May 26, 1999                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLIV  No. 30


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

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

I stand today to update the members of the House of Assembly on several programs that are enhancing the agrifoods sector.

The first is the Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development Program or CARD II. This program provides a national allocation of $60 million per year for four years and focuses on six adaptation policy priorities. These are research-innovation, human resources, environmental sustainability, food safety and quality, marketing and rural development.

Federal allocation for our Province will be on two fronts. The first is a $1.4 million allocation over four years to the Provincial Adaptation Council. This Council is a non-profit organization that will be governed by a Board of Directors appointed by the various agriculture and agrifood organizations in the Province. The role of this Council is to help the industry adapt and grow in a rapidly changing world economy. The second commitment from the federal government is in the area of Farm Business Management.

Another program we participate in is the Agricultural Safety Net Agreement. It covers NISA, Enhanced NISA, Crop Insurance and the Agrifood Innovation Program including marketing, diversification and human resource development. Initiatives such as on-farm processing, improvements in feed efficiency and land development are eligible for funding under this Program and will be funded this coming summer.

This agreement is designed to assist farmers to stabilize incomes and to provide long term stability for the industry. It has been extended for the 1999-2000 fiscal year in the amount of $1.2 million federally and $800,000 provincially.

It is through programs such as CARD II, the Income Disaster Program just recently announced, and Safety Net that the Province continues to support the diversification of the agrifoods industry.

A fine example of these programs assisting the industry was recently displayed at the successful 1999 Agrifood and Garden Show in Corner Brook. The largest single local show ever held at the Canada Games Centre drew 12,500 people over a three day period.

Attendance at the show's Horticultural seminars increased by 100 per cent. Over 6,000 students were invited to attend the exhibits and many were very impressed with the exhibits that were shown by the industry.

The success of this show illustrates the agrifoods industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has come of age and now has become an entity which is beginning to grow on its own.

Also, the interest from rural boards across the Province, regional economic development boards, has been tremendous in wanting to develop the agrifoods industry, and a number of the meetings that we have held with the RED boards have been very successful. We look forward to working with them in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for forwarding his ministerial statement to me beforehand.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very viable agrifood sector, and enhancing this sector is most important to our Province's future. Introduction of CARD II and $60 million for the next four years is certainly a positive one. This industry must adapt and grow to meet the expectation of our changing economy. The Agricultural Safety Net Agreement and the Agrifood Innovation Program are certainly steps to ensure the agrifood industry will prosper for many years to come.

The Agrifood and Garden Shows are a good way to involve other people outside the industry, and I encourage the minister and his staff and his department to be more involved in such a good exhibition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement today. The involvement of the government in a very proactive way in the area of agriculture and agrifoods is certainly positive. As I have said on many occasions, I think we should be far more proactive and aggressive than we have been. There are many opportunities and, of course, the important thing about agriculture and agrifoods is it is something that assists rural development, saving our communities, and allowing our rural communities in particular to survive better and have a more prosperous rural life in this Province. We support these initiatives and look forward to more.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I stand today to inform hon. members about an agreement which has been reached with emergency room physicians in St. John's. After some weeks of discussion, a decision has been reached to pay emergency room physicians using a block funding model which provides for base rate compensation of $88 per hour. This requires no new funding and is cost neutral. These physicians gave up their right to bill on a fee for service basis providing some of the savings required. Additionally, money saved through reduced hours at the Grace Hospital Emergency Room is also available to provide for a second physician during peak hours at the remaining emergency rooms in St. John's.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association was fully involved in discussions regarding this issue with the department, the Health Care Corporation of St. John's and the Emergency Room Physicians. However, there was some disagreement as to whether or not there was sufficient money to cover this block funding arrangement. This eventuality is covered by a clause in the physician Memorandum of Agreement which provides for a mediated dispute resolution process.

The NLMA was in fact informed two days in advance of the decision being taken through a telephone conversation between our medical consultant and the Executive Director of the Medical Association. We followed that up with a letter two days later and also copied the NLMA a letter which we sent to the St. John's Health Care Corporation informing that organization of the decision. Emergency room physicians represented by the NLMA indicated agreement with this move. In fact, this information has been verified by those same physicians on an open line program this morning.

This arrangement will help to stabilize the system as it provides the doctors with a cost neutral solution and it allows for additional emergency room physicians during peak times.

Doctors' salaries are varied depending on services offered, complexity of work and volume. In St. John's, for example, emergency room physicians at the Janeway Hospital currently, on average, receive more than $88 per hour base rate. Throughout the province some doctors have received more than $100 per hour, again depending on individual situations, the volume of patients, the complexity of the service provided, and their choice to be paid on a fee for service basis or an hourly rate.

We have received plans for several different compensation schemes from doctors throughout the Province and they have also put forward some very creative alternative service delivery models. We have said we will be flexible in looking at all offers from our physicians which are cost neutral and we will continue with that commitment to ensure the best possible health services for the people of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister indicated that the funding to deal with emergency room doctors was not coming out of any new funding. It is monies realized in savings. She stated in today's Telegram and made reference today that the extra savings by closing the Grace emergency from twenty-four hours down to sixteen hours has created additional savings.

Minister, the Grace emergency department did not decrease from twenty-four to sixteen. Last year it was only open eleven hours and went up to sixteen. It is open more hours this year than it was last year and it has increased. How do you get savings when you increase by over 40 per cent the hours that it is open? So I cannot see how the savings are in that situation. If the member remembers correctly, they shut it down from twenty-four hours only to about 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., until last year the situation was so severe at other emergency rooms they had to extend the hours again, requiring more money rather than less money to keep that operating, I say to the minister.

What is going to happen in rural Newfoundland now? You have said that doctors in this city can get $88 an hour, bottom line, in emergency departments, whereas doctors are going to work in Clarenville, Corner Brook, Gander, and everywhere else in this Province, I say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not a question; it is a Ministerial Statement, I say to the member. How are you going to justify paying doctors $17 an hour less than rural Newfoundland where it is hard to find these particular doctors, I say to the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is difficult. It is not going to solve the problem. It does not address it. The minister is shirking responsibilities by isolating a certain sector and trying to get (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes I wonder what the occupation of the minister is. She is billed as the Minister of Health and Community Services but she is acting like a firefighter. If there is a fire here she tries to put it out, another fire over here, nurses quitting in (inaudible), no doctor in Churchill Falls, doctors threatening to quit down on the Burin Peninsula, and the minister is going out trying to put out a fire here, put out a fire there. Now she has the medical association up in arms. The fact that they knew about it does not excuse the fact that they are forcing them to go to a dispute resolution mechanism rather than recognizing them as the correct bargaining agent on behalf of all the people.

The problems that we have need to be solved by proper, overall action by the government and the minister, not by trying to put out fires -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and stop them from getting out of control. The minister and the department are out of control here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They shouldn't be.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, in a news conference today, stated that there is a shortage of nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they reiterated once again that there are three issues essential to solving this problem. One is workload; one is casualization; and the third is compensation.

I say to the minister, there has been some response to workload and casualization but most people would admit that government waited too long to address this problem and now we see not only the new graduates leaving our Province but we see many experienced nurses leaving this Province as well.

Workload and casualization cannot be properly addressed without appropriate compensation. That is why nurses are leaving this Province. Twenty-one of the forty-one graduating this year have already committed to going to work outside this Province.

I want to ask the minister: Are you convinced that this problem of nursing shortage can be addressed without addressing appropriate compensation? If you are, why are the new permanent positions you announced two months ago not even near filled yet?

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

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

First of all, I am very happy to hear the member opposite identify the initiatives that we have taken to address the issues around casualization, also the creation of the permanent positions from casual to permanent, and also the $4 million that we put forward to introduce new support staff into the system.

Mr. Speaker, clearly there is a nursing shortage right across the country. I did a Ministerial Statement in this House. I have been speaking publicly about that, based not only on our own indication but based on information put forward by the Canadian Nurses Association, by Stats Canada and by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, there is a nursing shortage and it is right across the country. We do not have the monopoly on that here in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are working with the parties with respect to putting in place the positions. As the member opposite would know, there is a process whereby positions have to be posted. They have to be posted internally first, and positions that are to be filled have to be filled internally first. That is why the time factor is involved, because before permanent positions can be posted for outside applicants they have to be filled from within.

So each of the boards that are moving forward with the completion of the process are doing so in the most expedient way. In some instances, in fact, some of the local branches have agreed to expedite the process with the employer so that they can move the process along as quickly as possible.

We are trying to deal with the issue of permanent positions as quickly as we can. As well, each of the boards have been working as well to identify support positions that can go in place; positions such as licensed practical nurses, porters and aids that will also help address the workload issue for nurses in the system.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister again: Is she convinced that this problem can be solved without addressing appropriate compensation? Or, does she feel that the problem can be solved without that?

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

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

Any situation that you have to deal with has to be dealt with through a number of initiatives, and those initiatives were put forward by this government back in April when we looked at trying to address issues around casualization because, remember, that was one of the biggest issues.

The next biggest issue that was identified was the workload. The compensation was addressed through the collective bargaining process. Albeit, I know that during the process there were a number of initiatives left of the table because we were very clearly told that it had to be 17 per cent on the salary or nothing.

Unfortunately, at the time we had made it very clear that our compensation was based on a 7 per cent salary increase. We were willing to work in other ways to address workload as well as trying to address the casualization issue, and we continue to do that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Surgeries are being cancelled weekly. We have cardiac intensive care beds being closed, as well as dozens of other hospital beds being closed because of a nursing shortage. Remote communities like St. Lewis have lost the only nurses that they had. Minister, that list goes on.

We still have not dealt with the annual bed closures that occur each year to allow people to take their vacation. We will not see the crunch on that really until after the summer.

Minister, certain health care professionals have been reclassified to reflect the nature of their work. I ask the minister: Will you do as the nursing union has requested and conduct an occupational review of all nursing classifications to reflect their added responsibilities in comparison to other Canadian jurisdictions?

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

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

With respect to the collective bargaining component, my colleague, the President of Treasury Board, would perhaps like to expand on this.

As you know, when we were in negotiations a number of issues were raised not only for nurses but also for other groups - allied health professionals, social workers, and other groups as well - around the whole issue of classification review and an occupational review.

That is an initiative that as a government we will be looking into certainly and we have not ruled it out. We have had some discussions with a number of groups, including the nurses, including NAPE, about the issue of classification review and occupational review. As I said, we have not ruled that out.

As I said as well, we were talking about a whole number of initiatives. We have made it very clear to the Province through the media and also through other means that there were a number of issues that were left unresolved at the bargaining table. There were some preliminary discussions around the issue of a classification review. There were preliminary discussions around a number of other ways which we, as a government, try to introduce to acknowledge some of the very difficult challenges that nurses face in the workplace.

As I said, the issue was made very clear: 17 per cent or nothing. We had put a proposal forward on salary to identify a 7 per cent increase and we would try to work around other ways. At the time, that was not considered acceptable, but in response to the particular issue around occupational review, we are continuing to look into it on a much more broader perspective as it relates to all classifications and all occupations.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might add that government had a position, too: 7 or nothing. There was no compromise.

Minister, I asked questions in the House yesterday regarding the extra money. You have indicated no - new money available in The Telegram today and in your Ministerial Statement also today you have indicated it.

I want to ask the minister and ensure an opportunity to clarify that: How are we getting extra savings to allow for emergency room doctors, from increasing the hours at the Grace from eleven to sixteen, not from twenty-four to sixteen? Where is the extra money, Minister? Could you tell us how it is going to occur when we have increased hours by five a day as opposed to reducing them by eight, as you said? Where are the savings by reducing?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, we have gone back to the original question about the physicians now.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am talking about money within the system.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Talking about money within the system for physicians, specifically?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will give you an opportunity to explain what you said this morning in (inaudible).

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

I am only too happy to reiterate what I mention in my Ministerial Statement. I can provide another copy as well for the House and other members.

Mr. Speaker, it is a two-part process. The first part of the process is identified through savings in the amount of money which, when the Grace hospital was originally reduced from twenty-four hours to sixteen hours, the money that was there to provide for physician services -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I may have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Mr. Speaker, the money that was there to provide for the services, for the twenty-four hours when it was reduced to sixteen, whatever the reduction in hours, the money was never increased or decreased. The money remained in the system. In other words, when the physician services were not provided for twenty-four hours that money was not removed from the amount of money that is allocated for providing physician services. So, Mr. Speaker, when the physicians came forward and made that approach to us, it involved two things: the base salary was increased because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The base salary has been identified because the fee-for-service component that was there is no longer in place. The emergency room physicians have agreed to accept a flat rate of $88 per hour. This is based on their average that they normally take and that is why the amount was allocated at $88.

The ability to provide - which I thought the member opposite would be delighted to hear that we are providing extra physician services during peak times in emergency. I would think that the health critic would be pleased to hear that; obviously not.

Mr. Speaker, I would say it is a two-part process. One was about not taking out the money that was previously identified for twenty-four hour service. We have reallocated that money to provide extra physician services to the other emergency departments to offset their busy times. The second part is about the fee-for-service component -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

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

- which has now been turned into a base salary of $88 per hour by the emergency room physicians in St. John's.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Grace Emergency has not opened for twenty-four hours in over a year. It operated at eleven hours, I say to the minister, and only went up to sixteen. So you are saying there is surplus funding there because of reduced hours over a year or two ago.

Why, if you have certain surplus funding, did the board have a deficit that had to be bailed out by this government up to the end of 1998, and a further deficit this year, if there are surplus funds, Minister? Explain that.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that when you take out a piece of the salary that was no longer able to be provided - because, as you know, at the time we were having difficulty with recruiting physicians to provide services in emergency departments - that component of service was taken out but the money was never taken out. Therefore, when we went back and looked at the money over the last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Over the last year, Mr. Speaker, it was identified.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is making an assumption and I think it is important to note that the management will identify the peak periods and work with the various physician groups -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Management will work with the various physician groups to identify when those physicians will be working for peak periods of time, but the physician services were not provided, the money was never taken out. That is part of the piece of the money that is now available for providing those services, from that block funding allocation of money.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Minister, I understand that the Neighbourhood Goodwill Centre, which is in a crisis now and will have to close its doors at the end of this month after thirty-one years of service to the city, has submitted a proposal to the minister to keep the centre going. Has the minister received and reviewed this proposal? If so, what does she plan to do about it?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Goodwill Centre has had some discussion with the Department of Human Resources and Employment over the past six months or so about some difficulties that they have been experiencing. The Goodwill Centre has been receiving a small operational grant from government over the past number of years and that funding is now provided and is still continued under the Department of Health and Community Services.

In fact, when the Goodwill Centre came to the departments - and I would speak to both at this point - looking for assistance, one of the requests that they made was that the department would advance their operational funding and I understand that the Department of Health has agreed to do that.

In addition to that, my department did assist the Goodwill Centre with $5,000 for some assistance to hire a consultant to help them with some business planning. That planning has taken place and up to this point that is the nature of the assistance that has been requested from my department. We have been in dialogue with the Goodwill Centre over the past few weeks. We continue to offer any assistance we can to assist them in looking at where they can go in the future. I do know that they have tried to look at some other source of funds.

They are experiencing some difficulties and I am aware that they have given notice to their staff. At this time my department is providing them with what assistance it can in the way of help to figure out where they need to go from here. I understand that the Department of Health and Community Services, as I said, has advanced their grant to provide this assistance as well. We are simply waiting to see what further the board decides in this regard.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I am not sure if I understand correctly. The amount of $70,000 to keep them viable for six months while they focus themselves on their proposal, has that been advanced? Is that the grant you are talking about, or is it the grant of $14,000?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a request to my department or to this government for the amount of $70,000.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I was under the impression that they had written a letter to you, asking that they be given an amount - I think the amount is $70,000 - to keep them viable for six months.

In the meantime, if that assistance is not provided, the Centre will close and ten people, nine of whom are socially and/or physically disadvantaged, will be out of jobs. What programs does the minister's department have to help these people find other employment if, in fact, the Centre does close at the end of the month?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the department has a variety of programs which it uses to help provide employment assistance to individuals in this Province. Some of those are employment assistance for people with disabilities; others are our general employment services for people who are looking for work or trying to pursue career development. The same type of service that is available to all people in the Province would naturally be available to anyone who is laid off, and particularly to current staff of the Goodwill Centre.

Of course, in addition to that, the staff would have EI eligibility and would also be eligible for services and support through HRDC, through the federal government.

This is the nature of the supports and services that are available to everyone in this circumstance and they would, of course, be available as much as we can possibly provide to the staff of the Goodwill Centre if this ensues as it has been laid out here today.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I say to the minister: Rather than have them switch over to another program that your department could provide, wouldn't it be more logical to keep them afloat for the next six months for this nominal fee of $70,000 while they attempt to focus on what the report - I think it was Don Gallant Associates which provided them with a report and a new focus. I think they need $70,000 to give themselves six months so that they can remain open. Wouldn't it make more sense to do that rather than switch these ten people over to other programs within the department?

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, the department has been working with this particular not-for-profit organization for the better part of six months to a year and providing that very kind of support that the hon. member speaks to: helping the organization focus, actually providing them with some financial assistance so that they could hire a consultant to help them look at a business plan for the future.

So it is within the realm of the board then, though, to determine what their future is and where they can go from here, and whether the plans that have been identified are ones that they want to pursue. I believe that the board is in the process of doing that. We are still in dialogue with the Goodwill Centre and we have made the offer even in recent days to continue that dialogue and explore what the possibilities are.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour. I should preamble by saying that the focus of these questions is with the intention of getting better regulations and policy regarding hazardous waste.

Minister, an official from your department said last November that the Province had no standard policy regarding the disposal of liquid waste. Your official said that while the Province does issue licences for the disposal of liquid waste, conditions vary from permit to permit. Your official said that your department had hoped to have a mechanism put in place to ensure the proper dumping was carried out at the Robin Hood Bay site within months.

Several months have passed, Minister. Has that mechanism been put in place at this time?

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

MR. LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, the regulations have not been in place. I indicated to the member opposite that is a part of the hazardous waste legislation we are about to do, and regulations. It would all be incorporated into one piece of legislation that would be brought to the House this fall.

I might go farther and say to hon. member that yesterday he indicated there was an amount of hazardous waste material that was being deposited at Robin Hood Bay, probably in the form of liquid waste. After checking with the officials at the department, the only known indication was that there was some asbestos that was landfilled in 1997 as per the provincial policy, and it was contained in double plastic bags. I would say to him that if he is leading to the fact that there is somebody who is doing something illegally from Argentia, he should notify the department so it should be investigated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, I ask what plans you are hoping to put in place with the new regulations regarding hazardous waste and how they will affect liquid waste materials that are being dumped in this Province or controlled in this Province, how they will affect the treatment of those liquid wastes.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the problems with the liquid waste, as the hon. member would probably know, is that in this Province we have 254 landfill sites, many of them unattended, gates unattended and so on. If we bring in a policy we want to make sure that we can enforce it Province-wide in the Island part and in Labrador. When we do bring forth the regulations we will account for that and hazardous waste will be part of that legislation.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: A final question, Minister. Judging from your answers, are we to assume that you are prepared to say on behalf of your department - and this is only an exploratory question - that there is no oil or oil substances being dumped at the Robin Hood Bay site?

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

MR. LANGDON: I did not answer that, I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. What I did say was, inferring from the member yesterday that there was liquid waste and hazardous products being trucked from Argentia into Robin Hood Bay, after checking it there was no evidence of that being done.

What I can also say to the hon. member opposite is that every one of the contractors that are at Argentia are licensed. Every one of these trucks that leave the yard are manifested so that their load has been noted and the destination that they are going to is all being prescribed. So if the member has some knowledge where that is being violated, contact the department and we will check into it.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Let me direct the question again to the Minister of Environment. Will the Minister of Environment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Will the Minister of Environment confirm or deny whether or not there is oil or oil substances being dumped from any source at the Robin Hood Bay site?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity yet to check every truck that goes into Robin Hood Bay, but I would assume there is competition between two companies here - Crosbie and Pardy - and from what I understand they are head-to-head and neck-to-neck. There are allegations being made that one company is doing it and the other is not. That is being investigated by the department. To tell you that there is no liquid waste going into Robin Hood Bay, I cannot do that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education. For the past several months, Madam Minister, there certainly have been plenty of rumblings within the education system: teacher cutbacks, programming loses. We have people in the gallery today who are looking at the loss of some French immersion programming within this city.

The questions today are involved with regard to the future role of school boards in the scheme of things. On May 18, as recorded in Hansard, the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, the Member for Bellevue, is quoted as saying, "Probably we need only one school board in this Province."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the school boards, trustees and other people involved in education have mentioned the very same thing to me. They are expressing concern about this very same issue. So the question is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: The question, Madam Minister, is: What is your government's view of the future role of school boards in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have elected school boards in this Province, school boards that have taken on a very onerous task, with very responsible individuals elected by their constituents. To date we have no reason to look at any other format other than what presently exists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, considering that this government has waited so long to react to the programming needs of school boards, is there any movement afoot within the government to make school boards more accountable, Madam Minister?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, as with any board that spends money allocated to it by government, obviously there is always a concern that the money is spent in the most effective and efficient way possible. I think that government has a responsibility to ensure that is the case.

In terms of accountability, the intent would be to make sure that both of us are accountable to each other. We would be looking for strategic plans from the boards as well as good sound financial statements. In terms of accountability, it works both ways.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, there has been ongoing talk about the possibility that school board directors may become direct, permanent employees of the Department of Education. School boards again, an interested party, have raised this issue with the former education minister. Can this government today alleviate concerns of school trustees that this absolutely will not happen?

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

MS FOOTE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me set the record straight here in that these school board trustees - elected school board trustees - are not scapegoats for anyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I expect not only the trustees would take great exception to that comment by members opposite but, as well, those who elected those trustees.

Mr. Speaker, whether or not we change the approach that we are taking with respect to the delivery of education in this Province, whether or not we change the curriculum that is being delivered, whether or not we look at, in the future, one school board versus ten or eleven - just two years ago we had twenty-seven school boards - circumstances change. I cannot stand here today and tell the hon. member that circumstances will not change a year, two years, five years, ten years from now, because I do not look into a crystal ball to determine those types of things.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the minister in asking about the difficulties, the rumblings that are going on outside this House with regard to educational concerns. One of them that has been an issue right across this Province has been French immersion.

The question is: Is the minister prepared to seek further funding to make sure that French immersion programs throughout this Province are certainly given due regard?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we are going through educational reform. Clearly, the first part of that education with reform was with respect to consolidation, and a lot of that has taken place throughout our Province, in fact, where we have reinvested the savings as a result of those consolidations back into education. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you want to look at the amount of money that has gone back into education as a result of that, I can give you lists and lists: $125 million for new school construction and redevelopment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: - $10 million into improving air quality, and the list goes on. So we have indeed been reinvesting in education.

What we have to do next is look at the content of what is being delivered and how it is being delivered, and that will take a longer exercise than just standing here and responding to the member in the House of Assembly.

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

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I want to present five reports on public hearings that the PAC had recently. I would like to thank the members of the current committee, which was appointed on April 30: the Member for Terra Nova, the Vice-Chairperson; the Member for Torngat Mountains; the Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for Burin-Placentia West; the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; and the Member for Humber East, who just recently clued up these reports.

I would also like to thank the previous committee who had the hearings last November. They were, again: the Member for Terra Nova, who was Vice-Chairman; the Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for St. John's West; the Member for Port au Port; the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans; and the former Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, Mr. Don Whelan.

I would like to also thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee on the five hearings, for the time they took and the answers they gave.

Also, I would like to apologize now because the report, although being presented today, will not be available to the public possibly until early next week because of printing concerns. We wanted to get the report presented in this sitting because we could not present it in the last sitting of the House, the winter sitting, because the committee had not been appointed.

Basically, with that, I want to present the following: the report of the PAC on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services Limited; the report of the PAC on the review of the government's pension plan; the report of the PAC on the Government Purchasing Agency, the Public Tender Act exemption reporting; also, the report of the PAC on the hearings of the Public Accounts Committee on the privatization of Newfoundland Hardwoods Limited; and, last but certainly not least, the report of the PAC hearings on the Health Care Corporation of St. John's.

I would like to present these here today, and just reiterate that the printed bound copies will be available early next week, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Environment Act." (Bill 21)

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period, the Member for St. John's South insinuated here in the House that there was hazardous material being shipped from Argentia down into Robin Hood Bay.

I just want to inform the House that the site at Argentia - Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible for the cleanup there. It is my understanding that they have done a really good job in recycling material there and, wherever possible, it has been disposed of on site. If, for example, the waste has to go off site, it is well prepared in approved facilities.

I would also like to say, for example, that PCBs that are there are handled as per the federal and provincial regulations. It means shipping to Alberta for destruction or, in the case of low levels, land filling in an on-side engineered landfill.

Used oil is also as per department policy. It does not permit it to be deposited into Robin Hood Bay. It can either go for recycling to North Star Cement or to the mainland.

Other wastes will be treated on site permanently or in a landfill site that is secured until the permanent landfill site is complete.

Non-friable asbestos has been disposed of in the former town site at Placentia. Public Works and Government Services Canada will totally rehabilitate this former landfill once the work is complete.

As I said earlier, a small amount of asbestos in 1997 was put into Robin Hood Bay but it was double-bagged as per regulation and designated and placed clearly in an area of landfill in that area. There has been no other waste - the officials have been telling me - that has gone into Robin Hood Bay since. All waste undergoes appropriate testing to ensure that it is disposed of in an acceptable manner.

Public Works Canada also have a number of full-time employees on site who are ensuring proper environmental procedures. Also, the Department of Environment and Labour sits on a working committee for Argentia and those projects with provincial requirements are laid to Public Works Canada.

In addition, as I said earlier, all contractors who haul waste from the site are licensed and every one of these trucks that leave the area are also manifested so that we know what is going out and to what destination it is going.

As I said earlier in Question Period, if the hon. member or somebody else has knowledge that something was done in an unacceptable manner they should contact the department so that we can investigate it.

Petitions

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring a petition to the House of Assembly.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned parents and supporters of students attending École St. Gérard;

WHEREAS students learn French better by being fully immersed in the language; and

WHEREAS École St. Gérard has offered students full French immersion through its uni-track French immersion program; and

WHEREAS we are convinced that the decision of the Avalon East School Board to shift its French immersion program from a uni-track program to a dual-track program will undermine our children's opportunities to learn the French language and become fully bilingual; and

WHEREAS parents have put a tremendous amount of time and energy into our children's school to ensure the success of its uni-track French immersion program;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide the necessary resources to ensure the continuation of the Uni-track French Immersion Program at École St. Gérard.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, some of the parents of École St. Gérard presented this petition to me today. Some are present in the gallery. This particular school community is no more as of September of 1999. It is interesting to note that this is probably the only program cut in the city with regard to programming. It was announced at a school board meeting. The thing about it was that this program certainly could continue for the sake of perhaps a half dozen or seven teachers.

Many people here in the House certainly have been aware of what Uni-track French Immersion is, and they all now that it is a premier program, a program that is equal to anything in this great nation of ours, anywhere. This French Immersion program was encouraged by the school board. It was supported by the school board and the Department of Education. It was touted as one of the best programs in Canada. It is surprising to see that now this program is just cut for the sake, as the chairperson of the board said, of seven teachers.

I know that these parents have not taken it lightly and they have lobbied as many places as they can lobby. They brought their lobby today to this House in the hopes that there would be someone listening who would perhaps help out, and to make sure that this type of program - which I might add was not only put together by the Department of Education, it was not only put together by the educators, this program was put together by the parents. I can tell you, because I am aware of what program is in École St. Gérard, that the parents played a large part in making this happen.

Now they are looking at it being lost and perhaps never ever recovered again, and, again, for the sake of seven teachers. It is amazing. Because when we look at reform, reform was restructuring phase one, reprogramming phase two, but not programming that would take a step backward, as this is obvious to anyone.

The minister is aware of this situation. The parents have petitioned the minister to make sure that she does everything she can in her power to keep this type of programming going. Because I say to you, it is not a step forward, it is a step backward. French Immersion throughout this Province is such an important program. To see that the funding props and allocation are not there, and the loss of this program, it is just horrendous, to say the very least.

This community takes in, in the city, probably 60-plus per cent of all the French Immersion students. As a result of the cancellation, many of the students that are in this program now are talking about giving up French Immersion, because once again it is a shock to them. They cannot believe that this government can allow programming such as this to be lost. This petition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: This petition, Mr. Speaker, is to the House in the hopes that something can be done and something will be done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and support the petition as presented by my colleague the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

It is clear in speaking to parents - the colleague and other members of our caucus - as we travelled the Province and met with a variety of parents in various communities, and as recently as last night with parents who support French education in this Province, it is clear that the French Immersion program is for many families a way of life. It is a dedication, it is a commitment. Fundamentally, it is a choice.

What we see happening now as a result of the eroding of this choice and this program that has existed so successfully for the past number of years at École St. Gérard, for example, is we see an absence of choice. We see no longer parents feeling that they are in charge of their own children's education. That, it seems to me, is the exact opposite of what reform was to be all about. In fact, perhaps one of the more positive aspects of the schools' act that was incorporated a number of months ago in this Legislature was the fact that this act, introduced by members opposite, incorporated the provision of a school council which allowed parents to take control of, at least in part, the education of their children.

What is now happening as we go through this very difficult phase of education reform is we see this very control being taken away. I think the petition that is being presented by my colleague and the wording of the petition is a very strong illustration of that. We have parents who have chosen a French education for their children as a matter of choice, as a matter of commitment, as a matter of dedication, and we see that choice now being lost. I say that is grossly unfair to the parents and to the children of this Province.

What is required is government, through school boards, to at least have the flexibility to listen with open ears, to listen in a very willing way to the very legitimate and genuine concerns of parents, whether it is École St. Gérard here in St. John's, or it could be C.C. Loughlin Elementary School where we visited approximately a week ago in Corner Brook, or it could be the all grade school in Wings Point in Gander Bay. There are very serious legitimate concerns. Parents now feel left out.

It is time that this government through its school boards say to parents in this Province: As we go through this somewhat difficult phase in education, we are prepared to listen. Then and only then will education and reform have manifested itself to be exactly what it was intended to be, for the betterment of the children of our Province.

I would ask members opposite to take heed and to listen to the spirit of what is being said in the thrust of this petition, to hopefully endorse what these parents are saying, and hopefully, ultimately, listen so that their concerns are met.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for bringing forward the petition on behalf of the parents of Uni-track. I am well aware of their concerns. As he has indicated, I have indeed met with a group of concerned parents. In fact, my colleague the Member for St. John's Centre, the Minister of Health and Community Services and I, have both met with a group of concerned parents before the board had in fact rendered its decision with respect to the Uni-track program.

They brought forward some very legitimate concerns. In fact, what I did then was proceed to facilitate a meeting between a group of concerned parents and representatives of the board. Certainly that request went forward from my department to the chair of the board, again recognizing this particular program and the concerns of the parents out of respect to it being eliminated in its entirety.

Since then I have had a subsequent meeting with concerned parents. We have also attempted to facilitate further meetings between the board and the concerned parents group, again, bearing in mind that these school boards are there, they are elected school boards. They have jobs to do. They are out there doing those jobs. There are 10 such boards, eleven including the Francophone board. They go through a very thorough consultation process. I know that at the end of the day there are going to be decisions that are taken that are not in keeping with what all of us would like, or certainly what some parents and students would like.

Again, the board is there to do a job and as the minister responsible I have to respect their decisions, if they have gone the route of holding public consultations and ensuring that everybody has had an opportunity to have their concerns heard. Whether or not those concerns are addressed is another matter.

I understand that, because of our efforts again to facilitate a further meeting with the board, the staff and the chair will be bringing that request to the board at their meeting tomorrow evening to again put the request forward to the board to see if they would entertain a meeting with the concerned parents of the uni-track system.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, the hon. member will have about twenty seconds, I believe. Is he presenting a petition?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present a petition on behalf of constituents of my District of St. John's East.

MR. SPEAKER: I tell the hon. member that it is now 3:00 p.m. Unless he has leave -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very brief. I attended a meeting last night on behalf of parents of Brinton Memorial School and also St. Pius X and St. Paul's. These parents have expressed serious concerns with respect to perhaps what was expressed in the earlier petition, the fact that representations are being made to the school board, to the school trustees, and unfortunately many of the points and representations being forwarded are going on deaf ears.

It is hoped that through this petition, and by the signatures which are attached, it can be seen that the reform process is far from complete, the evaluation process is far from complete, and there continue to be many concerns and many stresses with respect to improvements that are hopefully to be seen and achieved through the changes that are being made in these particular schools.

I would ask that members opposite give consideration to the fact, as expressed earlier, that there are points of concern being expressed by many parents in this Province, many of whom exist or live in the District of St. John's East, and their exact details of concern, the particulars of which are shown in this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, the private member's resolution, I believe, is the one -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, before we get into the process here, I understand that the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne will introduce a resolution. There will then be a speaker from down in the corner - I do not know what to call him those days - and there will a speaker from here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, I think that is what it will be.

Then there will be a clue-up by the hon. gentleman opposite and we will move on to do government business, by leave, until such time as we feel we have made sufficient progress.

AN HON. MEMBER: Considerable progress.

MR. TULK: Considerable progress.

MR. SPEAKER: Do they have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we give leave after a rapid conclusion of the private member's resolution to move on to government business.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

Private Members' Day

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I move this resolution again to bring attention to the House of the grave concerns that many of the public have expressed throughout the last number of weeks regarding the state of affairs and the delivery of K to XII education to the students of this Province. Of course, I would also like to make note that not only were there grave concerns brought forth but there were many very positive things brought forth with regard to our looking at the situation in light of the teacher cuts that were announced back around Budget time.

To look at the reform process is the most important thing because this reform process - and I just indicate to you a document, Our Children...Our Future, dated back in 1992. Back in 1992 - this was probably in the works for a couple of years so we are talking about a reform movement that started at least a decade ago and we are now approaching the twenty-first century. The promise of reform was to certainly bring into the twenty-first century a calibre of student that was most prepared to meet the challenges of it.

Again, just to remind the House of the type of a student that we were looking for with regard to the reform - and this comes back from the early 1990s - that first of all we would have a student who could cope with technological change, scientific innovation, requiring a set of basic skills which go beyond the necessary fundamentals of literacy and numeracy. These students in fact would be able to go forward into the new century with all the tools that would be necessary for them to address the needs of the particular marketplace or wherever.

The schools in this Province, despite a decade of attempted reform, have only come to the stage right now where the first stage of reform has taken place and that is the restructuring phase. Fortunately, throughout the Province it looks like restructuring is upwards of about 90 per cent and that is positive but this is now a very, very critical time in educational reform and henceforth the reason why I would bring forth this resolution.

Again, the restructuring has been somewhat successful because right now we are looking in the Province at schools numbering probably 370, give or take a few. It appears to most that there is no further cutting of the number of schools even though the population will, in all likelihood, continue to decline, but we have now the job of maintaining this number of schools regardless of the number of students that would be in those schools. There lies the problem, because of late we have found that it is the programming that appears to be most at risk with regard to the teacher cutbacks or anything that is done to try to take care of the delivery of education in Newfoundland and Labrador.

With regard to the delivery of education, it is very interesting to note that this particular year, as I pointed out earlier, is a very, very critical year for whatever reason. We found things going on this year that we have never, ever seen before with regard to setting up for the school year of 1999.

If we go back a little ways, we find that the cuts of 182 teachers certainly brought forth many, many, many concerns. The allocation formula was looked at and very quickly dismissed as antiquated, in need of change. I understand that will be changed and that is a very, very positive thing because that has to be changed. Unfortunately, it was not changed up to this point in time but it will be addressed; but that is not going to cure all of the ills that are going to appear as time goes on. The one thing that has to be assured is that the programming that is currently in place must be maintained in September of 1999, if we are to go forward.

The interesting thing about looking at the programming and how teacher allocations affected it is that, in talking with people, in listening to people, in getting correspondence from people, that not only was programming discussed but a lot of other concerns were brought forth.

We mentioned already today, or I did mention already, that programming such as French immersion is critical, to make sure that continues at least at the level and perhaps even better in the coming years.

To get away from programming, questions such as air quality certainly came up. In just about all of our conversations with different schools, air quality was a concern. Now we know there was a fair bit of work done on air quality but the follow-up on air quality - the surprising thing about it is that we often associate air quality with older schools. I was very surprised, in a number of schools, to find that air quality in newly constructed schools was causing problems as well. This is something that certainly would need to be addressed.

Another concern that was certainly brought to our attention was the aspect of raising funds. Again, the parents were indicating that when it came to providing even some of the core materials for curriculum concerns, often times parents and other stakeholders in the education community were forced to fund raise in order to get the very basics that were necessary in order to action a particular subject area. If this is to continue, again there is a question as to the quality of programming if parents have to go out and basically raise money to pay for curriculum supplies.

There were, as well, concerns raised with regard to rural areas. Again, on both sides of the House we have heard some concerns raised along those areas. That is worrisome as well because we have to look at the statistics. Unfortunately, statistics do not always tell the full truth of it, but yes, in rural areas you do have perhaps a higher drop out rate, for example. There is a tendency in rural areas for people to move to larger areas when unemployment sets in or other factors.

The big concern - talking with parties from rural areas - was the equal opportunity. It is very difficult, obviously, to make sure that the same quality of instruction is in every school, in every area with course offerings, but you have to maintain at least a basic level of programming to ensure that those that are coming from any area of the Province are given the equal opportunities, especially when it comes to post-secondary opportunity.

These are concerns that were brought up certainly as I travelled with our committee from Port aux Basques over to Shoal Harbour. One of the other surprising things that we came across in our listening to parents, students, teachers and administrators was the aspect of morale. Morale is a very important part of, I suppose, any particular building, institution, group organization. What was surprising is that there is a lot of talk these days of low teacher morale, but let me tell you, that from our listening to parents and students, there is a low parent morale and a low student morale, especially as some of these concerns about their futures, or the future of their children, were brought to the foreground.

There is a lot of frustration, not necessarily directed towards the government or whatever, but frustration in general, I guess sometimes brought about by employment factors or unemployment factors, if you want to put it that way. There was a lot of frustration. There is a lot of disillusionment as to what reform, what education, means and so forth. That is an issue that was surprising, in a sense, that when you just go out and you are just looking at teacher allocations and programming, a lot of these other issues surface that are equally important and equally need to be addressed.

It is very easy to go around and talk about perhaps the negative issues, the grave concerns, but let me tell you as well - and I would like to go on record as saying - that in travelling from different area to different area there are a lot of positives out there that really need to be accented. My hope is that the department will indeed make sure that a lot of the accomplishments of our educators, our parents, and our students are brought to the foreground, are broadcast so that other schools, other educators, other school communities can see what is working in one area so that they can understand how they can perhaps make it work in their area.

Here are some examples. At the principals' conference on Friday I was down there, and I could not help but notice as soon as I walked in a beautiful display of paintings. In the main hall itself, scattered all around, were masks. Of course, my question was: What artist did it? I was told that this was student work. I could have mistaken it for an artist's display. I tell you, the work was absolutely fantastic. I believe the students of Bishops College here in St. John's were responsible.

As well, just staying, I suppose, on the positives, there are a lot of innovators out there who are trying as best they can to make sure that what programming they have, what tools they have, they are putting to good use. Again, there are two gentleman, two educators, Jim Moore and Pat Wells, that I understood got Prime Minister's awards not too long ago. David Dibbon, who is the principal of Bishops College I understand, is the distinguished principal of the year here in Newfoundland, and in cap throughout the country as well.

It is good to see. I visited Balbo Elementary in Shoal Harbour. As soon as you go into that building there is a display there and every signature of the students is on a framed document. This document was put in space a year or two ago. What a beautiful display. Again, there is and there are many examples of some of the very positive things. Our job, of course, is to make sure that these things do indeed continue.

In looking at the need - and the need is that we are at a very crucial time with regard to reform. We need to turn a corner, we need to get on with the job. One thing about the whole situation that is again very positive is the fact that the reform has given the opportunity to parents to be directly involved in the education process. They have indicated to me that they are there to stay, which again can be a very positive thing. The parents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: I did not hear you. Again, the interruption is unwarranted but I will continue on, because when we are looking at education I consider education to be a top priority, a priority that needs to be dealt with and one that needs to be put to the foreground. Because education certainly is going to be the way to success for many of our young people today.

The reason for the resolution is that there is a need, believe me, for this House to do a reality check as to the real concerns of what is happening out there and to make sure that, in what I consider to be mid-reform - because we have a long way to go yet - we are following what was intended for reform. We need to have partnership with the stakeholders out there who are very interested now in making sure that the programming, the buildings, the delivery of education in Newfoundland is indeed up to scratch and preparing our students for the upcoming twenty-first century.

Again, I am asking the government, the minister, to consider putting together a task force to go out and address the concerns that are brought to the attention of the House today, to make sure that we can turn the corner and move forward in educational reform.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on this today, briefly. We have talked about school reform here for the last three or four years. I think everybody in the House, with the exception of one MHA, voted in favour of education reform, and one of the reasons for that was the duplication that we had in the Province.

In my district alone I had six schools for approximately a population of 4,500 people. Most of them underpopulated, the schools, and every day -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was the vote for school reform unanimous?

MR. TULK: Yes, it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Anyway, the problem I have is that I have been listening for the last two or three months, even today: All it takes to fix the problem with École St-Gérard - a great school, yes - all it takes is another seven teachers. All it takes all over the Province is another seven teachers; seven here, seven there. All it takes in St. John's West is to reopen Beaconsfield, and it goes on and on and on, but every day we also hear the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) being done right?

MR. REID: As right as you could do it, for sure. You should pay attention; you might learn something.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: At the same time that we are talking about how there is only a need for seven teachers here, seven teachers there, the reopening of a school there, Brinton Memorial that we are closing, the health critic is standing up: I have the answer to the Minister of Health. All he says is: The answer is simple. Put more money here, put more money there.

I think we have it added up that he has asked for somewhere in the area of $900 million in the last three years in health care. Whereas everyone else: We only need a school here and a school there.

We talk about neighbourhood schools. The Member for St. John's East, across the floor, stood today talking about Brinton Memorial. My kids went to Brinton Memorial, a lovely school, but we also talked, during educational reform, of the need for neighbourhood schools and to do away with duplication.

I tell the hon. Member for St. John's East that the distance between Brinton Memorial and Pius X might be 200 yards but yet he wants to keep Brinton Memorial open. The hon. Member for St. John's West wants to keep Beaconsfield open, all neighbourhood schools.

Let me tell you about neighbourhood schools. We have ten communities on Fogo Island and Fogo Island is larger, far larger, than all of St. John's put together. We have one school from K to XII and when I hear people talking in here about -

MS S. OSBORNE: Who pays for the busing?

MR. REID: Who pays for the buses? There are buses in this area as well.

MS S. OSBORNE: Who pays for it up your way?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: The kids pay a portion.

MS S. OSBORNE: Who pays for it in St. John's?

MR. REID: Let me talk to you about St. John's West. You have two high schools out there in St. John's West today, as far as I am concerned, because I do not know - unfortunately, coming from the bay, I cannot draw the boundary around Mount Pearl and I would challenge most of the members here to show me where Mount Pearl ends and St. John's begins. I don't know why we cannot put more kids into Mount Pearl from St. John's West. I don't know why we need a high school.

When you are talking neighbourhood schools, look here in St. John's Centre. We have Brother Rice just down over the hill here, we have Holy Heart of Mary, we have Gonzaga, we have Booth, we have Prince of Wales and Bishop's Colligate, all within five minutes walk, ten at the maximum, of each other, and you are talking about closing neighbourhood schools.

I heard during the election about the big racket and the demonstrations downtown because kids in Brother Rice did not want to go to Holy Heart of Mary - in the same garden - and it rather sickens me to listen to you all talk every day about neighbourhood schools.

Next year on New World Island we will have one school for nineteen communities. When you are talking neighbourhoods, that is not a neighbourhood but I think personally that is the best education we can give those kids on New World Island, one school with 650 people. We can offer more programs.

MS S. OSBORNE: Do they have to stand by the bus stop in the rain and then get transferred to another bus?

MR. REID: The flips that you do.

The member for Brigus out there today talking about: Is the government talking about abolishing school boards? When right in the Blue Book, right through the campaign: If we are elected we are doing away with hospital boards, we are doing away with school boards. But when you get an audience in the gallery that you want to play to, what do you do? Jump up: What are you going to do about school boards? Is it true that you are going to abolish them? That is the member over there.

We will go down to the Member for Windsor-Springdale. Throughout the election we were talking about: Going to give up grants for small businesses. Oh, yes, that is part of our platform, doing away with that, a total waste of money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: He comes here to an Estimates Committee meeting, and what does he do? He looks at the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and says: Here, you have to put more money into small business loans.

You talk to the Member for Labrador West, who represents a party who says no tax breaks to big businesses. What does he say? Government should give $150 million to IOC.

Do not talk to me about neighbourhood schools. Do not talk to me about education reform. You all voted for it, but in the back of your mind you are saying: Sure, close schools, but do not close them in my backyard.

Well, we have closed three on New World Island and we are going to close another three next year. I think it is for the good of the children in the area. You should do likewise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today to speak to the private member's resolution brought by the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. It is an important resolution because it does speak to, I guess, the end piece, if you want to call it that, of school reform.

School reform is something that has occupied, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, it certainly has occupied the attention of a lot of people in this Province for a lot of years, not just the last three or four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue before the House today concerns the end piece of education reform. It is something that has occupied the attention and debate in this Province for many years, long before the hon. member who last spoke was in this House. It is something that for some people was a very difficult issue, one that caused them a lot of concern and a lot of consternation.

In the end, the majority of the people in this Province voted for and supported education reform based on a number of principles that were, I guess, part of the selling points of education reform. Despite many people's interest in keeping the denominational schools, despite many people's interest in the traditions of their home community or neighbourhood, or the tradition of the school, they supported school reform because they were led to believe that this would result in an improvement for their children.

In this Province, the education of our children is regarded by most people as being one of the most significant issues facing certainly the children's future but also the future of the Province.

When we are now in a situation where we have elected school boards, the first thing that these elected school boards were presented with -

AN HON. MEMBER: One school board is enough, too.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Bellevue wants to have one school board. I suppose he would just as soon that this House ran all the school, perhaps, if he were the Minister of Education. I do not know. The Member for Bellevue wants to have one school board in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo has an unreasonable anger over there. I do not know where it comes from. Ever since the election, I suppose, when there were no new Cabinet ministers, he seems to be in a awful snit. I do not know why. For some reason he is angry at me. Perhaps it is because I got elected. I don't know.

I want to say that education reform is something that I spent a considerable amount of time concerning myself with, and supported it. I supported education reform.

In my own constituency there were a number of areas where I was particularly concerned about the benefits of educational reform, because one of the big planks on the platform of educational reform was the support of neighbourhood schools. There are a couple of schools in my own constituency which I was very concerned about. One of them is called St. Joseph's. Another one is called Virginia Park Elementary. These are schools which existed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) neighbourhood.

MR. HARRIS: I am talking about the ones I was concerned particularly about because there was a danger of them being lost. The issue of neighbourhood schools was particularly important for these schools. They represented a special type of school which had children who benefited very much from the kind of school they went to, because it was a school that had adapted to their particular needs. They had recognized that many of the children from the school area did have particular needs. There were many who needed the benefit of the school lunch program that the school provided. In fact, they were working on a breakfast program as well to compliment that because the need was there.

They knew their children and the families, and knew the needs of the families and children, and did a terrific job in supporting those needs and preparing them for the next stage of their education.

That was part of the reason that I supported education reform. We were going to avoid duplication in areas where - I hear the member - you have three or four schools in one block. You are not going to keep all of those schools open if there is a way of reorganizing those schools in a sensible way. I do not have a problem with that. I do not think anybody who listened to anything I said during the election, or anybody who listened to anything I said throughout this debate, ever heard me say that every single school should be kept open.

What I was concerned about is that the needs of children - I am talking about my own district for the moment, but I talk about others as well. One of the things that those children need is access to the school. A neighbourhood school for them means a school they can walk to.

There is another issue here. The Member for St. John's West was asking questions, as well as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on this very issue. Who pays for school busing in St. John's? The answer is: The parents and the children pay because, with some exceptions, the Metrobus system is the school bus system for St. John's, which is a user-pay system subsidized by the taxpayers of St. John's to some extent. It is a very expensive system for people who have no money.

That is a serious and important issue for a lot of schoolchildren in St. John's; one that we have not yet seen a resolution to; one that the minister has to have something to say about and has yet to commit to.

The point is, the commitment was made by government to neighbourhood and community schools, and the commitment was made that we were going to have the money saved go into education and the improvement of education.

There have been a lot of people trying to deny it on the other side, but the commitment was made. It was made by the Minister of Education, who is no longer a member here now. On behalf of the government, he made a commitment at a seminar at the Health Sciences Centre where he said that the government was committed to putting the money saved back into the system.

People expected that at the end of school reform we were going to have some serious improvements in the school system as a result of change. What do we have? The appointed boards, the boards that were in existence, had already made notices of motions to close schools. The first act given the newly elected boards, before they even got their feet wet, was the task of closing schools.

They made some mistakes. They made a number of mistakes that they were taken to task for by the courts. What had happened was the agenda of the old non-elected boards was foisted upon the new boards which had to make some kinds of decisions.

Two years in a row, and again this year, teacher reductions were forcing school boards to make very difficult decisions in a very short period of time without even really having a long-term plan in place. We have laid upon the floor of this House something called an accountability act. If that act is passed - and I am not going to decide while I am on my feet whether it is going to passed or not - this minister is going to have the power to issue directives to boards as to what schools to open and what schools not to open, and interfere with the decisions of school boards.

I suppose in the House we cannot have it both ways. We cannot complain that the minister is not doing her job if she does not have the power and is not going to solve the problem, and at the time say we have elected school boards. That is what this government has now put in the new accountability act, that the minister is going to have the power to issue directives to boards about these very issues.

So we have an elected board given the power to make all the tough decisions, given the obligation to make the tough decisions where the minister is holding the control over the teacher allocations, and we have problems all over the place. Some of them are quite legitimate problems that deserve to have a public airing and a public answer and deserve to have, perhaps, the interference of this minister. I know the minister has taken actions, in her own district for example, and others, where the necessarily existent schools policy is required to save schools in particular communities. We support that.

We do have a problem because we are now dealing with, I suppose, one might call it the final phase of education reform, and we have to provide some extraordinary mechanism beyond the elected school boards to see that justice is done in a lot of anomalous situations. We have a formula which everybody agrees is out of date and the minister says she is not implementing it. Well, she is implementing it except for a couple of hundred positions, so she is using the formula and the method of the formula as the basis, but giving herself some flexibility.

The Premier is on record as saying that the minister has the discretion and ability to deal with the problem. What could be wrong with having an independent commission? I myself, a couple of weeks ago, when the Progressive Conservative Party set about to do - if the Member for Baie Verte is prepared to call it a road show, I am certainly prepared to call it a road show too - the road show across the Province, listening to what people have to say about the school board issue, my comment at the time was that there was a danger in that, that we should have had an all party committee. The danger was it was going to be treated as a partisan act, and lo and behold, within a matter of forty-eight hours, the minister was calling it a political committee and constantly started attacking the people of the Province who prepared for the committee as political people instead of parents, teachers and school councillors who had a particular concern about their school, their children and their children's education.

If it had been an all party committee the minister would have to pay more attention instead of putting her foot in her mouth on many occasions as she has done on this issue. Now there is a chance here to redeem herself, and to agree that there should be some independent and non-partisan review of the issues that have been brought before the school boards, that have been brought before the road show, if I want to call it that, that have been brought before the public mind, the public attention, and brought to the minister's attention.

Have someone look at independently and make some recommendations, because if the minister is going to have the authority that the accountability act is going to give her, then I would like to see some independent review of all of these issues so that people can have input and it is not just the minister making whatever political decisions she feels she must make to satisfy whatever political constituency she wants to recognize.

I think that if the minister is prepared to be fair here, if the government are prepared to be fair, reasonable and responsive here, then they will agree to an independent commission or a task force, as it is called here, to be able to do this job and to make a report after having public hearings. It does not have to be very lengthy. Most of the people who have something to say have already said it at least once and prepared recent reports. It would be a matter of gathering those together, collecting them, and making them available for a fairly quick turnaround so that the minister could have the guidance of this commission in issuing directives or making decisions, to ensure that the school programs do not suffer as a result of the cuts to teacher allocations. Whether that is École St. Gérard, which has a very strong point to make, or whether it be other schools throughout the Province which have made very strong points about how their programs are being affected. The people who appeared at the public meeting in Whitbourne to which all members, or members on both sides of the House, were invited - as it happened only members on this side showed up, but that was not because for lack of invitation. An invitation was made to a number of members opposite who were, for one reason or another, unable to attend.

There is an opportunity now to get the partisanship out of this and respond directly to the real needs and the real issues that parents, school boards, school trustees, school councils and educators are bringing forth. Students themselves are bringing forth needs and issues for consideration here. The case can be made for a special -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Just one moment to finish the sentence, Mr. Speaker, by leave.

A special case may well be made to reduce the reduction in teacher allocation from 182, way down below that, down to zero if necessary, to avoid programs being struck out of the school system so that adaptations can be made. If it takes one, two or three years then we should be prepared to make that sacrifice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, to the Private Member's Resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Do you want me to vote for you the next time, Jack? Are you still looking for my vote the next time?

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed going through a lot of change with respect to education and education reform. I think if anyone would admit to it, what we have gone through in the past two years has not been easy on anyone, particularly the stakeholders out there in education. It has been a big responsibility to take on, not only as a government but for the members opposite as well who supported education reform.

The issue that we have to grapple with now is having gone through the consolidation part of education reform - and contrary to what the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne has said, there still is some more consolidation to take place. In fact, if you look at where the boards are today, I would say in the next year or two you will still see some more schools closing and more consolidation happening, in some cases because of declining student enrolment, in other cases again because they have made the decision and it will take a couple of years to implement that decision.

You know, we have gone to the extent of looking at the consolidations, and everybody recognizes that has been a big task. The boards have taken on that task, and I think they have done an admirable job. Again, I go back to the fact that these boards are elected school boards. They are elected by the constituents out there and elected by people who knew whom they were electing and expected those members to act in their best interest. Of course, again, I will repeat that. You are never going to please everyone. It is difficult to do. What you have to do, I think, is realize that when you are talking about education there are as many opinions as there are issues. How do you come to that consensus that enables us to have the best possible education system that we can have in the Province?

The issue for us today, I guess, is now to move away from consolidation and to start looking at programming. Not only looking at content but looking at delivering. I know there are those who say that distance education is not the favoured way of delivering a program, but I have to tell you that I have spoken to a good many students who have no difficulty at all with doing a course by distance education. In fact, maybe you would have seen the program on CBC last night where teachers were talking about the independence it gives to students to be able to do this type of program, to be able to get on the Net and be able to think for themselves and carry out a program without a lot of hand-to-hand or direct supervision, working just with the teacher that is offering the distance education.

I think we have to look at a number of means of ensuring that we, at the end of day, offer a program that meets the needs of all of our students. When I say all of our students I am talking about the mainstream program, as well as those with special needs, as well as those with exceptional abilities.

In some cases those with exceptional abilities may need to take advantage of advanced courses that may have to be offered through distance education. I think if you talk with Dr. Erin Keough at the University, if you talk with Dr. Max House, if you talk with Ken Stevens over at the centre for rural education at the University, they will all speak to the value of distance education.

It is not something to be scared of, but I can appreciate that where it is new and where it is different for some students that there would be some reluctance to go that route. I think we have to encourage our young people and work with them to get them more acquainted and familiar with the technology. If we are talking information technology and we are talking the future, we are talking the Internet and talking about access to that type of programming.

We want to talk about access to courses. We all want to make sure of course that access to courses increase. Hopefully, that will be an outcome of education reform. Having said that, we must look at the content, we must look at what is being delivered. I think if anybody in this House is honest about what is out there now, you have got an assortment of programs out there, particularly at Levels I, II and III, where the department has approved 162 courses at the high school level. There are another 101 courses that are offered, courses that have been requested and developed by teachers. Some of these are pretty watered down courses.

I have some concern when I am told that: I am losing half a unit, that means I will not be able to offer woodworking, or I will not be able to offer safety in the workplace, or I will not be able to offer textiles. I have a concern there. If those are the types of courses that are being impacted by the loss of a teacher unit I am not too concerned about that. Where I do get concerned is when there is loss in terms of access to advanced placement programs for those students with exceptional abilities, with superior abilities. That concerns me.

Again, we still have to bear in mind that we have a severe declining student enrolment. In fact, it concerns me that if we look out to the year 2010 you are looking at a student enrolment of below 60,000 students. That is the crisis in our system. It is not the number of teachers, it is the number of students that we have to educate in this Province.

We have not seen the formula applied to teachers in this Province, allocation of teachers. In fact, on the contrary. For the past two years, since education reform came into being, we have done quite the opposite. In fact, we put in place the designation of a Small Necessarily Existent School. That is particularly for rural Newfoundland. There are no Small Necessarily Existent Schools in the urban centres in this Province. In fact, of our 365 schools, ninety-three of them are Small Necessarily Existent Schools. Clearly, that is to ensure that rural Newfoundland has access to the programming that they require to enable their students to get a quality education.

Of course we have gone that route, but now we are finding as a result from consolidation that there is another category that we have to look at, and that is the small school. It does not mean the Necessarily Small Existent Schools. This small school would be larger than those that exist now in terms of a Small Necessarily Existent School. We have to look at that category as well. In doing that, in the exercises that we have been going through - and it has been a very valid exercise. Because contrary to what has been said by members opposite and others that we have not been listening, we have indeed been listening.

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on a road show by the members opposite. We have our own ways of getting information. We have parents, teachers, principals and students that have come forward. Some to tell us that they are doing just fine, others to say: If we lose this half unit it will mean we cannot offer music, or if we lose this half unit it means we cannot offer phys. ed.

In every case where the information has been brought to us, and we have gone out and gleaned information, all of that will be taken into account when we make our decision in terms of the add backs to the system. There will be add backs, primarily because we have seen some legitimate concerns out there.

We allocate teachers to the board. The board allocates them to the schools. How those teachers are utilized in the schools, we do not know. We do not have any direct involvement in that. This is something I talked about long before we allocated the teachers for this coming school year. I talked about the need to look at a different way of allocating teachers. I talked about having consultations with all of the stakeholders out there, particularly with school councils, because they are comprised of parents and teachers, as we know, but as well with the school boards, with all of the stakeholders, to see what we are doing in the Province with respect to education now that we have gone through education reform in terms of the consolidation. That is, what the next phase is.

Clearly we have to look at programming. The members opposite have heard me say time and time again that we will be talking with all of the stakeholders. In time for the school year 2000 we will have a different system in place, but it will be a system based on wide consultation with all of the stakeholders. That will happen, I would say, starting in the fall of next year.

For this coming school year we are going through a valid process. We have talked at length with school boards, with their education directors, with parents, with students, with teachers, and with principals. We have been listening. If we were not listening, we would not be adding back teachers. We have indeed gone through a valid process. We are also looking at individual schools. What we are finding - we are given examples, for instance. In one case they wanted to offer advanced math. There were thirty-seven students in a particular math class. There were two teachers. Nine wanted to advance placement. The two teachers could not agree on which one would take the twenty-seven and which one would take the nine, so the principal decided to have two classes of eighteen. That is the kind of information I find disheartening, when we are trying to make sure that we have a quality education system out there.

Again, I think we have to look at the school boards. You talk about resources not being available in the classes to make sure we can offer quality programming. I'm at a loss to understand that, because for the past two years, and for this school year coming, school boards have been able to maintain the same level of operating grant even though they have fewer students and fewer schools. In fact, in the last two years, even though they had fewer schools, we did not take away from their operating grant, and this year we are saying: It does not matter that you have fewer students. it does not matter that you have fewer buildings, we are going to give you the same amount of money. Mr. Speaker, $138 million of our budget actually goes into the operation of the school boards. I am at a loss to understand where the difficulty is in terms of ensuring that every school in this Province has the resources that it needs to offer the programming that it delivers.

That is why we have to look seriously and work closely with all of the boards again, and we are having these discussions now. A committee has been put in place to discuss some of the concerns that the boards have brought forward in terms of their expenditures. What we are doing is a comprehensive review with the boards to again look at what their expenses are, because at the end of the day we have a responsibility as a government to make sure the taxpayers dollars we are trusted with are spent wisely, effectively and efficiently. That is precisely what we are doing. If you are telling me that there are concerns in the classroom because they do not have the number of resources they need to carry out a class, then that concerns me. That is certainly something that will come out of this ongoing discussion that we are having with the school boards.

We have some very positive things happening in this Province. We are always so quick to jump on negatives when we hear them for whatever reason. I think the member opposite pointed out some of those positives, and I appreciate that. Because we have a superb teaching force in this Province. We have very good students, and we have good principals in this Province. I have had a lot of correspondence from principals who made some very valid points with respect to the impact that a loss of a teaching unit will have in their school.

On the other hand, I have had some correspondence from principals that has nothing but derogatory. That concerns me to think that they are in fact principals of a school where children are being educated. Having said that, I tend to ignore that type of correspondence and to work with those who are offering constructive criticism and suggesting ways in which we can improve the education system.

That is why we have been paying a lot of attention to what parents have been saying, to what children have been saying, to what principals and teachers who have something to offer have been saying. As well, I've met with the President of the Federation of School Councils and I've met with the President of the School Board's Association, all with a view to making sure that we have every bit of information we need to make sure that when we do the add backs to the system it will be in a responsible manner and not because somebody is standing up to say: If you don't do this, what if this happens, what if that happens? This might happen, this probably will happen.

We need to have the concrete evidence, and that's exactly the process we are going through. It is a valid process. We are a government. We are charged with the responsibility of delivering a quality education system and we will do that. That is our responsibility as a government. It does not require an all party task force. It requires the government, through the Department of Education, to do its job, and as minister I am charged with the responsibility of carrying out that job.

I cannot support the private member's resolution. Again, it is calling on a task force to do something that the department, with a minister, is doing already, and going through what I think is a very valid process, Mr. Speaker. I am confident that at the end of the day we will respond in an intelligent and responsible manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I just draw to the attention of the minister that I am kind of disappointed that you would rise and deny that there are going to be problems that you are going to have to face in the future, sooner than you think. My point is that we have gone beyond restructuring. Not 100 per cent, as you pointed out. We have not gone 100 per cent but we are getting close to it. To have a member stand up and say: We are still looking at closing schools, well, we have gone beyond that I hope, and I hope that over the last number of weeks I have gotten across the point that we are gone beyond that.

I was told by one of the members that he has forgotten more than I will ever know. That kind of stuff coming back is worrisome because we are talking about making sure that we turn the corner on reform, that we move forward. We are not if you are going to get up and say: Everything is okay, everything is rosy, we are going along fine. Because I tell you Minister, things are not fine out there. That is the purpose of my putting forward this resolution, to make sure that the minister realizes that she has to get beyond the school boards. You have to get beyond the school board and you have to get down to the grassroots. Not only do you have to talk, but more importantly you have to listen. If you are going to stand and say: I have done all this and I have done all that, it is news to me, because over the last number of weeks you have said not.

It is unfortunate we will have to go through the same process again next year as we bring to your attention the problems that are going to surface. In finishing up, I am saying that the government is dragging its heels with regard to reform. It has taken now close to a decade to get the restructuring done. My question is: How long is it going to take to get the reprogramming done? That is the question.

In finishing up, right now the education system in Newfoundland is at a very critical point. We need to have some vision of what is ahead, and if we are looking behind all the time we are not going to be able to move forward. We are looking for vision. We are looking for the vision so that we can move forward in a very positive way, accenting the very positive things and getting it done, but you will not get it done if you deny that there are concerns out there, there are issues that need to be addressed.

Again in finishing up, I would ask for support for the resolution, that we can be assured that if there is an independent task force that is going to look at the concerns of education, they are going to report back the real concerns and then we will have real action to deal with them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the rest of the time we are here we are going to devote to business of the House, government business. In that light I call - if the Minister of Municipal Affairs is listening - the Acting Minister of Finance.

I am going to call Order 9, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act", Bill 6.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I can take a minute to find my notes, An Act To Amend the Jury Act it is not.

The bill that was just called, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act", is basically to accommodate two initiatives that were announced by government in the Budget. The first one is to accommodate the changes in the national child benefit credit and the second one is to accommodate the seniors' benefit that was announced, starting at $200 a year and going down until somebody meets $20,000 income, at which point it will be eliminated.

The reason for these amendments is simply because these two credits or two levels of support that are being introduced - one for the child national benefit credit and the other one for the seniors' credit - are really refunds under the Income Tax Act, so the act has to be amended to accommodate these levels of support that will come into existence once these program kick in this year.

I do not need to say any more than that, Mr. Speaker. It is quite obvious that the seniors' benefit in particular is one that is brand new. It has been introduced by government in response to the demonstrated need, I would say, of some seniors who are not wealthy, having a tough time making it on low pensions, some on no pensions, some on pensions only that are provided by the federal government, such as the old age pension and the supplement.

For seniors who are between $12,000 and $20,000 a year in household income, this is a welcomed addition. However small it may seem to some, to these people it will seem significant - $200.

The amendment to the Income Tax Act as being provided for under Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, will facilitate the refund cheques, or the tax credit cheques that will go out to the seniors as well as to the family of young children who qualify for the provincial portion of the Child Tax Benefit credit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I note that the minister has introduced second reading. We on this side of the House note that when the Budget was presented there was a commitment made by the government to do something for seniors. It falls far short of what the seniors in this Province have been led to believe and had expected would be delivered by the government.

We note the commitments made by the Premier in the days leading up to the vote on February 9, that he had made certain public promises that the pensioners of this Province would have their just causes addressed. However, we note that did not occur because the seniors of this Province, those public service pensioners, are still expressing great concern, great dissatisfaction, and are showing great consternation at the way in which they have been treated by this government.

We on this side of the House say that the changes to the seniors' income, the seniors' tax benefit, is but a token of what should have occurred. While we applaud the government for making at least some initial step, what they have done is most inadequate. It still leaves the concerns of the public service pensioners and what they have just cause to expect. We note that many of the public service pensioners have retired for many, many years. In fact, if my memory is correct, there are approximately some hundreds of them who have incomes that are less than $300 a month.

While the Minister of Finance can stand in his place and say that this reflects the benefits that they should receive based on the money that they have paid into the pension plans, these pensioners also make the case that until 1981 the government of the day, regardless of what label it was, was spending their money to finance hospitals, roads, schools, and all these kinds of needs of the Province, the infrastructure needs of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The public service pensioners are not going to be greatly helped by this initiative of government, if you break it down to so much income per day. We know as well that this particular amount of money is, as has been said, mere tokenism.

We on this side of the House would have done some things greatly different, because we on this side of the House, this party, stand for treating our seniors and our pensioners fairly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: In our public commitments, as contained in our Blue Book, we certainly gave commitments that we would recognize the long-standing tradition of government's responsibility to look after its public service pensioners. That did not happen.

While the Premier, in the hours leading up to the election, when he was confronted with the public service pensioners' lobby group, and while he gave them words of encouragement and, as one pensioner said when he was in the gallery one day: The Premier placed his hand upon my shoulder and said that things would be okay.

We want to note that the seniors of this Province feel betrayed. They feel let down. They feel that their work for the government is unappreciated. We note as well that this government should be looking more carefully at what it says it is going to do and then what it does.

We on this side again say that the steps taken here do show some steps in the right direction, but it is a long way from addressing the real social needs and the hardship needs that many of our seniors face from day to day, week to week, and month to month.

It is regrettable that the minister who introduced the second reading of this bill is not more aware that there are seniors in his district who have to rely on food banks because that is the only way they can supplement their daily living.

I have talked to many people who work with the Seniors Resource Centre. As a matter of fact, I was talking to them just a few minutes ago. They tell me that they continue to have a strong representation, very strong representation, from the seniors' group who want more done to assist seniors to be able to live sensibly, adequately, and compassionately in their retiring years.

We, as I said, implore the government to look again, to remember the commitments made by the Premier that he would look after the public service pensioners. While we say that this is a step to look after, in a broad way, the needs of a very low income level people, we also say to government that you have a greater responsibility. You have an additional responsible to look after all those public service pensioners out there who were and are your former employees, and they deserve better treatment.

Also, on the Child Tax Benefit, it is a step in the right direction. We applaud the great work done by the Member for St. John's West. Last year, if it was not for the great work the Member for St. John's West did, I am sure that the consciousness of this government would not have come about in such a way as to say that they were on the wrong track when it came to recognizing the Child Tax Benefit, and the way it was going to be addressed by this government to be wrong and most inadequate.

It was a great day, after many, many months, when the now Minister of Health stood in her place and said: No, we are going to take that money back from the people who are not working. We are going to give that to people who are out there, the working poor we will call them.

We say that the great work done by this party, and the great work done particularly by the Member for St. John's West, calls the government to think again. It was a great moment when we saw her work being recognized, to cause this government to say that the Child Tax Benefit should go to the most needy families in the Province and that we should not be taking from the very, very poor in order to assist those who are not quite so poor.

The Child Tax Benefit now is at least headed in the right direction. Again, we say to the government, a step forward; but, as we all know, there is always a greater need than there is a capacity of government to be able to fill when it comes to looking after special needs families.

We still have the great problem in Newfoundland and Labrador of child poverty. We know that child poverty is multi-dimensional and merely putting more money into it will not solve all of the problems but it certainly would help, because the solution to child poverty is, of course, to have more jobs. Jobs are the solution. When families are poor, children are poor. When children are poor, for the most part it is because their families have no jobs and have inadequate or very low income.

We make a plea here for the connection between child poverty and educational achievement. We know that there is a cycle of poverty. We want to tell the government that they have a responsibility to try to break that cycle. While we talk about the Strategic Social Plan, we want to see more evidence that the Strategic Social Plan is having some impact at the grass roots, in the ordinary homes and in the ordinary families of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We say to government that they have a lot of work to do, because there are still a lot of children in this Province who want more done to assist their families to be able to live adequately, to be able to provide for education of their children, and to be able to do so in a society that gives them respect and dignity. That respect and dignity is found when these families have adequate income, adequate housing, adequate clothing, and adequate means to be able to provide for their children in a way that we all in this House expect our own children and our own grandchildren to be provided for.

Just because you are poor does not mean that you do not have a right to dignity and self-worth and respect. We certainly have to say to government that they have a responsibility to give every child, when they go home in the evening, an opportunity for respect and dignity. We do not see that coming forward. We cannot punish people because they are poor. We can only assist them to get out of their poverty.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. Member for Humber East that if he wants to speak in this debate then he should rise in his place and do so. If he wants to express the concerns of the poor people in his district he will have an opportunity to do so. He can share with this House the impact that poverty is having in his district, because he has every opportunity to do that.

So I say to the government that your steps are in the right direction on the seniors benefit. They are in the right direction. They are totally inadequate, not what you committed to do, but at least they are a step in the right direction. We will just say to them that some day you will find it necessary to live up to the commitments you made, live up to the promises made by your Premier when he tapped people on the shoulder in the election and said: Please, don't cause a fuss, stop your protest and I will look after you. The protests stopped but the Premier suddenly had selective amnesia. At 8:00 p.m. on February 9 the Premier's mind went into blank and he forgot altogether the commitments that had been made in the days leading up to the election.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the children in this Province, on behalf of the poor people in this Province, on behalf of the seniors in this Province, we say to government, you have done a little bit. You have made one little baby step forward but you have a long walk to go yet before you finish the road and give people in Newfoundland and Labrador a fair opportunity to live in dignity and comfort, and to live in a way that we ourselves would want our families to live in this Province.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have noted the hon. Member for Waterford Valley's insightful comments on this bill to amend the Income Tax Act to make provision for the National Child Benefit Credit, provincial government portion, and for the seniors tax credit.

As I think I said yesterday in one of my comments, it never ceases to amaze me that when the Opposition critic for finance - or for any portfolio for that matter - speaks, they seem to have a fetish, a desire and a recommendation that we do more and more in terms of programming, but when it comes to the taxation issues they suggest we tax less and less. I am still waiting for comments that would bring the two concepts together and still allow the Province to remain solvent in terms of its financial circumstance.

Any time you recommend $800 million in new spending be introduced, and then you recommend tax cuts happen, and then you say: We will balance the budget in doing that -

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - really, I would like to quote from my hon. colleague from the District of Terra Nova, who said the other day that it is nothing but balderdash -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to my hon. colleague that his own Premier was out days before the election making the same promises, same commitments. They were saying the same thing we are saying now: Be fair to seniors. What we are saying is the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - if he knew the state of the Province to be like he says it is now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: - he should not have made those commitments to seniors at that time.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The difference in what our Premier was putting forward as leader in the election campaign from the Red Book and the difference in what you are putting forward from the Blue Book is that one made great sense and the other one was all nonsense. On our side of the House it was great sense; on that side of the House it was pure nonsense. I can only defer to the wisdom of the people who chose to put us on the governing side of the House as opposed to the crowd over there that had propositions that could not be validated, could not be substantiated, could not be delivered upon. The smart people of the Province saw through it and the balderdash - to quote my friend from Terra Nova - whatever it means, I am sure has a meaning that equates to total and absolute rubbish and nonsense with respect to the Blue Book.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend the Income Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 6)

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

MR. TULK: Bill 17, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991. I believe that again it is the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991". (Bill 17)

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

MR. MATTHEWS: If it was not for the want of numbers at the end of the vote my colleagues could leave today, but we need them very badly.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask to revert to another order by unanimous consent, and ask the hon. gentleman to continue later. I want to get the environment bill out so people can have a chance to see it.

We gave notice of motion that we would introduce Bill 21, I believe it was. I would like to, by unanimous consent, call first reading of that bill so we can distribute the Bill and then move. So I call first reading of that bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have an agreement?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environment Act," carried. (Bill 21)

On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could now move forward to Bill 17, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are just a couple of comments on this revision to the Jury Act. The first amendment that we are proposing grows out of a recent court case under the Jury Act that after the court case had been ongoing for three weeks, a juror got sick and could not carry on. Had it not been by virtue of consent between both parties who were in court the trial would have had to restart.

In other words, the current act does not give the judge the jurisdiction or the latitude to be able to direct that a trial carry on with less than the full complement of jurors in the event that somebody has to be absent or takes sick and cannot continue on. This is inconsistent with most other jurisdictions. One of the amendments we are proposing is that the judge have the latitude to direct that a trial continue with less than a full complement of jurors if in fact that becomes necessary, as opposed to having to restart a trial and start from day one all over again. Again, these amendments cover only trials that are of a civil nature.

Another change that is contemplated in this bill is the reduction in the number of required jurors from nine to six, and a requirement that five out of six as opposed to six out of nine be party to a decision before it can be considered a jury verdict. Most jurisdictions have a provision for civil trials, six jurors only, and it requires a majority of five to render a verdict. In our jurisdiction we have a requirement for nine, requiring also that six be in consensus before a verdict is rendered.

This amendment will bring us in line with the majority of jurisdictions in the rest of the country and allow us to go with six as opposed to nine, and a majority of five as opposed to six being a decision.

These proposed amendments have been requested by the Chief Justice of the Trials Division. I understand they have vetted through the Law Society and also the Canadian Bar Society, and obviously we on this side of the House, on behalf of government, are recommending these amendments to the House for their passage at this time.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to make a few comments with respect to Bill 17, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act".

As the hon. minister indicated, these changes are largely a result of recommendations that have come from the Chief Justice of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and also supported by members of the Canadian Bar Association and the Newfoundland Law Society.

It is interesting to note that the numbers have been reduced, of required jurors, as the hon. minister indicated. Under the present Jury Act of 1991, which states that there be a full complement of - for civil trials, I believe - nine now being reduced to six. As the minister indicated, this amendment allows the reduction of one for a grand total of five.

However, there is one interesting change and it has to do with section 36. This act, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act", states that section 36 of the old act is repealed. I would just like, for the purpose of the record, to indicate the exact wording of the old section 36. It states, "Where inconvenient, a judge may direct a trial without a jury of a cause, matter or issue requiring prolonged examination of documents or accounts, or scientific or local investigation, that cannot, in the opinion of the judge, be conveniently tried with a jury."

The old piece of legislation basically set certain limitations, restrictions or conditions upon which the judge may indicate that the matter proceed without a jury; however, under the proposed section 36 it is somewhat more sweeping and does not contain the types of conditions that we see in the old legislation.

It states, "Where it appears to a judge in chambers or a judge presiding at a trial that an issue of fact should be tried or damages assessed without a jury, the judge may, in his or her discretion or upon application by a party, direct that the issue be tried or damages assessed without a jury."

It seems that we have almost complete judicial discretion as to whether or not the matter should proceed without a jury, which is somewhat different from the existing act which tends to limit, or at least place restrictions upon, certain circumstances that would allow the judge to act using his or her judicial discretion.

That particular clause seems to be somewhat unusual in the fact that the judge seems to have widespread discretion. Having said that, one can only assume that the decision is obviously being made judiciously, with precedent, and hopefully in accordance with legislation in other parts of Canada upon which this particular amendment, from what I can understand, is being based.

Other than those few comments, there is very little to add. I understand, in discussions with the senior official within the Department of Justice, that it is considered by the department to be somewhat of a housekeeping nature. However, I think for the record reference should be given to the fact that the section which is being repealed, namely section 36, appears to be replaced by a much more all-encompassing section which gives complete, open and unrestricted discretion to a judge to make decisions with respect to the future of that particular civil jury.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few moments to speak to Bill 17, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act", at second reading.

The changes to the Jury Act for the most part seem to be quite reasonable and in keeping with the requirements of common sense. One thing about reducing the number of jurors from nine to six, it reduces the cost. There is no magic in the number nine. There are twelve jurors for a criminal jury trial, which can be reduced to, I think, as much as ten by illness or someone getting off the jury; but twelve is sort of the magic number for jurors, I guess, going back before the Magna Carta - for a criminal trial.

For a civil trial, the number tends to be around six for most jurisdictions in the country. One of the things that is important about that, although we have very few civil jury trials around this jurisdiction, there is a cost involved of having a jury and, I guess, the parties to the litigation in this case have to keep the jury as it were. They have to pay the costs of maintaining the jury and any costs associated with the jury. So in the sense of reducing the number from nine to six, as in keeping with other jurisdictions in the country, it is also something that will make it more practical for those who want to have jury trial, because of the circumstances of the particular case, are more able to afford to do it or take the chances of having to pay the cost of a jury in the event of losing a case. I certainly support that amendment.

I had a concern and I have raised it. I have not gotten the full answer yet, but I raise it here at second reading. I will have an opportunity to raise it again at third reading or in committee if necessary, and that is the changes that have been proposed to section 36 of the act.

Section 36 of the act now reads, "A judge may direct a trial without a jury of a cause, matter or issue requiring prolonged examination of documents or accounts, or scientific or local investigation, that cannot, in the opinion of the judge, be conveniently tried with a jury."

That provides for, I guess, particularly complicated matters that would, as a result of being particularly complicated, perhaps engage in a lengthy trial. We have seen civil trials in this Province. Some of them go on for a very long period of time. I remember one courthouse itself being held up for a year or two with separate bookcases installed, and all of the exhibits installed in the courtroom for perhaps a couple of years.

There was a fire, and I believe it was a fire on one of the offshore rigs, that caused a considerable amount of damage. There was a tremendous period of litigation over the cause of that fire and the cost of the damages. That would be the kind of thing we are talking about, a complicated case with a lot of expert witnesses and evidence that would be unfair to tie up a jury for a long period of time, or some things involving that type of circumstance for which the common sense of a jury is not what is required. It is perhaps more of a technical analysis that would be taken from a jury at the discretion of a judge.

I have a concern about the change to section 36, because the new section 36 does not provide any guidance at all to the judge as to when the discretion would be exercised. It is pretty clear in the current section 36 as to what the discretion is all about and what the purpose is all about. The new section 36 would just allow the judge, whenever he decides he should, in his discretion or her discretion or upon the application of a party, to make a decision to withdraw matter or issue, whether it be an issue of fact or the assessment of damages from a jury, and no guidance being given to the court at all.

I have some concerns about that. I want to consult with some of the officials of the Justice Department. I have tried to do so but have been unsuccessful to date, as this legislation was only introduced yesterday.

I am still waiting to hear from one of the senior officials because it may be that a judge would be bound by existing precedent in the exercise of his or her discretion and that there is a body of case law as to when matters would be withdrawn from a jury because of the nature of the matter.

I would not want it just to be at whatever the particular judge feels in a particular case as opposed to the judicial exercise of discretion based on existing case law, based on precedent, based on an exercise of discretion bound by the practice of this court and other courts.

Subject to that reservation, which I will consult further with Justice Department officials, I think that the legislation, having been looked at by the Canadian Bar Association, I am told, and by the Law Society, each of whom have committees looking at legislation before the House, if it satisfies their scrutiny, Mr. Speaker, on a technical basis, I do not really have a problem with it, although I would want to consult with one of the law officers of the Crown on the interpretation of the new section 36 that is being proposed, but generally speaking, I support the legislation at second reading here today.

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

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend the Jury Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 17)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, tonight we have leave to do Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Environment Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environment Act". (Bill 21)

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Opposition House Leader and the critic and the NDP for giving us leave to introduce this amendment.

Basically, what we have here in this Act is that the fines that can be levied on any company or individual that would wilfully harm the environment were really low compared to other jurisdictions across the country. Therefore we have raised the level from $25,000 to $1 million for companies, and for individuals from $1,000 to $50,000.

One of the reasons why we looked at that was because in the summer, when we did the new certificate of approval for the Come By Chance oil refinery, when the citizens committee were out there and they looked at the Act they basically said: Look, these fines are meaningless to a company such as the Come By Chance oil refinery, or any other large company in the Province.

We came back and looked at that as their suggestion, went to other jurisdictions across the country, and basically brought our legislation in line with theirs. That is basically what we are looking at, the fines. We recognize, as I said, that the penalties were inadequate and so therefore we want to raise them at this particular time.

Environmental protection and conservation is becoming a great priority, not only locally, but nationally and internationally as well. We are witnessing increasing efforts by groups and individuals concerned about the protection of our environment. I think today, by changing the fine structure in this particular legislation, it again gives support to those individuals and groups that participate and support the conservation and preservation of the Newfoundland and Labrador environment, and to show that government does indeed take the obligation seriously. That is why we are introducing it here today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a very brief comment here on Bill 21. With reference to increasing the fines there, we have advocated in the past that it is important to protect our environment, to take what steps are necessary to be able to ensure that we do not have individuals or companies out there causing damage to the environment, and not be looking at the short-term, but that we have an environment we hope is going to be around here, we hope, for a long time.

I do remember quite clearly raising the question before in the House on concerns. The Come By Chance one, for example, I raised concerns on that issue in the House. I was told: You are trying to shut it down and lose a few hundred jobs here. We have heard it. I'm delighted to see they are really concerned with the environment now, because jobs can be short-term, they can be long-term, but the environment can be forever. I think we have to use whatever deterrents we can to ensure that people will comply and will protect their environment. Because the future jobs for the next millennium, we hope, will be around because we have not damaged the environment and prevented that.

We cannot, I must say, at all oppose this legislation here, even though a bit of change of $1 million is not small beans we might add. It is still very serious, doing damage to the environment. We have seen the affects across this country and in this Province of damage done to the environment, irreversible affects because we have allowed things to happen.

Also, there are other concerns too, not only in that aspect. There is the health of people in the area. Air quality and all these factors are very important because they - and they have been proven, and medical evidence is there to show - in certain areas have had adverse affects on health, an untold cost to our health care system in the long term.

So we will support this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have no hesitation in supporting an effort to ensure that the legislation we have in the Environment Act be strong enough so that fines that might be endured by companies or individuals would not be considered a cost of doing business or a risk that someone would take in order to make a profit, to increase their profit or to avoid complying with the legislation. In that regard, we have a number of very large and wealthy corporations in this Province for which a $25,000 fine would be no deterrent at all. They would just consider it another cost of doing business, if what they were required to do cost them $1 million to fix a problem or even less than that.

Companies and individuals might be inclined to risk a fine for the sake of the bottom line of their company for that particular year, because if the only risk is a fine of $25,000 as opposed to an expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars or $1 million or whatever, they may be inclined to do that. We certainly would not want any opportunity for companies to be able to treat legislation in this way. I would have no hesitation in supporting this particular legislation.

I do say, though, that not all environmental problems are covered by the existing legislation. This is not really a time for a review of the whole legislation. I know the minister and his department had a particular interest in bringing this matter forward at this time, and certainly we are prepared to accommodate him. I hope the minister would be prepared to listen to some concerns that we have in the New Democratic Party on environmental legislation and environmental protection generally. There was a time when it was said that we had very good environmental legislation but we just were not enforcing it. The same thing has been said about our Occupational Health and Safety legislation. I think my colleague for Labrador West certainly has a fair amount of experience both in dealing with environmental problems that result from industrial development, industrial activity, and also from occupational health and safety.

I look forward to future opportunities that we will have in this House to consider the effectiveness of the existing legislation and enforcement. Dealing with this on a piecemeal basis, we certainly have no difficulty with a measure that would prevent companies which might consider it, from treating a violation of law as a business expense, and in fact provide some deterrent to ensure that corporations and people doing business in this Province, industrial activity, are following the law and following any lawful directives that the minister may give under that law so that it actually has some teeth. Legislation without teeth is not really worth very much to people who are prepared to ignore it or disobey it.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in supporting the legislation at second reading. I understand that we may be able to go further today and perhaps give leave for third reading as well, or put it in Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, if he speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Again, I want to thank the two members that spoke in support of the amendment to the Environment Act. I can say to the Leader of the NDP that for some time, within the internal workings of the department, we see the need for a new environmental act. I'm hoping that in the future we can bring it all together and bring a discussion paper to the House where people can participate and have a say in the new environment act.

I can say to the member as well that we have done a lot of work when it comes to occupational health and safety within the division. If you want to come over some time I could brief him on some of the things we have done. In fact, we have completely restructured it under the leadership of the ADM, Joe O'Neill. We have hired I think it is five new inspectors within the department, plus a hygienist, one of the full-time people in Labrador West. Basically, to work from the premise that we think every accident is preventable. Certainly there has to come leadership from the top and we are serious about that. I think in time it will pay dividends for the worker in the Province.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 21)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Bill 19, Order 11.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act". (Bill 19)

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) just briefly introduce this piece of legislation by saying that I believe we have unanimous consent in the House to do this under a certain condition. I think we all recognize that it has been ten years since we had the Morgan Commission. It has created some problems for us. The world has changed so much since then. We now have forty-eight members where we once had fifty-two. There are provisions in the Morgan Commission which do not enable us as an IEC to see that members are given the kind of resources they need to carry on their duties.

Let me just say though that in introducing this bill it is not the intent, I believe, of any of us in this House to see that the salaries - there is a general salary increase for members, and I think we would all pledge ourselves to see that indeed, if there was a general salary increase to be given to members, that it should be given only as a result of legislation that was brought to this House or by means of another commission.

I think we need to put that on the record so there can be no misunderstanding that this is not something that members would want to make (inaudible) for themselves. Basically what we are interested in here is creating a situation where members in the House generally can decide on the general apparatus they need to put in place so they can carry out their duties as members. It has nothing to do with a general salary increase for them.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, certainly echo the sentiments there in this particular bill. We have a ten-year commission that has reported there. With changing times, the House here has gone through an electoral redistribution in that particular time. Certainly the Official Opposition does not support it.

I think, as the Government House Leader alluded - that we are going to impact on salaries that people are receiving - that is not the intent at all and is certainly not supported by this side of the House. It has to be transparent and it has to be out in full public view.

We do not have a problem certainly in that particular light, because we cannot have something that is basically self-serving. We just want something that is reflective of our times and to be able to deal with some of the changes and things that have elapsed in that time without altering the basic salary provision here, without having a full public enclosure and going through the regular processes as you would do for anybody else.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words at second reading on Bill 19, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act". There is a concern I think we all share about the fact that back in 1989 the Morgan Commission was appointed and gave in great detail rules and regulations for all sorts of things associated with members' indemnity, staff, travel and other matters.

There has been no desire on the part of anyone to date to have a major overhaul of all these issues. Certainly there has not been any push for a general salary increase, or major salary changes other than keeping pace with the executive of the public service, which I think has been done. I think there is a need for flexibility with changing circumstances, whether it be caucuses or travel or the size of districts, and the changes that have taken place.

I think the Internal Economy Commission has to have the ability to respond to those changes and look after the needs of the House as is its obligation under the Internal Economy Commission Act.

I had a concern, the same concern expressed by the Government House Leader, that not only is there no intention of using the Internal Economy Commission to provide for a general salary increase to members; that, in fact - in my discussions with the Leader of the Opposition and the Government House Leader - all parties would oppose using the Internal Economy Commission for such a purpose, and that any consideration of a general salary increase for Members of the House of Assembly would not be done through this process but would be done either through the appointment of a commission to deal with that issue - which the power is still in the legislation to provide for - or by a separate legislation before this House, open for public debate, criticism and consideration.

I think the public have come to expect that: that it would not be done privately but would be done publicly and subject to public debate. In the end, I suppose, somebody has to decide what public servants and members of the Legislature are to be paid. In the end it has to be this House of Assembly, either by legislation or by use of a commission which the legislation provides for.

I think that as long as that understanding is there, the commitment from all three parties represented in the House, then I think it is something that the public can accept and something that we can certainly present as a reasonable point of view, but we do have to make sure that the House has the power to conduct the affairs of the House and ensure that members have the ability and resources to serve their constituents and perform their duties within the parliamentary structure that we all support.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say, in responding to the Opposition House Leader and to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that indeed there is no intention here to give a general increase to - and I think all three of us agree that will not be the case, that the IEC will not be used for that purpose.

The other thing, of course, you have to keep in mind is that the IEC reports to this House in any case. That lends transparency to whatever is going on, which is and should be demanded by the public: that we be transparent, whatever we do with a general salary increase for us. We would not put forward the bill under any other circumstances.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 19)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

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

[The continuation of today's sitting will be found in Hansard 30A.]


 

May 26, 1999              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLIV  No. 30A


[Continuation of Sitting]

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, "An Act To Amend The Denturists Act", the first part of the Order Paper.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Denturists Act." (Bill 10)

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

MR. TULK: Order 3, Bill 11, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act".

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment here - I had a chance to make most of my points at second reading - just to say that to bring in legislation to increase fines and to put strict measures and license people selling tobacco is certainly something that we can support.

Also, as I said before, we have to encourage the minister that this alone, in itself, is only a small aspect of what is really needed to curb the increased use of tobacco and other tobacco related products.

We have to be looking at an education process in the school system. We have to be looking at strict measures on tobacco promotions. I know there has been very restrictive advertising now, but we have to be looking basically at getting to people early within the school system. That is where the focus has to come, on education. You can never emphasize it too much within our system to get good habits for young kids, not when they are twelve or thirteen years of age, because they have already formed habits, they have already tried smoking and so on. You should get to people in primary and elementary to develop wholesome attitudes, something that is a part of the education system too. It has to be an aggressive campaign within our education system if we are going to solve this problem.

This is part of a process that will help. No doubt about it, it will help, but it is certainly not all-encompassing to solve all aspects, as we are well aware, but I guess it is something we can support here because it is positive. Hopefully it will play its part in at least reducing the incidents of and making it more difficult to getting access of tobacco products.

On motion, clauses 1 through 7 carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act". (Bill 11)

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Bill 5, Committee of the Whole, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act".

On motion, clause 1 carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act". (Bill 5)

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder, before the hon. gentleman speaks, if we could agree that whatever anybody wants to say about this we will do it and just carry out the clauses one into the other, because I think it is rather extensive if you have to read each clause.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to say a few more words in Committee on this bill. I spent about half an hour on second reading, and when the minister got up to conclude debate on second reading he was a bit cute, trying to be cute, saying how much I supported this piece of legislation.

I do support parts of this legislation but I mentioned that I had a lot of concerns with respect to this legislation. One, right off of the top, which the minister did not mention, was that I thought it should be referred to the Legislation Review Committee, and that the minister would do the municipalities of this Province, the small towns in this Province, a favour by referring it to the Legislation Review Committee because the Federation of Municipalities, although it supports it, does not speak for all towns in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was just one point that the minister did not mention when he was up.

This piece of legislation does not come into effect until January 1 of the year 2000. Therefore, it gives us six months or more - almost seven months - that this could go out to the public for a review and for the smaller towns to have some input into it.

In light of some of the points I brought up, I think it would be a good idea to bring this back to the Legislation Review Committee.

One point that I had mentioned which is of major concern to me with respect to this piece of legislation is the fact of disclosure. I mentioned the Conflict of Interest points that were to be made, and the sections in this bill that are being changed are good in many ways, but the disclosure - I mentioned that if I was a councillor, or being asked to run for council, volunteering my time, as I did for seven years, and I was asked for a disclosure of my personal assets so I could volunteer my time to serve the people in my community, I would not do it. The minister got up and did not seem to think that was a very big factor.

This morning, it just so happened that I was on an appeal for an individual in a municipality in my district, at municipal affairs, and there was a mayor, two councillors and a former councillor there. I mentioned to them the fact about this public disclosure. One of the individuals said he would resign before he would do it - no, two. The former councillor said he would not even consider running again if he had to disclose the information, and the other person said that what they would do if they were asked for the information on volunteering their time - their personal assets with respect to how much money they owe on their credit cards; if they have insurance on themselves; if they have insurance on the children; if they had insurance on their spouse - he said he would not be forthcoming with it, and let the municipal affairs come in and kick him off council - a person who was elected to council. Then, if he was basically in opposition to the Municipalities Act, or was not following the Municipalities Act on council, from that perspective, let them kick him off council and see how far the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs would pursue this concern.

I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs - I do not know if he is listening or not - that point with respect to disclosure, I am telling you, is going to have a major impact upon people running for future councils. Once it comes into effect and they are asked to give this information, there are going to be a lot of resignations from councils. He may not think that.

I was talking to an individual at municipal affairs this morning, one of the directors, and he said that it was not an issue when this was going on. I said: But obviously the municipalities or the councillors and the mayors did not understand this.

We have a former mayor here, the Minister of Human Resources. We have a former mayor here, the Member for Waterford Valley, and myself. We have another councillor over here, the Minister of Environment. I say to the Minister of Environment: If he was on council today, volunteering his time in a small community, and he was asked to have a disclosure of all his personal assets, as he does as minister, when he is volunteering his time, would he do it? Would he do it? He would not. I would not, I can guarantee you that. I would resign over it, or be forced off council, and three councillors out of four this morning told me that.

So I think the minister should take a careful look at this and maybe move an amendment to change that disclosure clause. That is what I am calling for here today.

I can see the Government House Leader smiling but it is no laughing matter. It is a very serious matter, I can say to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm smiling, Mr. Chairman, because I look on that side of House and I am almost blinded by the colour of that tie that is over there that the Government House Leader is wearing. I wish he would do us a favour when he is being dressed in the morning, to think about us on this side of the House and what we have to look at that side of the House with respect to that tie. It is bright enough to blind you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) anything bright. You never could, you're a Tory.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, when I look on that side of the House I do not see too much brightness, only that tie. I can say that to you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

MR. TULK: I understand. They say that clothes tells something about the mentality of a person. Bland, dull. The hon. gentleman must be bland and dull.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

There is no point of order as usual. Obviously the Government House Leader is describing himself, as usual, other than that red tie.

This point with respect to the disclosure, I think it is something that should be seriously considered by the minister. He should really withdraw this. Put this out, as I said earlier, to the legislative review committee. Let's not approve it here now. We have the whole fall session.

The municipalities in the Province know that this is coming. Ninety-nine per cent of what is in it is going to be in effect on January 1 but let's go out to the - and it is no harm in doing that, especially in light of this disclosure. Because I'm telling you, there are going to be a lot of resignations. In the next election for town councils and municipalities in this Province there will be people who will not run, and it is hard enough now to get people to run for councils in this Province.

We have by-elections. You see people appointed by acclamation. You have town councils going out and begging to get people to run, I say to the minister. If you leave that clause in there, I honestly believe that down the road it is going to come back to haunt the Department of Municipal Affairs and the town councils in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I spoke on this, as I said, the other day for half an hour. Many of my concerns were brought up. The minister was not paying attention because he said I was completely supporting everything in it, which is not quite correct. I addressed many concerns in this piece of legislation. When the minister gets up to conclude debate in Committee or whatever the case may be, I expect him to comment on that one with respect to disclosure and some of the other concerns that I brought up.

I'm sure, after I finished the other day and he got up on second reading, he must have got Hansard out and read my comments so he would understand the concerns I had. Maybe he might want to comment on that.

Mr. Chairman, with that I am going to just going to sit down and see what the minister or whoever has to say. Withdraw that section.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to -

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: I wonder if the minister would allow me to say a few words before he closes debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By leave.

I did not get an opportunity in second reading to say a few words on the municipalities act. It is an important piece of legislation, and a complex piece of legislation too, I say. There is a tremendous number of issues that are important to municipalities around the Province. Many municipalities are struggling to survive because of the economic circumstances we are in. I think it remains to be seen whether this legislation is going to effective in solving the problem. I know there has been a lot of consultation with the Federation of Municipalities. I know there has been support from that Federation for the general thrust of the changes that are being made.

I do want to say a few things because we have circumstances where municipalities are unable to meet their obligations, or the expectations I suppose more than the obligations. They are unable to meet the expectations that people have had from municipal government. Municipal government has always had a pretty rocky history in this Province as a result of people's reluctance to commit themselves to a taxation system that could in fact end up depriving them of their home. That has been the historic opposition to municipal development in this Province. I know it has been very late coming in this Province for that very reason: people's fear of property taxes, people's fear of taxes depriving them of a home that they perhaps built themselves.

It has been a long struggle to develop a proper system of municipal government in the Province. This is I suppose one more attempt of adjusting the obligations and the rights of municipalities in terms of taxation, in terms of borrowing, in terms of its relationship with the government, and I hope it works.

I concur with the Member for Cape St. Francis on the issue of the legislative review committees. This is the kind of legislation that should be subjected to more scrutiny than this House is able to give it, frankly. We have had this legislation before us for a very short period of time. I would not say very many members have had an opportunity to read it from cover to cover, and we are being asked to look at it on a clause by clause basis this afternoon. I am sure if we wanted to we could have a debate all night, but that would not be very practical. There would not be sufficient numbers of members in fact prepared to deal with it on a clause by clause basis to have a sensible debate.

We have a committee system established in this House to review legislation, particularly legislation that involves a lot of different - I think the fancy word today is stakeholders. I do not like the term because it disguises a lot of interests and self-interest that people have.

In this particular case, we have municipalities, large numbers of them all over the Province, which have had experiences with different kinds of legislation, which have a lot to offer in terms of how the legislation ought to be improved or how it might work in practice, and the practical ability of members on a legislative committee to consider those provisions and their affects.

I know that there is a lot of members in this House who themselves have had experience in municipal government, some, like myself, who have even run for municipal government but failed. Many others were successful. I suppose I can quote the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in another context: It is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Abe Lincoln (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Is it Abraham Lincoln? I did not know Abraham was in business. I know John Diefenbaker ran for public office about six times before he got elected for once.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fourteenth try (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) business, was it? I supposed the other saying is: It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, as well.

I suppose we all support people's efforts to try to improve their municipalities by working for or running for municipal government, trying to improve the lot of their fellow citizens. I know we have many people throughout this Province, hundreds if not thousands of people, running for public office in municipal governments, serving on municipal governments throughout this Province, many with no recompense whatsoever other than the desire to serve their community and to ensure that their community is better served. They deserve every consideration that this House can give them, every consideration that the provincial government can give them in the discharge of their duties.

I think it is a piece of legislation that deserved to go to a legislative committee. Because while the Federation of Municipalities has a particular point of view which it represents, maybe a consensus of their members which have participated in that process, there may be others outside of that process who want to have something to say to the committee and to this House about particular provisions of the legislation. I know we have some pretty onerous provisions here on these individuals who are serving - lay people, not necessarily with benefit of legal counsel sitting at their side at every meeting, making decisions that they feel are in the best interest of their citizens. I see here provisions such as section 96, which would make personally, jointly and individually liable council members for borrowing money for what turns out to be an unauthorized purpose.

Quite often there are legitimate things that happen that might run afoul of the law. To make individual councillors personally liable for these things may be too onerous a provision, especially when they may not have access to the kind of resources that a large council might have or a municipality like St. John's might have, or certainly the government itself has when decisions are being made about borrowing money or incurring liability.

There are a lot of provisions there, and I have to say this in a general way because we have not had the full opportunity to review the matter because of the quick passage of time and the lack of a committee struck to consider this legislation. We do have to understand that this legislation will be put into force, put into practise. I guess the best I can say is that we would encourage anybody who runs into problems with the legislation, or with an interpretation of the legislation, or with an impact of the legislation that they were not anticipating or that they find particularly onerous or troublesome, that they should, without hesitation, contact the minister, contact the government, contact the Opposition members, contact their own member to seek a change in the legislation so that it can be improved and considered.

I would hope the government would revive the legislative review committees, and that if it comes to pass that a number of complaints, anomalies or problems arise with this legislation, that the committee itself would seek to undertake a review of the legislation and propose that it be changed to accommodate the needs of municipalities within the Province.

We do see a significant transfer of responsibility to municipalities in this legislation. We do not necessarily see an equivalent passage of resources to them, particularly in those communities which are struggling on a day to day basis to provide the very basic services that are expected these days of a municipality. Where we have a major population change, unfortunately for the worse in many communities, particularly small rural communities, the ability of councils to provide these services is obviously getting more difficult as time goes on.

So with those comments I would end my remarks and encourage anybody - members of the public, members of councils who have difficulties with the legislation - to come forward and seek appropriate changes. Certainly any changes that are necessary to be made will be supported by me and by our caucus in this House.

We want to end by expressing our appreciation for the thousands of municipal councillors throughout the Province, throughout the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador, who offer their service to the public, and who provide a necessary public service at a sacrifice of their time and their presence with their family to perform valuable services to the public.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take a few minutes to respond to some of the points that have been raised by the hon. the Members for Cape St. Francis and Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi with respect to the new Municipalities Act, 1999 that we are now debating in Committee stage. I wanted to deal with the issue of why we do not consider it necessary to refer this bill to a committee of the House. I heard a comment from one of my colleagues behind me who was involved in municipal government for many years prior to coming here. The comment I heard, although not for the record, was: This thing has been beaten to death in terms of the consultative process it has gone through.

For the record, I would like to refer to a letter that I received May 19, which was after we introduced this bill into the House, from the federation of Newfoundland and Labrador municipalities. If I can take a minute to indicate what they are saying with respect to the consultation that has gone on and the need to get on with passing this bill?

They said: "This legislation has been in the preparation stage for a number of years but at last has reached the stage where it is what the municipalities want and need to carry them forward into the new millennium." I would point out that the Federation of Municipalities represents all but twenty-six of the 288 municipalities governed by this piece of legislation.

Then it goes on to say:

"This Bill has been subject to extensive prior consultation both with the municipalities themselves and other stakeholders. The fact that it has been in preparation for some years has been widely known by a broad range of interests and feedback has been received and considered from many. You will also be aware that the major new provisions relating to taxation and other matters that affect the general public have already been enacted into law at the Fall Session of the House and came into effect on 01 January 1999."

I would refer lastly to their statement where they said:

"Mr. Minister, we cannot emphasize enough how important it is not to have any further delays at this stage. Any delay now would put at risk our long-standing objective of having this legislation come into effect 01 January 2000."

I guess the point I am making in speaking to the issue of whether or not we should go to a legislative committee is simply this. After eight years in the preparation, after eight years of extensive consultation with the municipalities' federation, with the municipalities individually, and with the association of municipal administrators, together with the opportunity that we did provide for stakeholder and general public input by way of public notice, all of these activities have led us to conclude, and have led obviously the Federation of Municipalities to conclude, that this bill has received the widest possible level of consultation that probably any piece of legislation that has ever come before this House has ever received.

Having said that the Federation represents all but twenty-six of the 288 municipalities, I can say this to you, that there was only one municipality of the twenty-six that individually expressed some concern with a provision in the bill. Once we sat down and addressed it with them, one single municipality, they expressed their affirmation and support for the bill.

With respect to the questions that have been put and the observations raised by the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, let me tell him that, yes, you are right. I did take the time, with my officials, to review your comments in Hansard yesterday. I did not want to go just by the notes I had made here. I reviewed Hansard and there were seven issues that the hon. member raised in his debate yesterday in the House. The most significant one had to do with the disclosure piece that is currently in this bill, although he did raise an issue about the poll tax. I will address them in the next couple of minutes in the House. For the most part the hon. member yesterday quite rightly gave the thumbs up, if you like, to this bill because he said for the most part it was a good piece of legislation.

With respect to the issues that he raised, particularly with respect to poll tax, I would point out to him that this bill does not contain any new provision in terms of the ability to be able to impose a poll tax on an individual who works in a community or a town more than ninety days. That provision currently exists. The caveat and the protection in this for all individuals is this: Notwithstanding that, if that individual is liable to either a poll tax or a property tax in another jurisdiction in which he resides, then there will be no poll tax in the jurisdiction within which he works but does not have a residence or an address. There is really nothing new in terms of that aspect of the bill.

I will move to the other point that he raised for more discussion. That was a disclosure statement. I reviewed this today with my officials just to get a clear sense and a clear picture of what this means to people who want to run for town councils in the future, or for that matter people who are currently serving on town councils.

First of all, with regards to the mandatory statement of declaration with respect to disclosure of information regarding the holding of real estate and shares in companies, that information is not something that will be made public. It will become a council document like any other piece of information becomes a council document once an individual provides it to them. As an example, if somebody goes into a council office and wants to make application for a building permit, they have to provide certain levels of information, such as their address, the type of construction they are going forward with, the estimated cost of the building, and all that sort of thing.

This disclosure statement requires somebody serving, or wanting to serve on council, to do three types of declarations. First of all, they simply have to list the real property they own, or have a part ownership in within the municipality. Second, they have to provide a listing of corporate shares owned by the councillor or, if it is an employee, that employee, and the number of shares held in each firm. Third, they have to provide a list of businesses owned by the councillor or the employee within the municipality which they are serving or are being employed by.

This is not onerous, at least in the judgment of the Federation of Municipalities which represents all but twenty-six municipalities. This is not an onerous or inordinate or extraordinarily prescriptive type of requirement to put on councillors. The Federation has clearly said that this is an appropriate level of disclosure that should be made by anybody seeking election to a town council.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time will tell.

MR. MATTHEWS: Absolutely. The hon. member says: Time will tell. I can say this with confidence, Mr. Chairman, that this requirement in the act has raised no significant concern - as a matter of fact, no concern that I am aware of - at the Federation level. Surely after eight years of dialogue and discussion at the Federation level they must know the views of the councillors.

MR. J. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

With respect to the statement that the minister just made, that there was no representation from any municipality with respect to that clause with respect to the public disclosure, I spoke to a mayor this morning, three councillors, and a former councillor, and neither one of them knew that was in that act. So how many municipalities out there actually know that is in the act? The Federation may know, but do every 267 or 280-something municipalities know? That is the concern, I say to the minister.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member makes the point that there may be a councillor or a number of councillors, or a town council as a corporate body, who may not be aware of every provision of this Act. I would be surprised if anybody out there knows every detail of this particular act.

What I am saying, and the point I'm making, is that at the Federation of Municipalities' level, an organization that represents all of the 288 municipalities less twenty-six raised no sufficient concern with respect to the disclosure requirements in the new act.

The fact of the matter is, I believe the hon. member on balance, apart from these two or three points that he raised, accepts this as being a good document, a good piece of work, a good piece of legislation. As the hon. member knows, as time goes on if there are difficulties, or if there are points of view with respect to this new piece of legislation that need to be dealt with in amendments in the future, this House will be accepting of them and be prepared to do what is right in the greater interest of municipal government in the Province.

These are the significant points I believe that the hon. member raised. He also -

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, just a point of clarification for the minister really I suppose, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is right, we are in Committee. The point I made was with respect to the councillors being responsible for money they spend if it is outside what was approved for a loan, that type of thing. That is a concern I think that the -

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, yes, that was another point that he raised, and it was to do with section 96 of the act. It had to do with the issue of unauthorized expenditures. The current provision in the current act basically says that if a town council expends money that they have received for a purpose other that which it has been voted and provided by government, that the individual can make application or take action to, if they wish, have a councillor or councillors accountable for the misdirection of expenditure.

This new provision does not change that. It simply expands it to provide that, in addition to an individual within a town boundary jurisdiction who is taxpayer being able to take issue with the redirection of expenditure directly with a councillor, it also makes provision that that individual can apply and ask the Crown - or in other words ask the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, or the minister in effect, at the end of the day - to also seek redress of that misdirected expenditure.

This is strengthened in the interests of the taxpayers of a town in that they have recourse for consideration of the issue, not only to the council and the councillor, but if necessary they can also make representation now to the minister and ask him to address the issue as well. That is the only change on that particular issue that the hon. member raises. That is my commentary on that.

I should probably just touch on, in conclusion, two other things he raised in the debate yesterday. One was the collection of poll tax by way of garnishee of wages by an employer for poll tax arrears. The previous act, the old act, the current act allows provision only for that to be applicable to current year's poll taxes. The new act makes provision for this to applicable to prior years' taxes as well. On the other hand, it also provides for a statutory filing of exemption date by an individual as of July 1 each year, so that an individual can find himself exempt if he is not by virtue of his residency required to be taxed on the poll tax basis.

The only other two points he raised that I would speak to is the fact that we will, under this new piece of legislation, be providing regulations so that volunteer fire departments will be answerable in law by regulation to town councils which are in fact their political masters at the moment. At the moment, under the old act, there is no provision for a council to require a local fire department to report in terms of expenditures and their activities generally. Under the new act, the town councils' mandate, responsibility, will be strengthened to ensure that, while they have the legislative responsibility now for a volunteer fire department but no means of enforcing the responsibility they have, under the new act there will be regulations to ensure that there are teeth and substance to the authority that the municipalities have, and will require volunteer fire departments to report as is seen necessary.

The seventh and final point I would refer to is the issue of tie votes. Currently, if a vote is tied upon voting in a motion by a town council, if it is a 3-3 tie or whatever the tie is, it requires that that motion come forward at the next regular council meeting to be voted on again. In this circumstance we are saying that is not now the way it will be. What will happen is if a tie vote on a motion is lost, then it is lost, and any future vote would have to be based on a new motion put in the council chamber by the council itself.

Mr. Chairman, these comments address the issues that were raised in debate yesterday by the hon. member. If I have missed one of them - I do not think I have - but if I have, I would be glad to respond to him today while we are still in Committee. Otherwise, I would move that the bill proceed through Committee stage.

On motion, clauses 1 through 423, carried.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Municipalities." (Bill 14)

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 6, Bill 4, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act."

On motion, clauses 1 through 2, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act." (Bill 4)

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 7, Bill 16, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act."

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to make some comments today. I referred yesterday to the fact that we had some concerns, mostly with accountability and of course a process, but mostly some concerns we raised with regards to clarification, and to discuss with the minister, to make more clear, exactly what voice relates to in this part of legislation.

According to Appendix B, voice would entail, yes, long-distance, and that is the part we do not seem to have a problem with, but I say to the minister I would like some more clarification on exactly what comes under that heading. Maybe we can start and go back and forth on that to clarify that particular one with local service, facsimile, 1-900, pay telephone, building wiring, 911, operator services, telephone sets, call centres, and message managers. Maybe I will let the minister respond to that first and we will go from there.

Thank you.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take a couple of minutes and address some of the concerns that have been raised both in debate yesterday with respect to this bill and also some questions that have been put to me and to my officials with respect to what the intent and purpose of this amendment are, and what affect the amendment will have in terms of the government's ability to acquire telephone services in the future.

Let me say at the outset that this is a piece of enabling legislation. It is not a piece of prescriptive legislation to allow us to do something that we are not doing now. The fact of the matter - and it should be understood clearly - is that under current practice of this government we have never tendered for what we are exempting from the Public Tender Act now by virtue of this amendment. That is, local and long-distance voice telephone services. The Public Tender Act prescribes that if there is more than one provider of a service, essentially, in a province, then we have to go to public tender if it is over $20,000 for construction and, I think, it is over $10,000 for goods and services.

The reality is that we have never tendered for local telephone services because, I think as far as any of us know, there is only one organization able to provide local telephone services within the Province, and that is NewTel. The reason why we have had to move an amendment is because there happens to be in the marketplace today - and it is of recent vintage, of course - more than one provider, potentially, for long-distance telephone services. So we either had to do one of two things, and that is respect our own legislation with respect to the long-distance side of it, or exempt ourselves from the requirement of having to tender for long-distance services.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, we examined what was happening in other jurisdictions across the country. I guess the backdrop to where we are in Newfoundland is this. We are the only province, including the federal government, of all government jurisdictions that has a public tender act to deal with. Most provinces do their procurements by way of government procurement policy, by way of regulation, but none has a public tender act they have to abide by.

So the result is this. No jurisdiction that we are aware of tenders for their telephone services. What provinces do from province to province, depending on the number of service providers that are available to them in their province, is negotiate the provision of telephone services to their province, both long-distance and local services.

What we are doing by way of this rather simple three-word amendment is simply this. We are saying that voice telephone services in the future will not be required to be tendered under the Public Tender Act. We will now be in the same circumstance as every other province in Canada, in not being in violation of our own legislation.

What does that do for people in the Province who are currently doing business with government in terms of the provision of telephone services or the provision of telephone equipment, be it cellular phones, be it digital services, be it answering machine type services? The fact of the matter is that there is a number of firms in the Province which are doing business directly with the government for the provision of a whole array of services. Nothing changes for any of those firms in terms of their ability to be able to offer their service and negotiate a sale of their product or a sale of their service to the provincial government, or to the Crown corporations, or to the government funded bodies we represent.

While I understand that questions have arisen - and I've dealt with some of them myself with some people in the telecommunications business and the IT business who have come forward to me - and while I know the Opposition has had some calls, because people are concerned as to what this will mean, this bill does not mean that we are prescribed or required in any way to deal with anybody exclusively including the NewTel corporation, with great respect to them. This does not mean that we will be dealing with them because we have to for the provision of a whole variety of goods and services.

The intent and the application of this bill, once the regulations are put in place, are simply to allow government to be free from the public tendering process for purposes of procuring telephone services that are normally sold in the marketplace and that are normally purchased by us on a rate-per-minute basis. In other words, this bill will permit us simply to now negotiate, which is what we do now anyhow but we are in violation of the Public Tender Act, what we will continue to do, and what we currently do, except that we will do it and be doing it legally and properly.

The intent of this bill is to simply unfetter us and put us in conformity with our own laws in terms of negotiating, which is what we currently do, the provision of voice telephone services. In layman's terms, that represents long-distance services which are purchased on a per-minute basis, as well as local telephone services.

Companies in the Province who have the ability or who are currently doing business with the government and that want to come and offer their services will continue to be able to do so. I have told more than one service provider today that if there were two or three companies in the Province that could provide local and long-distance services, we would be happier than having just one with which we could negotiate, because obviously we might have an opportunity to do an even better deal. What we are satisfied that this will do for us - because this has been an issue that we have dealt with for about a year and a half when I was the full-time Minister of Work, Services, and now the acting minister -, what we have done was look very carefully at what has happened in other jurisdictions. We have committed in this legislation not to go beyond or to shut anybody out of doing business with us that is currently doing business. On the contrary, it gives everybody an opportunity to sell their services to us. Many firms do business with us today by providing answering services, by providing cellular services, and by providing a whole range of other services.

I provided and I have given the Opposition a copy of exactly what it is this is intended to cover. It is called Appendix B, as it was attached to one of the internal documents of government that we were putting forward. It simply covers voice telephone services, long-distance - i.e. 1-800 calling cards -, local services, pay telephones, call centres and message managers. We can now negotiate without being in violation of our act the provision of these services with anybody. It does not have to be with NewTel. It does not have to be with any particular company. It could very well be with all of the firms that we are currently doing business.

I will undertake on behalf of government to be on record in this House as saying that the regulations, once we draft them to give effect to this legislation, will reflect - I will undertake to ensure that it reflects - the spirit and the intent of this particular amendment to the Public Tender Act.

Obviously, if there are additional concerns that have not come forward, or concerns that are not fully addressed by virtue of my comments today in the House, or by virtue of discussions that they have had with my officials within the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, we are open to continue to hear from you and to explain exactly what this means.

This is not a prescriptive piece of legislation. It simply unfetters us, brings us out from underneath the requirement to go public tender. In fact, we are not public tendering now. In fact, we have never publicly tendered for local and long-distance calls so nothing changes in practice with government, except that we are now abiding by our own laws as opposed to being in violation or our laws. That is really the purpose and intent of this.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the extent of the explanation to which I should offer at this point. Obviously, my colleague on the other side may want to raise some further questions or make some comments. Certainly, I would be happy to respond if it is necessary.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

Yes. I agree with the minister on what the intent was in the beginning. We are not talking about long-distance or local services because that was the intent. You never did tender for that. I understand that. I would like to ask the minister this. In the list that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Is the minister listening? I need the minister to listen.

Under voice in Appendix B, which you have given us just a little while ago, the list includes local service, which we have no problem with, of course long-distance and 1-800 - we have no problem with that -, but there are services provided by local companies in St. John's and around this Province: some of them being BusinessTel, Cabletec Nfld, Cooper Communications Inc and so on. I understand that none of the data communications are listed under those. Under your Appendix B in your listing of facsimile, 1-900, pay telephone, building wiring, 911, operator services, telephone sets, call centres and message managers, I understand, Minister, that indeed some of these - not local service or long-distance - were tendered in the past.

I have one example that telephone sets were certainly tendered in the Prince Philip Building, the Natural Resources building, some time ago. I am not sure about any others. I do not have that knowledge at this time. They were in fact tendered for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Telephone sets, for example. These are local companies within St. John's. You can look in the yellow pages; they provide these different types of services. That is under what is recommended in this legislation which is voice telephone services. So our only concern, and it has been raised, and I have said it to you already, is that these local companies that provide any of these services that are under voice in this Appendix B - what process now, I ask the minister, will they take in order to still avail of these opportunities with their services? I wonder if he could answer that.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The answer to the question is very straightforward and simple. The process that companies now doing business with the government will use in the future will be the exact process they are using now. If it is a piece of equipment or a product by virtue of which we have to tender for, then that will not change. If it is a service that we can negotiate, or accept prices on in a negotiation, that will not change.

The basis on which companies which currently are doing business with government operates does not change in any way, shape or form as a result of this legislation. It is not the intent that it change. It simply is taking us out of being in violation of our own Public Tender Act, because currently now we do business with NewTel, we do business with a whole array of smaller companies which provide services to us.

Every time we make an acquisition now that is not tendered under the current Public Tender Act, every time we negotiate a purchase now of a goods or service that has to do with voice telephone services, we are violating our own Public Tender Act. This amendment simply puts us in non-violation of our own legislation, but the process of procuring government business in the future is unchanged from what we have being doing in practice in the past and up until now.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I understand, Minister, it takes you out of the violation for - and you keep referring to it, and I know it means local and long-distance services. What I have just made a point on earlier, and I would like for you to expound on it again, is that those other services that are listed in Appendix B of telephone sets and so on, that was tendered out before. Is that going to be remain to be tendered, or is it now going to come under this legislation?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any service, or any procurement of product, that does not fit the description of a voice telephone service will not be affected by this piece of legislation. If our current act requires us to go to tender for 500 telephone sets or something, if that is the circumstance, that will not change under this. Okay? That is a product. This is a service, if you like. That may be oversimplifying it, because people who provide voice telephone services sometimes obviously provide equipment that goes with the delivery of that services: telephones on your desk, that type of thing.

The bottom line, to answer the question honestly and simply, is that the procurement process in the future will not vary from what has happened in the past in this sense. We are now operating outside of our own Public Tender Act, where as now we will be in non-violation of our own Public Tender Act when we take ourselves out from underneath that act for the provision of the voice telephone services.

Again, let me be very clear. The intent of this is to allow us to be able to negotiate as opposed to having to go to tender for the provision of long distance and local services that are normally purchased and paid for on a rate per minute basis. That is, simply put, what we are dealing with here under this amendment.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, what we are hearing here today seems to me to be totally different from what the minister said in his ministerial statement Thursday. He was welcoming the NewTel executives to the gallery, he was talking about how the government is receiving an exceptionally good rate from NewTel, what a wonderful company it was. They were giving them a better rate than NBTel was giving their government, et cetera. This was all about the relationship between government and NewTel.

When the minister talked yesterday at second reading, he was talking about the same sort of thing. My question was: Well, what are we getting for this special deal that we are giving to NewTel? Now we are saying: Oh, there is no special deal; we are just going to carry on normally.

I am a little bit surprised and taken aback that all of a sudden what we are dealing with, according to the government, is something very different than what we were told we were being presented with the other day.

I understand the minister making sure the stipulation is on the record that we have never tendered this type of service before and therefore it is not available for public tendering generally, so to offer it to public tender would be a new and different thing. I am saying that if the government has, or intends to have or continues to have, a special relationship with Newfoundland Telephone for long distance service, for example, as opposed to - we talked about it yesterday. The minister made fun of me for discovering somewhere along the way that there was no such thing as a perfect market.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: In a jocular way. He wasn't being nasty. He was being just a bit facetious and I understand the point he was making. The point here is, if we are going to be dealing with what was a monopoly until recently, or we are going to continue to deal with them, particularly when you have companies like Sprint and other companies who are in the business, if you are going to be dealing with them on, I would say, I guess, a non-competitive way, if we are going to say: Okay, we will make a deal with you outside the Public Tender Act, the question I asked yesterday was: Well, what are we getting in return?

We do know, for example, and the minister said in his public statement, in his Ministerial Statement, that NewTel has a significant number of employees in the Province. We do know that they -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I wonder Mr. Chairman, if you could ask the Member for Bellevue to go back to his place and, if he wants to join in the debate, to get up and join in debate like a man and not just sit there and try to distract somebody who has something to offer to the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The same goes for the person sitting in the Premier's seat, who would like to be sitting in the Cabinet.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The point that is being made here is that we are saying that we want to get involved, or continue to be involved, with a company as large as NewTel on a non-competitive basis through a negotiating process. Now we are being told we are not really doing anything here; we are just sort of excluding voice communication from the Public Tender Act.

If we are doing that, there has to be a reason for it and presumably there has to be some advantages for it. What I want to ask the minister is: What advantage are we getting, aside from the fact that we acknowledge that this company, NewTel, has a considerable number of employees in the Province.

I said in my remarks yesterday that we recognize they have made substantial reinvestment in the Province in recent years. It is not a Newfoundland company; it is not owned in Newfoundland. It is substantially owned elsewhere. For many, many years, much profit has been taken out of this Province by this company.

They have now just merged with the four Atlantic Provinces. I say to the minister, that company, AtlanticCo, fully intends - it has made it clear to its own employees that if they can save money by having a service performed in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or PEI cheaper than having than having four locations, they certainly intend to close down operations in Newfoundland whether they be in the administrative side, the technical side, or elsewhere.

I am saying to the minister, if the minister is saying that we are not going to go to public tender on this; we will continue to deal with NewTel, for example, in the provision of the service without going to public tender, then my question is: What are we getting out of that? Because what we are saying is that we, as a government, are prepared to forego the benefits of public tendering for the sake of these particular services and, on the other hand, this company which is expecting to get the benefits of that matter are taking a position that if we can do administrative work cheaper in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia then we are going to do it and lay off people here in Newfoundland.

My question to the minister today is a very specific one, and it is about NewTel. If we are going off the market, if you want, in a non-competitive basis and negotiating one-on-one with NewTel or other providers, how is it that they on the other hand are saying: Now we have a merger with four companies in the Atlantic Provinces and if we can perform certain activities within our company cheaper in Nova Scotia, we are not going to have four people doing the same thing. We are going to have one person doing it. If it is cheaper in Nova Scotia, that is what we are going to do.

What I want to know from the minister is: What is he getting and what is the government getting out of this deal that requires us to go off the Public Tender Act, for example, for long-distance services?

We had legislation here a couple of years ago called the Kodak bill. I do not know if it was called the Kodak bill but everybody called it the Kodak bill except, I suppose, the Clerk who read it out in the House of Assembly. It was the Kodak bill, and the Kodak bill was going to give a special provision to one particular company in return for some unnamed benefits - well, named benefits and argued for benefits.

The same thing happened a few years ago with the sale of NLCS. The privatization of NLCS was done on the basis of some kind of a commitment - there were arguments about whether it was a valuable enough commitment, but some commitment - on the part of Andersen Consulting and NewTel, who were the partners, to guarantee a certain level of services in return for a seven-year exclusive arrangement with government for information services and computer services. You know, I understand that kind of a deal. You say: Okay, it is a two-way street. We have something to offer and you have something to offer.

What I am saying here is that it is one thing to say today, ignore NewTel, they do not exist, but they were sitting in the gallery the other day and they were not here for no reason. The minister talked about what a wonderful company they were, and what services we were getting from them, in their presence. Now today: Oh, all we doing is just excluding - we can deal with NewTel; we can deal with anyone we want.

That may be, but it is obviously not what the government has in mind because what they have in mind is continuing their relationship with NewTel, not going to someone else for long-distance services.

I have another specific question, when the minister is finished his conversation. Go ahead, I can talk about something else, but I have another specific question about voice services. We have an Appendix B, part of some document that I have never seen. I do not know what it is and what the effect of it is. I do not know if it has any legal effect or not, but voice telephone service - you have long-distance 1-800 calling cards, and then you have local service on the other hand, facsimile. Now, is that local facsimile or long-distance facsimile?

Why is it long distance on one side - a long-distance 1-800 calling card is a long-distance service - and local service includes facsimile, pay phones and building wiring? What about long-distance faxes? Are they voice services? I don't know. Why would they be considered voice services? If you have a fax machine hooked up to a long-distance line and it sends a fax, there are no voices involved. There are all these beeps and burps and whatever goes on between one fax machine and another. You hear all these squeals and screeches but you don't hear any voices. Why would that be a voice service? That is what I want to know. Why would that be a voice service, I say to the minister? Can he explain? The legislation specifically says voice service. Unless there is some definition in the act of what voice service is - I don't think there is - how can we stay with voice service? You are going to have to define that a little better.

AN HON. MEMBER: If it talks (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If it talks, it squawks. Well, that may -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If it talks, it walks.

I appreciate the minister providing us with Appendix B of some document, but I don't know what document it is. I do happen to have another -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes, I have it right here, Appendix B. Appendix B to what?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not; it is Appendix B.

MR. HARRIS: Appendix B, I am sorry. I am wrong. It is Appendix B.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I do not know what Appendix B is. Appendix B to what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). It means nothing (inaudible) not included in this.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, so we have the minister saying that Appendix B means nothing because we are not going to see the document. It has nothing to do with the document but, for the purpose of the debate, voice means -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Okay, I will stroke it off too but that does not do much good to anybody interpreting the legislation, because the legislation says voice, and without further definition - I say, as a lawyer - it is open to interpretation based on the plain meaning of the word voice; and the plain meaning of the word voice does not include fax communication.

I think we must at least look to somebody to advise the House as to whether or not that should be further defined to meet what the minister is saying is the case, and that is that voice means voice communication as understood in the communications industry, or something to that effect, that makes sure that this is a term of art in the telecommunications business as opposed to an appendix of some document that we have never seen and we are only talking about here in the House, which may have no meaning whatsoever if someone comes to interpret it and take the minister to court for failing to follow the Public Tender Act. That is what we are into. This government has a bad history, I say to the minister, of going to court on legislation such as the Public Tender Act.

The Government House Leader, I do not know if he was in Cabinet -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman, for a few minutes?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I do not want to pursue that point with the minister but, let's face it, the government has had a history of problems with legislation and the Public Tender Act. If there is a problem here - we are not objecting to the tender of the legislation. We made it clear in second reading that if there is something in it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador we would like to know what it is. We would like to make sure that we know what we are getting. We are not buying a pig and a poke here and we are not going to have legislation that is not enforceable or does not cover what we think is going to be covered.

We can talk about it some more but on that I will sit down, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make a couple of concluding remarks for the Committee stage of it. I say there is a few if's here. Of course, when we started to talk about this is the beginning we said: If NewTel can provide services, and if the government can get the best bang for the buck, there is nobody going to disagree with that.

When we talked about local services, long-distance services, nobody could disagree with that. Of course, I suppose, that still opens up the agreement for AT&T, Sprint, and whoever, to have a change to see if they can do that, but that is another issue.

The issue that I want to stick with for today and conclude on is what is listed under voice. What is listed under voice, according to this Appendix B, is some services. There are services there listed that are provided by local companies throughout this Province and, from my information, they have been tendered before throughout this Province. The only thing I want to be assured of, and that we are concerned about, is that these local companies who could provide these services that are listed here under voice will still have the same opportunity as they have had in the past to avail of the opportunities though government when it does not go through the public tendering process.

That is our main concern. If that can be covered off and that loophole closed, I think we can get somewhere with this. That is a concern that we really want to raise today in this House of Assembly. We want to mention it again in third reading tomorrow. We will speak about it and maybe we will have some more information by then. I have been gathering information over the last couple of days. I do not profess to be an expert on telecommunications or anything else, but I have had concerns raised to me by people in this city and even throughout the Province who have similar types of services that in the past have dealt with government. They want to make sure that opportunities still exist after this legislation is passed, and that is the point we make here today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The points, let me assure my hon. colleagues across the way, are well taken because we want to be sure that we are clear, for purposes of the public record, in our intention as to what we are doing here.

I am glad the hon. member raised the so-called Kodak bill because the difference in this and the Kodak bill is very simple. The Kodak bill was rightly or wrongly - we brought it into the House as a piece of legislation in anticipation of possibly being able to do something. This piece of legislation is as a result of considering beforehand and knowing where we are going with more surety than we would there. As my hon. colleague I recall said in the House when she was the then-Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: Believe us, if the Kodak situation is not a good deal for the Province, we will not do it even if we have a bill that enables us to do it. The result was it did not work out and we did not do a deal, and so there was no harm done. I think that speaks to the honour and the intent of government generally in terms of what we are doing here.

I want to refer to my ministerial statement in the House because probably what was reflected in the statement is as clear as it can be made. What I said in the statement was this. I said, "...Government has held discussions with NewTel Communications, the current provider of these services." What are these services? I said right in the statement that was read in the record, "Government has been offered a rate for both long distance and local services that is comparable to and, in many instances..." better than what is being provided by other governments in other provinces.

I said in the third or the fourth paragraph of my ministerial statement - because this is government's intention in this amendment - that "Government has received an exceptionally good and competitive rate for both long distance and local services." Full stop, that was the end of it. The intent of this bill was clearly reflected in the statement. We are dealing with long-distance and local services. The reference to NewTel or the fact that they were people we had been talking to, obviously - I mean, it is simply this. As far as I know, unless somebody can tell me differently, NewTel is the only Newfoundland and Labrador company that can provide to anybody local and long distance telephone voice services. That is simply all that is to it.

The three words that are proposed here in this amendment refer to "voice telephone services." These words were not chosen by me, I have to admit with great modesty. These words were chosen to cause the intent of what we are trying to do here to happen by our legal people in Justice, in collaboration with the officials in Works, Services and Transportation, to deal with not only the purchase of the goods and services that government provides, but I would also remind the House that Works, Services and Transportation is also responsible for the proper management of the Public Tender Act in the Province. It is more than a procurement function that Works, Services and Transportation is responsible for. The Minister of Work, Services and Transportation, with the officials in the department, is responsible to ensure that the Public Tender Act is respected and honoured in every sense.

To the points that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has raised, I can only say again that this will deal with long-distance telephone services, local telephone services and the products or goods and services that currently they would provide or are providing to us as a result of negotiation.

Again, we will do nothing differently under the bill than what we are doing now. We have negotiated and have accepted a price from the current service providers and we will continue to operate on that basis. As I told somebody this morning who was in to see me: If the day comes when there are two NewTels in Newfoundland and Labrador, we will be the happier as a government because we will have two corporations that we can deal with, two service providers that can give us that type of service.

The reality is, as far as we know, I think it is acknowledged, that there is one service provider for those two services. Beyond that, the purchase, the procurement, the doing business on behalf of the public purse for other things that are related to but not directly connected with long-distance and local services, will still be open to people who are currently providing those goods and services and products to government. We will do nothing different in the future than what we have done in the past. We will continue to purchase on the basis that we have in the past, except that now, when we do a deal with Newtel as we have being doing for the last number of years on long-distance and local services, we will be in non-violation of our own act as opposed to being in violation of our own act. That is a significant thing right here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Just one last question in a practical sense here. You say you are going to be dealing with NewTel. Let's take a simplistic example. If you need ten telephone sets, would NewTel be the first one to get that call, as opposed to anybody who now provides that service to be able to do that in a practical sense? That is what I am being asked by the companies. That they be able to do that. Or for a government department of any type, will the first call go to NewTel and NewTel can provide that, and then that is where the buck will stop? In other words, there will not be a process where others will get an opportunity to do that.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I can say with confidence and assurance that the intent of this bill, outside of voice telephone services - i.e., local and long-distance telephone services - is not a NewTel first reference point. It is a bill simply that allows us to not be in non-violation of our own legislation on those two services. It is not a prescriptive piece of legislation.

The fact of the matter is that in the past while we as government, the central agency, have not gone to tender for long-distance services, some of our government funded bodies have gone to tender for long-distance services. Memorial University has gone to tender for long-distance services. The St. John's Health Care Corporation, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, the division that comes under my department, have tendered their long-distance services.

This bill will not say that they cannot even continue to do that. It simply says that by not doing it we are not violating our Public Tender Act. If government funded bodies decide that in their wisdom or otherwise they want to continue to tender for, say, long distance and spin that off from the local service rather than package it, they can continue to do that. The intent and the outcome here is that as a result of our discussions with NewTel I can tell the House, while not stating the rate that we have basically been negotiating - because negotiations have not been completed and we have not signed a deal with anybody, and we will not be signing a deal until we are happy of course that we have not only followed the spirit but also the intent of what we are doing here - but I can tell the House that we will save money. Anybody, in terms of government funded bodies, who gets a light rate as they will get under this, well, we will be saving a lot of money for the public purse.

Outside of long-distance and local telephone services the intent will not be to isolate or disadvantage anybody. Everybody is still on the same level playing field as they were, whatever that was, before this amendment was proposed and once it passes through the House.

I do not think I need to say any more. I think we have been abundantly clear. The Ministerial Statement, Mr. Chairman, I would refer to it again, because it states very clearly the intent of what we are doing here. The three words were not chosen lightly. The three words were chosen after many months of consideration by the best legal advice that we have available to us within government and in collaboration with the officials who deal with this procurement of this particular service.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say that I am a little bit at a loss to say more than what I have said before. There is certainly now before this House no rationale for the bill at all expect to avoid from breaking the act that they have already passed. It is not even made retroactive, so it is obviously not a concern that the legislation has been avoided in the past. It is just a straightforward act saying it is amended by inserting after "insurance service," the words "voice telephone services."

We are getting an assurance that voice telephone services includes fax machines. According to Appendix B it also includes telephone sets and building wiring. If it said voice telephone services and ancillary services provided therewith or something like that, I could see how it could be expansive enough to include that.

It is easy enough to say off the top of your head that we have consulted with the best legal minds in the government. I am not sure if they had Appendix B in front of them when they were doing that and what was considered. I would ask the minister if he would go one step further and have that consideration directly put as a result of these questions that were raised in the House today before we go to third reading on that bill.

I say to the minister that it is easy enough to say this has been provided as a result of the best legal minds in the world or that we have at hand to doing that. I wonder if we could ask the minister, before we proceed to third reading on this, which I understand is going to take place tomorrow, that he would just recheck that with the people who advise on legislation in the Department of Justice or Executive Council or the Clerk of the Table, as to whether or not the consideration of what has been brought forward here, and the consideration of what is in Appendix B, whether that in fact includes the facsimile services, whether building, wiring, telephone sets, et cetera are included in "voice telephone services" or not.

Because unless that is a term of art that is used in the industry that includes all those things, I have a funny feeling that facsimile service for long distance is not included in voice telephone services, or could be interpreted so as not to be included in that, and the minister may be getting himself into trouble. I would ask the minister if he would, in light of the debate in the House today, and the questions raised by the Member for Baie Verte and myself about some of these issues, whether or not, upon reflection, upon consideration of what was said here today, that this wording is still adequate or if it needs to be further explained.

I still ask one question, and I do not think it has been answered. I know the minister is saying that it does not require the government to leave all this stuff out if they can turn around tomorrow, as Workers Comp or others have done and say: We are putting long-distance services out to tender and we would like to hear from anybody who is able to provide those services. The same could be done for telephone sets, pay telephones, or building wiring. There is no reason why, if the government decided to put telephone lines on every desk in the House for the purposes of people communicating with their offices by a computer on their desk - which some legislatures have, I understand - that that couldn't be put to public tender. My question though is whether or not he can assure us of that.

The second one is still there. Is there a reason other than to say we do not want to violate the Public Tender Act? What the minister is actually saying is: We want to continue to be able to negotiate for these services. I want to ask the minister: Why is it we want to continue to be able to do that other than we think that Newtel are nice people? We know them and we talked to them last year and the year before, and we are going to talk to them next year. The government, obviously, wants to be able to do that for a reason.

My question is: What are we getting in return for saying we will deal with Newtel as opposed to going to public tender, or indeed we will deal with somebody else? Surely the minister is not saying we want to be able to deal with them because they are friends of the government, friends of the members of the government, or friends of the party in power. That is not the reason. There obviously has to be a public purpose. I have not heard the minister state that public purpose, what the advantages are to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do know, and I have said myself, that this company has a significant investment in this Province and supports a significant level of employment in this Province. That, obviously, is a reason. What kind of commitments are we able to get from that particular company with respect to levels of employment, for example, some protection from loss of employment in the merger that they are having with AtlanticCo and the other Atlantic companies? They were here sitting in the gallery the other day because, obviously, they see it as advantageous to themselves as well.

What I would like to know is what the public interest is in this? What are we getting for it? The same question I asked on the day the ministerial statement was made is, again: What mechanism is in place to ensure that despite the lack of going to a competitive process, what mechanism is in place to ensure that we as a government are in fact getting the best possible price that we can?

On motion, clause 1 carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act". (Bill 16)

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 9, Bill 6.

On motion, clauses 1 through 10 carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act". (Bill 6)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order 10, Bill 17, "An Act To Amend the Jury Act, 1991".

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 4.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 4 inclusive carry?

Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I raised the issue or concern at second reading stage about clause 36, or clause 3 actually - or maybe it is clause 4 - the provision related to section 36 of the Act. I had some misgivings about the lack of particularity in the provision with respect to the exercise of discretion by a judge in removing a matter from the jury. There is no criteria set forth and it seems that the discretion is wide open for a judge to remove a matter from the jury.

I had an opportunity to have some discussions with others on this, and it is my understanding that the judicial discretion here would have to be exercised in accordance with standards and principles that have been adopted by other courts in other jurisdictions, but it is felt necessary to have a jurisdiction in the trial judge to take a matter from jury trial for good reasons that involve the discretion of the judge but a discretion, of course, which has to be exercised judicially.

With those reservations, Mr. Chairman, I know that legislation is in place in other provinces, or a similar type of legislation, which seems to have worked. I would not want to be supportive, however, of legislation that had the effect of depriving someone of a jury trial for a civil matter where there is a genuine desire on the part of someone to have an issue tried by the jury and where there are good reasons for it.

I do have some misgivings about that clause and I continue to have them. I understand, however, that they have been proposed by the Trial Division as being proper for the administration of justice and the efficient exercise of the obligations of the court, and I suppose we have to wait and see if these provisions tend to deprive a person of a jury trial in a civil matter.

We have not had very many applications in this Province or very many opportunities for civil jury trials in the Province but I would not want to prevent that from developing. We did have a circumstance where for a long time there were hardly any jury trials in criminal matters in this Province. When I was first admitted to the Bar in 1980, there were hardly any jury trials in criminal matters in the St. John's jurisdiction. Part of it was that the system itself and the judges discouraged people from having jury trials. I would not want similar situations to develop with respect to civil juries where a litigant should have the opportunity for a civil jury trial in appropriate circumstances just as we have seen a lot of people exercise their right to a criminal jury in the last twenty years.

It has been a very salutary thing to allow people to exercise their right to a jury trial, to be judged by a jury of their peers on a matter of criminal nature. To offer that, as our legislation does, in civil matters is equally a good thing.

The whole point, I say to those who like to carp against the legal profession, who have a bias against lawyers, judges, and the legal system, the provision of a jury gives a finding of fact, gives a right of people who are not lawyers, who are not legally trained, who are not judges, who do not have the biases of those who are in the system, to make a decision. I want to say that to those who like to say nasty things about lawyers or judges in the legal system in general.

The whole purpose of a jury is to put in the hands of ordinary citizens the right to make decisions about legal matters. While you are over there shouting and roaring against lawyers and judges, I want to say to members that this provision of a jury is something that goes back before the Magna Carta, where ordinary citizens have the right and ability to make decisions. I am here trying to preserve that right, I say to members, not to take away that right and give it to lawyers and give it to judges, and give it to people who are part of the establishment, but to make sure that a litigant before the court has the right to have matters decided by a jury of their peers, by ordinary citizens who have common sense and who have the ability to weigh up evidence, to weigh up an issue, and to make a decision that in many times is far better than a decision that might be made by a judge or a single person who may have a very narrow perspective, and certainly a single perspective as opposed to the joint perspective that a jury can bring to the resolution of a matter before the court.

I want to make sure that members know that I am here standing for the jury system, for the use of juries wherever possible, wherever it is practical and reasonable to do so, and I do not want to be party to anything that is depriving people of that right.

That is why I am raising this point, I say to the hon. member, and I hope that members will appreciate that and look beyond the partisan nature of a House that gets like this from time to time, and recognize that is what I am trying to do.

If I find, if it comes to my attention, as a result of the legislation that we are passing here today, that people are being deprived of an opportunity to have a jury decide an issue, deprived of an opportunity to have ordinary people decide an issue, instead of having judges or lawyers decide the issue, I will be the first one to bring it to the attention of the House and seek to have an amendment to the Jury Act to restore the right to have civil juries in matters where it is appropriate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991". (Bill 17)

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 11, Bill 19.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act". (Bill 19)

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, it is not on the Order Paper but I understand, by leave, we are going to do Committee on Bill 21.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Environment Act". (Bill 21)

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report progress.

Before I do, that for those people perhaps who want to know, who have not heard, tomorrow morning the House will open at 9:00 a.m. Hopefully we will get the Lieutenant-Governor in before 12:00 noon. I think that will be the extent of the legislation that has to be done.

We will open at 9:00 a.m., by leave, I understand, tomorrow morning. I do not need to pass a motion; I understand it is by leave that we open at 9:00 and close at 12:00 noon. That will enable us to go to the West Coast.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred and has directed me to report Bills 10, 11, 5, 14, 4, 16, 6, 17, 19 and 21 without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: 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, Thursday, at 9:00 a.m.