislature. I understand that Mr. Power, too, was a tremendous writer and wrote most of the pro-confederate information, as the Premier referred to, and he took a strong stand as a believer in a union with Canada in which we all work together in unison as part of a great country.

So, once again we, too, ask the Speaker to pass on our condolences on behalf of our caucus to Mrs. Power and the surviving members of the Power family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in commending the life of service to the Province of Mr. Greg Power, whom I have met on a number of occasions, a very personable, knowledgable individual. His wit and poetry is well-known. His athletic prowess was less well-known, but Mr. Power had a very interesting and varied life and made a significant contribution to the debates over the Confederation issue. I would like to join in offering my condolences and that of my party, to his widow, Mary, and their children, a number of whom are known to me and whom I went to school with as a young man. My sincere condolence to the family, on Mr. Power's death.

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me apologize to the House and to my hon. critic, the Member for Cape St. Francis. I just received this myself, no more than five minutes ago, and I thought to, I suppose, alleviate the fears of some of members of the House of Assembly on what could be done with what money was left in the infrastructure program and I guess, to be honest about it, and to get them off my back more than anything else.

I would like to read for the record a letter I received earlier today from the Mayor of Clarenville: "The Clarenville Town Council has directed me to write and indicate that it hereby gives full support to you with respect to the Clarenville Sports Complex Project, including the funding arrangements with the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have worked pretty diligently with the mayor and council in Clarenville, and through the member and through the federal MP, in trying to come to a resolution on this particular matter. Now the committee will review this particular letter and hopefully, in the next few days, we will be able to make a final decision on what exactly we are going to do with that particular amount of money. Thank you.

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

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

The minister now is finally producing in the House a letter from the Mayor of Clarenville, saying what I was saying all along, that they had support for the arena. They have finally come to the minister's aid and produced a letter of support and sobeit.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, further to my statement in the House on Tuesday regarding government's parks privatization process, I am pleased to advise the members of the House of Assembly that the department has successfully concluded its ninth privatization arrangement for a provincial park.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that Walter Manning and Sons Ltd. of St. Bride's is the successful proponent and new operator of Fitzgerald's Pond Park. The park, with its twenty-four campsites, is scheduled to open on or before Monday, June 16, 1997.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, this company is a long-standing, well-known and highly respected member of this Province's tourism community. As owner/operator of the popular Bird Island Resort in St. Bride's, Walter Manning and Sons Ltd. is planning to develop a tourism strategy for that region.

As I had stated in the House on Tuesday, government is actively concluding the final arrangements on the remaining private parks and will have more announcements in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, this example, as well as the eight announced on Tuesday, certainly speak to the success of this privatization initiative, as well as the public's interest and enthusiasm in acquiring these viable business opportunities. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have only a couple of statements in response to the Ministerial Statement. First of all, Mr. Speaker: Show us the money. We want to know how much we got for those parks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt but the Mannings were the most qualified for this particular park. Who was the most qualified for Catamaran, I ask? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government's plans are now complete. The parks have been privatised and now politicized. I wonder when the minister is going to answer the question that was put on the Order Paper more than a month ago asking her to detail the expenditures on the parks over the last number of years. Perhaps the minister in her next ministerial statement, instead of playing politics with all of this, could answer the questions that were legitimately asked in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Oral Questions

 

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. Minister, there is no level playing field between businesses in Western Labrador and Quebec. Consequently, business in Western Labrador are losing millions of dollars. I ask him: Will government lower the tax rate on tobacco products that are sold in Western Labrador to bring the rate in line with the competition across the border in Fermont, Quebec, where the cost of a carton of cigarettes is only half the price, about a $25 difference?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his question. I want to note first of all that I've heard from the hon. Member for Labrador West on many occasions regarding this same issue, and it is a matter of some substantial concern in Labrador West.

We in the Department of Finance have been looking at it over the last number of years, and frankly it is a problem that is very difficult to resolve. There are many issues, the first of which is that the federal government, in order to combat a problem along the St. Lawrence where there was open smuggling, decided to reduce the excise taxes in the...

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. DICKS: I say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, never on a Thursday. The problem is that, to start with, the federal government, the excise taxes vary between the provinces that already reduced their taxes and those that did not. So even if the Province unilaterally eliminated the tobacco tax, the price of a pack of cigarettes still would be higher in the Province than elsewhere.

The second thing is that if we do it in Labrador West then we have to deal with the problem of the other border areas, including those in Southern Labrador; and, also, should we not do it in the rest of the Province, whether it is in the rest of Labrador or elsewhere on the Island?

It makes it difficult, Mr. Speaker. We have looked at a number of ways to try to implement it. We are concerned that if we reduce the price in one area of the Province, it facilitates smuggling to other areas.

We recognize that there is a difficulty, but not one that bespeaks an easy solution. I look for the hon. member's suggestion, in point of fact.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to what I would do, I say to the minister. I will give you a solution in due course, before I finish.

Different areas have different needs in the Province, as the minister is well aware, and this Province should be flexible enough to be able to accommodate the various needs in different parts of the Province. There are not too many areas that have borders shared with other provinces.

The minister said there are different options, or different things they have looked at. I ask him to propose some of the options, or to list what ones they have been looking at in terms of addressing this problem.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I ask the hon. member to propose any solutions he might have.

I have posed the difficulties. We have looked at a number of options. We have looked at whether or not we could institute some sort of rationing system, whether we do it on an individual basis or by merchants, but none of these things really bespeak an easy solution. The other thing we have to consider is the equality of it all. He says, in the border areas of the Province. That would be along the West of Labrador but, with the highway through Western Labrador, what about Churchill Falls, and what about Goose Bay and so on?

Then, the larger issue is that if you effect a tax reduction in an area that does not now exist for one part of the Province, how do you defend that in the rest of the Province? I think the issue clearly is that if we are going to do it Labrador, you soon get to the point where you say, why would we not do it in the whole of the Province? Then you get to a larger issue as to whether or not we should be reducing taxes on cigarettes at a time when we are trying to discourage people, for health reasons, from consuming them.

It is not a simple issue, Mr. Speaker. It is one of fiscal concerns on the one hand and health and other larger social issues on the other. But if the hon. member has a suggestion I would certainly be prepared to examine it. Frankly, it is a difficult solution. We are sympathetic to the businesses in Western Labrador, but let's not forget that it is people from Western Labrador who are choosing to go to Fermont, in essence, and buy cigarettes. I think, the suspicion is, that they also buy other goods while they are there.

Having said that, we are sensitive to local concerns. The hon. member is well aware that we extended the exemption on Labrador building materials, and we have also undertaken a number of initiatives in Labrador to address those concerns. But this one is particularly troubling and -

PREMIER TOBIN: Food subsidies.

MR. DICKS: Food subsidies, the Premier says.

This one has larger policy implications, and to simply do a reduction in Western and Southern Labrador on cigarettes, I don't think, is as clear a solution as the hon. member suggests.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the race changed back in Quebec in February of '94 numerous businesses have seen a big decline. They are not only crossing the boarder for cigarettes but they are buying gasoline, groceries, clothing and numerous other goods. We have seen businesses lose - twenty retailers have dropped from $3.8 million to $1 million in sales in that period in Western Labrador. Now with this loss of business, I say to the minister, to Western Labrador, there is a loss in tax revenues to the Province. I ask the minister, has he taken a good look at the numbers that have been crunched by the Labrador West Chamber of Commerce showing that a decrease in the tax rate from 13.76 per cent to the 3.64 per cent and a rebounding of local sales would actually increase the revenues back to this Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

No, we have looked at it and if we reduce the taxes on cigarettes it will not result in more revenue it would in fact result in a loss of revenue to the provincial treasury. What we are concerned about is what the Chamber of Commerce in Western Labrador suggests, in that there is an overall loss of revenue across the boarder. Now we have attempted to do a number of things in the last several years to deal with the question of retail sales in the Province and the most significant of these of course is the GST amalgamation we have just had which in effect has reduced the sales tax on most goods from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent. Frankly, we believe that it crossed a whole lot of sectors, not the tobacco and liquor industries but across every other sector of the Province. This will result in increased consumer activity.

So I don't disagree with the hon. member. There is a concern, it is one that we share but as I say, we don't have an easy solution. I have canvassed??? it on many occasions and as recently as yesterday with the Member for Labrador West who reiterates that concern to me repeatedly but if he can come up with a workable system that would contain any substantial tax losses, particularly those from smuggling, we would be prepared to consider it. We have looked at many things including marked cigarette cartons from the manufacturer, some sort of rationing system be it with the merchants or individuals, but frankly none of those are particularly workable, Mr. Speaker, at least in our view but we will entertain suggestions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Well the solutions put forth by the Chamber of Commerce I do feel are workable. They are black labelling, I am sure as the minister is well aware of that. I ask him, has he examined the figures in total as they relate to sales tax revenue from the sale of goods that are being purchased in Fermont, along with cigarettes and looked at the total analysis of all those corresponding sales? Does he realize that in tax sales losses along from 1992 - 1994, before the big decrease came, even in that period before we had the drastic change five businesses alone lost $135,000? So would it not be in the best interest of this Province overall to address the revenue lost by making the system more flexible and more responsible than to the needs of Western Labradorians that would not result in less revenue here to this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Chamber of Commerce has provided us with some figures that shows the loss on cigarettes based on reduced consumption. I agree with them that to a point I suspect this is due to the price differential between Labrador and Quebec. Where it gets a little more hypothetical is a suggestion that any other revenue losses or increases in Labrador, which of course we don't have access to the Quebec government's returns on RST, that because cigarettes are cheaper in eastern Quebec that people drive across and specifically buy a lot more items just because they go over to get their cigarettes. It is a supposition, and I suppose a fair one, but it isn't one that you can quantify as a tax loss to the treasury. So when the hon. member asks what we are going to do about it and whether or not it would be tax neutral, you are into an area of speculation. So that part of it is difficult to deal with.

On the question as to whether or not we should reduce the taxes to match those in Quebec, I said a couple of things. One is that, first of all, even if we reduce it the price would still not be equitable since there is a difference in the federal excise tax. The second thing that the hon. member may not be aware of is that both the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, because of increased consumption by teenagers in particular, are thinking of increasing the taxes back to where they were.

As a point of, I suppose, observation, one of the worst things you can do to combat smuggling is to lower the prices. That is a matter, from my point of view, of enforcement. To try to discourage an activity by pricing your own commodities down to where people can smuggle them in seeks to avoid the tax law, and I'm not sure that is the right way to approach it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is a very poor excuse. All we are asking for is a level playing field. If they change their rates, the Province can move it back to a corresponding level. When businesses during a period that wasn't even the greatest impact submitted to this Province $135,000 less in retail sales tax to this Province, that sends a signal, and that is before the February change in 1994. Right now on a monthly basis about $8,000 a month -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - extra beyond that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: - being lost in revenue.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister then: Why is he driving business away from Western Labrador and turning it over across the border into Fermont, Quebec? Why won't you do something about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, we have done quite the opposite. One of the most significant tax measures in the history of the Province was the harmonization of the GST and the PST, which in effect has reduced the overall tax burden on consumer goods down to 15 per cent from 20 per cent.

I say to the hon. member that the difficulty in having a lower tax in one small area of the Province on any particular commodity that is at variance in other areas is very difficult to defend. If we are going to effect a tax reduction, why would you do it when you aren't applying it in the entire Province? If the hon. member's answer is that people are inclined to go across the border and buy something where it us cheaper and in effect smuggle it back, I ask him if he feels that that is an appropriate response to that thing that is happening.

I say to him that it is hard to quantify what the actual tax loss is. You can look at it historically, and I agree that there has been a drop in the number of retail sales of cigarettes. I'm not sure that any other related losses are very provable. They seem to be pretty speculative. I agree there may be some, but it is an area of supposition, and it is hard to quantify what if any additional revenues there would be to the treasury. I would suggest to him that at this point we are probably more likely to find that there is increased shopping in most areas of the Province because of the harmonization at the retail level of most taxes.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Health. Minister, in light of the announcements yesterday of cardiac care for out of Province, since yesterday and again today I've received calls from families around this Province. One of the questions being asked is: Under the travel and accommodations, will there be any cost, or will there be anything in there, that would aid the families of these people? Will it enable them to be able to travel with the person who is going to have this surgery performed?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The budget that we have allocated, approximately $60,000, has been allocated for the transportation of the patient. The plan is that the patient would be admitted directly into the hospital. There are no budgetary allocations for other family members to attend with the patient, although we do have the flexibility to review each particular patient's situation on a case by case basis, but this policy was made specifically for the patients travelling for surgery. While we recognize it is very difficult to have to go out of the Province without the necessary supports, we also recognize, in a more important way, Mr. Speaker, and responded to the need to try to address the waiting list and to try to deal with the more elective surgery patients who have been on the waiting list for the longest period of time. That was our intention and we made it very clear yesterday and we hope that that will allay the waiting list by fifty to sixty patients.

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

MR. FRENCH: Minister, in light of that and of course, in light of the cost that is involved in this particular case, can we now look at ways or means in which instead of January of 1998, is there any way, as suggested by the cardiac doctor from the West Coast, of speeding up the process whereby, we can now do these surgeries in our own Province? I think the projected date right now is January of 1998. Is there any way that we could now move that up or, put some real speed on there and maybe, have it moved back two or three months into 1997?

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

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

I look forward to taking the opportunity to give some information on this question with respect to my hon. colleague as well as the physician from the West Coast who has some concern about this.

There are some very important and necessary changes that have to be made, you just can't move a patient into any room when you are doing an intensive care surgery like cardiac surgery, and as I mentioned yesterday, we are changing the capacity of the ICU from fourteen beds to seventeen beds.

When you work in intensive care like the Health Sciences Complex, there is a special training period required for the nurses and that will be completed. We have to make renovations to 5 South (A), to accommodate the coronary care unit; we have to make the changes to the coronary care unit; we are moving as quickly as we can. Sister Elizabeth said yesterday that this is a temporary measure, our main intention would be to keep these patients in the Province but I think, out of fairness to the people who are on the waiting list, if they were given the choice and from what I have been hearing, they would gladly take the opportunity to go out of the Province. We have given the commitment, we will move as quickly as possible and by January of 1998, we will be doing surgery here. If it is finished sooner, Mr. Speaker, we will do them sooner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Minister, again today I received also calls from physicians in this Province concerning the cost of course of going out of Province and I did say by the way, for the benefit of some members opposite that, we agreed with this policy because it has to be done and the urgency of it.

What I guess, the question I have for you today is: What will the actual cost be? We realize there is $60,000 set aside for travel and the MCP naturally enough picks up the rest, but what will be the actual cost of taking somebody from Newfoundland and send them either to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, having this surgery performed and bringing them back to this Province?

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

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

As you know, with the inter-provincial agreement, the cost of both the surgery and the hospital services are covered. Approximately you pay $10,000 for hospital fee, $4,000 for physician fees, multiply that by fifty to sixty and then add your travel, so we are estimating an average cost of $1,200 per case, and we are hoping that with prior commitment and booking in advance, we may even get a better rate with the airlines, hopefully as low as $700 to $800, so that is how we estimate the cost in total. It will not affect the overall cost because of the inter-provincial agreement that we have in the great country we have which provides the Medicare system we have today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Yesterday, there was a brief question dealing with Marystown and what would possibly be announced. Can the minister confirm that on Tuesday past, May 13, he was supposed to make a Ministerial Statement in the House, which would announce two fire-fighting dockside tugs I believe for the transshipment facility, which were confirmed, that they were thirty-eight metres long, weighed about 650 tons, a $26-million contract for the Marystown Shipyard, can he confirm that that announcement is still to be made on Tuesday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have made bids on significant projects around the world. One of those was the two tugs required to channel the vessels up the Placentia channel to the Transshipment terminal. We were the preferred bidder, but we were waiting for a number of agreements to be signed, including the one that the Minister of Environment and Labour mentioned yesterday in the House, for the unions, for the special project at the transshipment terminal at Whiffen Head. We are also waiting for final clarification on a few other matters. Hopefully, we will be in a position to have, yet again, some very good news for the people of Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I spoke to people on the Peninsula, as late as last night, who have some concern. As a matter of fact, I have a copy of the Ministerial Statement that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a copy, Mr. Speaker, of the statement, which outlines clearly that the agreements and arrangements between the union and management were made, that the deal is done. So, the question is twofold. Is there concern to worry about the contract or is the minister and this government simply playing politics, Mr. Speaker -

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Another big photo opt for the Premier. Well, that will not save Roger Simmons, I guarantee you that.

MR. E. BYRNE: - to stage a political event that would look at assisting and saving the Liberal MP for St. George's, Roger Simmons, who had nothing to do, I say to the minister, nothing to do with the signing of this contract?

MR. J. BYRNE: Good question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. TULK: Who will save that UFO in Labrador?

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this government would not play politics with good news. To say that would be to ask: Would you deny that the member from the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Simmons, did not work diligently for the $43 million Quest project which he and the member for Grand Bank and the member from Marystown worked very diligently to get, a $43 million contact, for which he deserves a lot of credit?

Mr. Speaker, would you deny that the Member of Parliament did not help us in our marketing programs to get a $10 million contract from Ham International, Mississippi, which is putting people to work? Would you deny the contract that came out of Brownsville, Texas for another $9 million, which is happening at Marystown? I should also say that the Member of Parliament was also brought into the negotiations, and helped us when we were in dire need, to bring about the rearrangements with the unions and the management down there.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good new story at Marystown and we are not going to do what the Opposition wants to do and cast a negative cloud over it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Took the wind out of your sails with that one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the minister and government, this is a good news story. Whenever 150 person jobs are created or 160,000 person hours of work are created, it is a good news story.

The question I have for you, Minister, is why did you not announce it on Tuesday when you were supposed to announce it, according to your Ministerial Statement?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have not issued a Ministerial Statement, I have not written a Ministerial Statement, I have not given a Ministerial Statement. Everything will be disclosed in the fullness of time on this contract. Let me say, if the hon. member wants to talk politics, perhaps he should go up to Labrador and take the phantom from Ottawa that was parachuted in. Having lost the nomination for the Conservative Party in Ottawa, he parachutes himself into Labrador and the parachute did not work.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk politics, this member is too busy putting the hex on Rex in St. John's West, I say to the minister in all seriousness.

I want the minister to confirm, if he can, that there is really no need for concern because of the potential delay, or the delay in the announcement -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am, actually.

- that the people in Marystown and the area have no need to worry about this contract and that it will be forthcoming.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says he does not want to bring politics into it, yet he is spending all of his day's time and energy with the Sprung triplets, Matthews, Doyle and Power.

I say to him, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. We are confident about this bid. The management team is competent, this yard is turning around, there are men and women going to work. And all shall be revealed shortly.

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

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

I am sorry I do not have a question today for my good friend, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but I do have a question for the minister responsible for the environment.

Mr. Minister, when more than one company in a given area expresses interest in becoming the designated drop-off site for a Trash to Cash program, a Green Depot, what are the specific criteria which are being used to pick the winning company or contractor?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question on the excellent Trash to Cash program that we have started in this Province. There are now thirty-six depots operating in the Province, and there are more to be announced in the near future.

The question of the criteria, NewBRI, which has been contracted with the Stewardship Board, have a criteria set out and they evaluate each proposal, and they make the decision. I can get the Terms of Reference for the criteria, and the criteria themselves, and bring them back to the House of Assembly.

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

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

Does the minister know whether more than one company expressed interest in becoming the designated site for the Bay Roberts area? And if there was a competition, can he tell us who the bidders were, the difference between the bids, and the basis on which the final decision was made?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under advisement and get some details for the member and bring them back, but I say to him, the program is working extremely well. We have had official openings for the last few weeks throughout the Province. We are approaching 20 million units. I think we are going to reach our goal this year.

Even in Labrador, on the Coast of Labrador, we have - I tell you, it is unbelievable; on the Coast of Labrador, of which some MP hopefuls are trying to find out where Labrador is, right now, who are working on it. The Member for Torngat Mountains was telling me the other day about the excellent efforts being made up there now for the program with the school system. I will undertake to get the information.

Thank you.

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

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

I would like to inform the minister that I know there was indeed a competition among the bidders in that area. Will the minister confirm there was a second bidder who had the space, the equipment, and distribution and pick-up process, and a twenty-five year history of operation, and proved it could provide first-rate service if it was chosen the designated depot for the area? And will he confirm that the individual who won the contract offered to buy equipment from the second bidder who did not win it, and is also renting space from a close relative of his Cabinet colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture? Is that the reason why he got the contract?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question but, you know, I tell you, with any program I think they would go to any length to find any problem, even if there were none. In this case, we will check it out - I give a commitment to the member that I will check it out - but NewBRI has been handling the applications arm's length from us, and doing a good job of it. I would say we had well over 100 applications from the private sector, from development associations, from a number of groups around the Province, who are very interested in this program. But I will certainly check out the details of the question that was asked, and I will make sure I get back to the member.

Again, on the overall, this program is working extremely well.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I wonder if the minister would give the House a quick update on the success of this year's seal fishery: how many seals have been taken; if we have had any problems marketing the meat; and if there is any extension, or if there is going to be any extension, to this year's quota.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by first saying we have not taken enough. That is the one thing I will say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: The quota this year was 283,000. There is about 35,000 left to take. Most of it is on the small boat hunt, 2,000 left on the personal use and about 7,000 along the Labrador front. Is there going to be an extension? We have asked Ottawa to give us an extra quota. We do not have a final answer back yet but the long-liners are gone back to the hunt. They asked to have an increase and they have increased them from 125 up to 200 seals. They are waiting for another week for the conditions to get right to go out but it looks like this year that the complete quota will be taken with very little problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: And DFO has also agreed that at the small boat hunt they will not be watching them day and night to worry if they are going to take the exact number. There is some flexibility in the hunt this year.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the Fishermens' Union President suggests that the seal hunt should be managed on the basis of an allowance rather than a fixed quota. This allowance system would take long-term and short-term catches into consideration and fishermen would benefit the following season if quotas were not reached the year before. Mr. Minister, this certainly makes sense to me and I ask the minister if he agrees with this particular suggestion?

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

MR. EFFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, they were given approximately - close to $50 million, they should have studied it and seen exactly what was out there and what the need was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we are concerned about in the seal hunt, apart from the total herd and the populations out there is that in order to have a seal hunt, an allowance or whatever the term we will be using in the future, we have to make sure that we have the markets for total utilization. Their markets are increasing tremendously, year over year. They were excellent last year, they are good this year and they will look even greater next year. We will be working with DFO as we have been for the past two years and again over the coming months. In fact, we have a meeting set for next week to discuss what the proposals are for next year. Everybody is interested in getting as many seal hunts as we possibly can as long as the markets can sustain the hunt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

 

Notices of Motion

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

 

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for St. John's East raised some questions about lock downs and drug searches at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre. The member admitted that he was acting on suspicions and rumours. As a result of the concerns raised by the member I had officials of my department get in touch with Mr. Duffett, the administrator at that facility.

Mr. Duffett says that: In line with the philosophy and purpose of the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre safety and security of residents and staff are paramount. As a result, polices have been developed to effectively deal with situations in which contraband materials have been discovered and/or suspected to exist within the facility.

He goes on to say: In an attempt to deter smuggling of contraband materials and consequently protect staff and residents, surprise lock downs are periodically carried out, during which times residents are confined to their rooms and a complete cottage search is conducted.

Mr. Duffett says that: Two of the most recent such events occurred on April 26 and April 29 when a number of pills were found and we discovered some cigarettes. He says: Given the nature of our operation, we are always conscious of and concerned about the possibility of contraband on the units and the danger they pose to residents and staff. Then he goes on to say: The frequency of such actions, in concern to the lock downs, would vary depending on the circumstances. Here is a key word: But there have been none that I'm aware of over the past two months that I would consider to be untoward or exceptional.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the issue which the hon. member raised was purely based on rumour and suspicion. You know, members of this House have a responsibility to the residents of that institution, and to the parents, that when they raise an issue they have concrete under their feet. The hon. member raised an issue which impacts on the credibility of all of us in this House, because when one shouts "Fire!" there should be a fire. You should never shout "Fire!" unless you have your facts.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: (Inaudible) I mean, the reference is given by the hon. minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the reference is made and certainly presented in this House by the hon. minister that there was no foundation to the question that was asked and that it was completely conjecture or completely rumour. I question this statement that is made by the hon. minister. The admission that has been made in and of itself by the hon. minister in fact admits what was being alleged in the question yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.

No point of order.

 

Petitions

 

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of several hundred residents of Labrador West, and it's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) member?

MR. SULLIVAN: The member? I'm not sure. A lot of people asked me that question I would say when I was in Lab West.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Labrador West ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer: Whereas the Province of Quebec has lower taxes on gasoline and tobacco products than the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that our government lower these taxes in border areas to permit a level playing field for businesses and consumers.

Mr. Speaker, the Chamber of Commerce has taken the time and effort to submit to this government an opportunity whereby people in border towns in this Province - and there are not very many - can have a level playing field where they are losing millions of dollars a year in business across the border. I don't see why we should be subsidizing business in another province to the detriment of businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in this instance, Mr. Speaker, they are businesses in Western Labrador.

They have provided information whereby they are showing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars what this Province is losing in sales tax revenue or HST, call it what you like now, because this government has not shown the flexibility to be able to give a level playing field to the businesses that are struggling in Labrador because of taxation levels between provinces.

There are many parts of this country that recognize the flexibilities that needed to be used in establishing tax bases in border towns, but it has not happened in Labrador West and I am sure the Member for Labrador West passes the concerns and I certainly hope he would have the same concerns, that when you lose millions of dollars right out of the pockets of people in Labrador City and Wabush and the surrounding areas, some of it impacts in Churchill Falls and elsewhere but particularly on the border in Labrador City and Wabush and Western Labrador. Those impacts they are having are significant, and even the minister's own department, his own figures indicate that even before the February 1994, big change in taxation rate on tobacco in Quebec, there was $135,000 less sales tax coming into this Province from those businesses during that period.

Now that is pretty significant when you look at five local retailers submitting to this Province $135,000 less in sales tax, it is pretty significant. We are talking about millions of dollars worth of business and it is not just tobacco. Some people might argue well, isn't that going to promote smoking? Look, people are going to get their cigarettes in Fermont as opposed to getting them in Labrador City and Wabush. The health issue has been a factor because the accessibility is there and I have a suggestion to the minister. By black-labelling the cigarettes in there, they will have a different label, it can be used then and if used in other parts of the Province, it would be illegal. They may counter and say: What, if they are mailed? Well, you can mail them from Quebec now at the lower rate, you still can do it so there should be a black-labelling of those cigarettes where they could be identified because when people go across to Fermont to pick up cartons of cigarettes, they pick up some groceries, they get gas, they buy some alcohol; in fact, the lottery sale of tickets has gone down. They even buy lottery tickets there and all this is having an impact on the local economy and this government has to have the flexibility to do something about it.

I made a suggestion to them, I support the Labrador West Chamber of Commerce - the figures speak for themselves. We can have a net gain in revenue as a result of this but the minister said: it is speculative. Sure, a budget speculates, taxation levels speculate of course they do, but the facts are here before the February change in 1994, these five local retailers alone submitted $135,000 less revenue to this government in sales tax -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. GRIMES: Is this the first time you heard of this?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, any time I am asked to present petitions on behalf of constituents anywhere in this Province, I am going to do it and the Minister of Education will not tell me not to present petitions for the people of Labrador West, I will do if asked I say to the minister.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will do it if I am asked and I will take great pleasure I say to the minister. You sit around the Cabinet table, you participate in Budget decision-making and you will not appreciate the hardship -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - establish a level playing service between the parts of this Province.

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

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised today that the petition the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has brought forward has actually been introduced to the House today. I had talked to the people in the business community in Labrador West and they were putting together this petition and I had committed to them that I would indeed present it to the House when they had finished it, but perhaps, that it is here today is okay, but I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, this is not the first time I have heard of the issue. We have been working with the business community in Labrador West to try to find some resolution, to try to find a situation that would allow the tobacco tax to be reduced in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there is a difficulty. The issue of having a black label has been looked at. We are continuing to look at that. I am continuing to talk to the Minister of Finance and the people within the Department of Finance to try to find a resolution that is workable and able to do the job that we want it to do.

As far as I am concerned, this is, today, just a stunt by the Conservative Party. They know that the federal campaign is on the go. They know that there are a few days left in the campaign before this House closes. They will take it upon themselves to raise issues pertinent to any riding, just to make cheap political points.

Mr. Speaker, I am more interested in finding a resolution for the people of Labrador West. We have worked a good many scenarios trying to find a resolution that will be workable, that will be enforceable. The fact of the matter is that tobacco tax raises some $70 million in this Province per year that is used to provide services to the people of our Province. If you take a look at what the Conservative Party has said, they have said two things. They have said that they would balance the books in four years, and they said that they would reduce to zero the payroll tax.

Mr. Speaker, the payroll tax provides $70 million or $80 million a year to provide opportunity for the people of this Province through the services we provide, whether it is health care or education. The fact of the matter is, there is not a soul in this House who agrees with the payroll tax, if we had revenue that could offset it, but I agree more with providing health and education services to our people, that is appropriate and able to do the job that our people need, before we get rid of the payroll tax.

Let me say, the issue here is: How do we provide a system for the people of Labrador West and a system for the people from Red Bay to L'Anse-au-Clair that prevents a conduit, prevents opportunity for tobacco to flow to the rest of the Province whereby the rest of the Province would see a loss of revenue that is used to provide education and health resources to our people?

Mr. Speaker, it is an important and challenging issue. We are working on it. We will, I believe, find a resolution in due course, but it is not going to be found here during a federal election campaign, across the floor, trying to make cheap political points. It will be found in the profound discussions I have had with the Minister of Finance and other ministers of this Crown, trying to find a way that is workable, working with the business people in Labrador West who know that I have committed myself to trying to find a resolution to this.

It is not about the Leader of the Opposition travelling up to Labrador West, meeting with his Conservative friends and the defeated candidate of the Conservative Party last time, to walk back here to try to defend a parachute candidate from Ottawa that is up there trying to bandy about now to find a few votes, talking about how opportunity is lost to Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we will find a resolution to this tobacco tax issue, but we will do it the right way. We will do it the way that is enforceable and responsible, and meets the need of the business community and the citizens of Labrador West.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I cannot believe what I have been hearing in the last few minutes. First of all, the Member for Labrador West says that he is against reductions in the payroll tax. He thinks that is a great tax. Therefore, what he is saying is that this is an appropriate tax to be charging on business firms in Labrador West and throughout this Province. That is what the member has just said. Then he says that when we bring up this matter, because he is offended, because he is turned off - and there are other words I could use to describe his commentary - therefore he stands in his place and says: I am really peeved off with the way that this petition got presented to the House and I am going to stand here and accuse the Leader of the Opposition - to use his words - of a `stunt'.

Mr. Speaker, we take these responsibilities very seriously. We listened to the Member for Labrador West in the last few days quoting the Blue Book. We wonder, who is pulling the stunts around here?

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member: Make up your mind. Are you for or against the payroll tax as is charged against the business people and other people in Labrador West? Say to yourself: Are you for that or against it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West, on a point of order.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is, when we talk about stunts, the biggest stunt ever perpetrated on the people of this Province was the Blue Book - last time it talked about balancing the budget in four years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of order.

Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

All we have seen in the last few minutes, is the member for Labrador West rising on points of order so that the transcript for this particular exchange will look a little better when he shows it to his constituents. Mr. Speaker, we know the member is trying to make recovery. He has just said, he is against the changing of the pay roll tax, he is against cancelling that, he is also accusing people on this side of the House of pulling a stunt. We are taking part in this debate and supporting this petition because it is a reflection of the wishes of the people who sign the petition, that they signed it with sincerity. We accept it with the sincerity with which it was signed. We support it on this side of the House and encourage the Leader of the Opposition in his pursuit to try to get things changed for the betterment of Labrador West.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a petition by a number of residents of the Province who are asking the House of Assembly to direct the government to establish a universal comprehensive School Lunch Program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give our children a better chance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an important and significant issue. The problem has been identified by the Canadian Council on Social Welfare in terms of the increase in child poverty in this Province. Not an NDP group, the Canadian Council on Social Welfare is appointed by the Government of Canada and has a representative from Newfoundland in the person of Mr. Calvin White. They do annual reports on poverty across the country with comparisons by province, by age type and family grouping, and they have disclosed in their most recently published report in the spring of 1997 that the poverty rate in the Province of Newfoundland for the last year of which they have statistics, 1995, was twenty-six per cent. This represents some 360,000 children in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, an increase of more than fifty per cent from 1989.

Now, 1989 was a significant year. Members opposite may think it was significant because the Liberals gained power in Newfoundland after seventeen or eighteen years in the wilderness, but it was significant for another reason, because in 1989 in the House of Commands, the Premier and other members of this federal caucus, along with the New Democratic Party caucus and the Tory caucus in Ottawa, unanimously supported the resolution presented by the hon. Ed Broadbent, who was then leader of the New Democratic Party and that was a resolution which was to commit members, all parties and all members of the House of Commons to a program to end child poverty by the year 2000.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we are only a couple of years away from the year 2000, and the sad reality is that child hunger and child poverty in this Province has increased by 50 per cent since 1989 - a 50 per cent increase in a country that committed itself to ending child poverty by the year 2000.

Mr. Speaker, those figures are not NDP figures, they come from the Canadian Council on Social Welfare. Other figures that were used recently by Dr. Patricia Canning in her report made to the government last June and released last fall, used similar figures, I think, 38,000. It is well-known, these figures are not manufactured, they are not speculation, these are figures resulting from independent evidence-based studies done by academics, done by knowledgeable people, done by statisticians, done by Statistics Canada, done by those who know what they are talking about and are not saying things for political purposes, but because they have an obligation as part of their academic calling to present the facts as objectively and accurately as possible.

It is unfortunate that one has to underline this, Mr. Speaker, because we are talking about hungry children here. We should not really have to prove the point. The point is, Mr. Speaker - and it is very clear and has been recognized most recently by the Social Policy Advisory Committee which identified nutrition and food security as the number one key issue for children in this Province. Number three on that list of key issues for children was the need for school meal programs for all schools in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the sad figures given by the Minister of Education yesterday was that there were thirty-two existing school lunch programs in 432 schools and it was his hope that with the few dollars that government gave them they were going to have another forty or fifty within a few years. Even if that were true, Mr. Speaker, that would give a grand total of eighty out of 430 schools. I will guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that those programs will not be in the most needy schools, because the most needy schools or the most needy children are in areas where the social infrastructure is less able to deliver a volunteer-based program.

I want the minister to understand, as well, since he did not understand the number of school lunch programs or school meal programs, he probably does not understand that the existing thirty-two programs are under threat, that they cannot make it, Mr. Speaker. They will need further subsidies for a long time to come if they are going to continue to deliver those programs. So the thirty-two programs that exist are at risk -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and there is a need for a universal school lunch program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise again today to support the petition put forward by my colleague the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased the other day when I heard the Minister of Health say in one of her first statements as the new Minister of Health that she believed in evidence-based decision-making. Mr. Speaker, we commend the minister for saying those words but in terms of child poverty and what it means, we have to say to the hon. House that evidence based decision making needs to be applied to the child poverty problem.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before in the House, looking at all the evidence that is presented, at the history of child poverty in this Province, the efforts of the government, the churches and other community agencies to try to address the issue of child poverty, we should be further ahead than we are. But this year there are more children who are poor in this Province than there were five years ago.

Mr. Speaker, we need to look again at what child poverty means to individual families, what it means to children in the classrooms and the impact it is having on their performance and for the impact it is going to have on their lifetime career goals and their lifetime potential.

Mr. Speaker, we had studies done by the Department of Health, by the Department of Education, by the Department of Social Services, by Dr. Patricia Canning, and by the committee that I was a member of, the Childrens' Interest Committee of the Legislature. The issue of child poverty was a prominent issue that was talked about at that time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not saying here that government is not sensitive to what we are talking about. In fact, I was very pleased the other day - and I made mention of it - when the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture stood in his place and talked about when he was Minister of the Department of Social Services, how he visited the schools and how he did a follow-up visit and talked to teachers following the initiation of a program of school lunches.

Mr. Speaker, we know that children who are hungry behave like adults who are hungry. They are lethargic, they get headaches and they cannot concentrate. All of the things that everyone else has happen to them when they are hungry, happen to children. So we cannot say to a child, `would you please concentrate on your school work' when that child's main preoccupation is with the fact that that child has not had sufficient food for that particular day, or, for that matter, it might be some days since the child has eaten an adequate and nutritious lunch.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to members in the House that we need to do a little more. We commend the school lunch foundation, we commend the agencies that are out there supporting these programs, but we have to do a little more. I would like to challenge the Minister of Education to stand in his place today and say that between now and September he is going to take it upon himself to try to address this issue to see if we can find some more money, to see if we can take it as a priority. Because we cannot wait until the Federal Government money comes in in 1998. I ask the minister if he would stand today and say that he is going to examine this issue again, bring it back to his Cabinet colleagues, and see if we can take some money - even if we take it from the emergency contingency fund. There cannot be a bigger emergency than 40,000 hungry children.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government, this is a very significant issue. We have continued to bring it forward all this session. As long as there is, shall we say, 30 per cent of our school population going to school hungry then we shall continue to pursue it. Because the resolution is there. We will never ever have an occasion where we will have hungry children, I suppose, down to zero in this Province, but we can certainly do a lot better than we are doing now. We would like to have it down to the point where we can say there is no such thing as a hungry child. But there are certain realities.

So we want to say to the Minister of Education, would you please take it back to your Cabinet colleagues and would you endeavour to do what you can? I know there are some ministers who are sensitive to the issue, and maybe together we can see some new and bold initiatives before the beginning of the next school year.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments with respect to the petition, because it is a very important issue and it has been a priority for this government for some considerable time.

The only difference of opinion, I guess, that we have fundamentally with the idea presented in the petition by the hon. member, and supported by the Opposition House Leader, is the notion contained in the petition with respect to a universal program to be available in every single school in Newfoundland and Labrador. The whole concept, as we understand it, and our hope and wish, would be that we would never get to a circumstance where we would need to have this kind of a program in every single school in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Because at some points in time we do understand that there are serious problems, and they are concentrated in some areas moreso than others. I think it is a little bit - unfortunate, I guess is the phrase I would use - when we quote some statistics from certain reports, certainly, nationally-based reports, that deal with the national scene, and largely reflect the issue that is much more serious than it is in Newfoundland and Labrador in the inner cores of the large cities of Canada where there is real poverty. We know there is a range of it in different regions. We know there is a range of it in different parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is some poverty amongst children even in very rural settings.

The findings and the studies always done here seem to show that the children in Newfoundland and Labrador who have the greatest dependence and need on programs like this from the government, because there are no family or extended family supports to help them, are in the inner city of St. John's. When many people think of a situation like this, they think that in the smaller rural communities there is rampant poverty. There is not great wealth, but in the meantime, because of the kinds of supports that are present there that are not present with people in the inner core of a city like St. John's, the difficulty for the child is actually exacerbated here moreso than in other areas.

What we have done, in fact, is to support a well-established program that is in the Province now, as we indicated yesterday, in some thirty-two schools. They have the capability of reaching out to another fifty. There are some requests that are being analyzed now and will probably be on stream in September 1997 as schools open again. The financial capability, thanks to the contribution from the Provincial Government of $125,000, and from corporate sponsors like Petro-Canada of their $200,000 - the provincial school lunch foundation has the ability to handle another fifty programs if needed. What we have indicated clearly, and the hon. the Opposition House Leader challenged: Would we get up and say we will take this under advisement and that we make a commitment? They already know we have made a commitment, that if in fact there are another fifty programs up and running because they are needed and because the local people support them, and because they are sustainable and they are the right thing to do, and they run short of money and they have another fifty requests, then we will stand behind them.

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, the government does not see the need in the Province and the merits of the case of establishing a universal school lunch program in every single school in Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe we are meeting areas of critical need where communities themselves have identified a problem, like in my own district. Two community groups came forward this year, identified that they were having some difficulty, that there were a number of children going to school hungry. They are now organizing on a pilot basis in one community a school lunch program sponsored by the provincial foundation. The other community is getting involved in organizing itself. If, in fact, it is necessary and seen to be the appropriate thing to do, it is likely to occur next September. That is the kind of assessment that is going on.

In fact, the issue is very serious, and we are delighted that we have been able to make a contribution to it. We are delighted that the support is there from the corporate community, and we appreciate their raising the issue, and we know that it is being well taken care of to the best of the government's ability at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition containing 1,634 names. It is from schoolchildren and adults. The petition is from Catalina Elementary, St. Catherine's in Port Union, Discovery Collegiate, Bonavista, St. Mark's at King's Cove, Eastern Community College, Bonavista campus, and Matthew Elementary at Bonavista.

The petition reads: To the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Bonavista South, school pupils and adults.

It goes on to say: The previous recycling program in our area involving the collection of paper products was terminated after the implementation of the current recycling program involving the collection of beverage containers. After lobbying correspondence dated February 10 1997 from the Department of Environment and Labour, it indicated that paper products would be collected from the depots if the depot operator agreed, but no fee would be paid to anyone for paper products. The effect of paying no fee for the collection of paper products will create an environmental problem, the exchange of this previous garbage, the beverage containers, for the previous recycled product paper. Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish a procedure for the collection of paper products for recycling as part of the existing beverage container contract, or, as a new contract, that a fee be implemented to encourage non-profit groups to resume collection of or initiate collection of paper products for recycling.

Mr. Speaker, here was a situation where those particular schools were involved in a recycling program that would collect paper products and take them to the local recycling depot, or they would be collected on a regular basis by a collection truck from Nova Recycling. The school children would be reimbursed, would get a fee, for this particular collection.

One of the groups that took part in this particular program was the Girl Guides in Bonavista. In the past four years, that group collected 92,000 pounds, or forty-six tons, of paper, and received $1,050. What did they do with the amount of money they collected? What did they do with the $1,050?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they do with it?

MR. FITZGERALD: They donated $250 to the Janeway Child Health Centre. They donated $200 to the Bonavista Fire Department, to help pay for a new fire truck. They donated $200 to the Bonavista Memorial Library, $300 to Green Trees Girl Guide Camp up in Trinity, and $100 to the First Guide Company, for a total of the full amount that they collected of $1,050.

Mr. Speaker, this was a very worthwhile project, where schoolchildren up in King's Cove would go and collect recyclable paper products, sell them to Nova Recycling, and they would use it to support their sports activities in their school. They would use it for all school programs. Then, all of a sudden, the Minister of Environment and Labour and this government decided they were going to take part in a Green project, select certain depots around the Province where beverage containers could be returned for a profit, and then those paper products were not of any value anymore. I have to ask the question: Why? If it was of some value prior to the establishment of those Green Depots, prior to the value of those beverage containers being worth something, why is it not worth something today?

Mr. Speaker, what we have done here is, we have taken away an opportunity for schoolchildren and different youth groups to make money and to take part in a very responsible campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I am told that every ton of paper that is recycled saves twenty to twenty-five full-grown trees. Manufacturing paper from recycled fibre reduces air pollution by 75 per cent, and water pollution by 35 per cent.

Here we had a group of students carrying out a responsible recycling program, getting a small return for taking part in that particular effort, and carrying out a big responsibility for being stewards of our environment, as well.

I ask the minister - I am glad he is seated here today - if he would be kind enough to respond to this particular petition because 1,634 responsible schoolchildren had the interest to circulate the petition, sign their names, and ask for it to be presented here in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a very worthwhile petition, and I think it is something that should be initiated again immediately, and allow those particular groups to be able to collect wasted newspaper, to collect old catalogues, telephone books, anything else that is there that will ordinarily find its way to the garbage dump, or out by the side of the road somewhere, take it to those Green Depots and have some form of remuneration there for the effort, and to encourage them to continue to carry out this very worthwhile program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the petition and say to him that the new program is to encourage and enhance whatever efforts were already being made out there. A problem we were having was that there was not enough effort, overall, being made. Another problem was that we did not believe that, at the end of the day, the value of some of these materials was enough to get a system set up that would be stable. Still another problem we had was that there were only a few schools in the Province that were into it. There were a few schools around, here and there, who were doing the program, and who were doing a good job of it when they were doing it, doing a really good job of collecting materials and so on. They were doing it mostly on a volunteer basis, and the revenue they were getting was limited, but it was a help to them in doing a number of things.

What this new program is going to do, and the goal of the program plus the Stewardship Board being set up to oversee the implementation of this program plus other programs, is to have a stable recycling system first off, with stable depots operating, of which now we have thirty-six and we are going to have, I expect, another fifteen or twenty open before the end of the summer. So we are probably going to be at fifty to sixty depots in the next few months.

The depot system is also going to be asked to - and are looking at now, with the Stewardship Board - taking in paper. Some depots are taking paper, some are not. We have asked the Stewardship Board to work with the depots that are being set up and advising them to look at taking paper from the regions. Some of the depots are large enough to do that, some are smaller and unable to do that yet. So we are looking at, with the present transportation company that is involved in the transportation system (inaudible) beverage containers. We are looking at a way to still access from anybody, be it schools or non-profit associations or development associations, a way to take their paper and make sure it is recycled.

The value of paper unfortunately has dropped off, the value of cardboard has dropped off and we are looking at the cardboard in the same way. So really, the program is just filling out itself now and we are looking at ways to get other products into the transportation system; we are looking at ways to get the depots to take more products and that will be evolving over the next number of months, so for the petitioners, there is really a new opportunity for the school that the member describes to make much more revenue than they have had in the past because now, they have a valuable container to recycle for one thing. So it can help them in their present recycling efforts of paper products.

Our goal is to get system stable first, which we are now doing, to have it enhanced and to have many more depots around the Province that are going to be into recycling and to get our kids into recycling, which the program now is doing in droves, Mr. Speaker, around the Province. We might have had only forty or fifty schools in the Province doing recycling on their own, which is really very positive, but now they have a much expanded reason to do this.

The Member for Torngat Mountains was telling me only a couple of days ago that there is a school up in his district where we were having a difficult time trying to set up a depot system on the North Coast of Labrador - and that is a challenge, Mr. Speaker, for this program or any program. But he went to his schools in the area, and one school in particular, Mr. Speaker, has done a tremendous job and has raised over $2,000 in the last seven or eight to ten weeks for their school programs, for the School Lunch Program and so on.

So what we are doing is, we are setting up a whole system which will do beverage containers first. We are working on the waste paper products for all of those different depots right now; we are also looking at cardboard and we are looking at milk products, too, at this point in time. We have been meeting with the milk processors; they have been looking at a recycling program that they can tap into the present recycling program we have started.

There are other products coming on stream; waste paper, we are going to have that dealt with, we are going to have a system either to add on to the present system or a separate contract for transporting. We will have that arranged in the next number of weeks or months, Mr. Speaker, and this will enhance and see much more recycling activity in this Province than we have ever seen in the past, Mr. Speaker, as we work towards it.

Other provinces that have set up their depots have done the same thing and what we are doing is stabilizing the depot system, stabilizing the transportation system so that we can add other products that we may not be able to get a full value for or a large value. I mean, we are having all these beverage containers going everywhere in the Province, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just for clarification?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I say to the member that I appreciate the petition and if he could send a copy to me, I would appreciate that, too, and we will respond directly to the school and the kids. As a matter of fact, we would love to meet with them sometime in the near future. If you would like to do that, it is not a problem. But we will be dealing with that situation, and we want to add value so that kids will get out there and recycle - that is what the whole effort will be geared to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today in support of the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South.

The petition that he has presented today goes to the very concern that I had discussions with the minister on some time ago. The discussions I had with the minister were with respect to a school on the West Coast that had contacted me shortly after the `Trash to Cash' Program came into play, and the principal of the school told me that these depots now were not taking some of the materials that they had taken previously, and it was going to affect the fund-raising capabilities of that school and other schools across the Province. Some of the materials they were not taking after this program into play were: margarine tubs, those plastic containers, crocks for jam; glass bottles and what have you, that type of material that they were not going to take anymore. They actually brought it up to the depot and they were turned away. They said they are not going to accept it anymore because they are only going to take the materials that there is good money in for themselves. I checked out other areas across the Province, Gander and St. John's, Mr. Speaker, and there were materials that at at least three depots in the Province would not accept. At least three depots would not accept the materials anymore.

What is happening here now goes back to the program itself. It really was not a very well-thought-out or well-planned program. The intent of the program was to keep materials off the garbage dumps in this Province. In actual fact, there are more materials now going back to the dumps. So one situation was offsetting the other. It was defeating its own purpose, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Bonavista South made a point that the schools or that particular school would not be able to have the same fundraising capability that they had in the past. When I addressed this with the minister before, he told me there would be policies put in place so that this would not be permitted to happen. Here we are now, some months afterwards, Mr. Speaker, and it is still happening in the Province. We have materials going to the landfills in this Province that were not going there before. They are going there now because of this very program, the `Trash to Cash' Program.

So I would like to say that the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South is a petition that goes to the hearts, I suppose, of a lot of people in the Province. As I said earlier, the intent of the program was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, when you are up on this side of the House and looking over there and seeing some of the actions by some of the people over there, it is hard to concentrate and keep your thoughts, let me tell you. What is being done over there now, the Government House (inaudible) would not be able to do it to me.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I support the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South. Thank you.

 

Orders of the Day

 

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 6. I say to the Opposition House Leader, we had intended to call Order No. 5 but the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi wanted to first of all confer with, I believe, the deputy minister or somebody like that, about a certain little thing in the bill. So I am going to move to, if he does not mind, Order No. 6, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement Act."

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

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

If we could for a moment, I assumed there would be somebody introducing it (inaudible) the critic who with the Leader of the Opposition anticipated that we would go with the small claims one first and -

MR. TULK: Later, no you want - let me just say to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, to clear this up -

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

MR. TULK: - before I call it. The hon. gentleman, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi wants to confer with another lawyer about a legal matter that he sees in there where people might be going to jail. I said to him alright, we will move to Order No. 6, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement Act."

Mr. Speaker, I would move Bill No. 3, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement Act", on behalf of the Minister of Finance.

What this bill does, Mr. Speaker - and I am going to be very brief on this - will allow us to retroactively and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. the Government House Leader speaking to the introduction of the bill?

MR. TULK: Yes.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement Act". (Bill No. 3)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, what this bill does - and it is not very often that you like to do things retroactively, but in this particular case, I think we are providing a benefit to some people in this Province by doing it and I suppose in that context, it would be acceptable. If you were taking away from them I would expect there would be a great hue and cry about it from the other side. I know if I were over there and you were taking something away from the people of this Province, then I suspect I would be first on my feet. But, in this particular case, what we are doing is allowing the rebate for building materials in Labrador, which is a budgetary item, to be made retroactively.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no difficulty with making the rebate provisions of the Tax Agreement Act as it affects Labrador Building Material retroact, but that is not what the Bill says. It seems to say, that all regulations may under subsection (1) may be made with retroactive affect and it appears that that may be including things that are, in fact, taking things away, as the minister said and not just things that are giving things to people.

So, if the sole purpose and the sole affect of the agreement is as the minister said, I do not have any difficulty with it, but I am not convinced that that is the case. The Tax Agreement Act was passed last year and I would have to have a very close look at section 6, to make sure that any regulations under that could have the only affect of any regulations under that Act would be to be ones that are positive and positive for the people in Labrador who are going to be advantaged by the retroactive regulations that the minister has in mind.

I see the Leader of the Opposition is in his place and ready to address this issue and I understand that he will probably deal with it with his usual thoroughness and will be able to recite backwards and forwards section 6 of the Tax Agreement Act and tell us whether it is possible that regulations made under subsection (1) of subsection (6) of the Tax Agreement Act could be deleterious, as well as be positive.

I know that the Government House Leader has said that the only affect of this is to have ameliorative provisions made retroactive, but I am not so sure that there could not also be deleterious provisions made retroactive and I am sure that the Opposition Leader in his usual thoroughness will be able to recite backwards and forwards section 6 of the Tax Agreement Act, so that we could all fully understand, when he finishes his speech, whether or not that is possible, but if the Government House Leader is right and the only affect of this Act is to provide for the allowances of rebates to be retroactive, then I will have no problem with it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to section 6, I thank the member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for his ringing endorsement of support here.

MR. TULK: He will soon be a Tory.

MR. SULLIVAN: It states here in article 6 and I am sure the member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has looked at it, it says: may make regulations respecting the application of retail sales tax to transactions relating to retail sales, acquisitions, consumption or use of tangible personal property or of service in the Province which commences on or before March 31, 1997 and which are completed subsequent to that date. I guess that is with reference to, I would assume, when the HST came in it probable changed the provisions then as apposed to a separate RST and a GST that applied to people and where Labradorians were getting a rebate, now it will impact on their status under the new fifteen per cent, I am assuming that is the reference date for that.

It goes on to say, providing for the rebate for tax imposed, so it says, it provides for the rebate under 6(b), under the retail sales tax, the builders of new residential homes and new multi-unit residential establishments where the construction commences on or before March 31, 1997, but is not complete or is not sold.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said subsequent to that date.

Now, the Government House Leader, I think, introduced the Bill on behalf of the Minister of Finance. Is that correct? I did not get to hear the opening comments on it, but it does provide a section respecting a refund rebate or reimbursement and I am not fully clear on what is stated here, that regulations made under subsection (1) may be made with, it says, retroactive affect. I am not so sure that is does not apply to the whole provisions, at all to all regulations. Therefore, I always have great difficulty anytime we make retroactivity in legalisation, that concerns me a lot. I certainly agree with the provisions to do what they are trying to do for people to be able to get a rebate and in Labrador, I do not know why this was not dealth with before.

MR. HARRIS: I wonder if the government would accept an amendment making sure that only the regulations with respect to rebates be retroactive.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, that would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but seriously -

MR. TULK: But Jack you know where the amendments are.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Government House Leader, the intent of legislation is not always the same and we do have before us here, and I say to hon. members, we do have before us many pieces of legalisation, anomalies and errors and so on, many things that came through here that had to be corrected and many times legislation has put it on the books and we have to come back and deal with it over again.

So, this to me does not clearly state that retroactivity applies to rebate only and I am no lawyer, I am no legal expert on it, I had an opportunity to read that, and the same concern -

MR. H. HODDER: There are twelve retroactivities (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is on Bill 9. The same concern that is mentioned there - I mean, we certainly know the purpose of the principle of the rebate to people in Labrador on housing. But the point on making it universal to the regulation, I'm certainly not convinced that that does the job. Maybe the Government House Leader might want to be able to come back to it, when we get to the Committee stage of this. We could look at it when we get to Committee and take a little closer look in case there is some amendment that we could put forward to be able to address that and make it abundantly clear exactly what we are voting on.

That is the only concern I see. I think the Government House Leader indicated the intent of it. It isn't a problem with the principle of it, but the actual wording in that may need to be changed on that to more properly reflect what in principle the intent is. I will conclude my remarks on that, Mr. Speaker, with that comment.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say quite simply in closing the debate on this piece of legislation, that as the hon. Opposition Leader said, the intent is to take care of the Labrador situation. If there is any problem with it then we can, if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board agrees, and if he doesn't you can hold it up in Committee anyway, you can say what you want to say, do what you want to do with the bill, in Committee. Certainly when we get to Committee I will see that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board addresses the situation.

I would move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 3)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentlemen wanted some time - I had intended to go down through the Order Paper, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law." But I think the hon. gentlemen on the other side want some time to take a look at that and maybe have some discussions with the Minister of Justice. We are certainly prepared to do that. I think also they wanted to take a look at the wilderness and ecological reserves act.

I'm now going to call the next order of business on the Order Paper, No. 9, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of Food," Bill 12. I believe that the NDP member in the House also would like to speak to that bill. I assume he will be around for debate. If not, I would ask that we hold off to pass second reading until such time as he is back in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of Food," Bill 12.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of Food". (Bill No. 12)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like, to be frank with you - and I haven't asked my colleague for Humber Valley if he wants to speak on this, but he was the chairman of the Committee. I know that the Member for Bonavista South was the person who, and I give him all credit for it in the world, brought this piece of legislation to the House in the beginning, or at least the idea for the legislation, to the Legislature. I would sit down and ask the Member for Bonavista South if he wants to speak, and maybe at that point in time the Member for Humber Valley might like to address the bill as well, I was just saying, before the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi came in, that I understand he wants to speak on this bill. Since he is now in the Legislature I guess we can proceed as normal.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My comments are going to be very brief on this bill. It was a bill that was introduced a few years ago. I think at that time, or two years ago, it was Bill 100. Then it was brought back into the Legislature. I think it was Bill 30. Now it is back again for the third time as Bill No. 12.

I would certainly like to commend the Social Services Committee, the Chairman from Humber East, the Member for Twillingate and Fogo, the Member for Waterford Valley, the Member for St. John's East, and I think the Member for Burin - Placentia West, who, I think, were the members of that particular committee. I commend them for the job that they did, not because they brought the bill back, but I sat in on the committee hearings and they did a marvellous job. It was done in a very fair way. They listened and they questioned. There were some concerns brought forward, but I am certainly happy to see them recommend this bill. It is a bill that was brought forward and accepted in five other provinces, in all fifty of the United States. It is not something that is going to be earth-shattering, or anything, I suppose, that is going to...

To me, very simply, I guess this bill means that if somebody does something in good faith then they should not fear the repercussions of litigation. If I am going to invite somebody into my house, and somebody trips on the floor and falls down and breaks their leg, then I think, from the pure act of kindness, it would be very unfair if that person took me to court and sued me. That is all that this bill says. It removes the litigation from somebody doing something from kindness and helping somebody else.

We have in excess of 45,000 people who use food banks in this Province, and of that 45,000 in excess of 20 per cent of them are children. There is a very real need out there. We are talking about good food. We are not talking about food that is adulterated. We are not talking about food that is unfit for human consumption. It opens up the door for people to continue giving, and make perfectly good food available to the needy and the people who use those food banks.

I think it is a good bill. I commend the chairman and his committee for bringing it back to the House, and the Government House Leader for seeing fit to introduce it in this particular session of the Legislature.

Thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was our pleasure to have reviewed this particular piece of legislation, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of Foods". It is a rather simple piece of legislation which essentially states that if you or I, or a corporation for that matter, were to donate some food to a group or to a cause and if, through no fault of your own, there proved to be something wrong with that food, then you would not be held liable.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. Any corporation that would make any donation of food would clearly make sure, in the very first instance, that there was nothing wrong with the food.

In many cases what we found, as we did our investigation, was that the legal beagles associated with the corporations in Canada were giving advice to people like Kraft Canada and others that: If you do donate this food, and if something does happen, you will be held personally liable.

As a consequence, as a result of that advice, on many occasions the corporation simply said: Well, we are not prepared to accept that level of liability. And they took what was very good, perfectly acceptable food, and carried it off to the dump - very much of a shame in this day and age in this country when so many people are going hungry and food is at a premium.

I would report that, as we looked at the various legislation in different jurisdictions in Canada, we found that jurisdictions like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Ontario have enacted exactly the same legislation. As a matter of fact, the Province of Ontario's legislation is verbatim to the legislation which we are proposing here today. As a matter of fact, that legislation in Ontario was passed in 1994.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was Premier then?

MR. MERCER: I would suspect it may have been an NDP government of the day, Mr. Rae, I believe, who was the Premier of the day, so it was passed by that particular government.

All political parties in Canada of different stripes in all four provinces, have decided that this is a good thing, and in talking with the members associated with the food banks in different parts of Canada, they have said nothing but positive things about this type of legislation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we have been told that this piece of legislation has dramatically increased the amount of food which has been made available to food banks in each of the Maritime Provinces and in Ontario as well.

There were some individuals who came before our committee, Mr. Speaker, who indicated that they thought perhaps this was not a good piece of legislation; there were others who thought just the opposite. On balance, Mr. Speaker, when we reviewed the information available to us, the committee concluded, unanimously, I might add - all members of the committee both members from the opposite side and this side, unanimously agreed that this was a good piece of legislation and that it should be brought back into the House for passage.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying that there is nothing in this legislation that we could find that would be to the detriment of those who would receive the food. When we talked to people at the food banks here in St. John's, they also concurred on that. We talked to a gentleman at the food bank up on LeMarchant Road, I believe it was, and the Salvation Army on Adams Avenue and both of these individuals indicated that they thought the legislation was a good idea, and based upon that and all the other information which was available to us, we thought that we should bring this back in, and that is what is being done here today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak in opposition to Bill No. 12. I have not had the opportunity in this House to speak to this legislation; it seems to be brought before the House when I am not around. But I managed to hear upstairs that the bill was called and I rushed down here to be here.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The orders seem to have changed around, Mr. Speaker, after I left the room.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: The Opposition House Leader and I both agreed that if the hon. gentleman was not in the Chamber when we introduced this a few minutes ago for second reading, that we would not close debate on the bill until the hon. gentleman came back.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. members were engaging in debate and the hon. the Government House Leader gave further clarification on the issue.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I accept the explanation of my colleague, the hon. the Government House Leader. I left the House to attend to a matter and was of the understanding that we were following a certain order. I just overheard the matter being called and I rushed to the House. I did not hear the comments that would have been exchanged back and forth between the Government and Opposition House Leaders, so I accept that and I apologize for any implication that would be in my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

I am interested in this legislation because it does what I think is abhorrent in legislation and sets two standards in this Province for the protection of health in the area of food distribution.

We have one set of laws and rules and protections from the law for people who buy food from a restaurant or from a store or supermarket, and there are standards for the protection of the public that are in the law and, in this case, in the common law, because we are talking here about the common law.

This cannot undo the Criminal Code, but we are talking here about the common law standards of negligence, Mr. Speaker, that apply to restaurant owners, that apply to caterers, that apply to the Salvation Army when they are holding a banquet for their members, that apply to the Canadian Legion when it is holding a banquet to raise money for a charity; that apply to the Lions Club, that apply to the Kiwanis Club and that apply to anybody who is in the business of distributing food for consumption, whether it be for profit or not, in circumstances where negligence can cause harm.

There are standards that apply, and people who are involved in the distribution, preparation, storage and transportation of food are required to meet general standards of good care based on the law.

What we have here is a bill that establishes a different standard for people who are poor, for people who are forced by the economic circumstances that government has allowed to exist, who are forced - as the Member for Bonavista South said, 45,000 people going to food banks - to accept a lesser standard, have a lesser standard imposed on them.

I have a serious question as to whether or not this bill is constitutional. I have a serious question as to whether or not it would withstand a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees people equal protection under the law. It seems to me a category of persons does not get equal protection under the law because of this legislation, and they would be poor people. They would be people who are subject to unequal protection under this legislation, I believe, contrary to Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees to all Canadians equal protection under the law, and equal protection of the law. It seems pretty clear that the full intention of the Act is to lower the standard when it comes to donated food, in the case of food banks. It is designed clearly to provide for an exemption from the standards of the law.

Mr. Speaker, I attended the hearings, as well, and listened to the presentations that were made. The representative of the national anti-poverty organization spoke quite eloquently against the bill, felt insulted by the legislation, felt that the legislation was treating poor people with disrespect and treating them with contempt by subjecting them to a different standard in food banks than people would get buying food.

I challenge the suggestion that this is something that is unanimously accepted in five or six different provinces and all fifty states of the United States. I do not think that is true. I think there are various bits and pieces of legislation of some similar effect in other places. The bill looks very similar to the one in Manitoba.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) passed in Ontario.

MR. HARRIS: There are a few words changed. In fact, I do not care where it was passed or who passed it. I do not care if Bob Rae passed it. I do not care if Pierre Trudeau passed it, I do not care if Jean Chrétien passed it. I do not care if Bob Rae passed it three times! It does not bother me in the least, Mr. Speaker. I am opposed to it! I am opposed to it because it discriminates against people who are forced to rely on food banks. I will say one thing, that when Bob Rae was Premier of Ontario, there were far fewer people going to food banks than there are now under the Conservative Government, and than there were before under the Liberal Government of Petersen. There were far fewer people going to the food banks before and after Bob Rae than there was during the Bob Rae Government, I guarantee you that. I think that is something that can be demonstrated by evidence, if necessary.

I guarantee you that this is a bill, whether it is passed by anybody else in any other state of the union of the United States of America or Canada or France, I do not care. I am opposed to it on principle, because the principle behind the bill is wrong. I believe that people who - the only people who came to the Committee who were users of food banks were opposed to the bill! I am not talking about the volunteers, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about the corporate donors and their lawyers and all these people. I am not interested in them. I am talking about the people who use the food banks, people who require use of the food banks. They are the ones, Mr. Speaker. When they came before the Committee, they said: `Look, I do not like what this is doing.'

The Dietetic Association came and strongly opposed the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Representatives of the Dietetic Association talked about the problems with food. One expert, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose the only expert, really, who appeared before the Committee, Dr. Mary Alton Mackey, who appeared before this Committee, a dietician, brought with her a number of samples of food and outlined to the Committee all the difficulties with the food in those containers and showed the Committee how the food could be - if there were not proper labelling on the food, if the containers were dented, if they were not used properly, they could, in fact, provide serious problems for people using the food and emphasized to the Committee the need to have standards.

The fact of the matter is that the corporations or the people who have this food and are donating it, they abide by the standards. They are the trained people who abide by the standards. The only problem seems to be, Mr. Speaker, and I think the chairman of the committee acknowledged this privately, that although there was a lot of talk about increases in food being available to food banks, it appears that the increase in food available to the food banks is in perishable foods - the very area where the most concern arises; not only that, the very area where the expertise of the people who operate the stores, warehouses and supermarkets have expertise that ordinary people do not, and that is who are running the food banks, Mr. Speaker, ordinary people, volunteers, no special experts, no special training. There is no experience necessary to volunteer at a food bank and to pass out food which may or not be harmful to people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one suggestion was made as to the concerns in particular about perishable foods, that if the government really wanted to do something about the availability of food in this Province, particularly perishable food, Mr. Speaker, it would be to lower the cost of perishable foods by guaranteeing some priority of access on the Cabot Strait ferries for perishable foods. I am told that thousands and thousands of dollars worth of perishable foods actually perish sitting in trucks waiting to get on the ferry. This drives the cost of food in St. John's - and I am sure Carbonear higher - but drives the cost of perishable food up some 25 per cent in this Province as the result of not having special access to the ferry for perishable foods.

Now, if someone wanted to improve the food supply in this Province, lower the price of food so that people would not have to go to food banks, that seems to me to be a far more useful project to undertake than somebody who lowers standards and does not do anything to improve the quality or access to food in this Province at all but, in fact, provides a worry-free dump for Sobeys and Loblaws of their perishable foods.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) getting it from the food bank.

MR. HARRIS: Well, if the supper is coming from the food bank, I am not so sure. It depends, if the Act is not passed by then, I will go along with that. If the Act is passed, I will pass on the offer of supper from the member.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is a piece of legislation that I have opposed on principal. I have made my voice clear publicly. There has been some public debate on this issue. There has been some debate, publicly - there has been more public debate than there has been in this House. I know the Committee heard a number of submissions and, in fact, heard both sides of the issue. The Committee may have been unanimous, but the submissions certainly were not, not the ones that I heard, Mr. Speaker, they certainly were not unanimous in their support for this Bill.

There were a couple of people from the food banks who supported it and they did so on the basis and the impression, as least, and most of it was impressionistic, that they might get more food to distribute if they had this piece of legislation. But there was not very much evidence that this is a particular problem with this Province.

It may be an excuse that some corporations are giving, not to donate food, but if this were a real problem - the Province of British Columbia does have such legislation, and they have a problem with donations to their food banks. But it is not because of the absence of legislation, it is because of the absence of the very many food processing or manufacturing operations in the province of British Columbia.

So, guess what has happened, Mr. Speaker. One of the major transport companies in Canada, I think it is CP, have offered to transport, free of charge, food from Ontario to British Columbia for distribution in the food banks in British Columbia. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is to a province that does not have any legislation protecting them, and their food supply is increasing because a company, Canadian Pacific Transport, has made available free transportation half-way across the country from Ontario to British Columbia to provide food - in the total absence of any legislation such as this.

Mr. Speaker, I know how this came to be; it was a suggestion honourably made by the member for Bonavista South, honourably made, and picked up by the Premier a few days before Christmas, then in the expectation that it could be whipped through the Legislature.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Before Christmas, the Committee after Christmas, in the expectation that it could be passed quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: No room for public input, that did not happen on a lot of important pieces of legislation here, I can tell you, a lot they did not put to Committee.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, there has been public debate on it, there has been varying opinion one way or the other. It appears that the majority of the Committee, at least, I do not know about the members of the House in general, are supporting the legislation and it appears that they are willing to see a lesser standard for food banks and for people who use food banks, than they are for people who can afford to buy food at a restaurant or take-out or at a hotel, and allow the poor people in this Province to be regarded as having lesser rights than others when it comes to food.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to criticize the Member for Bonavista South, but he used an example. He said: If I invite you to my house and give you a meal, I do not expect to be sued if you get food poisoning. Well, that maybe the case, but I tell you something: if somebody wanted to sue me for food poisoning, if I invited them to my house, they could. If my negligence caused the food poisoning and I was responsible for someone being poisoned, who I invited to my house, that person could sue me, whether I expected it or not, whether that person was my friend or not, I could be sued.

That analogy is not what we are talking about here. That is not the analogy. That is the sentiment, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about a concerted program that is a very important part of the food supply of individuals who have to rely on food banks. We are not talking about a casual meal here. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a form of survival. This is survival for people who are not receiving enough money from the Minister of Human Resources and Employment to feed themselves. That is what we are talking about here. We are not talking about some charity luncheon. We are not talking about a turkey dinner at Christmas time. We are talking about people whose basic food supply is dependent upon food banks, because the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the government does not give people enough money to be able to feed themselves without going to a food bank. That is the problem. That is the issue we are talking about here. We are not talking about, `Brother can you spare a dime?' We are talking about people who rely, on a constant, ongoing basic, more and more each month, more and more each year as the poverty level rises and conditions worsen. We are even talking about government employees.

I had a call last year from a family where the husband worked full time at the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, and they lived in subsidized housing. They had three children, and in order to feed their family they had to go to a food bank. So we are not talking here about a casual meal offered to somebody as a `Come over to my house and sit down and have a pork chop', or have a grub job, as they call it. We are talking about the basic food supply for so many people in our Province; 45,000 is the figure used by the Member for Bonavista South. That is approaching 10 per cent of our population who rely on food banks, and we are talking about institutionalizing food banks as a regular feature of the food supply in this Province when we know full well that people on social assistance are not given adequate money to feed their families. Forty-five thousand is nearly half the number of people on social assistance. Nearly half the number of people on social assistance are going to food banks, and some who are working are going to food banks.

We have institutionalized poverty in the Province. It is prolonged; it is not changing. It is getting worse, and we are now providing the legal underpinnings for this ongoing situation to supposedly make it easier to continue to have food supplied to people by donation as opposed to as a right. I think we should be passing a Bill of Rights for poor people, a social Bill of Rights, a social charter for poor people, not a legal charter for corporations, not a legal exemption for corporations. We should be passing a social charter for people, for poor people with the right to enough money, the right to an adequate income, so that they can buy food. That is what we should be passing here in this House, not a Bill of Rights for corporations, letting them off the hook if they are negligent.

I know, Mr. Speaker, you are listening and you care, but I don't know if the other members are listening to that. I don't know whether a Charter of Social Rights for poor people is more important than a bill that provides an exemption for a corporation for negligence. We are approaching this the wrong way. We are approaching it from the wrong end of the stick, as they say in some places, the dirty end of the stick perhaps, and I know who is getting the dirty end of the stick with this bill. It is people who are forced to go to food banks.

MR. SULLIVAN: The people who are getting no food are getting the dirty end, too.

MR. HARRIS: The people who are getting no food... Mr. Speaker, I don't see the Leader of the Opposition on his feet every day demanding that the Department of Social Services increase the welfare rates. I don't see anybody in this House getting up and saying: Where is the Charter of Rights for poor people? Where is the guarantee of this government that people have adequate income so they can feed themselves; complaining about the fact that there are 45,000 people going to the food banks. That should rest on this government's head. They are the ones who, since 1989, have not raised the basic social assistance rates. Since 1989 they have not raised the basic social assistance rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite can try and personalize this all they want. Whenever I hear them say that, I know that they are not on very good ground. They are very worried because their consciences are bothering them.

Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that gives a legal break to corporations and does nothing to acknowledge the fact that the poor people in this Province are dependent on food banks.

Instead of attacking the government, instead of asking the government to do the right thing by providing an adequate income to people from the tax system to ensure that they have enough to eat we are giving the corporations a break in the hopes, Mr. Speaker, that they might donate a few more crumbs off their table instead of putting it in the dump, giving it to a food bank. That is what we are trying to accomplish. That is where we are, Mr. Speaker. We think that the best way to solve the problems of the poor, the best way to deal with this problem is to give the corporations a break. Instead of sending their stuff to the dump they can give it to the food bank and then say in their annual report how good they are in making a donation to the food bank. Something that they would have thrown to the dump otherwise, Mr. Speaker, they are now giving to the food bank. Instead of paying their fair share of taxes, Mr. Speaker, instead of Loblaws and Sobey's and these corporations paying their fair share of taxes they will be quite happy to pat themselves on the back because we gave some food to the food bank that we would have otherwise thrown in the dump. That is what we have here, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: That's not right and you know that. You know the difference.

MR. HARRIS: Now I know that the minister has some legitimate concerns from time to time but I am saying that the right spin on this is that there are 45,000 people in this Province who are forced to go to food banks because they have inadequate incomes. That's the spin, that's the problem.

MR. FRENCH: Food banks do not have enough food to feed them (inaudible). This bill will help the food banks.

MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Speaker, what I want to do - I only have five minutes left unfortunately - I think we might be getting somewhere, Mr. Speaker, we have the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture listening at least.

MR. TULK: You have the same chance as anybody else in this House (inaudible) went through the process.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if we had a fair tax system in this country we would not have to worry about food banks because the people on the corporations who got the money will be paying enough in taxes to be able to have government programs that would eliminate poverty.

MR. TULK: What did you do with your money you got from Mount Cashel?

MR. HARRIS: That is the problem with this country, we don't have a fair tax system. Mr. Speaker, if the people who could afford to pay taxes and the corporations who don't pay taxes pay their fair share of taxes, if we had a fair tax system, Mr. Speaker, we would not have to worry about food banks because there would not be any.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: A person on social assistance, Mr. Speaker - don't forget the rest of your speeches now, I say to my colleagues, don't forget your other speeches about the HST and how it is taking money out of the poor. People on social assistance are paying the HST at 15 per cent and getting a rebate of $40 a year. Big deal!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I know you did. I say don't forget those speeches too and the money is coming out of the poor people at a greater rate then coming out of rich people, Mr. Speaker. So we don't have a fair tax system. If you want to get into socialism, I can speak for several days on that, no problem.

MR. EFFORD: You are not going to get the time.

MR. HARRIS: No problem. I can move an amendment. How about a six month hoist? I have a few minutes left. We could have a six month hoist and I could speak for another half hour.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) for six months.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I know the Member for Port de Grave would like to receive an education on socialism. I know he would. He needs one.

MR. EFFORD: I can't afford to be (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If anybody can afford anything it is the Member for Port de Grave. If anybody can afford anything in this House, Mr. Speaker, is the Member for Port de Grave. The wealthiest man in the Province, I think, he claimed to be a couple of years ago.

MR. TULK: He didn't earn it in one year like you did.

AN HON. MEMBER: John?

MR. HARRIS: Oh, he's proud of it and so he should be, he probably earned it. He probably earned it, I don't know. I hear people cast aspersions against how he made it from time to time, something about chip programs and things like that but I don't cast those aspersions, Mr. Speaker, if the -

MR. TULK: No you just bring them up in your round about way.

MR. HARRIS: I suspect that the minister probably earned whatever he got, I don't know. He probably worked hard for it and I don't begrudge it to him either as long as he pays his fair share of taxes, Mr. Speaker?

To get back to the bill. The bill doesn't address the needs of poor people in this Province. It institutionalizes poverty, it creates a double standard, and I suspect would not withstand a Charter challenge if someone is now forced to challenge this legislation through the courts. We shouldn't be passing legislation that is questionable. I think the Minister of Justice should ask his law officers of the Crown to give an opinion on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't think it needs an independent opinion. I think that there are quite capable people in the Department of Justice who are already on salary who would give an opinion like that. I think there are people who would give an opinion. I have good faith in the people the government has hired as lawyers. I don't think you need to go outside. Only if they were questioning something that the minister had done, or the Government House Leader had done, then you might have to go outside just to have an appearance of objectivity.

This is something, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Justice should ask one of his law officers to look into, whether or not such legislation provides for unequal protection of the law contrary to section 15 of the Charter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you spend some time on it yourself (inaudible)? You challenge it! You challenge it under (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I'm challenging it on the floor of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, which I was elected to do. Just as the hon. member was elected to guffaw the way he is over there now. (Inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say again to the Member for Bonavista South that we are indeed glad that he brought this idea to the Legislature last fall. It goes to show that there are times when all of us, almost all of us, in this Legislature can cooperate to see certain things are done for people who are in need, who need food, and we should not be throwing it away if it can be used by people. That is what the bill means, exactly that.

I say to the hon. gentleman for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi that he has had his opportunities. He has another one. He is a lawyer. If he wants to challenge this constitutionally then I say: You go right ahead. Spend your time. Don't charge anybody legal fees. You go ahead, institute the action, and carry it through. If you are so committed to your principles, to the principles that you have just espoused in this House, I would say to the hon. gentleman: You go right ahead and do it.

The process here has been followed, and followed very well. The hon. gentleman for Bonavista South came with an idea to this House. The government wrote up the legislation, put it out to a committee. There were hearings to which the hon. gentleman appeared. But now like a sook - and most people in this Province believe that we should pass this bill, according -

AN HON. MEMBER: Like a what?

MR. TULK: I'm not going to repeat it. The hon. gentleman heard me. He is over there now saying somebody should constitutionally challenge this. I would ask the hon. gentleman this afternoon, once this bill becomes law, how many of the food banks that he is talking about will take the dented cans and throw them away? How many of them?

AN HON. MEMBER: None of them.

MR. TULK: The hon. Member for Conception Bay South has the answer. Because they will realize that this is a good piece of legislation and they will realize that the people in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) cans are dangerous.

MR. TULK: Sit back. We are looking forward to seeing you in court challenging this under the Constitution. But the only way you will be there is if somebody else pays you.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. gentleman he got up - you wouldn't know but this was the first time this piece of legislation had been passed. We told him today, I think the Opposition House Leader and myself, I believe it was, were sitting there, and he came along, and we told him that this piece of legislation was identical to the legislation that was passed in Ontario -

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

MR. TULK: - by one Bob Rae.

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

MR. HARRIS: The hon. Government House Leader just misstated a fact, Mr. Speaker. At no time did I say that and furthermore, I said in my speech, I don't care who has ever passed it, whether Bob Rae passed it or Genghis Khan or Pierre Trudeau, it does not make any difference to me.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

MR. TULK: No, there is no point of order.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we told the hon. gentleman today saying over here that this was identical to the legislation that was passed in Ontario by that great saviour of the common people in Ontario called Bob Rae.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points to him. He said: Bob, there weren't so many people at food banks in Ontario when Bob Rae was the Premier of Ontario as there are today. Let me say to him that if Bob Rae had stayed Premier of Ontario, I am not too fond of Mike Harris, but if Bob Rae had stayed Premier of Ontario, let me say that we would have all been at food banks in Ontario. All the people in Ontario would probably have been at food banks.

Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation as I have said before that was passed by and put in place in Ontario, it is identical to the Ontario legislation, it is similar legislation to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Manitoba and, Mr. Speaker, I would commend this legislation to the House and I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And Distribution of Food", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 12).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the Minister of Justice is because he is supposed to be here at this point in time to introduce this bill but, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that in his absence I will introduce it.

Now, I understand too that the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman probably does not, either.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the bill, the Small Claims Act, which relates to the enforcement of judgements under the act be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Go on and practice a bit of law boy, see if you can make a few bucks down there or something, some extra dollars.

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

MR. HARRIS: You are the one making law and nobody has read the act.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading and I understand that the hon. gentleman from Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi has some questions which I am sure will be answered between now and the time we move it into Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay which Order number, the hon. the Government House Leader, which Order number? Okay, number 5.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act". (Bill No. 1).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would, as I say to you again, move that this bill be now read a second time.

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

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

I just have a few comments while I await the arrival of our Justice critic. Mr. Speaker, we have had some commentaries in our caucus discussions and we generally have some general approval; I do understand that this particular bill is to make some modifications to give the judges some greater power in the court in terms of being able to decide whether or not the people who are advocating in the court are indeed knowledgeable of the law and I think clause No. 3 says: it permits parties to be represented by counsel or agents and the clause will give a judge the discretion to exclude an agent from representing a party where the agent is not competent to properly represent a party or does not understand the duties or responsibilities of the advocate.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand that this particular amendment comes about because on some occasions the justices in the court have had people who have pretended to be or have assumed the role of advocates and advisors in litigation and some of the judges have said that they have great difficulties with accepting the legal training or accepting the - I would not say the legitimacy, but accepting the person who is advocating as a person who has adequate resources, and sometimes it causes great confusion and great consternation to a judge.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this, having talked to a couple of my colleagues who are members of the Bar, they tell me that this particular piece of legislation is not, in and of itself, anything other than to give some more discretion to the judge in terms of his ability to be able to have orderly proceedings in his or her court, because we do understand that this comes about because of some of the things that have occurred, and gives the judge the power to accept or not accept a particular advocate if the judge feels that the advocate is not operating in the courtroom in the best interest of the client that he or she is alleged to be representing.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side generally accept that rationale. I think my learned friend from St. John's East will have a few comments. As a general statement, we support the particular amendments to the Small Claims Act.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that the hon. Minister of Justice is to speak to this particular act in some further explanation of some of the provisions. Therefore, I will reserve my right to comment until those explanations are given by the hon. minister.

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

MR. TULK: Do you want to move the second read and get to the discussion in committee, or do you want to just put it aside and wait until the Minister of Justice comes back?

Mr. Speaker, by leave I would move that we move to the next order and not call the question on this particular bill until the Minister of Justice has had a chance to hear the gentleman on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, let me call Order No. 10, "An Act to Amend The Residential Tenancies Act" (Bill No. 15), the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Residential Tenancies Act". (Bill No. 15)

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make a few comments on the proposed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act will result in the elimination of tenancies boards. Certainly, I believe that measures will be viewed favourably by landlords and tenants alike because the disputes will now be resolved in a simpler and less formal and less intimidating manner because previously this had to go through the courts.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I think we have agreed that we will go past 5:30 p.m., and I would ask leave to move a motion that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m

Motion, that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., carried.

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Also, this amendment will see the elimination of the $50 court fee that has normally been paid for challenges or disagreements to be registered.

Mr. Speaker, in the past many of the tenants have complained, and even the landlords have complained, about having to go through the court process, because of the time. Also, we have had complaints, or inquiries at least, from the court workers themselves, because it takes a lot of time out of the court process when we go through the process of appeal on the claims by the tenants against the landlords and certainly it is not taking anything away from the tenants or the landlords because disputes can still be settled by appealing to the court as a last resort.

Let me also say, the amendment will replace the filing an application with the trial division by the landlord or tenant with filing an application to the director of residential tenancies and certainly this amendment will eliminate the Residential Tenancies Boards and transfer the advocate role played by these boards to the that of the director of residential tenancies or his staff.

This amendment also eliminates the rent review process and the fifteen day time period by which a landlord or tenant must start an action for deferment of rent owing.

Mr. Speaker, this also, I guess, brings us along in terms of the regularity reform trying to make processes easier for the people in the market place to deal with government regulations.

This amendment will see the repealing of a number of the sections of the Residential Tenancies Act. Our feeling is that it will make the process much simpler by eliminating the boards, we will put a process in place that will allow the tenants to much more quickly deal with a situation and a problem with the rental in a much more direct way. The director of residential tenancies will then be able to assign different staff in different areas of the Province to deal with the issues, so that we do not have to wait for boards to sit.

In the past, when the residential tenancies boards were functioning there were only certain times of the year that these boards would be set and there are a lot of cases where people would have to wait an extended period of time for the boards to find enough case to actually sit in a functional way. This will eliminate that, Mr. Speaker, this will certainly improve that situation because they will just go to one referee, the determination will be made, if they are still not in agreement the tenant has the option then of going through the court process, but that would be the last resort.

Mr. Speaker, also included in this will be the revision of a lot of the forms that are currently part of the regulation that is applied under this legislation. The regulations referring to the tenancies boards, the forms that attach to that will all be revised into a process whereby we will have it all accommodated within the much more refined Residential Tenancies Act and we believe that this will certainly ensure a better service provided to the general public through the tenant and also the landlords.

I think the hon. member for Cape St. Francis may have a few questions, so that is my introductory remarks to the amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say a few words with respect to this Bill, Bill No. 15. I do have some concerns, An Act To Amend The Residential Tenancies Act.

The explanatory note for itself, I want to read that into the record, so I am going to do that: This amendment would replace filing an application with the trial division by a landlord or tenant with filing an application with the director of residential tenancies. This amendment would eliminate the Residential Tenancies Boards and transfer the adjudicating role played by the Residential Tenancies Boards to that of the director of residential tenancies and his or her staff. The amendment also eliminates the rent review process and the fifteen day time period by which a landlord or tenant must start an action for determination of rent owing.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, from my perspective certainly changed the whole policy of the legislation as it now stands. For example, under Section 3.10(7), that is completely a new clause included in this legislation, a new sub-section. This, I think, also needs to be read so the public will understand what is going on here.

Subsection 3.10: "(7) Where notice to quit is given by a landlord to a tenant and the landlord files an application under section 38 and requests an order for possession of the residential premises, the director may refuse to make an order where it appears that the notice to quit was given because of a resort by the tenant to a governmental authority concerning the residential premises or of an attempt by the tenant to enforce or secure rights."

This bill replaces `judge' with `director'. It also replaces `Trial Division' and `court' with director. From my perspective, it certainly would be appearing to give a lot of authority to the director when that individual would be responsible for deciding complains of a legal nature that would come before that board, especially with the tenants who may be forced out of the premises or, in fact, if the property owner may have a problem with a tenant in getting them out. I am saying that it is giving too much power to one individual. In fact it is shifting policy, especially in light of the fact that the individual, the director, or his or her staff, could be political appointments and may have biases towards any given individual or group, or vice versa. To me, that is something that certainly has to be looked upon or considered.

If the intention is to change the policy and get it out of the courts and Trial Division, why not have an elected group or board, where any complaints would go before this group, or the director himself could be elected - himself or herself.

Also, this bill represents a significant shift in policy that appears to have come out of nowhere. Now the minister has said that the whole intent of this was to help resolve complaints, and they have had complaints.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I don't. Pay attention to what I have said and you would know. The Member for Labrador West should be back in his own seat. He should not be commenting unless he is sitting in his own seat, I say to the member.

When the minister was on his feet he referred to, as I said, complaints from individuals, both tenants, maybe, and landlords, but from what I read in this bill, I don't see where these people have been given any opportunity to have any input into this legislation or into this bill, and these people have a direct stake in this legislation. So, I wonder if the minister would address that. Would the government put this legislation on hold to allow people to have the input basically, to have some public consultation, because obviously they have not.

When the minister was on his feet, I made a few notes as he was speaking, he talked about how the elimination of the tenancies boards would help resolve conflicts in a less problematic way. That would not necessarily be so, because if we have an individual now who has a complaint and he goes to the Trial Division, he most likely would accept that; but if the person that he goes to now, which would be the director, and he feels that he did not get a fair shake, whatever the case may be, because of partisan politics, or whatever the case may be, especially if that person is politically appointed, then he could end up having to go further. As the minister said, he could take it to the court of last repeal, which would be the courts themselves. In actual fact, it could be prolonging the process to have conflicts resolved.

He referred to the $50 fee being eliminated. Well, who can complain about that, I say to the minister?

Basically that is what I have to say, that this bill, in actual fact, could actually prolong the process to have conflicts resolved. What he is trying to accomplish, in actual fact, could be defeating its own purpose.

Maybe you want to address some of those concerns, or maybe you will do that in committee. I don't know if this is the time right now, at this point in time, but you certainly can do it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to speak to Bill 15. I have a number of them that were laid on my desk yesterday, along with a number of other members, four, five or six different acts. Some of which I have had a chance to read, some of which I have not but we are here passing them today, Mr. Speaker, regardless.

I think that the Residential Tenancies Act needs to be amended because there are some serious problems with the ability of that act to service the people who are tenants in particular in this Province. I have had a number of complaints and criticisms of the act or of the procedure by people who feel that they have been ripped off by landlord after landlord after landlord and have never been able to get a damage deposit back, can't afford to fight the system, can't afford to get involved in the process, are intimidated by the process and all kinds of other reasons. They have been in a position on social assistance where social services would not give them another damage deposit because they already had one and they were told to get it back from social services. So they ended up with overpayment upon overpayment which get taken out of their social assistance payments.

The Residential Tenancies Act was a total failure for those people. Now I don't know if this act fixes it up. I really don't. I only saw it yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I have not had time to read the eighteen provisions of it and compare them to the ones that were there before. I have not had time to do that. I don't know if the person who wrote me some months ago saying that he is out three damage deposits, spent two years trying to get them back and does not have a hope in hell of doing it, whether his problems are solved by this legislation or not. I don't know.

I don't know why we waited until yesterday to get the bill, Mr. Speaker. I don't know why a committee could not have been looking at this a few months ago, whether Cabinet had passed it or not. I don't know why we have a Legislature, Mr. Speaker, that sits for less than 100 days a year and we can't get legislation except the last day or two before the House closes. I don't know what kind of system we have, Mr. Speaker. We are all elected to be lawmakers. We are all elected here to come to this House and study legislation. We can mouth off all we want. We are supposed to do that, to ask questions and bring petitions from members, bring resolutions but one of the principal activities of a legislative assembly, Mr. Speaker, is to pass laws, to make laws and we are being asked to do that now on a piece of legislation which is fairly complex and which we were given yesterday.

I don't doubt the good faith of the minister. I think he is sincere in saying that he thinks it is going to solve some of the problems but I don't know if it will solve the problems of the people who come to me and say that The Residential Tenancies Act does not work for them. Now the elimination of the $50, I could not agree with it more. I don't disagree with anything the minister said, `...eliminate the $50 fee, it is a deterrent to poor people who are being ripped off by landlords.' So I agree with that. I agree with the elimination of the board. It simplifies the procedure but I am just saying I don't know if this legislation works. I have not had a chance to study it. I saw it yesterday for the first time along with four, five or six other bills and I am saying that the people in this House were all charged with the responsibility of legislation.

So, I am complaining, not necessarily about this bill, I say to the minister, but the legislative process that we are all engaged in. We sit as a Legislature for less then 100 days a year, why do we have to deal with this bill in two or three days, when we could have had it presumably a couple of months ago, even when it was in its draft stage, this is what we are looking at, this is what we are considering. Have a look at it, maybe you might have some suggestions for improving it. We will get it in final form and then we will pass it when the House opens.

So, I say to hon. members opposite and to members on this side of the House, we have to really look at the legislative process that we are engaged in.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible), you would have no problem.

MR. HARRIS: I think the act needs to be changed, needs to be upgraded, needs to be improved and needs to make it easier for people to use the process. We have a complex process and I understand some of the reasons why and some of the reasons have to do with the constitution and that has made the thing a little more cumbersome.

The Residential Tenancies Board, the decisions have to be approved by the court and if the government has found a way around the approval of the court for these decisions, then I think that is great. I have not had a chance to determine whether that is the case or not, but I hope that the changes that are being made are going to be effective and the only way to find out is to see whether a person who is a landlord tries to avoid paying a damage deposit. I have had constituents who could not use the act at all because they could not find the landlord, they had no address for the landlord, the landlord did not answer his phone, could not exercise his or her right under the act because the landlord -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: - because the landlord made himself invisible, except when it came time to collect the rent, he was very visible then, knocking on your door demanding the rent, he is around then. No trouble to find him on rent day, but after you move out and when you have to get your damage deposit back, he is nowhere to be found. Where is the remedy for that in this act, I do not know Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is there. I do not think that there is any solution for that problem here in this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister, he is a new minister and I think he is sincere in trying to bring ameliorative provisions to the Residential Tenancies Act before the House, but I would suggest to him that perhaps he should share some of his ideas beforehand with other members who have some experience in dealing with tenants and with problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Sure, absolutely, absolutely.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Give the committee something to do, have a Legislative process that involves members of this House, Mr. Speaker, instead of just presenting them as fait accompli in the last couple of days when people are anxious to get out of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is anxious to get out (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well boy, some of your members over there have approached me already.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have they?

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want to get out?

MR. HARRIS: Offered to take me out for a beer at three o'clock tomorrow.

MR. TULK: Did they?

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

MR. TULK: Oh good for them.

MR. HARRIS: On one condition, only on condition that the House is closed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, I don't worry about that. I look after myself in that regard, don't you worry about that.

Mr. Speaker, that is a complaint that I have, that we are asked to deal with legislation on an immediate basis without having a chance to examine it, without having a chance to find out the rights of it, without having a chance to find out whether or not it makes any difference. The new legislation ties in often with several other acts, this one does not, but I think that the changes to the Landlord/Tenant Act are overdue, Mr. Speaker, they have to be simplified; they have to be made more accessible to people.

AN HON. MEMBER: I suppose they are made political?

MR. HARRIS: They are not supposed to be made political, I hope they are not. They are supposed to be made more accessible to people; people should have the ability without having to hire a lawyer and pay large fees to a lawyer or to any lawyer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well I don't think you are going to get any lawyer without paying a fee, Mr. Speaker. Legal Aid won't take your case, Mr. Speaker, if you have a landlord/tenant problem and has to do with getting your damage deposit back, because it is not worth it. It is not worth it, Mr. Speaker. If someone is trying to get seventy-five dollars back, damage deposit or $150 damage deposit, it is not worth your while to pay a lawyer, and the average person cannot find their way through the Residential Tenancies Act and get their money back, so what happens, Mr. Speaker? They are exploited by landlords; they are exploited by unscrupulous people who know that it is difficult for tenants to get their money back; they know it, and, Mr. Speaker, some of these landlords have ways of manipulating the Department of Human Resources and Employment; they seem to have an inside track in some cases to get money out of Human Resources and Employment, on behalf of tenants, and, Mr. Speaker, I think the system is unfair and unfair needs to be changed. Does this act change it? It may make some improvements. You don't have to pay down fifty dollars to try and fight to get back $150 so that is an improvement for someone who does not have any money, so it makes it a little bit easier.

I hope the process of going through the board, the elimination of that process - I don't think that was particularly helpful, having the board there. Most of these disputes were not major things. There were factual disputes about: Was there damage or was there not? This is a factual determination. You don't need three people sitting on a board to determine that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Five? There you go, five mouths to feed, I say; five mouths to feed from government to decide whether or not someone is entitled to a damage deposit back. That is not reasonable. I commend the minister for streamlining that process. I could go further and say, `five political mouths to feed', but I won't. At least we are eliminating that bit of government waste.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: And five boards. So five mouths to feed and five boards, so that is twenty-five mouths to feed, sitting on boards to decide some pretty basic simple issues, usually of fact, as to whether or not a damage deposit ought to be returned, or whether or not there should be interest on those damage deposits.

I know sometimes there are fractious disputes. I know there are disagreements from one party to another, but they are not complex matters. You don't have to be a genius or a Supreme Court Judge to determine some of the facts in these issues, so I am glad to see that the director is being given some authority to resolve these disputes, hopefully by mediation in some cases; in some cases to be quite fair to landlords. They don't know the law, they don't understand the law, and some people who are in the business of renting apartments - it may only be a basement apartment in their house, so while they are landlords in law, they may not be any more sophisticated than the tenants they are dealing with, so there are lots of circumstances where the landlord and the tenant are really on almost an equal footing.

I know there are landlords who have been taken advantage of by tenants as well, so it is not all a one-way street. Not every tenant is a saint and every landlord a sinner. There are many landlords who may rent the basement apartment, or even some who may rent more than that, who are very fair and reasonable and sometimes get taken advantage of by tenants who may damage their property, who may abscond without paying the rent, or may in other ways cause hardship to a landlord. So it is a balancing act that the Legislature has to undertake to make sure that landlords and tenants are treated fairly.

In principle, since we are at second reading, I don't have any difficulty in supporting the legislation at second reading.

The minister has explained some of the reasons for the simplifications here. The waiver of the $50 fee is an appropriate one. We have a procedure that allows the director to go through a remediation process which may resolve some disputes where the issue is really about understanding the respective rights and obligations of landlords and tenants as opposed to bad faith in terms of the operation of the legal requirements of the law but in those cases the decision making process of a director is certainly adequate to resolve factual disputes which may arise as a result of a landlord/tenant problem. I suppose the director or even an inspector might be able to make a report, go out and actually view a premises and make a report. A director might go do it himself if he were so inclined or if it were convenient to do that whereas you could not expect to (inaudible) a person in a cumbersome process to be able to do that.

So hopefully, Mr. Speaker, the informality or the less formality of the process would be to make it speedier, make it more accessible, eliminate the $50 deterrent fee which is what it is and hopefully this will work, Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister, if it does not work and if I get complaints about it I will pass them on directly to the minister. If there needs to be changes to the act I hope the minister would be willing to consider changes to the act to make what I think the minister (inaudible) said it, an attempt to make the legislation, the rights that people have to return of damage deposits, the rights of proper notice for tenants and proper notice for landlords for that matter, accessible to people and to make the process more workable. I hope it works, Mr. Speaker, and I support the bill on second reading.

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to respond first of all to the Member for Cape St. Francis who asked a question on Section 10(7) which refers to issues that are referred to the trial division. I would mention to the hon. member that when you are reading legislation and interpreting legislation, one section cannot be isolated. You have to read it into the other sections which a lot of times has a bearing on how you interpret it.

If you look at Section 38, it indicates that for disputes that are not dealt with under Section 29 and Section 29 indicates that the general disputes are settled by boards. So you have to look at a number of citations - I see the member is just coming back in now. I would say to the hon. member that his reference to I think it is section 10(7) where you asked a question. I just indicated, Mr. Speaker, that he referred to a dispute mechanism under that particular section. If you go read section 38 you then get an indication that it refers to all disputes that are not settled by sections 29 or 39.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: Yes. You have to go through the tenancies board first, and then if you aren't satisfied with the results, you then move on to the court system. We have eliminated one process, because what we are doing in essence is eliminating a long process that normally takes place.

I would just like to make a few comments with reference to what the other hon. members said to me. Indicating that under the Residential Tenancies Act right now what is operating is there are five boards in the Province. There are also I think it is five members on each board. We currently pay two chairs of these particular boards, one in St. John's and I think one was in the west. Normally what they do when they are hearing appeals is that they will only sit when there is so much business developed which will make it reasonable to sit. Because they have to come from different parts of the districts, and right now I believe there are five districts in the Province in which the residential tenancies boards operate.

What this will do in terms of this amendment is this will eliminate the process of waiting for regional residential tenancies boards to get enough business to sit. A tenant will be able to move into the director. Certainly be represented, or represent himself, in terms of a dispute. At that point the director will then set the process in motion, and that case will be dealt with independent of any other cases that you have to build up before a tenancies board will sit because of the expense of moving people into different parts of the different areas.

Certainly in response as well there are certainly other areas of this act that may need to be amended. We will be doing a full review. This is a change that we see as a real benefit to the tenants and landlords alike for the reasons I stated earlier. It certainly eliminates a very cumbersome process, a very agitating process at times, because you have tenants who are waiting a fair amount of time at different times.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the change we are making, and the amendment we are making here, is certainly in the best interest of the consumers, and that is the ultimate goal in trying to refine some of these certain acts that we are amending.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say in conclusion that we will continue to make amendments where they are necessary and where we see that they will improve the service that we provide to the consumer.

Thank you very much.

MR. TULK: Move second reading.

MR. McLEAN: I move second reading of Bill No. 15.


 

 

May 15, 1997              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLIII No. 26A


[Continuation of Sitting]

On Motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Residential Tenancies Act" read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 15)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have opened debate on the Small Claims Act, but the Minister of Justice was not here and it is his bill. To frank with you, I know very little about the bill, but I understand what we did was, we did not close debate on the bill, we did not vote on second reading and I think the Member for St. John's East wanted to have a few words on it. So we deferred debate and we deferred voting on the bill until such time as he had the chance to speak and the minister could then answer his questions.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The reason why debate was deferred, Mr. Speaker, is that it was my understanding from the Government House Leader that the minister would probably be back and would be making a few comments with respect to the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the understanding of the Chair that the minister is not closing the debate by speaking?

MR. TULK: No.

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

MR. DECKER: The amendments to the Act, Mr. Speaker, would permit the monetary jurisdiction of the court to be set by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. At present, the Act sets that amount at $3,000 and this amount is well below that set for small claims courts in other provinces and one which does not reflect the present needs. The changes would permit parties to an action before the court to be represented by council or other agents, it would not just be a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and it would facilitate the enforcement of judgements of the court under the system for the enforcement of judgements created by the Judgement Enforcement Act, an Act which was passed in the House in 1996.

There have been some concerns expressed by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi that under the Small Claims Act, the judge could actually send people to jail for not paying fines. The note that I have says, `This amendment does not make provision for imprisonment for failure to pay a small claim. It represents an improvement over the existing Act, in that payment orders will now go to the Sheriff's Office for enforcement and may result in a garnishing of wages, but not imprisonment', and this is the same as the Supreme Court judgements.

Contempt proceedings are available if a person ignores a subpoena or a summons to appear in court. This has always been the case, both in the Supreme Court and in the Provincial Court. Again, this amendment represents an improvement over the old, because the rules will now prescribe and limit the penalties for contempt. Previously, these limits were left to the judge's discretion, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the points made by the minister, I will just refer briefly to a couple of points that the minister referred to, the first dealing with the limit in small claims court, which today is at some $3,000. I am pleased to see that this particular issue is being addressed to some extent. The $3,000 limit, in my view, is simply too low, when one considers the significant cost that a litigant has to bear with respect to litigation.

It is certainly incumbent, it seems to me, on this Act, to do perhaps what it is setting out to do, namely, to give some expansion to that $3,000 limit. In some jurisdictions, I believe, in Ontario, the limit is presently $5,000 which seems to be more in line with what one would consider to be reasonable.

Obviously, the rationale is this, it allows an individual, in many cases unrepresented, because small claims court being an arm of the provincial court of this Province allows an individual with certain relaxation of the rules and the rules of evidence, to make representation on his/her own without the requirement of legal assistance, and in so doing, will help in the overall reduction of expenditure to that person with respect to legal fees. Also, as we know, Mr. Speaker, the whole aspect of court costs is really not a significant issue in small claims court. There is a minimal charge for the issuance of a statement of claim and the filing of certain court documentation subsequent to the statement of claim, but overall, the cost factor in provincial court is very minimal. So what the increasing of the limit from $3,000 to a higher amount does, what it, in fact, accomplishes, is it allows the ordinary citizen greater access to the courts at a more reasonable cost. So that particular reference in Bill No. 1, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act" is certainly one which I would support. It is one which gives greater access to the general public, to the courts of our Province, but it is important, it seems to me, that a specific amount be declared by members opposite rather than leaving it somewhat arbitrary, open and unknown as it is right now.

My concluding comment on that particular point is that $3,000 is too low. We need a greater amount that would afford greater accessibility by the general public to the courts of this Province and it could be done so at much less cost; and that is what access to justice, Mr. Speaker, is all about. It is allowing the citizens of our land accessibility to our courts at minimal cost, and as many litigants know, once they step inside a Trial Division of the Supreme Court of this Province, costs can escalate and the risk of litigation is much greater. By having a higher limitation on the amount and raising it from three to five or six or seven or whatever it might be, allows an individual much greater accessibility to our courts.

Mr. Speaker, the other reference with respect to who, in fact, may represent an individual in the small claims court, which I have indicated earlier, is an arm of the provincial court of this Province, particularly in section 3.4(2) where it states: "Where a judge, presiding over proceedings under this Act, finds that an agent, appearing on behalf of a party, is not competent to properly represent the party, or does not understand and comply at the proceedings with the duties and responsibilities of an advocate, the judge may exclude the agent from the proceedings."

I see this particular reference again as being one which is reasonable. This is the reason why, I would submit, it is reasonable, Mr. Speaker: again, it has to do with the access to the court system by the ordinary citizen. By accessing himself or herself to small claims court, it is very often done without legal representation, but often an agent or some representative other than a barrister or a solicitor may, in fact, represent. It is certainly reasonable, it seems to me, that the presider of the proceedings, which in this case would be the court, the presiding court judge would have some discretion as to making a determination in his/her mind as to whether a particular agent or representative has full and complete knowledge and understanding of the proceedings with which he is involved. So I have no particular difficulty with that particular reference in the amendment or in Section 3 of Bill No. 1.

Mr. Speaker, a concern that I had, one that I shared with my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi and one which perhaps more properly I should say, he shared with me, has perhaps been answered, to some extent by the minister. It is an issue of interpretation, as I see it; however, when one reads carefully the provision, I cannot again, argue with the minister on that point. It is open to some interpretation, but I think the point that the minister makes is that it deals with the enforcement of judgements in the Sheriff's Office. On close reading of the legislation, I have to concur with that interpretation and the reference and the concern that I had earlier hopefully has been rectified.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to speak briefly on second reading on the Small Claims Act amendment.

I have a couple of concerns with the procedure under the Small Claims Act. I agree with the raising of the level from $3,000 and I do not have any real problem with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council having the power to raise that amount by regulation, although I do not think inflation is operating that fast. It is intended to be a small claims court and there is intended to be somewhat of a relaxed rules of evidence for procedure in that court, not relaxed rules, but certainly relaxed procedure in terms of being able to pursue a small claim.

It is usually thought, Mr. Speaker, that the small claims court is about individual litigants having minor disputes with one another about the sale of a car or the fixing of a roof or something like that, but you have to remember too, that the small claims court is increasingly used as part of a collection scheme by collection agencies, and collection agencies operating in a situation where they want to have a speedy process where they can get people into court, and instead of them making the attempts to get the money out of people, having the courts do that job for them.

Quite often we have problems with collection agencies intimidating people, pretending to be court enforcers themselves, sometimes using words like `summons, using fancy latin words as if it is coming from a lawyer. I do have a little bit of a problem, Mr. Speaker, with allowing people to be represented by an agent in a small claims proceeding. I have a little bit of a problem with it. I suspect it is not likely to be used all that often by members of the general public, although I suppose if there were a litigant or a potential litigant who felt that they could not do it themselves, but they had a brother or sister or relative who was well spoken or better educated perhaps, they might want to rely on that person to present their case for them and in those circumstances I do not have a problem with an agent appearing. What I suspect you are going to see is more employees of collection agencies appearing as agents in that small claims court or some of our paralegals there, and I do not really have a problem with them, I suppose, although the Law Society may, operating in the small claims court. So, I think you want to watch the jurisdiction level because $3,000 may not be a lot of money for a law case - and certainly you would not be able to afford, under today's rules, to go to the Supreme Court with it - but $3,000 is a lot of money to a person who does not have any.

I have more of a problem, I guess, with the enforcement provisions and I have to say - although I see that the intent of the Act is to further elaborate the enforcement procedure for payment under the court, I still have a great worry because I do not see any rules that are established to decide how orders of the court are enforced.

Now, Mr. Speaker, under the existing Small Claims Act, chapter S-16 of the revised statutes, section 10(2) of that Act says: a subpoena, summons or order issued by the court is enforceable by contempt with the penalty which in the opinion of the judge the circumstances warrant.

Mr. Speaker, under that provision there have been instances where people have been put in jail for the non-payment of judgements under the Small Claims Act. If a judge orders someone to pay $100, or $100 a month, for the next six months and the person does not pay, there have been instances where a judge has sent the person to jail for contempt. In my mind, that is little more than debtors' prison, and I think we have to be very careful in terms of what kinds of powers are given to judges in this circumstance, and what kinds of penalties are being inflicted upon people.

I recognize the difference between going to jail for contempt of court and going to jail for non-payment of a fine, when at the time of sentencing a fine in lieu of imprisonment is offered; and I recognize the difference between going to jail for contempt of court and going to jail for non-payment of money. It does not make any difference if I owe $100 and I do not pay it because I do not have it. It does not make much difference whether the judge has ordered me to pay it or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) from what is there now.

MR. HARRIS: There is a slight difference, and the intention is to make the enforcement process a little bit more directed towards enforcement through means other than contempt. But the power to punish by contempt for non-payment of money is still there. I am going to suggest -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It was there before and it is still there. I think that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. I know the difference between contempt and between non-payment of money. I would suggest, and I'm going to suggest this at the Committee stage, that we insert into clause 6 of the bill a qualification to the punishment by contempt. There is already one qualification, that the penalties for contempt are proscribed by the rules, but I do not know what the rules say because I have not seen the rules here before the House. I am not even sure where the rule-making power is, although I have seen small claims rules in the past. I do not see the provision in the Act offhand where the rules in fact are made, unless it is in another Act.

Sorry, here we are. We have a rules committee, consisting of two judges, a member of the Law Society, and someone under the Attorney General, that can make rules consistent with the Act in relation to the practical procedure and cost of the court, and those rules qualify as subordinate legislation. So there are rules here. I do not know the intention of the judges' committee making these rules. There are some qualifications on the old system which allowed the judge free rein in making an order or a punishment for contempt in the opinion of the judge, and there appears to be some reining-in of that power. Perhaps the Minister of Justice and his officials are satisfied that that is sufficient provision, and that the rules will be made to ensure that people do not go to jail for non-payment of funds.

I would prefer to have the Act say clearly that the punishment for contempt is for summonses, subpoenas or orders of the court other than an order for the payment of money including payment by a payment schedule, just to be sure it is pretty clear the rules in the small claims procedure are the same as the procedure under the Supreme Court.

There is a possibility that there can still be people being sent to jail for non-payment of money. I have heard, in fact, of people being sent to jail in this Province for non-payment of a poll tax, Mr. Speaker. Down on the South Coast, I heard of an individual who was sent to jail by a judge because he did not pay his poll tax. That, Mr. Speaker, is contrary to the principle of law, the principle of justice certainly. We had gotten rid of that a long time ago, where people clearly went to jail because they owed money. It was called debtors' prison, and any taint of that in our law I want to get rid of forever. I would suggest that the best way to do that is to make an amendment to the Act, to remove the power to punish for contempt for an order for the payment of money, including by a payment schedule under the Act.

Those, Mr. Speaker, are my comments on the Small Claims Act at second reading. I think that the new enforcement procedures provide a better way of doing things. I do also understand that sometimes the provincial court judges are being used by collection agencies to get to people who can be intimidated by that process. I do not see it as the role of a provincial court judge, to really act as the collector for a collection agency, with powers such as the powers for contempt at their disposal when we do not have those powers at the Supreme Court level.

I would ask that the minister consider, and have his officials consider, the possibility of an amendment at third reading or in Committee, to make sure that we are not passing legislation which continues the possibility that people can go to jail as the result of non-payment of a debt through the Small Claims Act or any other process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate. The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their advice on this bill, and I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 1)

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

MR. TULK: Order No. 11, Mr. Speaker, "An Act To Amend The Collections Act," Bill No. 16.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Collections Act." (Bill No. 16)

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to introduce amendments to the Collections Act. Certainly these amendments will be put in place to improve consumer protection and provide a level playing field for companies involved in the collection of debts on behalf of the creditors. These amendments are set in place to clarify the definition of a collection agency, to make it quite clear that the process servers, the private bailiffs or anyone else collecting debts on behalf of the collectors are governed by the Act. This was some question of that.

It will also ensure that the consumers are protected by the provisions of the Act regardless of who is doing the collecting. Certainly we have looked at increasing the penalties for offenses under the Act with a view to encourage compliance with this Act.

Also, Mr. Speaker, this bill will certainly clarify some definitions within the Act. This bill will amend the collections act to define the independent court agent and to include those persons in the definition of a collection agency and collector to confirm that those persons are regulated by the act and regulations. There were some grey areas in terms of definitions for the purpose of this act.

Clause 2 of the bill would amend the act to clarify that article clerks and not other employees, under the direction of a barrister or solicitor, are exempt from the operation of the act.

Mr. Speaker, clause 3 of the bill would amend the act to repeal the requirement that collectors be individually registered under the act, and that certainly the responsibility for that would be in the firm that employs those individuals. That clause would further give the registrar of collection agencies and collectors certain powers to supervise collectors, and the clause would make collection agencies responsible for those collectors who are employed by the agency.

What we are doing is changing the requirement of government to register each collector, to put that responsibility on to the firm that employs the individual collectors, so that it will be the responsibility of the firm to ensure that their collectors meet all of the requirements.

There are a number of clauses that would be amended to enable this to be adopted. Certainly, clause 5 of the bill would amend the act by repealing the requirements that registrations be renewed annually, and we would substitute this provision by giving the minister authority to prescribe annual reporting requirements of each of these agencies. In essence, what we are doing is that we are not going to require each of these agencies to re-register each year, but they will certainly be required to provide us with a reporting process.

Of course the other clause, clause 11, would also amend the act by increasing the maximum penalties for offenses under this act. This, we feel, will encourage people to abide by the act as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly another process in the continuing effort to ensure that consumers are protected and that the legislation that we have in place is more adaptable and more succinct with the way we do business today, and also gives consumers perhaps more comfort in the way that they are dealt with by some of these collection agencies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I really don't have a lot of problems with Bill 16, "An Act To Amend The Collections Act"; there are just a few comments I would like to make.

The bill itself refers to the collection agencies and a collector. That would be defined in the act now, and these groups would be regulated by the act. To my mind that is a good move, of course. Any move to protect the public is a good move.

Just a story with respect to some of these collection agencies, I hear some stories sometimes and they do put a bit of undue pressure, maybe, sometimes, on individuals. Especially, I know of one incident where a collection agency went after an elderly person, and sometimes they are not really up front in telling the people what they are or are not entitled to. They really try to put the hard-handed pressure on some of these individuals to try to force them to come up with some funds sometimes that they are not really capable of coming up with. So hopefully this bill would go some distance to help resolve that problem, to take some pressure off certainly individuals in our society where certain unscrupulous individuals would try to put pressure on individuals to pay up. Now the bill itself refers to the article of clerks and other employees which would not come under the direction of the barrister or solicitor that are exempt from this act. That is just a point of clarification I think, Mr. Speaker. Also the bill would further give the registrar of collection agencies certain powers to basically make people who are out there to do the collections to make the companies that these people work for to be responsible for their actions, I would think, Mr. Speaker.

Also under this bill it prescribes the annual reporting requirements for registered collection agencies. Again, this is just a step or an act to try and have these collection agencies accountable to the minister or his appointee to make sure that they all follow proper procedures and that they stay within the boundaries of the laws that govern those individuals, Mr. Speaker. Also the bill talks about increasing maximum penalties for offenses under the act. Again, I think that is there to try and protect the public, the consumer and not have undue pressure put on them or at least they are told upfront what their responsibilities are, Mr. Speaker.

Last but not least, this is a problem that I have with respect to this bill and other bills that this government has brought before the House, clause 14 of the bill says that this comes into force retroactive to January 1, 1997. There are a lot of bills coming through this House in the past recent years, Mr. Speaker, that is making legislation retroactive. The former Premier of this Province, Mr. Clyde Wells, made a statement I think once that - he actually apologized to the House for bringing legislation in that was retroactive.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. J. BYRNE: I have his quote here, I have it here somewhere, Mr. Speaker. The former Premier of the Province said, `several of the changes in this bill and other bills are to be retroactive.' No greater authority than Clyde Wells stated in the House on June 29, 1989. This is what he said, `I really think that any Legislature should avoid retroactivity like the plague.' He was apologizing for using retroactivity once. Now we have this government ignoring that statement for sure. They certainly don't live by it or don't believe in it because they are bringing in legislation hand over fist to have legislation retroactive on any given day.

As a matter of fact, we have not spoken on a bill here yet, a certain bill, Bill No. 9, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors in The Statue Law." There are all kinds of referrals in here to the retroactivity and legislation that is going to be made retroactive. So they are really ignoring the concerns of the previous Premier of the Province in his statement that retroactivity with respect to legislation should be avoided like the plague. So I think, Mr. Speaker, other than that one basic negative point that I made on this legislation - I don't know if there are any other members who would like to speak to it but to me it is a bill that has the right intention to try and protect the consumers of the Province. Other than the last clause, Section 14 I think it was, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem supporting that bill. Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to this act at second reading and I have to confess to some difficulty in figuring out how the act works in connection with the existing Collections Act because I am going back to the references to the Collections Act and I find the references to be different than the act itself. So I know there has been one amendment last year that I am aware of which does not seem to amend two - but paragraph 2(a) of the Collections Act is repealed, 2(a) of the Statutes C-22 is the definition of a collection agency not a definition of - so that part is repealed altogether. I guess replaced by the whole thing which has article (inaudible), a collection agency in it, but I am concerned about the reference to 2(b). 2(b) is amended by adding, after the word bailiff, the words independent court agent, but I do not see bailiff in the definition of collector under the existing collections act, C-22, unless that has been amended subsequent to 1990 as well, but unless it is in the `96 statute that is yet to be printed, I do not know what the reference is.

The reason I raise this is because I am wondering what this new definition of independent court agent is and I am slightly worried, I guess, that we are going to give status to certain people who can go about calling themselves independent court agents, as if they are agents of the court. I have great difficulty with that. I know that there are some people in the collections business who like to use documentation pretending that they are summoned from the court, who like to send things out and say, it is a summons, making it look like it is a court action to intimidate people into responding to their letters or their demands for money. I have a concern that by defining an independent court agent here and adding that to the definition of collector, and I do not have a problem if someone is engaged in that, but are we through this progress, giving status to people who may be either collection agents or people who are para-legals or who are bailiffs out there and because the act defines them as independent court agents, can they now go around and say, Joe Blow; independent court agent.

I am just wondering, the independent court agent did not exist as a separate entity, now we are almost giving a title to someone by defining them in the act as a person who is undertaking proceedings in a court by giving them some status of independent court agents. If I were a bailiff or someone who was calling myself a bailiff, in fact, I do not think those people should be allowed to call themselves bailiffs, because that is court terminology.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I know, but maybe we should get rid of them. I think somebody who works for the court is a bailiff. The court has sheriffs and sheriffs bailiffs, this is a court designation and if I am out there I am not a court employee, I am not an employee of the government, I am not an officer of the court, I am not working for the sheriffs office, I should not be allowed to call myself a bailiff. I think we are going even further here by giving people the status of independent court agent. I think that we are setting a dangerous precedent here, Mr. Speaker, because we may be giving status to people by giving them these titles and recognizing the titles as bailiffs, recognizing the titles of independent court agent, when both those titles could lead people to believe that, in fact, they are acting for the court.

I think my learned friend for St. John's East would agree that someone who can call themselves a bailiff now can call themselves an independent court agent. So, if Joe Blow; bailiff and independent court agent, it sounds like this person is working for the court, it sounds like this person has some status in the court system and I think that while the intention of the legislation is to include people who are doing this type of work as collectors, then that is fine, but why don't you just mend the legislation to include that definition or at least the substance of it, into the definition of collector, instead of doing it through a separate section. Why don't you define collector a little bit more broadly, have two or three sections in it, and include the activities undertaken by these people who you are now calling independent court agents; defined as opposed to taking the step of giving them some status.

I would prefer to see, Mr. Speaker, there be a provision in this legislation preventing people from calling themselves bailiffs, unless they are in fact officers of the court employed by a sheriff or a deputy sheriff as a bailiff. It is a term that gives people, unsuspecting people, members of the public, the idea that they are acting for the court and not independently.

I know the Member for Humber Valley, who is very learned in the law himself, would agree that if someone has the right to call himself a bailiff or an independent court agent, then that gives the impression of someone who works for the court, that this person has some status with the court, that they are a court agent; that they are an agent of the court, in other words. Or a bailiff: That the bailiff has some status with the sheriff's office. I think that the use of those terms by people who are, in fact, out there collecting debts on behalf of private people, is giving the public the wrong impression, giving people the impression that these people have some authority with the legal system or with the justice system. So I think it is dangerous, Mr. Speaker, and I know during the break that the Member for Humber Valley will speak to the minister and privately agree that this may be a problem in his legislation.

Now, we have to be careful, Mr. Speaker, that the actions of private collection agencies are separated out very clearly from the actions of the court which is an agent of the Department of Justice. The officers of the court, the judges, the sheriff's office, the family court, these are all part of our justice system. A collection agency, or these people who are out acting on their behalf, private so-called bailiffs, are not officers of any court. Some of these may have previous court experience; no difficulty there. But I think to be able to call yourself a bailiff gives the impression to the public that you have some authority derived from the justice system, and I think that is wrong. To call someone an independent court agent also is wrong. I think my learned friend, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, would also agree, if he took the time to study that legislation and saw that there.

So, I would ask the minister to take that into consideration before we move to committee stage. Maybe there is a way of reorganizing that section so that we don't give status to people as independent court agents, that could mislead the public into believing that these private agencies have some authority derived from the Minister of Justice or from the Department of Justice. I know that these words are being given careful consideration by all hon. members and certainly by the Minister of Justice and the minister involved. Hopefully we will have another look at that at the committee stage of these proceedings.

Those are my remarks, Mr. Speaker, on that point.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate. The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: I won't take two minutes to close debate on this. There is not a whole lot to comment on. I will say to the member, that we can certainly consider the wording used in section 2 and 1(b). That is not a problem. I will have a look at that before we come to third reading, and I will have a response for him.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments to this are in line with the whole process that we are trying to follow in terms of bringing the legislation up to date, so that we can comply with the requirements that certainly the consumer has in today's world. We certainly understand that there are probably other things that we can amend in this particular section.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Collections Act," read a second time, ordered to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 16)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, "An Act To Amend The Direct Sellers Act," Bill 17, the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Direct Sellers Act". (Bill No. 17)

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm certainly pleased to introduce amendments to the Direct Sellers Act. This will improve consumer protection. This is also in conjunction with the harmonized legislation in other Canadian provinces with respect to door to door sales, and the contract cancellation rights. Certainly all provinces will harmonize legislation in this regard in accordance with the agreement on internal trade.

I had the privilege to attend the meetings last year where we started the harmonization process for these pieces of legislation. Certainly while some of the requirements for harmonization are already in our legislation, such as the ten-day cooling off period, others are not. New legislation will provide for extended cancellation rights for up to one year under expanded circumstances, such as non-compliance with legislative or regulatory requirements, or non-delivery of good and services within thirty days of a contract.

This legislation also provides for expanded methods of cancellation and responsibilities on cancellation, statement of cancellation rights, and contents of contract. In addition, these amendments will eliminate the current provision which exempts from the act direct sellers who have a store front operation. Certainly government believes that all direct sellers should be governed by the same rules, whether or not they have a store front operation.

There isn't a whole lot of comment on these. They are fairly straightforward, very self-explanatory, and I would certainly at this point I don't think respond any further to what the changes are. They are pretty straightforward. I will let the Member for Cape St. Francis speak to it. Thank you.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I would like to say a few words on Bill 17, "An Act To Amend The Direct Sellers Act." I have to say I think this is a good piece of legislation. I have no problem saying that.

This bill refers to the fact that direct sales contracts may be cancelled, talked about a direct sales contract being cancelled. You have people going door to door, salespeople, salespersons, whatever you want to call them these days. Oftentimes they will come to an individual's house and they really put on some high-pressure tactics to sell a piece of equipment or to sell some product, and an individual may buy it on the spur of the moment thinking it is a great buy. This depends on the individual that has been there. You get good sales people, you get bad sales people, and you get great sales people, I suppose, and that all depends on your point of view.

The Member for Labrador West is over there shaking his hands and head and what have you. He is having trouble hearing me. I have a bad flu, but I am doing the best I can, I say to the Member for Labrador West. I have a head cold and I am getting over it now, but everything in due course.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Member for Topsail is mocking you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is he? No, I don't believe the Member for Topsail would do anything like that, even though he is not in his own seat.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation, this bill, again, as I said earlier, talks about the door-to-door salesmen really. The direct seller does not comply with legislative or regulatory requirements regarding licensing or registration. It talks about basically giving people the right to cancel any contract that they may or may not have signed.

Often times people will buy some product, as I said, when they come door-to-door. They may not sign a contract but they may buy a product, and hopefully this will give them the right to return it if they so decide within ten days, of course, and there is an expanded period of time for cancellation also.

"Within thirty days of the supply date specified in the contract, or the amended supply date agreed upon, the service has not started..." is basically giving conditions of why or how a person can cancel a contract after they have purchased a product.

From what the minister said when he introduced the bill, basically it is another bill to protect the consumer.

MR. FITZGERALD: Another bad piece of legislation.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I cannot say it is a bad piece of legislation. I have to agree with almost everything in this bill, Mr. Speaker.

It talks about what the written contract shall include, basically, and lists ten or twelve different requirements to be in a contract of sale. That in itself is a good idea. I suppose if any of those conditions are not met then the sale can be cancelled.

Also, under section 26 - section 4 actually, subsection 26.1 (1):

"A statement of cancellation rights shall (a) contain the words specified in 26.1; (b) show the heading..." - and again it refers to what should be in that statement of cancellation. Again, that is something that is positive.

When the minister introduced the bill, he talked about harmonization requirements of different pieces of legislation across the country, and again that would probably... It is a good idea. The only thing I cannot agree on in the harmonization sales tax that we brought in last year. I would not be able to agree to that, and I did not, and I spoke against it when it was brought up. Then again, that is not relevant to this piece of legislation so I shall redirect my thoughts.

I am not going to say much more than that. It is a piece of legislation that I agree with. I think most people on this side of the House agree with it, and I don't see any problem with this when it gets to committee. It should pass through the House fairly quickly once the minister speaks to it now and closes debate.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands speaks now, he closes debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a couple of comments further to the Member for Cape St. Francis. I certainly appreciate his co-operation in moving these things through.

I would say to the member that I think the whole thrust of this amendment is to ensure that the consumers have a much wider range in terms of the protection that they have when they are dealing with direct sellers. Like he said, some of these sellers put pressure on you to do things that you normally may not do, and these amendments will give the consumer a greater time period in which to appeal that and also deal with the situation in terms of being able to return goods and things like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: Good stuff.

I would say that this is a further effort in my responsibility to ensure that the consumers of this Province are protected, are dealt with in a very fair way. There are a few more pieces of legislation coming in the fall that will further ensure that we will see the consumer protection in the Province taken care of in the absolute way that we think is the best way to forward this type of legislation in perhaps correcting some of the things that have been there for a long time and need to be amended.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will move second reading of this particular bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Direct Sellers Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 17)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think we have agreed that we will basically adjourn now and come back at quarter to seven, because we can't let the parliamentary clock run on this one . So I would move that the House adjourn until quarter to seven.

At that time, let me tell members what we are going to be doing. We are going to be doing Motion No. 1.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member is asking that the House recess until 6:45 p.m.

This House is now recessed until 6:45 p.m.

 

Recess

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it agreed that we resume the proceedings? Do we have an agreement on that? It is not quite seven, but can we begin.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. I call the House to order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1, the budget speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1. The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess this is the final phase of the budget speech.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) supplementary supply.

MR. OSBORNE: Oh, there you go. You should come back on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

Mr. Speaker, on the budget debate: I guess part of what we have been talking about on this side of the House are the proper benefits from our resources, provincial parks, education cut-backs, health care and so on.

To touch on some of those, Mr. Speaker - for example, health care: Today, my colleague, the health critic, spoke on heart surgery and the fact that people have to leave this Province to go to other provinces in order to get proper heart surgery and heart care. Mr. Speaker, while that is a first good move, and it is a commendable first step on behalf of the government, I think really what we have to do is concentrate on improving the health care system here in our own Province so that we don't have to spend the money to send people to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick for proper health care, proper heart surgery and so on, cardiac care.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the best way to make our own health care system the most efficient is to invest the money in our health care system. It would be far more efficient to send people to the Health Sciences Centre here or to the hospital in Corner Brook for heart surgery and cardiac care as opposed to sending them to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. As I said, this is a first good step, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think it goes far enough. We have to improve our own health care system to the point where we can keep Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in our own Province for health care.

On education cuts: Mr. Speaker, we have seen many schools close throughout the Province, some of those schools in areas where it is really hard to justify their closure, especially when they are modern schools with modern facilities and, you know, the buildings are in a very good state of repair. Yet, through the education reform, in certain areas, Mr. Speaker, these schools are being closed and that is leaving people in those communities in a very difficult situation. Primarily because of the fact that they are going to see their children travel for half an hour or forty minutes, in certain cases up to an hour, each way.

Each member of this House who has to travel an hour to get here is fully aware of the difficulties that that can bring, especially during the winter months when the weather is particularly harsh. For a small child to travel on a school bus for an hour, I can only imagine the anxiety and the extra pressure that puts on that child, especially considering the fact it is an hour each way, and the child still would have to concentrate on studies at home, at night, and so on.

Moving on a little further, we look at the parks and the privatisation of provincial parks. To date, Mr. Speaker, there have been nine parks announced as reopening as private parks. We still have no idea the value the Province is getting back for those parks, yet looking at the numbers that have been provided by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, we can see that there have been literally hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in those twenty-one parks throughout the years. To see one of those parks go for less than $10,000 into private hands is a difficult thing to accept.

We all agree that yes, we have to be fiscally responsible in these times, but when you are looking at the tourism industry, and the fact that our tourism industry has the potential to be one of the most beneficial industries to our economy, it is difficult to accept the fact that the parks are being privatized. Not to mention the fact that we aren't getting, in my opinion, fair value back for these parks.

There is a question of what process was undertaken to examine and choose the best proponent to operate these private parks. We have had several calls at our office, people who have put in proposals and have given us the details of their proposals that they have submitted, and some of those proposals are quite good. One in particular that we brought up and mentioned in Question Period was Catamaran Park.

The family that we spoke of in Question Period that put the proposal in on Catamaran Park, most members of the House are probably familiar with them. They have several years' experience in the park operations through the provincial park system, and their proposal was extraordinarily well written, and I think it was a great proposal. I would be interested, once the completion of the privatization of parks goes through, to actually see the proposal that was put forth by the proponent that was accepted. Because I can only imagine how well written and what detail was put into that proposal.

The question of value in return for those parks as well. I know that some of the parks that have been privatized went for far less than some of the proposals that were put in. In the case again of Catamaran Park, the information that we are given, and we are still unclear as to whether or not it is accurate, if it is accurate information, but we are told that the gentleman who actually was the proponent who is now the private operator of the park actually offered less on the park than the family that we speak of that have many years' experience in the financial end of the operations of the parks, in the operation of the parks themselves. Several members of the family were park employees.

The minister through the Estimates Committee has told us that this being Cabot 500 year they are spending extra money this year to put in place support measures to make sure these parks are operated at as high a level as they can possibly have them operated at, and hopefully as close a level as what the provincial parks were operated at. Which leads me to question why exactly did we choose this year to privatize the parks if there isn't actually going to be tremendous or significant savings through the privatization of provincial parks, due to the fact that we are spending more money to ensure they are going to be operated properly this year, considering the Cabot 500 Celebrations.

So, there are many question unanswered when it comes to the privatization of provincial parks and whether we feel that that process was done fairly, and the swiftness of the decision to privatize the parks or the appearance of the swiftness of that decision, at least.

Mr. Speaker, moving on to obtaining the maximum benefits from our resources. We have spoken about Gisborne Lake, Voisey's Bay, we have spoken on numerous projects: Hibernia, Terra Nova, the smelter and so on. It seems more and more likely these days that a copper smelter is probable going to be feasible in this Province. A copper smelter is something that, I think, we should really look at more seriously, even if we have to bring copper in from other countries. If we have sufficient levels of copper here in our Province to bring a smelter near the level that it would be sufficient to make it profitable, we should look at putting a smelter here. We are indeed going to bring nickel in from other countries to smelt it in Argentia.

Mr. Speaker, with Hibernia and the resources that we are going to receive from Hibernia and Terra Nova and so on, those contracts were written years ago, as was Churchill Falls, but our Minerals Tax Act is still in debate. We have been told that the former Minister of Mines and Energy was partially responsible for the discovery of Voisey's Bay; that can be argued, but if that is the case, one would have to question -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: You are doing a good job, Tom, I want a copy of this tomorrow.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you. My colleague tells me I am doing a good job and he wants a copy. We shall order several copies.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the former Minister of Mines and Energy is taking credit for being partially responsible for the discovery of Voisey's Bay, yet even with that advanced notice and with cries from the Opposition even before the last election, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy failed to put a mineral tax regime in place, a royalty regime for our resources from Voisey's Bay. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, our children and their children are going to, for a lack of better terms, reap the rewards of whatever Minerals Tax Act or royalty regime is put in place and we certainly hope that they can look forward to a better deal on Voisey's Bay than what we now see on Churchill Falls.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when a company the size of Inco comes in and sets up shop under the understanding that there is a ten year tax break under the Minerals Tax Act, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately that company has tremendous power then to call the shots and that is exactly what I feel Inco and the Voisey's Bay nickel company will do. Mr. Speaker, with a ten-year tax holiday, when they signed their deal, when they bought the rights to mine Voisey's Bay, Inco now have a tremendous ability to tell this government what they want to do with that resource and even though we may get a fantastic royalty regime, we will pay the price on benefits somewhere down the line and most people throughout the Province are fully aware that that is going to be the case on Voisey's Bay.

Gisborne Lake, the Minister of Environment and Labour and I have had several conversations back and forth across the House and in private on Gisborne Lake and the two proposals that are before the House -

MR. TULK: Never mind, `Tom', boy - you speak up all you want.

MR. OSBORNE: The two proposals that are before the House under the Environmental Assessment Act are to export water as a raw resource to points beyond for secondary processing - and we have brought this up on many occasions in the House - with fresh water resources throughout the Province, such as Gisborne Lake. We cannot afford to set a precedent now on Gisborne Lake that will cost us down the road. With the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, fresh water supplies are brought into that agreement and there are provisions in the Free Trade Agreement that allow for the United States to gain access to our fresh water resources should they need them.

Unfortunately, we cannot afford to set a precedent now on our fresh water resources that would see them exported as a raw resource. We must ensure that if we are going to export our fresh water resources we do it as a retail-ready product. We must stipulate strongly that whatever fresh water resources are exported from our Province, they are exported with every possible benefit to our Province extracted from that resource, including bottling, packaging, labelling and transportation.

Fresh water resources are something that most people throughout the world - and it has been brought to the attention of the world bank that fresh water resources are now becoming a smaller and smaller supply. They are in limited supply, and there are actually eighty countries in the world right now that are without fresh water resources.

So if we do not have the foresight to see what a valuable commodity fresh water is going to be, especially ten, fifteen or twenty years down the road, and we set the precedent now of shipping it out as a raw resource, I can guarantee you that the United States of America will rape our Province of our fresh water resources under the Free Trade Agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, I say to my colleague, the Member for Topsail.

Mr. Speaker, without question, we have to put in place now the legislation that will protect our fresh water resources. An ironic thing - and more power to the company that is looking at doing it -but an ironic thing on fresh water resources, while we are looking at shipping water from Gisborne Lake out as a raw resource, I saw a statement from the Department of Environment that came through, requesting an environmental impact assessment on a water resource where fresh water floods an old mine shaft, and they are looking at pumping the water out of the mine shaft, filtering it and bottling it here to export. Now, surely, if water that floods an old mine shaft is good enough to ship out bottled, and they can find a market for that, we can certainly find a market for fresh water, pure, pristine, water that comes from Gisborne Lake.

Mr. Speaker, we move on to other resources such as our forestry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trees cannot swim.

MR. OSBORNE: Trees cannot swim.

Mr. Speaker, we look at forestry resources. We are now looking at moving into Labrador territories for wood products, for pulp and paper and so on.

I understand that trees in Labrador take considerably longer to grow than trees on the Island, because of the climate and so on, and if we are going to do the same in Labrador as we have done on the Island as far as going after our forestry resources in Labrador is concerned, we have to use precaution. We have to ensure that there is proper replantation of our forestry resources, both in Labrador and on the Island, and that we charge the pulp and paper companies adequate stumping fees. As well, we must ensure that they, themselves, are responsible for replantation, because while in fifteen or twenty years time, due to replantation, the forestry resources on the Island may certainly be back into fine shape, right now we are looking at a possible crisis on the Island portion of the Province as far as forestry resources are concerned.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I have been passed a note that I have a most important meeting to attend, so thank you very much.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if -

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

MR. TULK: Before the hon. gentleman speaks, I just spoke to the Opposition House Leader. In order that we might be able to distribute a bill in the morning, I would like to ask leave to do first reading - or give notice, I am sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: First reading on "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act", Bill No. 5.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking leave to give notice of motion?

MR. TULK: What am I doing here, `John'? Is this notice of motion or first reading?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: First reading, that is right. I knew I was right. I was sure I was absolutely right, but there has been so much happening today that I am becoming totally confused.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we now do first reading, and move first reading on "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act", Bill No. 5, if I have leave.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Tax Act", carried. (Bill No. 5)

On motion, Bill No. 5 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

I think the Opposition House Leader is too co-operative, I say to you, Mr. Speaker; he is too co-operative. The Government House Leader just stood up and said, there are so many things happening today that he is confused. Well, it must be pretty easy to confuse the poor Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place to say a few words on the budget.

MR. TULK: That is right. Never mind confused old me.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, I think I have something like twenty-nine minutes and thirty seconds left, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance stood in his place this spring and brought down a budget, and he said that there would be no new taxes. I said it before in debate in this House, Mr. Speaker, that the budget has a lot of new taxes in it, hidden taxes. They may not call them direct taxes, but he brought in six pages of new license fees and permit increases into the House of Assembly in this budget. So, to say that there are no new taxes to the people of this Province, when they are going to have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for these license fees and permits, certainly to my mind is a misconception. I suppose it is okay to use that word in the House of Assembly. It is certainly a misconception, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could I ask you a question?

MR. J. BYRNE: Sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, my! Oh, my! What a question! He must want to get me going, Mr. Speaker. I have a list of it there, but I will try to stay away from that. I will tell you one thing though, Mr. Speaker, about a group of people trying to collect money. Look at what I received in my mail the other day. A PC member sitting in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador received this in his mail; not only in my mail at home but I received it in Confederation Building here. The Liberal Party of Canada was looking for me to make a donation, Mr. Speaker, in a letter from Jean Chrétien looking for money from me. Well, he is going to be waiting a long while to get money from me in this House of Assembly or anywhere.

As a matter of fact, I know people, Mr. Speaker, who have been long time Liberals, paying money to the Liberal Party, and they decided -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I can't do that. They decided, Mr. Speaker, that they are not going to contribute anymore to the Liberal Party. We saw that the other night in the English debate between the five national leaders in Ottawa. After the debate was over - I watched it, Mr. Speaker, I think from ten o'clock to one-thirty in the morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a red tie you have?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, it is a red wine tie. The Member for Labrador West told me it was a red wine tie. So, there you go.

I watched the debate the other night, Mr. Speaker, because we are into a very important election in this country, a federal election. I saw the debate and, of course, I was trying to be as unbiased as I could be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, what is your sign?

MR. J. BYRNE: Gemini.

I was trying to be as unbiased as I could watching the debate, and I felt in my own heart and soul that the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was doing a very good job. I felt that he was doing a better job than the other leaders, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: Jack, I am Gemini too, so if he has something there I will wrap it around his ears.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, when it was all over we had the audience there who rated Jean Charést number one right through all the different issues, especially on national unity.

MR. TULK: Want me to read your horoscope?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I am going to read it myself first.

MR. TULK: You could face a major career change. Business and pleasure mixed. Beware a close friend or co-worker, who could be jealous of your impending success.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, back to the debate - which is affecting the finances of this country, because we have the Liberal Government in Ottawa which has been cutting, hand over fist, the health and social transfer payments to this Province and other provinces. And we have members on that side of the House of Assembly trying to get the federal members elected here again.

Now, I should correct myself, Mr. Speaker, because I really don't know how many of them are out there actually going door to door trying to get those members re-elected. I would say that some of them over there probably don't want some of these federal Liberals to get re-elected, because they have not been all that good to Newfoundland and Labrador. Six out of the seven, Mr. Speaker, that have been referred to as the silent seven - I will give credit where credit is due, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Gander, Mr. Baker, is very vocal. I have to say that, Mr. Speaker. But the other six members in Ottawa are very, very silent when it comes to the concerns of Newfoundland and Labrador.

You take the federal MP for St. John's East, Mr. Speaker. Very seldom do we ever hear her voicing her opinion on any matters that concern the constituents of St. John's East. To me, that is a major problem, when we have people in my district coming and wondering where the Federal MP is on certain issues. I will give credit, she does send out a little release every now and then, an update on what she feels she has accomplished. At least she is trying to keep the people informed that way.

Mr. Speaker, back to the debate the other night. The audience rated Jean Charést number one, and I think it was unanimous really. I watched for an hour after the debate. Then there were the commentators from Memorial University and different areas across the country, and they all gave the nod to Jean Charést. So, we expect great things to happen along those lines in this election. I am trying not to be too biased, but I expect we will get four out of the seven seats in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Anyway, back to this budget. I want to address a few of the concerns that I have with this administration and with what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador today, and it has been happening over the past few years, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. What is happening in this Province today, Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador is something that I have spoken on a number of times in the House of Assembly, and I was probably one of the first to pick up on it back in 1993 and 1994.

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible) gravel pits.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I will get around to it. It depends, I say to the Member for Labrador West.

What is happening in this Province today is of major concern to most people who are living in the Province, and it should be a major concern to the government sitting on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I am referring to out migration. Out migration in this Province, according to the last census, in the past five years the net out migration has been 17,000 people. Of course, that has a major impact upon the transfer payments to this Province. It has an impact upon the retail sales tax that is being paid into the coffers of the Province. It has a major impact, of course, upon jobs in the Province. Because all these people are leaving this Province to go elsewhere to look for jobs.

The Member for Baie Verte mentioned to me the other day, Mr. Speaker, that in one community in his district, within a week there were twenty-one people who left that community. This is a very serious issue, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and it hits right at the core of Newfoundland and Labrador. We settled here back 500 years ago, and we are celebrating the 500 years here in 1997 with the Cabot Celebrations. We are trying to encourage people to come here to Newfoundland and Labrador and see what we have to offer.

People were up speaking yesterday, I think the Member for Topsail was up, and he made a comment in his resolution yesterday, a Private Member's Resolution, about tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador and how we should be supporting the Cabot 500 Celebrations. Well, we do. Everybody on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, certainly support those celebrations. What are we celebrating? Five hundred years, really, here in this Province, and we have been able to stick it out, to survive it, to survive, I won't say famines, but a lot of hardships over the years, Mr. Speaker. We always seem to come down on ourselves, I suppose. That is not what I am trying to say really. What we have been doing over the past years is we have not been treating ourselves well. We have been giving away our resources over the years. It started back in the days of the old pork-barrel captains.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you debating now?

MR. J. BYRNE: The budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pork-barrel what?

MR. J. BYRNE: The pork-barrel captains. Did you ever do your history? It is captains sitting on the pork-barrels here in the harbour and in different communities all over the Province, and it was all for one. I mean, one man took it all, and it continued up through the years and through the generations. When the people worked for him, Mr. Speaker, they ended up owing the person they worked for because they borrowed from that individual. Back in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and what have you, Mr. Speaker, we had the merchants and all that kind of thing, coming on through, and the same thing happened. We had people working for the merchants back then and by the time the season was over these workers owed the merchants after working for them all summer, for their board and keep.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the situation - back in the 1960s we had the Churchill Falls, of course, and now we have our resources, our forestry and our fishery. The fishery: What can I say about the fisher, Mr. Speaker? Now we have the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know. Pardon?

MR. CANNING: How old are you?

MR. J. BYRNE: Old enough to know better.

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Member for Labrador West: Why does he want to know how old I am? What is it to you?

You are distracting me now. With respect to our fishery and our other resources, we have always seemed to - as the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi said today, sometimes we get the dirty end of the stick. Now, it seems as if Newfoundlanders are always getting the dirty end of the stick. Why, Mr. Speaker, do we get the dirty end of the stick? It is because we have had elected governments over the years that have not properly taken care of the constituents in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, I don't want to come down too hard on that side of the House, seeing as I am on this side of the House. People can believe that if they want.

MR. CANNING: I believe it.

MR. J. BYRNE: They believe it. The Member for Labrador West believes it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the problem is? It is hard to get at the core of the problem. I don't know if it is, once a government is elected, although they are full of good intentions, the longer they are there it is as if familiarity breeds contempt and they get so into their own situations, I suppose, that maybe the best interests of the public are forgotten about. That could be the case. Still, the public puts us here to take care of their best interests, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder why we don't sometimes.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, out migration is a major, major problem in this Province today. Now, we have to address it, we have to find ways to keep our young people here. That seems to be the major portion of people leaving the Province, our young, educated people. Oftentimes we see young people in their thirties and forties also, Mr. Speaker, with their families uprooting, boarding up their houses and going to major parts of Canada, B.C., Alberta, Ontario and what have you.

I made a statement there a few years ago. I went on the provincial affairs show, Mr. Speaker, one night to speak about out migration and rural Newfoundland, and people really didn't see it. That was four year ago. But now they are starting to see it. They are starting to see the impact it is having on Newfoundland and Labrador today. Mr. Speaker, if we don't reverse what is going on, Newfoundland and Labrador will become a province for seniors, because all our young people will be gone. Then we will have a major problem, I say to the Minister of Education, because we won't have the tax base here to pay for the services that we need to take care of seniors.

I say to the Minister of Education, that he is fairly quickly becoming a senior. It is only another few years, another four or five years, and he will become a senior. We will need people in this Province to pay taxes, to take care of us.

As I said before, when I was Mayor of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, Mr. Speaker, and it was a little town just outside St. John's of 2,000 people, the first thing that we did when we were on counsel is try to do something to help take care of our seniors, something that they would appreciate. Twice a year, Mr. Speaker, we would have a little do for the seniors in our town. We would have a dinner, a nice dinner. They would come and we would have entertainment for them, a nice meal, music and what have you, and not one cost to the seniors, Mr. Speaker, not a penny would we charge them; twice a year just to show our appreciation to the seniors.

What is happening today is that down the road, probably in fifteen, twenty or thirty years, we could have our seniors in the Province but no one here to pay taxes to take care of them, to pay for their health bills, their heat and light and what have you. If it keeps going the way it is, with what Ottawa is doing, cutting transfer payments to the provinces, we will have little support, Mr. Speaker, from those people. Now, that is out migration.

Employment: I could talk a bit about employment with respect to the budget. I did not see anything in the budget, really, that is going to create a lot of jobs in the Province. Now, there are some major projects underway in the Province, Mr. Speaker, that could create some jobs down the road, and hopefully they will. Hopefully they will create jobs, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I am referring to Voisey's Bay, the transhipment site, the smelter and all these great things. And they are great, there is no doubt about it.

We just saw the Hibernia project pretty well closing down, and these three or four projects together probably won't create the same amount of jobs as the Hibernia project did. So, what kind of a major impact will it have? Great to have, no doubt about it. We would be in hard shape without them coming up, Mr. Speaker. We would be losing more people, there is no doubt about that.

Employment in the province has to be addressed. In my office - and I know members on our side of the House and I am sure members on the other side of the House - the biggest problem we have, at least I have, and I can't speak for members on that side, is calls from people and people coming in to see if you can get them a job. Now, I know things are not like they used to be, Mr. Speaker, in the Province. People years ago, maybe ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, could come to their MHA and there was a good chance their MHA could get them a job. It is not the case anymore. If you are a Cabinet Minister or sitting on the government side of the House, you may be able to get a job for an individual once in a while, but it is certainly not like it used to be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like Roger Grimes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Like the Minister of Education. I am sure he gets a few jobs for his constituents. When you have people coming into your office who have worked for fifteen or twenty years, basically all of their working life, and they have two or three children and are now out of work, their UI has run out and they are going to social services, first time ever - and we have had proof of that because the social service rolls have increased over the past few years, Mr. Speaker. The social service rolls have increased, so it certainly confirms what I am saying here.

As I said, when you have people coming into your office in the situation, as I have just told you, and there is nowhere you can point them to get work, and they basically say, well, I will have to go to social services or I have to leave the Province, what can you do? What advice can you give these people, Mr. Speaker? I know we are all in the same boat, I suppose, with respect to that, trying to get jobs. So, that is something that needs to be addressed in this Province. We have to find a way to create work in this Province. One of the ways that we can do that, Mr. Speaker, is to get into secondary processing.

The Member for Baie Verte a while back brought up about a copper smelter on the Island or in Labrador, and the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and a few more laughed at him and scoffed at him, basically, for even bringing it up, that we could use the copper out of Voisey's Bay for a smelter in Newfoundland and Labrador. He was laughed at. Didn't we have one of the people who found the ore up there, found Voisey's Bay, coming out and saying that, yes, that is a possibility, that we could increase production at the Voisey's Bay site and we could use the copper to create a copper smelter in Labrador? Now we have the situation where the Premier talks about: Yes, maybe that is a good idea. We should look at that. We should consider that.

Mr. Speaker, did you ever watch the show - not Fraggle Rock. What is the one? The Muppets, and the boys up in the gallery. We have them here in the House of Assembly too. I won't say where they are to but they are here, no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I can't say where they are.

MR. WISEMAN: Say it if you are going to say it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I can say it. It is no sweat to say it. Look, one of them just spoke, the Member for Topsail. I knew he couldn't resist it. I figured he would do it. Yes, Sir! That is him over there, the Member for Topsail.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going to take a drop of water now and fix them up.

Now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, W-S-T, the Minister of WST over there. I won't get on to him today, because –

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: WST, W-S-T. Anyway, I won't get on his case today, Mr. Speaker, because I really feel bad for the Minister of Health over the past little while. You see him in the House of Assembly and he kind of looks a bit depressed.

AN HON. MEMBER: She is not here, boy.

MR. J. BYRNE: The former Minister of Health, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Okay? As I say, I won't get on his case too much, because he got a little bit of a demotion there. But, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing. I bet you any money, Mr. Speaker, he is the most relieved minister in this House of Assembly, because he was on the hot seat. The Member for Conception Bay South was on his case, trying to get him to get things straight. The new Minister of Health is trying to say the same thing that the former Minister of Health was saying, but she is saying it with a different slant, I suppose. She is taking a bit of action, there is no doubt about that. The former Minister of Health got on and said he was going to send patients out of the Province, and there was no plan in place or anything like that. The new Minister of Health comes in and says she is going to send patients out of the Province for surgery, and sure enough it happens. Bango, done, done.

Enough on that, Mr. Speaker. Now, when I got up to speak I had about five pages of notes, topics I want to speak on. I haven't gotten past the first page yet.

Mr. Speaker, Marystown. I want to say a few words about Marystown, what went on in Marystown. We saw a couple of years ago where they towed a rig out of Marystown. They towed it to New Brunswick, to finish the job that they said the people in Marystown could not do. Yesterday or the day before, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology had a ministerial statement to make on what was going on in Marystown with the two fire tugs, and he didn't make it. Why didn't he? The Member for Kilbride, Mr. Speaker, got a copy of the ministerial statement and took the wind out of his sales, took the wind out of the sails of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. They were going to go down there and try to save the federal Liberal member, to try and boost him up a bit because he is in trouble in that area. What happened?

MR. CANNING: You are for the transhipment? Am I right?

MR. J. BYRNE: What do you mean?

MR. CANNING: You are for the transhipment?

MR. J. BYRNE: I have to get this on record, because he is over there yapping away, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Labrador West is asking questions. He just asked me if I was for the terminal or the transhipment site. Is that what you asked? Yes, that is what he asked. Why would you ask that question?

MR. CANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The man is totally confused, Mr. Speaker. That man over there is totally confused. Get back in your own seat, I say to you.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the Industry, Trade and Technology Minister was trying to go down there and make a big do of the fact that there was a contract going to be awarded to Marystown. He was going to make the ministerial statement yesterday, but no, he held off on it. He is going to go down tomorrow, next week, or whatever and have the member with him and try to boost up his image down there because he knows he is in trouble.

It is strange now to see that - they were talking about closing her down there a few year ago, they couldn't do the work down there. The former Premier let it go. Most of the government members on that side of the House, mostly the same ministers who are there now, all the front benches, said: Let it go. We can't do the work down here. Not a word from this administration. Let her go, Mr. Speaker. Now they are down there saying that they can do it and here is the contract. Rightly so. They should do it. They should not have left in the first place, jobs being towed out of Marystown and sent to New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker.

Education reform, Mr. Speaker. I want to say a few words about education reform in this Province. Now, the Minister of Education was trying to do a job. I don't envy him. I will grant you that, Mr. Speaker. I don't envy the job of the Minister of Education. He took on a big job, education reform in this Province. The former Minister of Education really messed things up, and the present Minister of Education had to try and straighten them up. He is working on it, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if he has made things better or worse. That is for the public to decide in due course.

I want to talk about a school in my district. Need a comb? Roger, over there in the corner.

I want to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about a school that we are trying to get in my district. The Minister of Education is well aware of this, and I think he is well informed on it, because I mentioned it to him yesterday and he seemed to know what he was talking about. Either that or he bluffed me really well. He seemed to know what he was talking about. I want to go through it to have it on record. This is an important issue.

Back in 1993, Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to the House of Assembly I had a group of people contact me with respect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I know. I already said, if he needs a comb.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to him?

MR. J. BYRNE: The school, I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, in Pouch Cove, Flatrock or Bauline. Back in 1993, when I was elected, I had a group contact me and say they had been working on getting a school down there for something like six years. Anyway, I got involved with it. I went down to visit both schools, Pouch Cove Elementary and St. Agnes. Well, obviously we need new schools in that area. I contacted the PTAs of both schools, Mr. Speaker. I contacted the Avalon Consolidated Board and I contacted the RC Board. I had meetings with them. The catholic education council, Mr. Speaker, went to the schools, had public meetings with the parents from both schools and they all agreed, back before the referendum, that we should have a new school in the area which would be - I don't know if you would refer to it as an inter-denominational or a joint service school or what have you. They all agreed to it, and they would all come together. This was before the referendum.

When the former Premier talked about education reform and bringing schools together, this was going to be a prime example. At that time, Mr. Speaker, we even elected, from all the groups involved, a site selection committee. They looked at ten sites. There was $170,000 allocated for engineering design of the building and site selection. They looked at ten sites and they finally picked one. As far as I know, they have one recommended, and they have spent $30,000 or $40,000 on it.

Last year, after the referendum, and when the new schools act came in or what have you, all this money that had been allocated for that new school - by the way, Mr. Speaker, it was number one on everybody's list in this area, and both boards, to have that new school constructed. Mr. Speaker, when the new act came in the money that was set aside for that school, for the engineering design, site selection and what have you, went into general funds.

Now, I have had meetings with various people within the department on this issue and I was told we need to have it as a priority one for the Avalon East Board. I contacted the Avalon East Board, Mr. Speaker, and they tell me that that potential new school is priority one for the board in new construction. Now, there are other priorities, emergency situations and so on, but with respect to new construction that is number one for the Avalon East Board.

I understand there was $31 million allocated for new school construction this year, Mr. Speaker, $7 million going to Labrador, I believe. What I am saying now is that everybody involved wants that new school, the parents, the board, and it has to go to the construction board now. I am only putting this on record, so that the people will know that I have been fighting for it, Mr. Speaker, behind the scenes. I have had meetings with everybody involved who needs to be contacted.

Actually, I have written a letter today to the chairman of the construction board, and a copy will be sent to the minister. Whoever I deem necessary will have a copy of that letter, to fight for that new school in the area that will service Pouch Cove, Bauline, Flatrock, and actually Torbay, Mr. Speaker. It will cut down on the cost of bussing to the government. It will go from two schools to one school. It will affect four schools altogether, Mr. Speaker. It is actually doing what the government set out to do in education reform. It will bring everybody together, it will save money, and it will be for the betterment of the students. So, everything is being covered and to me it is an ideal opportunity for this administration to say: Listen, you are right, the people of the area are right, the board is right, the construction board is right, everybody who has had anything to do with this over the past ten years are right. It is all going to come together, Mr. Speaker, and they will get a new school in that area. That is something that has been very dear to me. I have been working on it behind the scenes for a long while, as have many other people, especially some of the parents on the PTAs down in that area, Mr. Speaker.

I am just saying now that I hope the minister will have a serious look at it, that he will possibly speak to the construction board, and see if - I cannot ask him to actually influence the construction board because they are an independent board, but I am sure a word of, not advise but of complimenting the project and seeing the necessity of it and affirming that the school in that area would be actually supporting the education reform legislation that went through this House of Assembly would go a long way, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, in getting our new school in either Flatrock or Pouch Cove or wherever they decide to put it. I had nothing to do with the site selection. I stayed away from it. When we pointed an independent committee, Mr. Speaker, that is all I wanted to do and it was completely up to them to decide where the best location is. That is why they picked ten recommended sites and came back, as far as I know, with one site. Wherever that is, if that is going to be in Pouch Cove or Flatrock or Bauline, so be it. What is best for the students is what I am supporting, Mr. Speaker, what is best for the students in that area.

Hopefully in the near future we will see an approval for the construction of a new school in that area, that the people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: One or two sentences. I thank the Minister of Education for that.

Just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. I am urging the Minister of Education, the construction board, and whoever it takes to make the decision to put a new school in the area to service four town, Pouch Cove, Flatrock, Bauline and Torbay, that the decision will be made in the near future to take the $3 million or whatever is necessary to build that new school in that area, take it out of the $31 million and show this Province that what they have said in education reform all the way through it is what they mean.

Basically what I am saying is, put your money where your mouth is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join in the final stage of the Budget Debate. It is an opportunity to review many of the issues that are arising as a result of this Budget and as the result of the changes that have been affecting people in this Province. There have been significant changes to the status of people in this Province in the last while, some of them as the result of direct government action, laying off employees, 1,100 full-time equivalent positions. It could be more than 2,000 to 3,000 people, not counting the lay-offs already announced as the result of hospital closures and the closure of the Grace, not counting other measures being undertaken by government in reducing the number of teachers as the result of the student-teacher ratio being applied without the 2 per cent clause and declining enrolments. So we are probably looking, Mr. Speaker, at 3,000 to 4,000 more people being laid off or fewer people being employed - a more proper way - after this Budget is brought down than before, and that is supposed to be good news.

In fact, the Minister of Finance got applause throughout as the result of his Budget Speech and I believe he may have even gotten a standing ovation - how easy it is to get from his caucus members. Throughout all this, we had the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation sending out a beware memo. The former minister sent out the beware memo and the current minister has to deal with the fall-out. The beware memo to the employees of Works, Services and Transportation is: `We still have our mandate. The question is whether we are going to deliver it or not or whether we are going to contract it out.' Now, I do not think they were fully aware of all the implications of that on collective bargaining and collective agreements but it has never prevented them in the past, Mr. Speaker. When government wanted to do something they were prepared to over-ride collective agreements when it suited them. So the beware memo is still alive, as far as I am concerned, until the minister denounces it. Mr. Speaker, the threat is that whether it is a pilot project or not, they are going to start contracting out the highway maintenance services.

What will we have, Mr. Speaker? We will have the same thing happening as if they privatized the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. We will have low-wage, low-benefit jobs, part-time, seasonal, not the same kinds of benefits that are available to full-time employees, pension, disability insurance, drug plans, protection for families that is very, very important, more important today than it has been in the past because of the terrible, terrible job market. Members opposite want everybody in this House to be the good news gurus. They want everybody to go around with a smile on his face. They want nobody over here to remind them of their inadequacies. They want nobody over here to tell them about people who go hungry to school every day. They want nobody to talk about the issue of child poverty. They want nobody to rain on their parade because they want to convince people that Liberal times are good times when the people of this Province know and are experiencing exactly the opposite during the current economic crisis which seems to have been overcome in some parts of the country but is very much affecting us here.

When it is proposed, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of budgetary processes, as a result of the so-called school reform - and I have to say so-called, because now we are faced with more dissention amongst parents in this Province than we ever faced over the issue of religion. The issue of religion was small potatoes compared to the dissention going on now with the closure of schools, the refusal of this government to take responsibility for proper procedure to be carried out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. HARRIS: I would say the hon. member knows an awful lot about foolishness, Mr, Speaker - but the dissention that comes and it is legitimate actions by parents who want to protect their communities, no one is more exemplified than the group of people from Brigus and Marysvale and Georgetown who were in this House a few weeks ago. A responsible group of parents who are - they are not fighting the issue of denominational education, they are not fighting that issue, they voted to have a community school, Mr. Speaker, and they thought that by voting in favour of interdenominational education in Term 17, that they were going to be able to keep a school in Brigus. They have two schools there now, two catholic schools, an elementary school and a primary school and they thought for sure they could keep a school in Brigus, especially if it were interdenominational. It is Catholic now, most of the people are Catholics, but they did not go fighting the battle of Catholic schools, they wanted a school, because already that school had accepted whoever was nearby and the people whether they were Protestants or Anglicans or Catholics or whatever, or nothing at all, went to that school in Brigus because is was the closest school.

I see the Speaker nodding and I am sure he is thinking about E. J. Pratt in his own district, another school, a community school. I know he is not allowed to speak here in the House and be partisan, but I am sure he is thinking about his own district and E. J. Pratt, another very fine school that the parents want to keep because it is a community school. Now, the Member for Topsail says it is shocking that people want to have communities schools, well, I say the Member for Topsail is shocking -

MR. SHELLEY: That is right.

MR. HARRIS: - wasting the time of the House yesterday, over foolishness when everybody could have voted in favour of it at 3:05 p.m. instead of waiting until 4:55 p.m. to vote on a motion saying that members should support, do what they can to enjoy and promote Cabot 500.

MR. SHELLEY: Pretty impressing debate that was.

MR. HARRIS: That impresses me a lot. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have very serious issues to deal with in this Province. You know, all this winter, people have been worrying and complaining and have been concerned about health care issues and we had `old alligator skin' over there, who is no longer the minister, denying that there was a crisis, no crisis - `no crisis Matthews'. He was there defending the indefensible, day-in and day-out - no crisis, and now all of a sudden he is gone and we have a crisis. We are sending fifty heart patients out of the Province, we are recognizing that our waiting list for cardiac surgery is the longest in the country, it should be brought in line with the Canadian average and we think we might be able to do that by the end of 1998. We have no crisis now, but we might be able to get to the Canadian average by the end of 1998 if we take extraordinary measures and send fifty people out of the Province. But there is no crisis. All you are trying to do is frighten the people - that is what the minister used to say - the only crisis is the crisis of fear created by the Opposition. That is all. That is the only crisis. The same when it comes, unfortunately, to the crisis for our people who are forced on social assistance, Mr. Speaker - no increase since 1989.

When we look at social housing - lots of increases in rent, no trouble to increase the rent. I do not see the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Maybe he is somewhere else in the House. He has effected a 20 per cent increase in rents amongst tenants. I had an individual come to me the other day, one of his own employees, an employee of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that with my glasses off the Government House Leader is only a blur, and that is the way I like it. I can concentrate on what I am saying because I do not have to concentrate on the minister. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs brought in changes effective this week to increase the rents in Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation housing.

I had somebody come to see me the other day whose gross income for the family is $17,000 a year. Do you know how much his rent is going to be? It is going to go to $600 a month. There he is, an employee of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the minister has raised the rents for Newfoundland and Labrador housing units. One of his own employees, a seasonal employee of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, came to see me the other day practically in tears. He said: What am I working for? I get take-home pay of $600 every two weeks, and at the end of the month I have to give back to the employer, to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, $600 in rent. My rent is going up to $600.

He is a tenant of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, and a seasonal employee of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. That is what this minister is doing, raising this man's rent by $100 per month. A $100-a-month increase on a $495-a-month rent. This person is living below the poverty line with a spouse and a child. The minister is charging him $600 a month rent while he is working, and about $300-and something when he is not.

That is the kind of thing that is going on as a result of this Budget, of this government's policies, and it is not something that should be tolerated. I spotted the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I say, when I put my glasses back on.

Mr. Speaker, housing is one of the biggest problems poor people have because they cannot afford the big rents. They cannot afford to pay their light bills when they have electricity for heat. What happens? They used to be able to work a deal with the Minister of Social Services. If they got behind on their heat bill, they could get the arrears paid off and have it set up as an overpayment, and pay it off over time at 5 per cent of their rate.

Not anymore, Mr. Speaker. Now they are at the mercy of Fortis. This government is paving the way for them to do that. People on social assistance who have high light bills are now thrown on the mercy of Fortis, lack of mercy really, there is not much mercy there, they demand big hefty chunks of a social services recipients income cheque, to bring them back into arrears. The government is constrained by the five per cent rule, the five per cent rule as it applies to over payment to government it will only take back five per cent. It can only claw back five per cent on overpayment, Mr.Speaker, but there is no such rule applying to Newfoundland Light and Power, no rule for Newfoundland Light and Power, they can claw back hefty chunks, twenty-five per cent, thirty per cent, forty per cent, fifty per cent and this government lets them do it.

MR. WISEMAN: Take on private enterprise (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will take on private enterprise, I say to the Member for Topsail and if it is Newfoundland Light and Power I will take them on any day of the week.

AN HON. MEMBER: That a boy, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: We had a good annual meeting there today. They were sorry shareholders, we only made $31 million last year, they were crying crocodile tears. I do not know if the member was down there as a shareholder or not, but they were down there, Stan Marshall and Company, they were crying crocodile tears because we only made $31 million last years.

MR. FITZGERALD: Ralph, you have shares in that?

MR. HARRIS: And our revenues from Newfoundland Light and Power were down because of a regulatory decision that they did not like. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was not one of those who was prepared to join in the crocodile tears with the shareholders of Fortis. The shareholders of Fortis have done very very well by the people of this Province over the years and Mr. Speaker, share the light, not with welfare recipients, on sharing the light with welfare recipients, we will take big hefty chunks out of your welfare cheque, we want thirty per cent, we want forty per cent, we want to have it paid off in six - how do I know that?

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know about that?

MR. HARRIS: How do I know about that? Mr. Speaker, I hear about it from my constituents who phone and look for my help, that is how I know about that and I know about the rent you are charging your tenants because they are coming to me and complaining about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: One hundred a month extra for a person making less than $17,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: $17,000 a year.

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Six hundred dollars a month he is charging to a person making $17,000 a year, a $100 a month increase, Mr. Speaker, for someone paying $490 a month. This month, $100 a month increase for social housing. We are not talking about market rental now, Mr. Speaker, he has them too. We are not talking about market renting, we are not talking about the ministers tenants over in Elizabeth Towers, we are not talking about them, we are not talking about the millions of dollars the minister spent on Elizabeth Towers to chart it up a bit in hope to sell it at a lost for luxury apartments, we are not talking about that. We are not talking about luxury tenants at the luxury towers owned by the minister who spent $7 million to chart it up a few years ago and is trying to unload it as a loss, we are talking about social housing, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where? Downtown or where?

MR. FITZGERALD: I heard some bad things about you, I thought you were a better man then that.

MR. HARRIS: Who is telling you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: What does he know about me?

MR. FITZGERALD: All kinds of things.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, he has increased the rent by $100 a month for someone who is paying $494, that is a twenty per cent increase, if he had to go before the residential tenancies board he would not get it approved. These are some, well if you are really my buddy, if the minister is really my buddy as he claims to be, then if you look at his rental scale and try to rejig it so it does not cause hardship, to people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: This is a person who works for you. I don't want to discuss -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: This person is not on welfare. This person comes across as the category of working poor, Mr. Speaker. I will talk to the minister about this particular case afterwards. This is somebody who has worked for the minister's department for many years.

Mr. Speaker, if I look at the problems that have been caused by this government to people who are poor in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: There are very many people in this Province who cannot afford to engage in this lighthearted discussion about serious matters, Mr. Speaker, because they are looking for their next meal. They are going to food banks, Mr. Speaker. Never mind all this malarkey! They are out there going to food banks, 45,000 of them going to food banks because this government is not doing its job in making sure that they have proper and adequate income, Mr. Speaker, and the Department of Social Services has failed in its duty to provide adequate income to people on social assistance! That is why there are 45,000 people going to food banks in this Province, Mr. Speaker. That is why there are more food banks now, probably ten times as many, Mr. Speaker.

When the Liberal government came to power in 1989 we know that there are 50 per cent more poor people, we know there are 50 per cent more poor children, Mr. Speaker, because the statistics are there. The Canadian Council of Social Welfare has told us in their last report that there are 50 per cent more poor children in Newfoundland today than there was in 1989. If the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods does not believe that and wants to personalize this debate, let him do it, Mr. Speaker, but it is not doing anything for the 36,000 poor children in this Province, that is not doing anything for the kids who go to school hungry in this Province, that is not doing anything for the people who go to food banks in this Province, Mr. Speaker. If we are not going to have a debate - if we can't have a serious debate in this Legislature about the plight of poor people in this Province, Mr. Speaker, then we should close her down! Turn off the lights! Go home! Turn out the lights!

These are serious issues, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: They sold the shop.

MR. HARRIS: They sold the shop? They privatized the shop. They didn't sell the shop, they privatized it. They didn't sell anything, as the minister - we didn't sell anything, we just privatized it. She must have been up late last night cooking up a deal with Walter Manning. We want to come in tomorrow morning now and we will get them. We will get the Member for St. John's South. We will get those Tories. We will cook up a deal with Walter Manning - but we will make sure that we have one recognizable Tory. We will diffuse the whole issue.

The Minister of Education could not believe that they actually gave the park to a Tory. He could not believe it. It is so unlike them, I know. The Minister of Education was surprised and shocked. The Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods is quite happy to shut down Newfoundland Farm Products -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: `Chicken, chicken, who got the chicken?' That is what they were saying on TV tonight. `Chicken, chicken, who got the chicken?'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I seen it on TV tonight when they were talking about the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it was Chinese food we had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: St. John's got the chicken, they said on their sign out in Corner Brook. No sign of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board out in Corner Brook during that issue. No sign of the Premier out there. Even the Member for Humber Valley stayed away. The Member for Humber Valley knows a lot about farming but he stayed away from the Newfoundland Food Products issue. He hasn't said a word about it. Stayed away from his district, stayed away from the West Coast. Not to be seen. Doesn't want to talk about Newfoundland Farm Products. Neither does the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. Leaving it all to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods to handle the flack, shutting down an industry employing over 100 of their constituents.

I don't how many of the Member for Humber Valley's constituents are employed there, but I know the Member for Humber West, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, has constituents working there, and I know the Premier's district has people working there. Shut them down, lay them off, close them down. What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, when we have no federally inspected meats in the Province? How are people down on the South Coast and on the Burin Peninsula going to ship lamb? I ask the Member for Humber Valley, how are the people on the South Coast going to ship lamb to St. Pierre if they don't have a federal inspection? How are they going to do it?

Can't do it. You need to have a viable food processing industry in the Province, federally inspected meat, to be able to look after the operations of a viable food industry to develop it. To develop the sheep breeding industry, to develop the lamb industry in the Province, provide for exports, especially to St. Pierre-Miquelon, a traditional market for St. Lawrence and other Burin Peninsula places to sell lamb. The St. Pierre and Miquelon people love lamb. Can't grow enough themselves. They have to import it from Newfoundland. We haven't been able to develop a proper industry because we don't have federal inspectors, a system of federal inspection, to allow that meat to be inspected and shipped out of the country to St. Pierre and Miquelon.

The government's policies fail to recognize the needs of the people of this Province, and in particular the people of this Province who need employment, or who are relying on government for employment, or, unfortunately, relying on the taxpayers for sustenance. I guess it isn't very popular - I suppose it isn't very popular. I guess that is why I'm the only - not the only one, but that is why I'm many times speaking in vain here in the House about issues related to welfare recipients, social assistance recipients, poor children, hungry children. Not very popular these days. The popular thing is to say: Let them fend for themselves. Particularly if they are able-bodied. Able-bodied relief. Let them fend for themselves. But that isn't the reality and that isn't an answer to people who have no opportunity. Unless what the government wants is more people to head west, more people to leave the Province, more people to take their talents elsewhere.

Because that is what they are going to have to do. A modern day resettlement program of resettlement off the Island and not within the Island. That is what is happening when people don't feel secure about their jobs either, and their children don't look to this Province for their prospects. A very sad thing. You go and talk to a high school class today in St. John's and ask the grade XI or XII or Level I or II, what do they call it, how many people see their future here in Newfoundland and Labrador? I don't know if the Member for St. John's North, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, goes into Eugene Vaters High School and asks the Level III students: How many of you expect to make your future here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

You won't get a lot of hands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not enough (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Unfortunately, not enough. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? We cannot convince people about the security of opportunity in our Province, because they don't have security now. When government is constantly trying to cheer people up -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't think the threat of socialism - if we had a threat of socialism I might be convinced to go along with you, but we don't seem to have a threat of socialism. The biggest threat we have is rampant, unbridled capitalism and dictatorship. That is the biggest threat we have, that the people of this Province are facing, rule by Inco.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Inco has not decided what the royalty regime is going to be yet; that is why we don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Inco has not decided yet what our royalty regime is going to be, so we don't know. We are waiting for them to tell us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: That is who is ruling this Province, rule by Inco?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move now that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

Motion, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not adjourn?

MR. SPEAKER: Not adjourn.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Clerk suggested, in winding up debate, that I say some wonderful things about the great budget.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, knowing that hon. members concur, I would now move that we conclude the debate on the budget speech and I move that you now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.

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

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have received a message from His Hon. the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

MR. SPEAKER: The message is addressed to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 1998. By way of further supply and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:__________________________

A.M. House, Lieutenant-Governor.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message be referred to the Committee of the Whole on Supply.

On motion, message from His Hon. the Lieutenant-Governor referred to Committee of the Whole on Supply.

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

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I feel an obligation at the request of the Minister of Education to have a few words on Bill No. 11, I believe, granting of huge sums of money to help defray public expenses. It is huge, $1,801,880,200, that is huge to me, it may not be to the minister, but it is huge to me, a big chunk of money. In fact, it is small compared to the chunk of money that Inco paid to buy Voisey's Bay nickel I might add.

MR. J. BYRNE: What do we get out of it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Nothing yet, maybe nothing ever. Is it probably going to be huge compared to what we are going to get from this deal. A complete sell out, that is what it is. A give-me-away, resources were parallel to Churchill Falls and we know how the Premier danced around the country for a little while until they stopped listening to him, to reverse the Churchill Falls contract. Well, he has a chance on this contract to set the record straight, he has a chance to do it right. Why would a premier give a ten-year tax break to Inco in Voisey's Bay? Hundreds of millions of dollars to this Province, a $40 billion deposit at present, it could be a $100 billion, and they give a ten-year tax holiday?

Even the Minister of Education and some of his colleagues who sat in the last Cabinet of former Premier Wells realized we have to stop that give away and they brought Bill 43 to the House of Assembly. The bill was going to amend it where you would limit the amount they could benefit in any year by $2 million a year over a ten-year period, which would be $20 million it would limit the break on taxation.

It is pretty simple. The mining operations tax, it is called, 15 per cent. They could write off their income tax, the 14 per cent corporate rate on mining, against that, which in effect meant they got a ten-year tax holiday. I'm sure the Minister of Education is very familiar - but why would the same minister, most of the same people in Cabinet, feel it was so important to correct this wrong that the former premier admitted, and his Cabinet, and tabled a bill and had to have it dealt with, and then turn around when that train came in, was it? Is that what the Minister of Education called him? It is a train coming fast. Came in and scrapped it. The same people again turned in the other direction. The same piece of legislation. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - for the next couple of weeks - was a part of that.

I'm expecting a good announcement from him tomorrow. I'm expecting a good announcement from you tomorrow, I say. I'm telling you. Rex Gibbons is in trouble. He has to have an announcement from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in the morning telling us he is going to stop his privatization. He is going to put a committee in place of nine people - he has a committee of nine people in place! Three front-line workers in operations. That is what he is going to tell us tomorrow. I just know by looking at him. The former minister probably wrote it for him, I would say. She probably wrote it for you. There is nothing but good things happen, I would say, around this minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: What minister?

MR. SULLIVAN: This minister. I must say he is pretty up front, pretty straightforward, I have to admit that.

MR. FITZGERALD: He is a good minister. (Inaudible) be the next Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is. I don't blame it on that minister, everything, at all. I don't blame everything on that minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: You fellows over there follow your Leader. He is the only one on that side of the House who was nice enough to call me last Friday and congratulate me. A gentleman.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did, I congratulated him.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I congratulated him, I did. I felt so bad that I contributed in some way to what happened to you, so I said - no, actually, I congratulated him.

MR. MATTHEWS: I appreciated the call.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did. In fact, I really felt sorry, because you were no more the problem than your Cabinet colleagues and the Premier who I blame it on. Because, I say to the minister, if they could make a commitment to send fifty or sixty people away out of this Province, they could make it yesterday, they could have made it last month, or they could have made it a month before. So the commitment to put in the $750,000 for fifty people, or for the sixty people, which is about $900,000, if they were willing to commit it. The federal election really helped, I say to the minister, to loosen up that money.

I say to the minister...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to my colleague for Conception Bay South, if the minister doesn't stand in this House tomorrow and tell us that he is going to stop privatization - he has a committee formed, nine people, three front-line people - and if he does not stand and tell us that tomorrow there is something wrong, I say. That is what I would say.

We have the statement from the same person who gave us the statement for Industry, Trade and Technology, his Ministerial Statement. Yes, tremendous! We have your statement for tomorrow. Do you want me to read it? Do you want me to read your statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, do not read that, `Loyola'.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not going to read it. We will wait for tomorrow and have fun. We did a news release on the (inaudible) tonight. It is a very interesting Ministerial Statement.

When Rex Gibbons came out of Ferryland district he said: `Do something on that privatization or I will be crucified up here!' I said: `Don't worry, by the time we get questions in the House tomorrow, to the minister, we will solve that problem.' Sure enough, the word goes out, the statement gets written and the minister, we imagine, is going to stand here tomorrow and make an announcement. Is that correct? I do not have to go campaigning. I am going to straighten out things up there on Tuesday or whenever the House ends, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, whenever it is, hopefully, before June 2. We only need a day to get up there.

MR. MATTHEWS: I tell you what, now Charlie Power needs your help and support (inaudible). I would say (inaudible) votes on the Southern Shore.

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not see you in voting last night - over 500 people at a nomination in St. John's West, that is more than Rex Gibbons took in the federal riding out of his own district. Can you imagine? Over 500 PCs showed up to vote at a nominating meeting last night in St. John's West? And do you know who was parked across the street in a car all night, watching?

AN HON. MEMBER: Judge Wicks.

MR. FRENCH: Counting the people going in.

MR. SULLIVAN: Counting the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: The man is retired. He has to do something, you know.

MR. SULLIVAN: What did you say? He is what? Oh, retired, I thought you said something else. I was not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on you fellows, (inaudible) on us.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is it, exchange of information.

MR. MATTHEWS: Where was the meeting last night?

MR. SULLIVAN: He was right up in your backyard. Somebody told me they knocked on your door by mistake, I say to the minister. No, I heard they knocked on your door and you came to the door, they apologized -

MR. MATTHEWS: No, they did not apologize.

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, maybe they thought you were going to come back to the Tory fold again. Maybe they made a mistake. I am in your district. I say to the minister, I am in your district, I get your flyer there in the district. You did not knock on my door.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am some glad (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: At least, you are getting around. I ask the minister: Do you read all that good information?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Good. Does it make a lot of sense?

AN HON. MEMBER: Over in your own seat. Get out of that!

MR. SULLIVAN: That seat is reserved for `Jack', yes.

Back to the subject of Voisey's Bay giveaway. We do not have a Minister of Mines and Energy. They do not treat it with enough significance to appoint a Minister of Mines and Energy. We have an acting, acting Minister of Mines and Energy, ITT - the future Minister of Mines and Energy, I guess.

MR. MATTHEWS: You have an acting, acting, acting.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know an acting, acting, acting. We want to have a sequence of about four back-ups in the case of the Premier and the ITT minister.

One thing about the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he is good at being here, I must say. He is pretty good at being here. He makes sure he does not take any vacation when the House is sitting. He does a good job.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) never miss a thing.

MR. SULLIVAN: I must say, you are pretty faithful. I do not say anything bad about you, do I?

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you. I think I will keep speaking.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am sure I will get some leave, will I? Two hours and fifty minutes leave, if I could.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to touch briefly on a very important issue. The Minister of Health made an announcement on shipping people out of the Province. I have said from day one, my colleague said, it is an important short-term measure.

MR. TULK: We are flying them out, not shipping them out.

MR. SULLIVAN: You are shipping them, are you?

MR. TULK: No, we are flying them.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, you are flying them, are you? I thought you put them in a carton and - What about coming back, though? The point though, coming back when they are discharged, some of the people might need some - are they going to have assistance on the way back? Why would you not put $1 million - because that is what it is going to cost over the next seven months, $900,000, if it is sixty: $10,000 basically for the hospital costs, $4,000 for the overall surgical cost, $1,200 for transportation. That is over $15,000 a person. That times sixty and we are looking at $900,000.

Why would they not take that? Because the minister knows well that cardiac - I am sure Dr. Stone and others in there have indicated in the past, because I have heard them say it. I have mentioned on many occasions over the last while back, and the minister is well aware, you need a separate unit for cardiac care. Why would we wait now and spend $900,000 when that $900,000 could have gone a long way towards serving the purpose? Why would that happen?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) three years ago it was requested. Could you not have gotten it done three years ago? We are starting now and we are going to do it by January. Why could it not have been done two years ago, a year ago?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon? But what about three months ago?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You did not have it. Where is it in the Budget? I ask the member: Where is it in the Budget? When the Health Care Corporation stated they are going to borrow to increase the cardiac unit, they are going to borrow to increase the I.C.U., the build-on, they are going to borrow. They said they are going to borrow to accommodate this increase. That was stated by the Health Care Corporation. Now, they were going to borrow the $100 million or $120 million, and they put it in writing.

I asked the question, actually, at the forum - I think the minister was there - at Holiday Inn at their annual meeting. I asked the question on the aspect of paying for it, and they indicated, and they carried it afterwards in the Health Care Corporation update, they were going to borrow the $100 million and pay it back over twenty years. It would cost $100 million in interest on the $100 million over twenty years. They have indicated it would come out of their operational budget, basically.

In other words, what we are doing, instead of the government borrowing money now for capital expenditure, we are basically allowing the Health Care Corporation to borrow the $100 million, or the $100 million-plus, just like we did with school boards that they had to pay off a chunk of money this year. What was it, $25 million or $35 million? Whatever it was, in that range. It had to be paid off again. So it is still going to be a debt of the Province.

Is that the new plan, that we are going to allow all our health boards around the Province to borrow? Is that what the government is doing now, they are going to allow the borrowing there? Maybe the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board could answer that one. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is not going to answer. I am sure my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte would like to get up and tell his story. Overall, whether the Corporation borrows or whether it is borrowed by government, it is coming out of their operational budget and their payment to pay back that debt. It is coming out of their allocation.

They will have monies that will be going to pay - financing costs are going to be coming out of the operational budget that were not there this year. That is going to reduce the amount of money that is available to provide the basic services, and it is going to put a bigger crunch on the budget there. Because the capital costs are not out of the Province, they are a part out of the operational budget of the Health Care Corporation. We are going to be in a difficult situation next year, and there will be a bigger strain on our health care budget.

It is important we get our act in order. In fact, we would have saved money had we made the necessary changes one, two or three years ago. We would have saved extra money. The minister stood and said we do ten surgeries a week. That would 520 a year. We have not done that. We only did 430 cardiac operations in the last fiscal year. That is less than nine surgeries, about 8.7 surgeries, I guess, in the ball park, done per week. That is considerably less than the ten that the minister claims were done.

In fact, there is another problem. There is an increasing number getting on that waiting list. By shipping out two a week we may not reduce it down to 150 at all, because the number going on the list has been greater than the number coming off the list at that rate. That is another consideration we have to allow for, and it may not alleviate the problem. It is important we move quickly. The faster we move on that space the more money we are going to save, because the cost is $15,000 for each person that we send outside the Province.

What we are doing really is we are exporting $15,000 of our money for jobs in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Having this place ready here, we would be spending it on more nurses here, or an extra cardiac surgeon. We would be looking at getting a third surgeon for cardiac surgery. We have two at present. We would have extra nurses, extra support staff, we would have extra people going to work here, instead of sending a person outside the Province at a cost of $15,000 - jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is important, and we are not doing that. We are exporting it. I hate to see money exported out of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon? I said, and I said publicly, I reluctantly agree in the short term. I am saying you should be prepared, that we should not have had to do it. That is what I said: We should not have had to do it. I state clearly for the record, in case the Member for Topsail is not aware, that I am saying it is a short-term solution that I support, but we never should have got to the situation where we had to make that decision. It should have been done in the past when it was asked for, requested by people in the system, requested by us in Opposition, and by people working in the system. We should not be in a situation today where we have to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We are doing something now that we should never have had to do, but I do agree. Because you did not do anything, because you did nothing and let the list get longer, it is the only action we have right now to deal with the situation. It is the only particular course of action we can take now to solve the problem. Because anybody who has family who are waiting on that list, and many of us do - I have relatives out there on that list, and other people have; they are out there waiting to get their surgery, and they will pretty well go to any extent to be accommodated in surgery. Now that the Member for Topsail has gone, I will sit down and let someone else say a few words. I knew I would drive him out.

CHAIR (Mr. P. Barrett): The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. About half an hour ago or less, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi gave the well-known Nazi salute across this floor to one of our colleagues on this side of the House. The Nazi salute, as you know, is the lifting the arm with the hands out. One of his colleagues in another part of Canada did basically the same thing three or four days ago and was asked to withdraw.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you look into that accusation and ask the hon. member - I know he did not mean to do it, and maybe he did it in jest, but we do not need that type of illustration or gesture in this House. I quite honestly say that I do not think he meant to do it. He may have meant to do it in jest, but we do not need it, and will you ask that hon. gentleman to withdraw, please?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I will save you the trouble of making a ruling. What I said was: Heil Inco. That is what I said. Heil Inco. I do not know if that is the Nazi salute or not. But if any hon. member finds it objectionable I will withdraw the remark and gesture and anything else associated with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I will save, Your Honour, the trouble of finding out what the hon. member is true or not about somebody else, somewhere else, in some other part of the country or whether or not anything was intended by it other than an inference that we have a problem if we are going to be dictated to by anybody else other than this Legislature. Thank you.

CHAIR: Okay, I think that resolves the matter.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, before we conclude debate from this side of the Legislature, my colleague here may still want to get up. I want to rise and say that we have spent great number of hours now talking about all the matters in this particular budget and just before we, shall we say, let the clock run and let the question be called, we have raised substantive issues, both in the estimates committees and we have raised them here in the House during debate. I want to say to the members of the Cabinet who attended the estimate committees, and all Cabinet members did, that the answers we got were at times satisfactory. At times they were, shall we say, vague but that is part of the process. I want to thank my colleagues here for the way in which they have been able to carry on the debate, lengthy hours. We put forward the standard non-confidence motion or the amendment to the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleagues that we have aggressively pursued it. We certainly want to say that we have made ample use of the time. We know that there are still some minutes remaining but we do believe we have put forward, from this side of the House, the arguments that we could put forward. We want to thank in the Chamber here, the people who support us, our research people, because sometimes we have to depend on these people like all of us here in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I want to especially note the tremendous job that was done by the leader of our party here because he is a critic for Finance and he certainly deserves a (inaudible). He has given some wonderful presentations to the Caucus. When it comes to understanding financial matters, without any hesitation I say that there are very few people in this Legislature who have ever sat here, who understand the matters of finance better than the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, with these comments, I recognize that there are still some things we would like to bring forward by way of legislation for the evening, but we have made the points that we wanted to make and we have some minutes left. I would say to the Government House Leader, if he wishes to call the question now, then we are satisfied that we have made the points that we want to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the total contained in the Estimates be carried and that a resolution be adopted to give effect to the same.

On motion, Report of Estimates Committee, carried.

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has passed the amount of $2,820,553,900 contained in the Estimates of Supply and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee of Supply has passed the amount of $2,820,553,900 contained in the Estimates of Supply and ask leave to sit again. When shall they have leave to sit again?

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

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

MR. TULK: I move that the report of the Committee of the Whole on Supply with respect to the Estimates for 1997-1998, together with a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, be referred to the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, and that the Speaker do now leave the Chair.

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

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Barrett): Order, please!

 

Resolution

 

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1998, the sum of $1,801,088,200."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 and Schedule of Bill No. 11, carried.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report progress.

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply has passed a certain resolution and recommends that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1998 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed, and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 11)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I hope my Minister of Education is around. Order No. 13, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1996," Bill 14.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1996". (Bill No. 14)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I could I would like to take just a few minutes to introduce this particular piece of legislation, particularly because of the significance of it and the fact that it has been a long awaited piece of legislation for the members of the Francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This particular amendment is to Part V of the new Schools Act that we passed in this legislature just before Christmas and it became effective on January 3, 1997. In that there was a commitment that we would in fact enable the Francophone members in the Francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador to have a provision that could set up their own governance structure. In fact, that is what this particular amendment accomplishes.

There have been several months of meetings with respect to representatives of the Francophone community. They are currently operating through three different school boards of the ten, and there are five of these French language schools currently in the Province: Labrador City, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Mainland and Cape St. George on the Port au Port Peninsula, and here in St. John's.

The members of the Francophone community indicated some years ago actually to the government they would prefer and would like to exercise their rights under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the government, following the election last year in February, indicated to that group that rather than go through a court challenge to see whether or not the numbers warrant, this government would recommend to everybody that we concede the point and arrange for the establishment of a Francophone school board.

This particular piece of legislation puts in place the Francophone school board. It gives them the governance authority similar to the other ten school boards to structure the schools. The schools in this case are already structured. A couple of interesting points. The Francophone community has expressed no interest in having denominational subcommittees or other structures of that nature that are available to the other ten boards. They are going to run linguistically based schools that are already established.

They wanted to deal with us as to how to put their board in place. This legislation concedes that point to them as a result of our consultation and discussion. The process they are going to use is to elect school councils first for each of the five schools, and then from representatives of those school councils they will then arrange for an election of an overall Francophone school board for the whole of the Province. They have decided that the best mix of members for them would be to have a school board of ten: four from the Port au Port Peninsula, two from Labrador West, two from Labrador East, and two from St. John's.

The powers given to the school boards in sections 111.4(1) and 111.5(1) are basically similar to those for the other ten school boards in the Province. Again, it provides for funding for the school board on a non-discriminatory basis similar to the type of funding available to the other ten school boards in the Province as well.

Sections 111.7 and 111.8 give the Minister of Education authority then to pay out money voted by the Legislature for construction, extension equipment and operational costs of french language schools. So those other sections then, Mr. Speaker, confer upon the french language boards the other rights and responsibilities that they have with respect to organizing francophone French first language schooling in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Our understanding is that the legislation that is here for the consideration of the members at this point in time reflects the wishes of the francophone community and also protects the interests of the government consistent in the manner that it does with respect to entitlements to funding and the rest that is provided for the other ten schools boards as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those few words of introduction by way of starting the debate, I will certainly listen anxiously to any further participation in the debate, will make any notes that need to be addressed maybe at closure in second reading or at the committee stage in this particular piece of legislation. I think all of us agree, Mr. Speaker, that upon final conclusion of a debate on this item and passage that it will signal a very historic day for the francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador and a long awaited wish of theirs to have the right to self-government with respect to the arrangement of French first language schooling in the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise at this time and join in debate as the result of the introduction of this legislation and as the minister indicated, the long awaited legislation which certainly supports and promotes the interest of the francophone communities within Newfoundland and Labrador. There has been, of course, a very active and strong lobby by the francophone community over the last number of months. I am pleased to see - and I speak on behalf of all my colleagues on this side of the House - that we finally see this particular bill, Bill No. 14, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act" being introduced at this time. It is essential pursuant to the protection of all individuals under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that individuals for both linguistic and cultural reasons are protected. Of course we have a very viable and traditional french francophone community here in our Province and their rights and their interests in both language and education have to be both promoted and preserved.

There are a couple of points I wish to make however, Mr. Speaker. The first has to do with the actual point that was raised by the minister in terms of a self-governance dealing with the representation from the school council on the actual conseil scolaire or the school board itself. It is interesting to note that the rights which have been afforded to the francophone population in Newfoundland are, in my view at least, greater than exists for the anglophone population. We see self-governance at its very true meaning and significance because school councils have been formed pursuant to the formula in the act but representation for the school board or the conseil scolaire is now derived from these school councils and that is very different, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, from the situation as we have with respect to the appointment provisions of school boards with respect to the ten traditional boards that we have in our Province. School councils are really a fact after the fact as opposed to the formation of school councils so that they can be part of the conseil scolaire. So it is an interesting distinction in both the francophone boards and the ten anglophone boards that have recently been established.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the minister for perhaps his clarification on this issue, it has to do with Section 111.7. I will just read it, it is very brief. It says, "The minister shall pay out money voted by the Legislature for the construction, extension and equipment of French first language schools in accordance with the recommendations of the conseil scolaire." As the minister is well aware, we have a system of our ten other boards whereby a construction board has been established and in accordance with the recommendations of this independent construction board, the construction, extension and equipment of schools is realized. What we have here in section 111.7 is the minister paying money out voted by this Legislature, in accordance with the recommendation of the school board. So, the question, I guess, which I have for the minister, and it is, I believe, an important one that has to be clarified at this point, is how does he interpret in accordance with the recommendation or the conseil scoliare and how does that, in his opinion, conflict, I suppose, with the philosophy of the construction board recently constructed under the other provisions of the schools act?

So, I would be interested in the ministers comments on those two points, but apart from those points, we certainly, on this side of the House, support the preservation and the integrity of the retention of the francophone schools in this Province and as critic in this particular area, I look forward to working with those supporters and parents and students of francophone schools in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak in connection with Bill No. 14 presently before the House. In respect to the amendment to the schools act providing for the establishment of a french first language school, governance under the schools act and the establishment of a conseil scoliare by section 111.1 of that act. I think it is a truly historic importance to allow, not only for the kind of recognition for french first language schools that is required, but also to allow governance to be vested in the francophone community.

Mr. Speaker, an unfortunate part of our own history, both pre-confederation and subsequent to confederation has been, in fact, the suppression, and I will not use the word oppression, but the suppression of french language and french culture in the Province. This was done for what was thought to be highly motivated reasons, thought to be done for the purposes of assimilation because it was believed that if we all spoke English, including those who are born French, that assimilation would be the better route to go and that people would have a better chance in life. That is no longer acceptable, if it ever was, that the French language and culture in this Province would be suppressed and people have told me that as children in school, even though their first language was french, they would be punished for speaking French in school or on the schoolgrounds and when I use the word punish, I also mean physically punished, that it was in fact a discipline issue, if French speaking students spoke French in school or on the school grounds. That is never going to happen again, Mr. Speaker, in this Province and one of the things that will ensure that it never happens again is the establishment of, through Bill No.14, the conseil scoliare and the governance of the french language schools based on the population of parents and students of francophone origin that attend these schools.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think there are some interesting aspects to the legislation. I have some comments to make and one question to the minister. I do not know if the minister can deal with it when he finishes or wants to deal with it later.

I note, for example, that one of the obligations for the - and I am referring here to clause 111.24 of the bill. It provides that the principal of a school has the responsibility - the board shall appoint a principal for every school in the district and the principal of a school shall, subject to the direction of the board, do a number of things. One of the obligations is that where the school is a French first language school, it promote cultural identity and French language in the school.

Similarly, in subclause 4 of 111.24, one of the responsibilities of teachers is, "Where the teacher is employed in a French first language school, the promoting of cultural identity and French language in the school." I think that is a very positive thing to encourage within the school, not just the activity of the school in teaching of subjects in French, but actually that there be a positive cultural and language ambience within the school to make sure that the students of those schools feel that it is quite a positive thing and appropriate thing to be associated with French language and culture and cultural identity. What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is it does not say French cultural identity, it just says cultural identity.

In this Province we have a very strong cultural identity amongst the francophones in the Port au Port Peninsula, for example, that needs preservation and promotion, whether it is through song, story or history. Mr. Speaker, I have heard some very interesting pieces on CBC. Anita Best did a series of programs for CBC which aired on Sunday morning over the last number of months. I think it was probably before Christmas. One of the pieces that she did was on the francophone culture, songs and stories that exist in places that you or I, Mr. Speaker, may not think did exist. Far up the coast, up Daniel's Harbour way and beyond, were people whose first language was French, who learned to speak English because they had to, and still spoke English with a very thick French accent. In fact, some people who never spoke any French at all had a very, very thick French accent to their English language because that was how they learned English from their parents who could hardly speak English. So there is a culture associated with that, Mr. Speaker. It is not necessarily French culture but it is Newfoundland culture from a French background on the West Coast of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is important, that the school principal and teachers have, as part of their duties and responsibilities, the promotion of the cultural identity and the French language in those schools. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this goes into operation smoothly and that we do not have any major problems with it. I would ask the minister, and maybe he can confirm this or point out in the Act where this is covered, but is there somewhere where the conseil scolaire is considered to be a board for the purpose of the Act? Because there are quite a few provisions in the Schools Act that refer to boards or teachers of a board. For example - and this is not drawn out for any particular reason other than as an example - section 36 of the Schools Act right now says: `A person employed by a board shall not administer corporal punishment to a student.' A very good provision - it should have been there long ago; in fact, I think it was there long ago, I think it was there in 1913, more honour than (inaudible) breeched, I might say. But, `A person employed by a board shall not administer corporal punishment to a student', that is what the Schools Act says, section 36. Does that apply to a conseil scolaire? Are they treated as a board for the purposes of that section and other sections?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: I would like to know where, and perhaps the minister can make a note and if he does not know the answer right off, someone can tell us tomorrow.

MR. SULLIVAN: There should be something the same as the other board.

MR. HARRIS: There should be, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition - that is why I am asking the question. I do not see it in a cursory reading of the Act, I cannot say that I have studied it, I have not had time to study it.

MR. TULK: It would not make any difference if you did.

MR. HARRIS: It might not make any difference if I did, says the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He wants to insult me; that is his job he feels.

MR. TULK: It is hard to insult you.

MR. HARRIS: He feels that is why he was elected, but I feel that I was elected to ask questions when they are appropriate.

MR. TULK: I figure you were elected here in the House to be working diligently.

MR. HARRIS: That is what I am doing.

MR. TULK: Every day.

MR. HARRIS: Day and night.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is a good job.

MR. TULK: Not two and three days a session.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have that question because I do not see right off where that fits in with the other board operations.

That was the important question that I had. My main purpose in speaking is to support the minister and I understand that the minister has had extensive discussion and negotiations with the francophone population. Perhaps the minister can tell us: Has this particular version of the Act been reviewed by the francophone people and they are satisfied with it I take it? I heard someone -if the minister wants a fiery speech, I can give a fiery speech on anything, but I am trying to be serious about the issue.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The important thing is, Mr. Speaker, I did hear a representative of the francophone association speaking on the radio the other day and they seemed very satisfied that the minister was working on this and they wanted to make sure that it was done right and they got it done right. I am assuming that since we have not heard otherwise, that process is taking place and they are indeed satisfied that the minister has followed through with a piece of legislation that they are satisfied can work. It is a different kind of school board, because it is a Province-wide board, but there has been some experience in the past with the Pentecostal board and operating a Province-wide board, so I do not see in principle, why a Province-wide board could not work with respect to the conseil scolaire. I believe that some provisions have been worked out so that we do not have to have expensive adminstration for a board despite the small number of students that are affected by it. We do not have to duplicate all the bells and whistles and administrative expenses and costs associated with the operation of the school board. I am assuming they are going to have some joint service arrangements with existing boards to provide certain services rather then have to duplicate services for a small number of students.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister, if he cannot address that question now, will address it when we get to the Committee stage of this bill. I want to signify my support for Bill No. 14 at second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of points, and I will try to take them maybe in reverse order.

The legislation has been reviewed by legal counsel for the Francophone Parents Association. There were some three minor items that were discussed between the legal counsel for that group and our legal counsel in Justice. It was judged by them that it did not require any further amendment. It was just clarification that they sought and received and they were satisfied with the answers. To my knowledge, they are at this point completely satisfied with the legislation that is before the House for consideration.

The notion, the very important one raised, as to whether the conseil scolaire is a school board for other purposes of the Act, such as the prohibition and the ban on corporal punishment, the answer again, I assume, is yes. We will check it. I am assuming it is covered in section 111.18(4) which says: "For the purpose of this Part, a reference in the other parts of this Act to (a) a board shall be considered to include a reference to the conseil scolaire," but we will check that further. I understood that for all other purposes the rest of the legislation applied, and this was just to allow them to organize as they saw fit, that they were not given any differential powers with respect to corporal punishment or anything of that nature.

With respect to a couple of matters raised by the Opposition critic, it is clear with respect to the funding that there have been occasions when there have been special votes in the Legislature. Because funding for French language schools has often been arranged by federal funding through the Official Languages Act. All we would do would be to bring a separate motion here, a separate allocation in the budget, and vote it for a specific purpose. If it were to be done from provincially-sourced funds, then they would go into the queue or the list with the provincial construction board. But when we have an arrangement with the Federal Government for special funding for French language schools, as with the last one that was built in Mainland on the Port au Port Peninsula, then a special appropriation goes to the budget. That is what that piece of the legislation was designed to facilitate, if and when we get further appropriations just for this.

It is clear, and I do appreciate the point made by the hon. member, that the Francophones in fact have opted for even maybe a truer democracy. Because they did opt for the notion of having the school councils first for their five schools, and then they would elect their school board for the Province from representatives of those five councils. They were in a position to put in place a brand new system unencumbered with a history or a past like our denominationally-based system. They chose a system that we could only have wished that we could have agreement maybe to do for the others when we were doing some legislation last Fall.

With those few comments, and I will check any further questions during the Committee stage, I am delighted to hear the expressions of support from the Official Opposition and from the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, because I believe all of us recognize that this is very significant and historic for the members of the Francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador. I commend the bill, Mr. Speaker, for second reading, and so move it.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1996," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 14)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members for their forbearance, patience and input into this debate. I want to advise them, before I move the adjournment, that tomorrow we will be starting with the second readings that are still here, and I think there are some second readings that we might or might not - well, we have a second reading on the Insurance Act, which was read a first time this evening, and there may be some first readings tomorrow. I will let the gentlemen know as soon as I know myself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Is it distributed?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Not done?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Tomorrow morning. It will be available in the morning. If we have to do it some other day, then we have to do it some other day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, we have to do it now, boy, it is a budget thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, but it was not printed today. It was supposed to be printed today.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.