November 25, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 47


The House met at 1:30 p.m

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon, we would like to welcome about eighty residents of Mount Pearl and area. They are part of the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group and the Mount Pearl 50+ Fitness Group. They are from the District of Mount Pearl and that equally wonderful District of Waterford Valley. We want to welcome them to our House and ensure them that seniors are always welcome in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has notice of the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize a tremendous contribution to our community by our Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group and the 50+ Club. They are a very active and vibrant group in our community, and Mount Pearl is very fortunate to have these two active groups.

The Mount Pearl 50+ program is mostly about being physically active, and social activity is involved.

The Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group, their main goal is keeping seniors independent and healthy in their own homes.

Mr. Speaker, these two groups of seniors are always on the move, all year round. They finished up another summer of day trips to Heart's Content, Whitbourne Winery, Clarenville, Carbonear-Bay Roberts and Trepassey. Now, for the fall and into the winter, they will start their programs of: exercise - dry land and water fitness; bowling; line dancing; friendship program; craft program; seasonal dances - Paddy's Day, Valentines and Halloween - and I have my list already filled out, my dance card -

AN HON. MEMBER: You wish.

MR. DENINE: I wish. I do.

- as well as weekly socials and afternoon teas; and foot care clinics with the VON.

By keeping active in these programs, it keeps them young at heart.

I must also mention that the Parks and Recreation Department in the City of Mount Pearl also works in conjunction with these groups. They assist them in whatever way they can.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to both groups on all their efforts, and I wish them all the best in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Speaking of good dancers, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to the members of the Meadows Volunteer Fire Department and the Meadows Firettes.

On Saturday evening, November 20, I had the pleasure of attending their thirty-second Annual Firefighters Ball. The seventeen members who make up the Meadows Volunteer Fire Department are an active and committed group of volunteers dedicated to ensuring the safety of their town and its residents. They are continuously training and enhancing their skills, and through their commitment, three members have trained and are certified to teach basic firefighting skills to other volunteer departments in the Province.

In addition to the firefighters, there is an active fire firettes organization who continually supports the fire department through fundraisers and other initiatives. This group has raised thousands of dollars over the past years to ensure that the firefighters have the necessary equipment available when needed. Again, on Saturday night, the firettes presented a cheque to the fire department for $4,000.

One of the key projects for the fire department over the past years have been to raise funds for a new fire hall. While the Town of Meadows applied and received approval in 2003 under the Municipal Capital Works - which the minister was involved and got proper recognition on Saturday night at the firemen's ball. Construction started this summer. The Meadows firefighters and firettes made a commitment to help with the cost towards the fire hall, and at their banquet on Saturday night, Fire Chief Colin Tucker and Firette Madonna Brake presented a cheque of $20,000 to the Town Council of Meadows as their contribution towards the construction of the new fire hall.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Meadows firefighters and firettes for the continuing hard work and dedication to their town and its residents.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today and offer congratulations to the Anglican Church Women of St. Mary's congregation in Indian Bay. Just recently, St. Mary's ACW celebrated their seventy-fifth anniversary. Throughout the year a number of community and church events were held celebrating this milestone in their history.

On October 27 I had the honour of attending and sharing in their anniversary celebrations with approximately 300 parishioners and guests, including fourteen former ministers of the Parish and Bishops: Don Young and Eddie Marsh.

On October 27, 1929, two ladies from Indian Bay, namely, Hannah Parsons and Minnie Parsons, travelled to Wareham and attended an ACW meeting. Upon their return to Indian Bay, they started their own association. Since that time, St. Mary's Church has been able to count on the ACW for providing tremendous community outreach services and organizing activities that have benefitted spiritual life. As an example of their outreach service, every second Wednesday they serve breakfast to the children at Centreville Academy.

The Town of Indian Bay has an population of approximately 200. Thirty-eight women of that population are members of the ACW. I sincerely thank these women for their dedicated work in improving the lives of others. Under the very capable and faithful leadership of President Renee Easton, I am sure they will enjoy many more years of distinguished service to the church and the community.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in offering congratulations to St. Mary's ACW in Indian Bay on their seventy-fifth anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the ninety-third birthday of a very distinguished gentleman in my district. Mr. Sam Drover celebrated his ninety-third birthday last week.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Drover has a very impressive career to his credit, including seven years in this House of Assembly. Mr. Drover is one of two remaining members of the First Assembly to sit after Confederation in 1949. He sat in the Twenty-Ninth General Assembly; we are sitting here today in the Forty-Fifth. Mr. Speaker, I want everybody to acknowledge the tremendous contribution that Mr. Drover has made to the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Prior to his election as well, Mr. Drover had already established himself as a leader in his community as a former teacher, a former member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and a former member of the Newfoundland Ranger Force. Mr. Drover's contribution to Newfoundland and Labrador took place in a time when Newfoundland and Labrador was very much in its beginning. Many changes occurred during that time. Even though in his advanced years of ninety-three, he is still keenly active, very interested in political life and watches very closely the current events that are affecting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and has been watching particularly close recently to what has been happening in the discussions around the Atlantic Accord. He reads everything he sees. He listens to all the news and is very much aware. In fact, a frequent caller to give me some tips, hints and suggestions about what government should be doing and how I should be functioning as an MHA and, for that, I really appreciate his support.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me today and help celebrate and congratulate Mr. Drover on ninety-three lustrous years and wish him well for the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this House today to speak to the recent incidents that have occurred offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

As members are aware today, there was a significant spill at the Terra Nova FPSO early Sunday morning. It is estimated that upwards to 1,000 barrels of oil were discharged into the ocean. As soon as the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board was made aware of the incident it issued a suspension order for the operations of the FPSO. There is a procedure in place to respond to such incidents and an emergency response team was immediately mobilized. Unfortunately, weather conditions did not cooperate with cleanup activities as we had hoped.

Furthermore, this morning, this government was notified there was another spill incident offshore - this time at the semi-submersible Henry Goodrich, which is drilling for Petro-Canada on the Terra Nova site. The immediate estimate is less than six barrels of oil had been released into the ocean.

Both of these incidents are now under investigation by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board which has a mandate on behalf of both the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada to regulate the offshore oil and gas industry. The investigation into the FPSO has been ongoing since Sunday and this investigation has now been broadened to include the Henry Goodrich incident. The board investigators will be flying to the rig as soon as arrangements can be made to determine the extent of the spill and commence their investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform this House and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this government is gravely concerned about these incidents. We are taking both of these incidents extremely seriously, regardless of how much oil was released into the environment. We understand there are risks associated with the offshore petroleum industry. Our objective and our goal is to ensure that every possible safeguard is in place so that we do not have any incidents whatsoever, but we also have to acknowledge and be realistic that there are risks associated with the prosecution and exploitation of this industry.

Having said that, when such incidents do occur, the proper procedures have to be and must be in place to mitigate the negative impact on our environment.

I know the federal government shares my concerns, I have spoken with them, and we are making arrangements to meet as soon as possible, potentially as early as tomorrow. Once the investigation into these incidents is complete, we will be in a much better position to determine whether the procedures that are now in place are adequate or whether there needs to be any adjustments as to how the industry operates offshore and how we regulate it.

I want to assure the people of this Province that this government does take, very seriously, our responsibility to ensure that the offshore industry operates in an environmentally responsible way, in an environmentally sensitive way, and to that end we will be ever vigilant.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his comments. It is nice to see and it is good to see, actually, that the government, and particularly this minister, are engaged in this most serious and important issue; more so than I can say for his colleague, the Minister of Environment, who was more concerned with politics than policy yesterday afternoon when some very serious questions were asked in this House.

Whether it is six barrels or 1,000 barrels, it is all too much. There ought to be none. This is very serious. This is a wake up call, I would suggest, to the industry and to government. It is not only the concern of biologists, ecologists or environmentalists, this must be a concern of everybody in this Province. The possible destruction that this does to our environment and to our ecosystems and to things like our fisheries, the potential of it is just absolutely devastating. It is a very serious problem and I realize, as well does the minister, the solutions may not be simple. The solutions may not be easy to come up with.

There have been some suggestions, for example, from a detection point of view, we should certainly have independent observers onboard these rigs so that we are not relying upon the industry to tell us when there is a spill. There ought to be someone else there independent of the industry who says if there is drop of oil that goes in that ocean that should not be there, that it happened, to find out why and to make sure that it does not happen again. There may be more investment required from government to make sure that it does not happen, proper monitoring and proper cleanup. We cannot be, and we cannot afford to be, reactive to problems. We must be proactive to the prevention and detection of the problem.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement.

There are quite a few things that are very disturbing about this, including some of the statements made by the minister today where, on November 25, today, Thursday, he announced that the board investigators will be flying to the rig as soon as arrangements can be made to determine the extent of the spill and commence their investigation. This was a spill that occurred last Sunday.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) occurred in the morning, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: You say the rig, Henry Goodridge is a drilling ship that is out there. I hope that they are out there and they were out there on Sunday looking into what happened on the Terra Nova platform because, Mr. Speaker, this is an oil spill that apparently was only detected by visual inspection, that is estimated by one marine engineer, who was on TV last night, that had been, perhaps, going on between four and ten hours.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: That may have been going on for four to ten hours. Mr. Speaker, the kind of confidence that I would like to have, and I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would like to have, is that if an oil and water separation unit is not working properly and is spilling oil into the water, that there should be some automatic detection, there should have been some electronic detection, some alarm bells should have gone off or there should have been some sort of automatic shutoff.

What I really want to know, and I think before we have any significant confidence in what is going on, is that that is the kind of system that is going to be in place, that is in place, and is going to be working before the platform starts operating again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resource, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House to inform members of a very important recognition that has been given to Ms Vivian Randell, who served as Deputy Minister of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment before retiring last spring.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Group of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada has announced Ms Randell as the recipient of the 2004 Lieutenant Governor's Award for Excellence in Public Administration.

Ms Randell was honoured today at a ceremony held at Government House in St. John's. The Honourable Edward Roberts, Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador and Patron of the award, presented Ms Randell with the Award for Excellence in Public Administration. The award pays tribute to Ms Randell's exceptional and sustained contribution to public administration in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Vivian began her career with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1970 as Child Adoptions Coordinator. Since then, she has served the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with distinction for over thirty-four years. During her career, Vivian held increasingly responsible positions in the Department of Social Services, eventually in the position of Deputy Minister of the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, Vivian's many accomplishments include the development of a provincial strategic social plan. She also laid the groundwork in the area of early childhood development in the Province; and led the establishment of the Department of Human Resources and Employment, including a new approach to income support and career services.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, how much I valued Vivian's vast knowledge and expertise in her role as Deputy Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. During the first several months of my appointment as minister of this department Ms Randell's support was invaluable.

Along with today's recognition, earlier this fall Vivian received the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service Award of Excellence and also recently received the Canadian Association of Social Workers' Distinquished Service Award for her outstanding career in the field of social work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members to join with me in congratulating Vivian Randell on her outstanding career and for receiving this year's Lieutenant-Governor's Award for Excellence in Public Administration in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. minister for her statement with regard to Ms Vivian Randell, and to say I wish to join the minister in congratulating Ms Randell on this very prestigious award.

Fifteen years ago, Mr. Speaker, little did I think, after working with Vivian in the Department of Social Services, I would be standing here today and paying recognition to her for this wonderful award.

Ms Randell played a very significant role in early childhood development, and her service, not only to the constituents of this Province but also to the workers that she had with her within the department, was very invaluable, very informative, and she was a very gracious lady. I am honoured today to say that this award that she has received, the Award for Excellence in Public Administration, to go with the very impressive collection of awards that she has already received, is very due to the woman.

I wish to join the minister and all members of this hon. House in congratulating Ms Vivian Randell, and wish her every success in her retirement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister and the Member for Port de Grave in recognizing the contribution made by Ms Vivian Randell to the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador. She is well known to many members of this House, and to people in the social services field throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and nationally. She is treated with great respect for her ability and dedication and commitment.

Mr. Speaker, we are lucky to have public servants with the kind of dedication and commitment and knowledge of Vivian Randell, and I think it is something that, I believe, is important to say to young people looking at a career, that a career in the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador is a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps we should make it a little more automatic, Mr. Speaker.

I was in mid-sentence and I forget exactly where I was in the sentence, but I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that young people in this Province who are attending university, who are thinking about attending university or seeking education, really deserve to look to a career in the Public Service of this Province as something where you can make a significant and valuable contribution to the government and to the operations of government and to the life of people who are served by departments such as the Department of Social Services, which she served for many years, Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

I wish her many happy years of retirement as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Premier indicated that retroactivity on Atlantic Accord payments is no longer on the table. In a briefing we received from the Deputy Minister of Finance on October 20, we were informed that government was looking to receive retroactive payments to April 1 of this fiscal year. I would ask the Premier, or the Minister of Finance in his stead, to clarify whether there will be any retroactive payments to either April 1 of this fiscal year that we are not operating in, or at least to June 5 when the commitment was made, or are the payments going to start when we finalize the deal some time, hopefully, before Christmas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is well understood by both sides that the proposal put forth includes the 2004-2005 fiscal year. In other words, you cannot calculate the income tax of a company (inaudible) one month or two months and three and say, here is how much you made in this part of the year. You file your returns on a year, and it is accordingly. We are of the understanding, and it has not been questioned and it has been in any exchanges, that 2004-2005, this fiscal year, is one of the years that is included in this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask some questions of the Premier or the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture again with respect to Fishery Products International.

Mr. Speaker, when the Premier was negotiating with the federal government on the Atlantic Accord, he stated that no response to letters that he sent to the federal government meant that they accepted what he said. Derek Rowe of FPI has stated that the Harbour Breton plant will close, Fortune will be drastically reduced, if not closed altogether, Bonavista could be next, and he has also stated there is absolutely nothing the government can or should do about their private business decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this: Does the silence of the Premier to date on this issue - does the silence of the Premier to date - mean that the Premier and the government agree with Mr. Rowe?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been far from silent on this issue. The Premier has spoken on the FPI issue on numerous occasions, both as it relates to the income trust transaction and FPI's ongoing operations as it relates to groundfish on the South Coast of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is fully engaged in this situation. FPI are fully aware of our concern about the situation and our resolve to try and find a solution, not only for Harbour Breton but for the groundfish operations on the South Coast and the fishing industry generally in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are fully involved in this. I, as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, am lead minister on this file. I am the chief spokesperson, I suppose you could say, on the file, and that is the way it is until the Premier changes his mind.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the record shows that when asked in the House before, the Premier has said in this Legislature: I can't talk about FPI because it is a private company - and yesterday he refused to answer three very direct questions.

Mr. Speaker, many people in the Province, I am sure, were shocked by the arrogant attitude and comments of the FPI Chairman, Mr. Rowe, in last evening's newscast. Mr. Rowe said that his only responsibility is to his shareholders and that politicians should butt out of his business.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, based on his lack of response to date, that the Premier has listened to him and butted out, because we have heard absolutely nothing from the Premier.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the Premier states -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now if he could state his question very quickly.

MR. GRIMES: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I ask - because I remind the Premier that he has stated he is all over these files, that if he doesn't act soon it will be all over for these communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister: When will he, and the Premier specifically, stand up to Mr. Rowe and let him know that we are not going to butt out and that we are going to exercise our responsibilities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's comments - as I articulated in the House yesterday, and the Leader of the Opposition knows, or he ought to know - about FPI last spring were about the income trust transaction that had not been divulged publicly by FPI at that time. The Premier certainly indicated clearly then that we, as a government, could not say anything publicly because of security commission concerns. That, Mr. Speaker, is well known to everybody in this Province and it should be known to the Leader of the Opposition.

As for the rest of it, Mr. Speaker, the executive of FPI, the board of FPI, and the shareholders of FPI, know that they are governed by an FPI Act. They know that they have an issue with the income trust transaction, for example. They came to government on this.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Have they proceeded on the income trust transaction? No, Mr. Speaker, because they recognize that we have issues, we have concerns, and, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when he was Premier, we are asking questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The record will show that when I was the Premier the plants did not close.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, long-time supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party are even getting frustrated with the lack of action from this government, and the Premier personally. Last night former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Tom Hickey, stated that the Atlantic Accord money will be of little use if this government does not use its legislative power and get involved to save the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will the Premier - who seems to have lost his tongue on this issue - and this government stand up to FPI and tell them they cannot shut down the plants and use the money to expand their factory-freezer trawler operations instead of protecting the interest of the communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want to leave any doubt in anybody's mind about our resolve to solve the situation in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Unlike the previous Administration, Mr. Speaker, who could not find a way of assisting the people of Arnold's Cove for two years after National Sea indicated that they were putting it for sale and were prepared to walk away, we found a solution for the people of Arnold's Cove. While the aquaculture industry on the South Coast on the Connaigre Peninsula in the area of Harbour Breton in the Bay d'Espoir area could not get feed financing, we, in ten or elevens months of government, found a solution to that problem also, Mr. Speaker. That speaks to our situation, our resolve, for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and our ability to find creative solutions to assist people who have problems moving forward and growing our economy and we will commit no less to the people in Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last June I asked the Premier a question about the FPI restructuring plan. He told me he was not at liberty to discuss it in this House - even though the company was created in this House - because it was a private company.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not right.

MR. REID: Yes, it is right. He said it was a private company. However, he did say he would stay on top of the file and other issues surrounding -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and his question should be heard in relative silence.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier did however say that he would stay on top of that file and other issues surrounding FPI. If that is the case, I ask the minister: When did you learn that FPI would not be doing H and G cod in Fortune this year? Do you agree that this will effectively close that plant as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has been fully involved in the FPI file since last April. He had a number of meetings with Derek Rowe. We have had a number of meetings with their senior executive, and I have had quite a few conversations with all of them involved. I have had a number of conversations with the fishermen's union. We have a working group that we have put together to deal with Harbour Breton, and I have also suggested, given the nature and the magnitude of the problem with groundfish, that this needs to move beyond just a discussion about Harbour Breton. I suggested that the fishermen's union and FPI.

As for the situation with Fortune, and the head-on, gutted cod issue coming from Norway, I was aware of that quite some time ago. It is not for me to divulge FPI's corporate strategy, what they are going to do or not. They have to have that discussion with the union, and then it is up to them when they release that publicly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that was the twelfth question that I have asked him and that is twelve times that I did not receive a response.

Mr. Speaker, we have the Harbour Breton plant closed and the future of Fortune is not looking very bright. Right now, if you listen to what Mr. Rowe said yesterday afternoon on the broadcast, the people of Bonavista should also be quite concerned.

I ask the minister: What is FPI's plan for Bonavista this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe he should ask FPI what their plans are for Bonavista this year. It was clearly articulated on the Fisheries Broadcast yesterday evening. It was clearly articulated in the media. As far as I know, in my conversations with FPI, in my conversations with the union executive when I was out in Bonavista a short time ago, FPI's intentions in Bonavista this year is the same as they were last year. They will buy their crab. Half of the crab will go in Triton, half the crab will go in Bonavista. They will continue to operate Bonavista. At this point, they have no plans of building a new facility. They have told that to the workers. If they want a new building it will be a new building that will be significantly streamlined with less workers, and that is the fundamental issue there.

As for what is going to happen with Bonavista and crab in the long-term, only the 3K crab resource and the 3L crab resource and the quota levels associated with that will determine that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have all, in this House, for the most part, been accused of playing politics with this most serious of issues. To avoid this, I ask the minister, quite sincerely, will he set up an all-party committee of this House so we can put politics aside and attempt to truly do what is in the best interests of the employees of FPI in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is an all-party committee. All the parties who are relevant to this discussion are involved. We have already, Mr. Speaker, got a working group involved on Harbour Breton that includes the town, that includes the union local in the plant, that includes the senior executive of the union here in St. John's, that includes the provincial government, includes the local MHA, and FPI. Mr. Speaker, there are not many other relevant parties in this situation that have a reason to be involved with the discussions.

Mr. Speaker, if FPI and the Fishermen's Union want to get other people involved, then that is fine, but as for our role in this we will work with the company, the union, the town and the federal government to try and find a solution here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Fisheries. Mr. Speaker, the CEO of FPI recently accused politicians of grandstanding on the issue. I want to assure him and everyone in the Province that I am not grandstanding, I am fighting for the people of Harbour Breton, the same people whom he abandoned last Friday.

Yesterday, we heard the belligerent and condescending CEO of FPI, Derrick Rowe, say that the quota that was processed in Harbour Breton belongs to the company and paid for by the company, an absolute falsehood, and would not under any conditions remain with the town.

My question to the minister is: Will the minister assure the people of Harbour Breton that the portion of the FPI quota traditionally processed in Harbour Breton will remain with the town if FPI ceases operation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do believe that the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune is not grandstanding or playing politics with this situation and is sincerely trying to find a future for Harbour Breton. As for the question which is a serious question, unfortunately I am not the person who can answer it. I say that in all sincerity. The quota allocations are made, as we all know, by the federal government of Canada, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and only Minister Regan can answer the question that was asked. It is up to him where quotas are given, it is up to him when quotas are taken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if the people on the other side would give me the opportunity to answer, and stop playing politics with it, as they are, and take this as the serious matter that it is, we will work with the people of Harbour Breton to try to find a solution.

I did also hear Mr. Rowe, yesterday, say that if there was a solution that could be found in Harbour Breton, that the quotas could be used to facilitate that solution, then he would be prepared to entertain it.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I cannot give any more than that. I wish I could; but, Mr. Speaker, we will work with all of the people involved. That is why we proposed an amendment yesterday to include the federal government, to find a solution for the people of Harbour Breton and also, Mr. Speaker, not to be lost on everybody here, there is a serious problem in our industry, partly because of the way that we have handled it over the past number of years, and we have to address that situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, the company has said that the reason for closing the Harbour Breton fish plant is the structure of the building. Neither the committee from the town, nor I, as MHA for the area, have received a copy of the report on the structure of the plant. It is possible that the company has put its employees at risk as recently as last week when they worked in a building that the company described as dilapidated. Will the minister have a copy of that report made available to the committee and to myself, so that we can see for ourselves if that was the situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member can appreciate, any report that is commissioned and paid for by a private company is the property of that company. It is not for me to divulge what that report is. I do not even have a copy of that report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: I do not have a copy of the report to provide. I can tell you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on top of it.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, we are very much on top of it, I would say. That is why we have Occupational Health and Safety inspectors going down there. That is why the Minister of Government Services has asked for, and received, a copy of the report, thank you very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: No, I don't have a copy of it in my possession. It is private information. When the Occupational Health and Safety inspectors' report is completed, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, it will not be a problem to provide that publicly.

As well, I understand there is going to be a working group meeting at 6 o'clock this evening, and another groundfish group meeting tomorrow, and maybe, Mr. Speaker, the company will divulge the report at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you.

The Minister of Fisheries will be sending an Occupational Health and Safety team to inspect the Harbour Breton plant. I believe they are probably on their way, and will be there tomorrow. I will just ask the minister: Will someone with engineering expertise accompany the team so that an assessment of the structural integrity of the building can be made as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say at this point that a number of different people are involved in the assessment of the structure. I cannot answer with any great certainty as to whether there is a structural engineer. I know there was some concern expressed by the minister that there were not structural engineering capabilities available within the department, and that is why they asked for a copy of the report, which the company had to provide once the Occupational Health and Safety inspectors requested it. They have taken that, and they are going to look at that report. Then, if they feel that they need to have engineering support from outside, picked up from outside the private sector, then I am sure they will move to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

I want to ask the minister: Given the fact that this Province received $35 million in extra funding from the federal government for health care for this fiscal year, can the minister tell us - because we have not heard much since - what the plans are outlined for the spending of that money in the near future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an important issue and question that is raised by the hon. member, and I know it has received some media attention in the last few days.

This government spends well in excess of $4 million in addictions counselling and addictions related matters, and has in the last fiscal year. With respect to gambling, the minister suggested yesterday that we are in excess of $100,000, and that is the case, Mr. Speaker. This government, this year, has allocated well in excess of $100,000 in gambling addiction services. I have had discussions with my officials, Mr. Speaker, to learn precisely how these monies are spent. We do know, for example, these funds are allocated towards self-help groups, towards counselling services, and there are, Mr. Speaker, other examples where these funds can be raised.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was a very interesting answer for perhaps another question, but certainly had nothing to do with the question that I asked.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister again. This Province received $35 million extra funding for health care this fiscal year from a new arrangement between the federal government and the provincial government. Can the minister tell us how that money is planned to be spent during this fiscal year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I certainly can, Mr. Speaker, and the issue of addictions, I can say, will be front and centre with respect to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, when the First Ministers' Summit was held back in September, there were a number of priorities and priority areas that were identified; for example: home care, wait times, wait lists, Aboriginal health, the issue of Labrador transportation, and transportation of the North. These, indeed, are priority areas that have been recognized, and these will be the focus of attention, and these particular priority areas will, in fact, receive the funding and receive, in part, when allocations are finalized and when decisions are made by this government in the very near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for that answer. He summarized, sort of, what the perimeters of the deal would be, but the big question is when. I don't think soon is a good enough answer. We need an established date.

I would like to point out to the minister that other provinces, such as Saskatchewan, for a month now have outlined a detailed plan to the citizens of their Province. I want to emphasize upon the minister: Will and can the minister say today that there will be funding provided for people who live in Labrador, who have to spend exorbitant amounts of money for travel to other centres and who have to, right now, rely upon the generosity of the community that they live in, in order to do so?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say yes, because indeed that is an area that was identified at the First Ministers' Summit in September. The area of concerns of the North, whether it is with respect to Aboriginal issues generally, or transportation issues, it is an area of priority.

I would like to add, however, that this Province cannot move immediately in the absence of federal legislation which has yet to be enacted. I understand that the federal government has to enact legislation to allow the flow through of funding to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and other provinces, and upon that particular act being completed, Mr. Speaker, we will then deal with the priority issues that have been identified.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, last January, the Innovation, Trade and Rural Development Minister announced that her department was assisting the Stephenville Airport Authority to carry out a feasibility study on the viability, on the future of the Stephenville Airport. We understand the report has been completed. We understand, as well, that the minister recently made comments to the media that she will no longer help the airport financially.

Given the government's claim that this session is about accountability and transparency, will the minister or her alternate please tell this hon. House what were the key findings of the report.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

How the world changes in just a few short months. In 1998, Transport Canada downloaded all airports, or many airports, in provinces right across the country. One in particular was Stephenville; they transferred to a non-profit group called the Stephenville Airport Corporation. Since that time - when the hon. minister was the minister herself, they did not provide any core funding for Stephenville Airport.

Now, with respect to the question you have asked: Government, both federally and provincially, through ACOA, the Labour Management Development Agreement, and through the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Renewal, have provided assistance. One, we provided the money to fund the plan that she has talked about. Secondly, through the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, we entered into a creative 50-50 under the Multi-Year Capital Works Program so that the Town of Stephenville could purchase land from the corporation to put money into the corporation. We are not in the airport business. That is the federal government's responsibility.

The fact with respect to the questions she has asked -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister if he could complete his answer quickly.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair says it is a history lesson. It is one that you all need, worth reminding, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: that the study, while it is not ours to release, it belongs to the Stephenville Airport Corporation. That is theirs, but I refer back to The Georgian because somebody from there leaked it several months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic how the hon. member can be so defensive and say nothing in terms of the future of the Stephenville Airport and what this government is going to doing, not what past governments did.

Mr. Speaker, rural airports are vital to the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, this government never did have a plan for rural Newfoundland and still does not have one.

Last week, the airport could not refuel planes. Several military aircraft were parked at the facility for three days because they could not refuel. What is this government going to do to ensure that vital rural airports continue to operate because they are so vital to the future success of rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to do what the former government failed to do, and that is, we are going to continue to hold the federal government accountable. The minister from the region, the member who sits directly to my right and just behind me, is meeting with the federal representatives on Monday. We are going to continue to work with the town to try to find a solution. We will continue to try to help where we can in terms of marketing, but the fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: Even in your own second sober thought, and privately, you know that this government - and when you were the government - are not in the airport business, but we will do whatever we can, wherever we can, to provide help for Stephenville and, as a matter of face, Mr. Speaker, any other rural community that needs our assistance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it sure sounds like they are prepared to see another major employer in rural Newfoundland and Labrador close its doors.

We understand as well that other airports, including Gander, are facing similar financial pressures. Has the minister actually funded studies concerning the possible divestiture of the Wabush and St. Anthony airports to local authorities? Are they giving up on local airports all together, and are they going to allow them to go the same route as Stephenville?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will make two points.

First of all, had she been successful in her federal bid, she might have been able to ask that question in the place that it belongs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the Opposition should be in the business because they are flying by the seat of their pants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked. The minister is attempting to make a response. I ask all members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister.

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: A year ago, the then Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if they want to ask a question they can ask it. It is pretty clear they do not want to hear the answer when the truth cuts so close to the bone. That is what I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Education.

Minister, the community of Hopedale was saddened when a fire destroyed parts of their school and caused smoke and water damage to the many classrooms in early September. Your government, under the previous Minister of Education, the Member for St. John's West - (inaudible) last week, students returned to the portion of the school that was repaired. For that, Minister, we are grateful.

My question to you today is: Will you confirm today in this House that the remaining part of the school, including the gymnasium that was damaged beyond repair, will be rebuilt to its original size and shape this coming construction season?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, for a very short response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for that question and the short answer is, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Revise Various Acts of the Province with Respect to Certain Functions of Justices of the Peace." (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991." ( Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act." ( Bill 47)

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act." ( Bill 48)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to questions for which notice has been given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a group of people in this Province concerning the use of VLTs. The petition states, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS there is one VLT for every 155 adults, the highest ratio of any province; and

WHEREAS it is estimated that at least 5 per cent of those who gamble face an addiction which has led to not only cost to society, but tragic consequences in the lives of those affected;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to increase funding for problem gambling, strictly enforce the existing VLT regulations, at least remove VLTs from areas frequented by individuals under age nineteen, and that government hold a province-wide referendum of banning VLTs in conjunction with the 2005 municipal election.

Mr. Speaker, I think the best way that I can respond to this petition - I would like for all members to pay attention to a letter that I want to read in presenting this petition. I read a letter that I want all members to hear.

You were once my friend, allowing me to escape into your world with a small price, or so I thought -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Labrador West. I ask members for their cooperation.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"You were once my friend allowing me to escape into your world with only a small price to pay (or so I thought).

Your lights, music, flashing screens made me retreat into my fantasy world away from reality, time and friends.

For a long time you filled an emptiness inside me, and did not ask for much besides money. You let me sit for hours, never questioning, always with a promise of maybe the next spin.

I stayed and played on your empty promises and lost not only money but my soul. I lost me sometimes while being mesmerized by your offer of more.

I sold my soul to play your game, you never judged, every ready to accept my money. I always knew that you would be there when I was stressed, hurt, frustrated or just plain lonely. I came looking for love, acceptance and that and must more was taken from me.

I lost my self-respect. I lost my trust in me. I lost my dignity. I no longer trusted my feelings. I just became numb, oblivious to the hurt I was causing my family and myself.

If you would only let me out of your clutches and allow me to reclaim back my life, without constantly fighting to stay out of your grasp. Your grip is unbelievably strong, still trying to tempt me back into this insidious illness. I want to beat you, yet I know you will patiently wait for me to fail so that I will run back to you. Isn't this what I have done for years.

I have to let you go, you have hurt me more than anything or anyone in my life. You made me reach depths I thought were impossible. You, with my assistance, turned me into a liar, thief and a con.

I never thought I would be 30 years old going to court for fraud and writing bad cheques."

Mr. Speaker, that says it much more strongly than I could do, and I want to let all members know this letter was written by Susan Jane Piercey shortly before she took her own life as a result of being addicted to VLT machines.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution calls for many things. I think it is important that we, as Members of this House of Assembly, and people in the Province understand the misery that is caused by VLT machines. That misery -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has been granted leave.

MR. COLLINS: That misery, Mr. Speaker, is well documented by shows such as The Fifth Estate, special presentations by NTV, CBC, radio programs, newspapers and all others. VLTs are more addictive than any other type of gambling we know of in this Province. It has been referred to as the crack cocaine of gambling. I do not believe that we need these machines in our Province. We managed to run things, as a government, prior to these machines coming into place and we can do so again, because the hundreds of millions of dollars that is spent into these machines would not be kept under someone's mattress. They would go back into our economy for more meaningful reasons than is being spent for right now.

I would like to also, Mr. Speaker, before I clue up, commend Mr. Nick McGrath of Labrador West who decided, by his own initiative, to remove these VLTs from his establishment. I think it is the first time, that I am aware of, that somebody has actually taken them out of their establishment voluntarily. I think he is to be commended for that. I think we have to draw the line and not identify VLTs with bingo, other forms of gambling for recreation or 649s because nobody in this room has ever seen the destruction caused by these VLTs by any other forms of entertainment in our Province today. It is time that this government made a commitment to hold a referendum during the next municipal election, place this on the ballot so that the people of our Province can decide what type of society we want for our people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition with regard to health care and to give my hon. colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, a break today from my transportation petitions.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read the petition into the record:

WHEREAS the provincial government made the decision to reduce the number of health care boards in the Province from fourteen to four; and

WHEREAS Labrador and the Northern Peninsula will be part of one board; and

WHEREAS the Grenfell Regional Health Board and the Labrador Health Board will be amalgamated to form one Health Care Corporation; and

WHEREAS this new Corporation will have an accumulated debt of almost $14 million; and

WHEREAS the Corporation will be serving one of the most rural and northern regions of our Province; and

WHEREAS these services are already stretched to the limit on a marginal budget;

WHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the petitioners request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador pay down the accumulated debt and allow this corporation to move forward, not backward, with health care delivery in this region.

Mr. Speaker, this petition, of course, is driven out of sheer concern and anxiety over the transformation that is occurring in the health care sector in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Recently I had the opportunity to meet with employees of both Health Labrador and the Grenfell Regional Health Board, as well as management with those board areas, as well as board of director members. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that there is a great deal of anxiety in this particular region, not just by staff and by board members but also by the people who are receiving health care through this new corporation, as to the level of care that they will continue to receive.

Mr. Speaker, we all realize that these boards operating in the North, in the past have had a great deal of difficulty when it came to the service delivery and program delivery, especially with delivering community health programs. They have had significant challenges with regard to transportation as most of it is done by air and it can be very expensive for these corporations to provide the services using that mode of transportation.

Yesterday, I understand, the minister appointed four new Chairs for these four boards across the Province, and I congratulate all four of them on their appointments. Mr. Speaker, their task will not be an easy one, as there will be insurmountable challenges to try to provide health care services in the Province under such fiscal restraint.

The petition is appealing to the minister and to the government to strongly consider the debt that is accumulated in this particular board area in the North, to look at providing some assistance to help pay down this debt so that they can start off on a new page, a new chapter, with delivery of health care in this particular region.

Mr. Speaker, people are very concerned because a lot of this region is made up, all of the North Coast with small clinics, and of the South Coast with small clinics, a number of regional hospitals around the Northen Peninsula, along with a hospital in Labrador West, one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and one in St. Anthony.

Mr. Speaker, people are afraid that they are going to lose the services that they are presently getting under this system because if the board is asked to come up with $14 million -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Government House Leader for his gracious time of three more minutes to clue up my petition.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Thank you.

The Minister of Transportation and Works has gladly granted me leave today, Mr. Speaker, to clue up my petition on a very serious matter no doubt.

Mr. Speaker, it will be quite difficult, as I was saying, for this board to be able to pay down a debt this size and continue to operate the services and the programs that they are now providing in this northern region. The appeal is to the minister to strongly take this under advisement, to work with the new chair - I am sure that he will - that he has just appointed in that area and whoever the new CEO and board members will be to try and address this deficit on behalf of the people in this region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the children in Labrador. Today I present the petition on behalf of the students of Mary's Harbour. It is their request for an auditorium.

Mr. Speaker, today in the House I raised a question with the Minister of Education on rebuilding the school in Hopedale with a gymnasium. The answer was yes. Some people laughed because they thought he was a fast dancer. Imagine today, the children in Hopedale knowing that their gymnasium is going to be restored to what it was.

If I could, Mr. Speaker, part of my petition is to say to the hon. minister, and people across the way, what that gymnasium meant to the Community of Hopedale. During Newfoundland and Labrador's Winter Games we saw a volleyball team from Hopedale that became famous and known as the Mighty Mites.

Mr. Speaker, we are very glad of the response from the minister. I hope that the minister, along with the Minister of Tourism, the Minister for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, two ministers who carry the portfolio for Labrador, that they will certainly talk to their colleagues on the importance of what the auditorium means to the children in Labrador.

My daughter, who is teaching school for the first year, had the opportunity today - I guess it is a bit ironic that I said it was Mary's Harbour because her first teaching position is in Mary's Harbour. She was selected, as a teacher, to take a group of students to travel to the Labrador Creative Arts Festival in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this government and the ministers responsible again, to give the children in Labrador their auditorium. As I mentioned yesterday, talks of the Labrador Creative Arts Festival not continuing next year, I think, would be a shame.

I call upon this government of today to make the announcement to the children in Labrador now before the House closes this session to give the people in Labrador, the children, what they rightfully deserve. I am sure we will thank each member in Cabinet and those who sit on the other side and encourage them to make that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the former Minister of Education believed in the children in Hopedale, he gave me his full commitment that they would restore the school, but, I guess, the way this government changes their minds from time to time, I was obliged to ask the present minister the same question. I am certainly happy with his response. As I mentioned before, I am sure the children in Hopedale are.

Mr. Speaker, again, I call upon the Premier, I call upon the Cabinet ministers, who sit at the Cabinet table, to make this decision. As the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, I was glad to convince my Cabinet, that I was a part of, to give them the money. Mr. Speaker, I ask this government and this Cabinet to do the right thing, with Christmas around the corner, and give the children in Labrador their auditorium and to announce the funds before Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that until we get the answer from this government, I will be on my feet everyday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. ANDERSEN: - and I look forward to standing again on Monday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time to present a rather large petition on a very important matter. This petition has some 7,000 names on it that were collected over a period of three months by an organization called the Advocates for Fair Auto Insurance.

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners come from some 200 different communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it concerns the issue of public automobile insurance.

First of all, let me congratulate Victoria Harnum, who is the chief spokesperson for the Advocates for Fair Auto Insurance, who has been vigorously promoting this issue for quite some time, a year or two. This petition, the official one, calls upon the House of Assembly, but the one that was collected refers to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador but the official petition calls upon:

The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to direct the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to request an impartial third party committee be set up to look at the feasibility of a public auto insurance system for our Province that would be similar to the BC Public Auto insurance system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is very similar to the proposal that we had made as a Party here last year, last spring rather, that there be an all-party select committee of this House to look into the type of public automobile insurance system that would work for Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have seen in the last year the significance of this issue amongst consumers in this Province, the extremely high costs of insurance. The tinkering, I guess, with the system that this government and others in the Atlantic provinces have done, which have not really changed the water on the beans for consumers of automobile insurance. The insurance rates still went up despite the freeze, and the freeze expires in March and we have already got the insurers gone to the Public Utilities Board looking for more money.

What we also see, Mr. Speaker, is that when we called upon the government to do this last spring they said: No, no, no, we don't need to that. The Public Utilities Board is going to study that. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not going to happen. The Public Utilities Board will start hearings in January but they will not be looking into the feasibility or the kind of public automobile insurance system that could work for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there are four reasons why a public automobile insurance system would be cheaper and better for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Cheaper for four reasons, Mr. Speaker. Number one, there is no profit. The profit on the premium dollar is in excess of 10 per cent per year. In fact, the insurance industry is doing very well, thank you very much. Recent reports of the first nine months of 2004 they made $2.1 billion -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: May I have a moment, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have time to continue?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: They have just announced $1.2 billion in the first nine months, which is equal to what they made last year. (Inaudible) heading for a 25 per cent increase. So, there is no profit in a public system. There is less overhead; perhaps 10 per cent-plus less overhead. There are fewer uninsured drivers. In B.C. there is less than 1 per cent. In this Province and the rest of Canada, between 10 per cent and 15 per cent uninsured drivers who do not pay any premiums and yet cost the system money. Number four, there is a public investment in safety by the public system that accrues to the benefit of all people who are insured because there are fewer accidents and therefore fewer costs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue to all consumers. We think, along with the petitioners, that this should be studied by this Legislature, as was done by the Legislature of New Brunswick. It is time that we took this issue seriously. As can be seen by this petition from over 200 committees in the Province, this is something the public is very interested in and wants to see happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Have you called Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker?

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: As soon as you stand, Sir, we will call Orders of the Day.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Seeing that we are on Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994. (Bill 35)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994." (Bill 35)

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak for a few moments this afternoon on Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994, an act to regulate the practice of pharmacy in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to recognize the fact that this act is a result of a lot of effort by individuals, not only within the department itself but certainly within the profession as well, Mr. Speaker. I have met with a number of the pharmacists and those individuals engaged with the profession, and it was easy to learn that a lot of preparation, a lot of engagement, a lot of contribution, was made by the profession and its membership in terms of the preparation of the legislation that we have before us this afternoon.

What these amendments will do, essentially, Mr. Speaker, they will do several things. Number one, it will incorporate new disciplinary procedures and governance structures with respect to the profession. It will remove the current advocacy function of the Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association and delegate that particular role to the Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it will allow the delegation of tasks to pharmacy technicians, and protect pharmacists from liability when they release certain information to the department for the purpose of administration of the Prescription Drug Program as funded by government.

Mr. Speaker, the changes to the disciplinary procedures and governance structures are part of an ongoing process to provide for uniform disciplinary procedures and criteria for lay representation across all professions with self-regulating status. These changes reflect an intent to ensure that self-regulatory bodies operate in a very open and transparent manner, and that the disciplinary process eliminates professional or personal bias and, in general, to enhance and improve the public protection mandate of the regulatory body.

All provinces that regulate the practice of pharmacy and discipline procedures are, in and of themselves, the central tenet of regulation.

Mr. Speaker, for the past couple of years pharmacists and the Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association have been lobbying government to amend the act. As I indicated, their involvement led, in a very special way, an important way, to the legislation that we have before us. In their lobbying, they wish to separate the professional advocacy function from that of a professional regulatory body. Removing the advocacy function from the Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association and delegating the role to the Pharmacists Association of Newfoundland and Labrador will, Mr. Speaker, eliminate the current conflict that exists between professional advocacy and public protection, the latter being the prime rationale for regulating occupations generally.

Allowing the delegation of tasks, such as doing an inventory of pharmacy supplies or entering data in the computer database, to pharmacy technicians will legitimize the use of technical support staff and provide for more efficient and effective use of pharmacists within the Province. The Association has requested that the practice be regulated under its governing statute by granting authority to pass regulations in that particular area.

The Association, and the Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, had expressed concern that providing personal information for the purposes of administering the act, and in sending copies of documentation, could place their membership at risk.

I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a mediated wording with respect to a particular section of the legislation that gives some comfort, it seems to me, to the profession and its members with respect to the forwarding and transmitting of documentation to the department.

All jurisdictions in Canada are in the process of reviewing and amending their legislation, policies and guidelines, as a result of growing concerns regarding the protection of personal information. Statutory clauses allowing the release of health information in prescribed instances and protecting individuals who release the information from liability, from civil liability, are widely used to ensure that personal information is only released by appropriate persons and for the appropriate reason.

In all jurisdictions a practice has evolved whereby pharmacists rely upon the assistance of non-professionals in the field of pharmacy to preform non-clinical duties. These amendments will enable the licensing body to establish standards to regulate this practice, and thereby ensure public protection.

Public safety is also a central concern of government and, of course, the Association and the Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. Pharmacists dispense millions and millions of dollars worth or prescription drugs each and every year. In the name of public safety, we have an obligation to monitor the use of prescription drugs in our Province.

Therefore, I guess, in one sense, this legislation and the administration of this act becomes an exercise in balance. We must facilitate a process whereby we can effectively monitor prescription drugs without compromising public safety, confidentiality, and causing excessive burdens for members of the profession.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Bill 35 accomplishes much of what was being requested by the profession. It seems to me that we have a meeting of the minds with respect to the requirements of government, the standards, of course, that have to be put in place, and also meets, in a very meaningful way, the professional concerns that have been brought forward by the pharmacists in general.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have very important and significant legislation here. Again, I think it is important to repeat what I had said earlier, that it is very much strongly supported by the profession, and I look forward to any further debate that may take place with respect to Bill 35.

I understand, I believe, the hon. the Opposition House Leader may have a few words. I understand that we may have a further member or two from the government side who may wish to address this issue as well.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to just make a couple of very brief comments with regard to Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act. I guess this was a reform that we started when we were in government. It was being lobbied for at that time by pharmacists in the Province, and we certainly started to move forward with that initiative and a great deal of the research and groundwork was done. I want to commend the minister today for finally bringing it forward to be legislated through the House of Assembly.

I will not go into any long comments, but just to say that one of the key pieces to this, I guess, is with regard to the licensing board itself, and that was certainly a piece that was recommended by the pharmacists in the Province, and the Association. They certainly have seen it as a way that they could have a lot more accountability, a lot more openness and transparency, within their own organization - and the accountability piece in particular. I guess, like all occupations, pharmacists are prone to have a certain amount of self-policing within their own establishments and of their own work as well, the same as we see with regard to accountants or lawyers or anyone else in the business. I guess the discipline board piece of it is an added precaution for them, as they do their work and carry out their work in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

While this is very much a regulatory piece of legislation, and looks directly at regulations and licensing and so on, I guess it is also an opportunity to ask ourselves: Is there enough being done with regard to the access to prescription drugs within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Over the last twelve months there have been a number of issues in the media with regard to the access to prescription drugs, the doubling up of prescriptions, and so on and so forth. I guess with the issues around OxyContin being available in the Province and so on, it has raised a lot of those questions. Is there a way that we can work through the pharmaceutical program and through the pharmacists in the Province to look at how we can reduce the access to some of these prescription drugs, and how we can streamline that particular process to ensure that these things do not continue to happen into the future?

I am sure these are all things that the minister, in his capacity - and he is just new in that capacity - will be looking at over the next few months, and I would certainly encourage him to do that, because I think it is a very vital and valuable component that needs to be put in place, and those particular stop-gap measures need to be put in place to ensure that we do not have the excessive access to prescription drugs, and that pharmacists know right across the Province what is being issued so that we do not have those particular conflicts.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objections to Bill 35. As I said, it is a piece of work that we started to do when we were in government, working with pharmacists in the Province. I know that it is something they have been wanting for some time. I commend the minister again today for bringing it forward, and I look forward to seeing this particular act in place in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a few minutes at second reading of Bill 35, An Act to Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, and I want to say first of all that I agree with the purposes and the philosophy behind the act, in that what this act seeks to do is what has been done with a number of professions: to separate out, let's say, the professional-promotional aspects of an association with the licensing and discipline side of things.

We see that, for example, in the nursing profession, where we have the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the licensing and professional body that looks after professional management licensing discipline, and we see the Nurses' Union acting in the interests of nurses. In the legal profession, for example, we see the Law Society on the one hand, which is the professional association which looks after discipline, and then the Canadian Bar Association acting in another way to promote legal matters and legal issues as well as the interests of lawyers.

We see in the medical profession, we have the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, and in addition to that we have a Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Board. The Medical Board looks after the licensing of physicians, looking after disciplinary matters and that sort of thing.

What we are doing here, and what the government is proposing here, is that the Pharmaceutical Association Act be amended to provide that, in addition to the professional association, there would be a board, a pharmaceutical licensing board, that the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board would be a corporation continued under Section 5 of this Act to allow the licensing board and the Pharmacy Association to be two separate organizations. In fact, this establishes the Pharmacists Association of Newfoundland and Labrador as a separate corporation with the objective of promoting and advancing pharmacy and related disciplines, promoting liaison amongst the various branches of pharmacy, and negotiating with providers of prescription drug payment programs. In other words, they can act as the advocacy group on behalf of pharmacists in dealing with government, in dealing with drug companies, in dealing with agencies, and ensure that they are part of that. At the same time, the issue of licensing, professional standards dealing with complaints, is left to a licensing board.

I think it is important that we see that happen in the pharmacy profession. We do know the increasing importance of prescription drugs, and not only prescription drugs but the non-prescription drugs that pharmacists are continuously giving advise to people about. If somebody goes to a pharmacy, they don't necessarily just go with a prescription and say, here, can you give me a refill of my prescription. They might to go a pharmacist and say, look, I have a cold or I have this, and pharmacists give out a tremendous amount of advise to people as part of their profession, what the side effects are of certain types of medications, even something as simple as a dandruff medication or something like that: Well, this one works or this one doesn't work, this one works better, or I noticed that some people have trouble with that one because of certain additives, any number of bits of information that are passed out by pharmacists. A lot of people seek to relieve their symptoms by going to a drug store instead of waiting to see a doctor or travelling, in some cases, to see a doctor. The pharmacies are there to offer that kind of advise.

They play a very important role in our society, as professionals, and people rely on them. That is the reason why we expect them, as professionals, to adhere to certain ethical standards and professional standards. We will now have, through the licensing board, a body that will look after that, so that if people have a problem with certain practices of a particular pharmacist or a pharmacy the complaints can be made, that there will be a method of dealing with those, the same way if somebody has a complaint against a lawyer or a doctor or another professional in their professional capacity.

I am fully supportive of the change here and certainly from a second reading perspective, approve it in principle. I have no problem with the bill. All the details of it, because this is a bill that has only been printed in the last forty-eight hours. I have not read every single section of it but it appears to be patterned after the same kind of discipline that we see in the other professional associations with a complaint authorization procedure, a disciplinary panel, authorities being given to the board to do that. I think that part of the act appears to be consistent with the other professional activities.

I do have one problem that I just raised with the Minister of Health and the Government House Leader. Maybe we can get some more information on that and have further discussion on it before this act is passed into law. I have a little difficulty with the implications of section 34.1 of the act, found in clause 29. It repeals an existing section of the act and replaces it with the following - and I have not had a chance to look at the previous section, but this one here says, "Upon the request of an employee or agent of the department authorized by the minister a pharmacist shall provide the information that the employee or agent requests with respect to prescription drugs prescribed to a resident of the province and received by that resident with the assistance of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program administered by the department."

Section 34.1(2) says, "The information requested under subsection (1) may include (a) prescriptions, patient records, notes and other documents held by that pharmacists; and (b) photocopies of the information referred to in paragraph (a)."

Section 31.1(3) says, "An action for damages does not lie against a pharmacist or a pharmacy solely because the pharmacist provides the information requested of him or her under subsection (1)" and that (4) "A pharmacist is not guilty of professional misconduct solely because that pharmacist provided information requested of him or her under subsection (1)."

Why would we need those extra protections at the end, Mr. Speaker? Why would we say a pharmacist is not guilty of professional misconduct solely because he provided that information? The reason you have to say that, Mr. Speaker, is because if you did not say it they might otherwise be guilty of professional misconduct by making that information available to someone else.

MR. E. BYRNE: What was the law before?

MR. HARRIS: I do not know what the law was before. Maybe the law before was something we did not like either.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps we can get into this discussion during Committee of the Whole, but the Government House Leader says: What about the law profession? Well, we are not talking about regulating the profession here. We are talking about the government running a prescription drug program. In other words, if you have a drug card and you go to a pharmacist and you get a drug prescription, these are the only people who are affected by that.

What they are saying here is if the government is paying for your drugs the pharmacist has to pass over all kinds of information to the department because the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program is the one that we are talking about here, whether it is senior citizens or whether it is people on social assistance or qualify by reason of income for a drug card. That is what we are talking about here and I am presuming, without any full information here, that the whole purpose of this is to somehow monitor the operations of the prescription drug program by the Department of Health because they are paying the bill. The reason for raising this at this point is that I think this is something that we need to be very careful about, because the kind of information that we are talking about here, patient records, prescriptions, notes and other documents held that the prescription drug program -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I am reluctant to stand on a point of order and interrupt because we are really into a specific clause by clause debate and this is second reading.

I want to make a suggestion because I am not convinced that what the member - actually I am sure of it - is referring to and the implications of it are absolutely correct. I know my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, has an arrangement made with some of the stuff outside so we can have a look at it. So, if we can, Mr. Speaker, if it is okay by consent of the House, once we get into the committee stage we can get into the detailed discussion in a clause by clause section which is normally and solely reserved for the committee stage of the bill.

Again, I am reluctant to interrupt. I apologize to the member for doing so. I do not want my interruption or the time that it has taken to come out of his time and I certainly will make any allowance to allow him to have whatever maximum time he wants. I just wanted to make that clarification because for anybody who may be watching, they may be getting a sense that government is doing something that may be intrusive. That is not the case. I would not want anything untoward or out there that is not true to start to take shape or to get some wind under its sails that is not necessarily true.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are into second reading of Bill 35 and second reading is a general discussion on the bill itself and the spirit of the bill. Once we get into the committee stage of Bill 35 there will be an opportunity then for each member to ask questions on specific articles of that bill and maybe that is the right time for this discussion to take place.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The tradition in this House has always been to allow discussion of a bill at second reading, the general principles of the bill or any clause of the bill. I do not know if you are ruling me out of order or not. If you are, then I will have to accept your ruling, but the tradition of this House has always been that at second reading you can talk in broad general terms or you can talk about specific sections of the act. It has always been that way. I do not really think it was a serious point of order but rather to try and interject and suggest that we can discuss it in more detail; and I would be very happy to do that, I want to say to the Government House Leader. I was merely flagging this.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Chair did not make himself clear, there was no point of order. If I failed to say that, then I say it now to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: An excellent ruling, Mr. Speaker. I totally agree.

I recognize, however, that what the minister was suggesting is correct, that we should not necessarily get into a big harangue about this clause before we have a chance to discuss it in detail. I am merely flagging it, as many members do, when they are dealing with second reading of the bill.

I said quite clearly from the beginning that we are talking about the principles of the legislation, and I have no difficulty with the principles of the legislation, the fact that we are setting up a licensing board that people can complain to if they have a problem with a particular pharmacy practice. We are setting up standards to be adhered to. We are recognizing that a pharmacist is to be a self-governing professional along the same lines as lawyers and doctors and engineers and accountants, that we have had a number of bills passed in this House giving professionals that kind of responsibility to the public because they are in a professional capacity.

What I was doing, and I will continue to do until I am satisfied that this is not overly intrusive, was to flag this issue as one that I am particularly concerned about, because we are dealing with pharmacists who have access to intimate information about people's lives and habits, and details of their medical condition. I do not know if I need to give examples, Mr. Speaker, but there is a drug called Antibuse. Antibuse is a drug that is prescribed for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) off the market.

MR. HARRIS: It may be off the market. I am not a pharmacist. There are probably other ones that are prescribed for people who are alcoholics, so that is how much I know about it, but there are drugs that are prescribed that flag a particular illness. So, if a particular individual is going to a pharmacist and getting a particular drug, anybody who has a knowledge of either pharmacy or the medical profession, or read something in a book, or access to the Internet can, in fact, figure out that there is somebody who has a particular problem, and that is personal, private information; personal, private information. Pharmacists have an ethical and moral duty to keep that information private, just as doctors do when someone goes to a doctor and tells him about a particular problem. That professional responsibility is there, because it is that professional responsibility and professional situation that allows people to talk in confidence about personal, intimidate things, or go to a lawyer and talk about a legal problem.

What I am flagging here is what appears to be a provision that allows some government employee or agent of the department, authorized by the minister - I presume it is the Minister of Health - can go to a pharmacist and say: I want to see your records on Patient X.

What I am saying is that I am flagging this as a potential concern from a protection of privacy point of view. From a protection of privacy point of view, is there a level of protection that is required by these circumstance where we have access to personal private information? Not about the cost of drugs, not about the expenses incurred by the Department of Health, but about patient records, prescriptions, notes and other documents that the pharmacist might hold about an individual.

I have a concern, and we will see whether or not that concern can be satisfied, but it is something that I want to raise. We had a big debate in the previous session of the House when the government members were over here and members opposite were over there, and the current Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs and I both intervened on the creation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information, as to how that was being structured, what was being done to ensure that the health information was kept properly, set up properly. As a result of the interventions of the hon. Member for Lewisporte, who is now the Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs, and myself, as a result of that, the structure was changed, revised, presented and done in a very different way.

This is the same kind of concern that is being flagged here, and I look forward to an opportunity to discuss this issue a little further with the minister's officials, if that is okay. If we move on to Committee stage here today and discuss that and pass it, then so be it.

I raise it because I want people to know, first of all, that this is here and we should know about it, but I also want people to know that members of this House have an obligation and a duty to be vigilant about issues of privacy, and a duty to bring up, to question, items in legislation that could give rise to concerns, because that is our role. That is what we were elected for, and whether we are in Opposition or in government, in the back bench or the front bench, it is all of our roles to ensure that the legislation that we pass is the best legislation that can be done. If we can ensure that is the case and still achieve the proper objectives of government, then that is the role that we play.

Having said that Mr. Speaker, I support the bill at second reading. I think it is a positive step forward for the pharmacy profession in Newfoundland and Labrador, because we do have a lot of issues that involve pharmacists, whether they be drugs that are now out of circulation or drugs such as OxyContin, that have become a significant problem in the last year-and-a-half in our communities, having given rise to serious social problems, health problems, criminal justice problems and addiction problems that have exploded in the last eighteen to twenty months in a very surprising way. These drugs are legal prescription drugs that somehow are finding their way into the street market and into the hands of individuals not only in this Province but in many other provinces of Canada.

Pharmacists and the pharmacy association have a role to play in trying to make our streets safer, and our communities safer, and our people safer, when powerful drugs such as that can so quickly become drugs in our society that people are buying and selling, getting high on, dying from. We have had deaths in this Province from OxyContin. We really do need to have pharmacists - who themselves, I am sure, are very concerned about this, but they need to be empowered with the kind of ethical guidelines and expectations that can help them to deal with it; or, if there are individuals who are not dealing with this properly, can be held to account and can expect to be disciplined by a proper licensing authority.

I think this bill, in that way, is timely. I hope that we can resolve whatever issues may arise out of the query raised by me about the protection of the privacy of individuals who make use of pharmacy services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now, he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Firstly, I would like to thank the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their input into this debate. I appreciate the overall general support for Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994.

If I may make a suggestion to the hon. member, if he has five or ten minutes now, I have arranged some officials outside the House. If he were to have five or ten minutes now on the issue, and it is an important issue, I say to the hon. member, that he has raised. If he is in a position to have a few minutes now I would be happy to meet with him and a couple of representatives to address the very issue that he has concerns with and hopefully there may be some answers to the important points that he raised during second reading.

I say to the hon. member, if he does have a few minutes I would be happy to join him now momentarily. I understand from the Government House Leader we are moving on to another piece of legislation and that may give us time, hopefully, to come to some understanding with respect to section 34. We will just - as the saying goes - take it as it comes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their contribution to this debate and I look forward to the next proceedings of this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Order 7, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Government House Leader and before I call that bill, we may as well finish off the second reading of Bill 35.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend the Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Associations Act, 1994," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 35)

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

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

You are like Panasonic, you are slightly ahead of your time, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, Order 7, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act. (Bill 42)

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to rise today in my place with regard to, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act, Bill 42.

Certainly, this is a bill bringing forth amendments that will increase the student representation on the Board of Regents of Memorial University and its Senate. As well, it will enhance student representation on the College of the North Atlantic's Board of Governors. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is indeed a pleasure on my part to be able to stand and comply with requests that have come in from the students of this Province, the post-secondary students and these two institutions, to give them, what I would consider a stronger voice in the governance of these two institutions.

With regard, first of all, to the Memorial University Act. On that particular act, currently there is provision for - the number of Board of Regents student appointments stands at two. With the moving forward of this Bill 42 and its enactment, we will increase that membership on the Board of Regents from two students to four students. Certainly, a 100 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker. The part as well with regard to the Senate of that institution, we will be adding one more

student.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is yet another example of a commitment that this government made to the students that we are following through with and bringing forward in a timely fashion. This is an opportunity to fulfill that commitment and I am delighted that the first bill, for me, as the Minister of Education, is directly towards the post-secondary students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: With regard to the two representatives for the Board of Regents, we also find that the students took these appointments and made sure that they would be allocated in a democratic fashion. Looking at post-secondary, with regard to Memorial University, the first thing is that we certainly concurred with the students to make sure that all aspects of that university were represented. Now, when this bill is to go forward, we will have one student representative which will be from Memorial Student's Union. There will be one from Memorial Graduate Student's Union. There will be one representative from the Marine Institute Student's Union and one student representative from the Sir Wilfred Grenfell College Student Union.

Mr. Speaker, this certainly looks at the full university, the Marine Institute, Sir Wilfred Grenfell, the main campus at St. John's and also the graduate students in that institution. It is certainly a move forward; a move forward that has been requested and which has been complied with.

In addition to these representatives who are moving forward, I might also add that, in future, that these student appointments will be appointments however, it will depend on the students to select from their various campuses who they want to represent them. It will be a democratic election and a majority vote from these four unions, from which these representative will come from, will move forward. So it is through democracy that we will have our representatives and, again, giving the post-secondary students in this institution the opportunity to elect their own representatives to move forward in a democratic fashion to represent those unions which I just referenced.

Now, over the past several months we have worked with the student leaders in this Province to research student representation across this particular nation. I am delighted to report to the Legislature that what the bill that I am tabling today ensures is that the Province has the same involvement of students in post-secondary decision making as we find anywhere across Canada. Again, pointing to the importance of the voices of students in the governance of the institution of which they are a part.

Again, with regard to Memorial University, we know part of the governance in there is the Senate of Memorial University. We will put another student on that particular board and that will broaden the student involvement with regard to the university.

To the College of the North Atlantic; again, Mr. Speaker, I say to you, a very important institution for this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The programs that are contained within that college, not only within this Province but internationally as we look at Qatar. This institution has clearly demonstrated their ability to meet the needs of the post-secondary students not only here but abroad as well. Currently, students have one seat on this Board of Governors for the College of the North Atlantic. Again, this legislation will allow one more student to be added on so that they would again have double the representation that they had prior to this. As with the University, this representation on the Board of Governors, as with the Board of Regents, gives the students fair representation, gives the students an opportunity to voice their concerns, to have some part in the decision-making process, the governance of these two institutions.

As I have referenced before, these commitments to the students of Newfoundland and Labrador, and others - because we do have, in either one of these institutions, students not only from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we do have them from across this country and indeed internationally in other countries of the world. It was, as I pointed out, a commitment that was made during the last provincial election. The Premier - and I remember the day that he met with the students prior to the election - in his conversation, student representation was put on the table. The Premier immediately responded by indicating that he would clearly like to see more representation with regard to the governance of these two institutions, and made a commitment to the students that he would, if elected - certainly if his party was elected as government - that he would fulfill that commitment.

I stand in this House today to make sure that commitment has been fulfilled, and that we are committed to enhancing student representation in the post-secondary. The legislation that I am tabling today ensures that we keep this commitment, and in fact that we are doubling, in both institutions, the number of student seats on both of our post-secondary boards - a position endorsed by the student groups in this Province.

I am proud, as I pointed out, to stand. I am proud of this legislation. I am proud to enhance the democratic rights of post-secondary students in this Province. They have so much to offer in the decision-making of these institutions, and this legislation ensures that their voice is even stronger today.

I move, Mr. Speaker, that this House pass this legislation in the interest of all post-secondary students in this Province, and I would certainly hope that, in passing it, we do it unanimously; because I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a request that we are fulfilling from the post-secondary students in our Province, and I would hope that there would be no impediment for us to move forward on this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand today and respond to Bill 42, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act, and I must congratulate the new Minister of Education. This is a good news piece of legislation, and I hope that all succeeding pieces of legislation that he brings to this House will be as good as this one today.

I want to say that this is a good move to increase student participation in the Board of Regents and also the Senate. We need student participation and, in fact, while I was the Minister of Post-Secondary Education prior to this new government, we increased student participation on the Board of Regents from one to two, a 100 per cent increase, and I am glad to see that the new government is going to use the same trend and they are going to increase it by 100 per cent today. That is a good move.

Mr. Speaker, I also have to use this opportunity here today to remind the new Minister of Education and the new government of their commitment to students, which they have broken time and time again.

I noticed, when the Minister of Education stood in his place, he repeatedly said that the commitment to students would be shown by this bill here today with the increase in their participation at Memorial University and also the College of the North Atlantic.

Well, I have to refresh his memory, because this is year two for the new government and their word in their bible, the Tory Blue Book, or Blueprint as it is now called, has been broken. If they thought for one minute that they were going to commit to students to do their best, they broke that right off the bat. They did that. They said, a Progressive Conservative government will work with post-secondary institutions to develop provincial funding formulas that, when costs go up, provincial funding will be increased to mitigate the effects on students' ability to pay relative to their family incomes.

What did we witness last spring and throughout the summer? We witnessed a series of broken promises by the new government to students. Are they going to turn a leaf with this act and we are going to see nothing but good things happen in the future? I do hope so, because government right now are engaged in what they call a White Paper review on Post-Secondary Education. It is a review that is going to cost $250,000. What will be the end result of that review? I think that - I not only think, but I know - students are very concerned about that White Paper review.

On November 10, in Grand Falls-Windsor, I was invited to speak to an education forum. At that particular time, it was organized by the student union out there at the College of the North Atlantic. Jessica Magalios also attended; she is the Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students in our Province. Also, the Member for Windsor-Springdale was invited to attend but twenty minutes before start time we had word that he was not going to attend.

Most of the questions there were directed at government. I can tell you that students are very concerned about the outcome of what the White Paper review might be. It is not only students who feel that way. In fact, we had a professor from the Department of Sociology at Memorial University. This was October 25, just a month ago. The letter to the editor was in our local paper, The Advertiser, in Grand Falls-Windsor. It was entitled, "Is White Paper Study masking hidden agenda?" He raised concerns in that letter to the editor that I think students and parents all over the Province are concerned about. It was relating to an interview that was held with the new Minister of Education who just introduced this bill. The minister was quoted in that particular interview as saying, "We have to be open to possible (College of the North Atlantic) campus closures." An announcement by the new minister sounding an alarm that we have to be open to the possibility of College of the North Atlantic campus closures. I relayed that possibility last year when the Budget was announced, and the former Education Minister said: No, that is not even on the radar screen. Well, our new Minister of Education, who is only into the job a few days, October 25th had that out onto the radar screen.

It is nothing short of astounding that the new minister - this is Professor Overton writing this - that the new minister could anticipate possible campus closures as a result of the White Paper process. If a repeat of that is what we can expect the White Paper process to result in, then we have been seriously misled by Minister Ottenheimer in the spring. That possibility is out there.

He was making references to four or five campuses. Now, where would those campuses be? They certainly would not be in St. John's and I doubt very much if they would be in any of the urban centres in our Province. We did hear that they would probably be in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is another strike against rural Newfoundland and Labrador that must be on the minds of all parents out there today and all students.

We also had the President of NAPE who wrote a letter to the editor as well about the White Paper review. He had the same concerns. He said: When the government makes decisions about our public college system, it makes decisions about the future of our people, particularly our rural people. There is a lot a stake here. Let's not jump to hasty conclusions.

I am concerned about that White Paper review and I think anyone out there in education, or anyone who has children, or town and communities, they have the same concerns about the White Paper review. Is that just a mask, it is just ammunition that will give the government the justification they want to go out and make further cuts to the education system in our Province and increase tuition? When you look at the long line of things that have happened since this government came to power - the first thing they did was cut out the new Department of Post-Secondary Education. Does that say they are committed to the students of this Province? Their first piece of legislation in this House was to destroy, cancel, a tax credit for people paying on the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of their student loan. That is the first thing they did when they came to this House, they cancelled that benefit for people paying on their student loans, something that we had introduced the year before.

Then they talked about student participation. They unnecessarily passed an act to include the Newfoundland and Labrador Student Loans right here into our Treasury, part of our general account, our commitment. Then we asked about student involvement and being on that committee to administer the student loans. They said: Oh, no, students are not required to be on that committee. That will all be internal. We do not need student participation at all in handling student loans; even though students are the main ones who benefit and use student loans, but they did not need students then.

The next thing they did, they took $3 million out of summer employment for the students in our Province. Was that important? I think it was. I had students calling me day in and day out looking for work, looking for a job that would normally be there so they could save their money and attend university or the College of the North Atlantic or private colleges in the fall. So, as a result, students did not have any money to put away to attend university or post-secondary education. Where did that money come from for them to get a seat in at the university or college? It had to come out of their parent's wallet or it had to come out of a loan or the student had to go further in debt. Is this the model that this new government wants, harness the students with all the loans they need so that they will be forever paying them out?

Then the next thing they did, they promised they would supply the university and the College of the North Atlantic with enough money to meet their operating expenses. Well, the next thing they did was say: You find me $2 million each, the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University. How did they find that money? They decided they would cut programs and they decided they would cut staff. That balances their budgets. What does it do to students?

As late as lunchtime today I had a call from a student unable to get her particular course. What is the remedy here? Too bad, you will just have to wait and try later. Fill in something else - at more cost to the student. So, is that your commitment to students, Mr. Minister? Then, on top of that, what have you done for students when it comes to providing any new incentives for students? If you can name one thing that you have done for students in the past thirteen months I will get the shock of my life. I will get the shock of my life because I have been monitoring all the activity for post-secondary students in this Province and I can tell you, they are a frightened bunch of people.

When a local student union and Federation of Students group asked me to have an education forum in Grand Falls-Windsor, that indicates to me that they have problems. They are concerned about the direction of this new government. Then, when the government member does not show up to answer these concerns, they are doubly concerned, because they will say: Well, what has government got to hide? What has government got to hide if they are not going to come here, in the midst of students, and answer these questions? Now, it is fine to increase the number of student representation to the Senate, to the Board of Regents, I agree with that. There is nothing to disagree with on this bill, but what are you doing to help students pay off their student loans? What are you doing to reduce tuition? What are you doing to make more programs available to students? Do I have any assurance from the new minister that he wants to renege on the interview he had in October saying that there might be campus closures?

The new minister had just gotten his call from the Premier saying: I want you in my Cabinet as the Minister of Education, K to 12 and post-secondary. It is a big job to do but I think you are up for the challenge. The first thing that the new minister decides to do when interviewed about his portfolio, he said: Well, you know, we can't expect to keep all the campuses of the College of the North Atlantic open. We can't expect to do that. Government is not in the business of -

I want to draw your attention now to the Member for Gander making an inappropriate gesture at me while I am speaking. Now, if you are not interested in the students in your district, you should not be in this House. I am not going to put up with that because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Gander was not even talking or looking at the Member for Grand Falls. He was speaking to his colleague, the Member for Topsail.

So, it is not all about you, I say to the member. If you have to speak to the bill, speak to the bill. The Member for Gander is an hon. member. He would not make any gestures that would offend anyone in this House and any suggestion otherwise is really unbelievable, to be quite frank about it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order. The Chair did not see any gestures being made from one side or the other. I suggest to the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that she contain her thoughts and wisdom to the spirit of the bill.

I recognize, again, the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Government House Leader, I know he does not have eyes in the back of his head.

AN HON. MEMBER: He thinks he does.

MS THISTLE: He thinks he does. I will demonstrate the gesture that was made. He did not want to hear what I was saying, so he said - (member makes a gesture) - like this. He did not want to hear it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: I am going to say it and I am going to say it every day that I am up on my feet. I am going to say the truth of what you are not doing for students in this Province. I am going to look at every one of your members, and if that is the way they feel, they do not want to hear it, well that is another thing because they are going to hear it from me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good for you.

MS THISTLE: Good for me because somebody has to tell the truth in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the new minister in his interview in our paper, The Advertiser - and I have to repeat it again because this White Paper committee was so structured you did not have an opportunity to actually ask the questions that are on everyone's mind about education in this Province. It was so structured you had to follow the setup that was planned for the White Paper, but, really, if you want to hear the problems with education in this Province you speak to the users of the system, and they are the students. You speak to the parents, the ones who are having to pay for education in this Province. What kind of a justification is this new government looking for when they plan their budget in 2005? We already have found out that they are not interested in cutting tuition any further.

MR. WISEMAN: Is that relevant to the bill?

MS THISTLE: Yes, it is relevant to the bill. It is relevant to the bill, the Member for Trinity North.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Anything that has to be said about education is relevant to this bill. You might, on one hand, expand the participation of students on the Board of Regents and the Senate, but you also have to take into account what you have been doing or not doing for students since you became the government. It is my job, as the Opposition critic, to let you know that from time to time, and I will.

AN HON. MEMBER: We appreciate that.

MS THISTLE: You had better appreciate it, because you are going to hear a lot of it. You had better appreciate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think what is very important here is that we are at a crossroads in education in this Province. For a number of years, students had hope in this Province that they would be able, all of them from rural Newfoundland, to come into St. John's or Corner Brook or wherever they chose, and get a good education at a good price with regard to tuition. In fact, we were bragging that we had the lowest tuition rate in Canada, next to Quebec, but this is going to change.

Now, we have seen hints over the past year that this government has no commitment to students and, in fact, that is why they created the White Paper so they could come out with some evidence to justify a decision that they are going to make - and is it campus closures? Why would the new Minister of Education even suggest campus closures? This comes on the heels of trying to revitalize Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was only about a month ago that I saw an ad in my paper in Grand Falls-Windsor and all across this Province from the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Renewal. I don't think Rural Renewal is on that title any more, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No.

Anyway, she was looking for somebody to write an innovation strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador. Can you imagine that? After a year on the job, she was looking for someone to write an innovation strategy. Well, I would suggest -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is far too much shouting and hollering on both sides of the House. I ask that the Member for Grands Falls-Buchans, who has been recognized by the Chair, be heard.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear they do not want to hear what I am saying, because if they did they would listen. The truth hurts.

Anyway, I saw this ad in the paper, how the minister and this government, who has a new Department of Business and a Rural Secretariat, they are going out now with a big glossy ad in the paper looking for someone to write an innovation strategy to revive rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They ought to be ashamed - a year on the job. They came in with their Blue Book, saying that they had a plan for Newfoundland and Labrador - rural Newfoundland and Labrador - and the first thing the new Education Minister said: Well, there could be campus closures.

Now, where are they going to close? Is it going to be in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, or is it going to be in urban Newfoundland and Labrador? That must be a concern to parents out there, and students who are contemplating their future.

We all know, when a major institution like a school or a college campus closes out in one of our communities, the repercussions of that happening. What happens when that takes place? Number one is that students are going to have to pay more for their accommodations, more to be housed somewhere away from their home and their home community, more for transportation, more for long distance, and more for everything. What does that do to the community? A lot of people who could afford to attend a post-secondary institution in their own community cannot do it when it comes to moving outside their home community.

In fact, I am worried about Harbour Breton. A lot of the students that come to Grand Falls-Windsor and fill up our colleges, and first year university, they are from Harbour Breton. They are from Harbour Breton, rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Look at the repercussions of shutting down rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When you talk about Harbour Breton, Grand Falls-Windsor, even Gander, and also Windsor-Springdale and all of those Central Newfoundland districts -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: - they depend heavily on the people from the South Coast and west of Badger, all of those places, in contributing to the economy of a place like Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander, and all around the Central Newfoundland area. These are young people who fill up our colleges in Grand Falls-Windsor, and they are coming from the South Coast. If government is going to let Harbour Breton die, where are those young people going to go? Are they going to leave our Province? Are they going to move to St. John's?

For every action that happens in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, there is a repercussion and a greater action in the urban centres throughout our Province. So, rural Newfoundland and Labrador cannot die. Why the Minister of Innovation and Rural Development is only developing a strategy at this late point in the first year - this is the second year of the new government and they do not have a plan for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They definitely got elected on false pretenses to the people of this Province. They got elected on false pretenses.

I know that the Minister of Education has the well-being of students at heart. He is a former educator and he knows first-hand the cost of attending post-secondary education. I wonder, how much was he briefed on what he was going to have to do as the new minister, if he was able to blurt that out in his first interview? He was probably briefed more than the former Minister of Health, which I will deal with another day. I will deal with that issue another day, but I can tell you that the new Minister of Education must have been briefed by the Premier of what the government's direction was going to be in the future in order for him to say that there were probably going to be campus closures, without every sitting to his desk in the House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $800 million deficit.

MS THISTLE: I hear that the Member for Mount Pearl is saying: What about the $800 million deficit? I would say: What about the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

You know, we have been accused in the past of chalking up a big deficit. When I look at where that deficit came from, it came from health - like the school that my colleague who sits right next to me, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, last night had the pleasure of opening up a new school on New World Island. Now, you did not want that deficit. You did not want that to be part of a deficit, did you? I had the pleasure of opening up a $3 million school in Buchans. If you had your way, Member for Mount Pearl, you would not do that, would you? You wouldn't increase the health care budget, would you, from $900 million to $1.5 billion? You would not do that, because you don't see the pain and anguish of people trying to get in here to the hospital. Look what I have to look at in Grand Falls-Windsor, a cancer clinic that was cancelled.

You are going to get up and leave now because you can't listen to this.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not allowed to say that.

MS THISTLE: I didn't name the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did so.

AN HON. MEMBER: She never.

MS THISTLE: I did not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody knows Dave is leaving.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: What I am saying is that, yes, we have a deficit, yes, I agree we do, but I can tell you something, when somebody is faced with having to have surgery and you have no money to pay for it you will find the money supposing you have a deficit. You will have a deficit.

I can tell you one thing, when the plans were cancelled in Grand Falls-Windsor to go ahead with our cancer clinic, that was the most heart wrenching decision I have had to face, I think, in my political career. To think that our Premier never had the time to go and visit our cancer clinic. I would like for him to take the time and visit it sometime. Anyway, we will have plenty of time to talk about that. We are on the education bill now.

MS GOUDIE: Cancer treatment is more important than a building.

MS THISTLE: We just heard from the Member for Humber Valley. She says cancer treatment is more important than a building.

MS GOUDIE: When you have to make decisions.

MS THISTLE: Well, yes, cancer treatment is key, but you do have to have a place where you can sit down and deliver the proper treatment. I have not experienced cancer, thankfully, but I have two extended members of my family who have since we last met in this House of Assembly, and I can tell you firsthand that you need surroundings that are pleasant. You need to have the same kind of surroundings as you would have in the bigger places. You know, sometimes you have to make these decisions even if it means extending the deficit to look after health care. It is the number one priority.

There are a lot of questions about this bill today and I want to find out firsthand whether the Minister of Education has a clear commitment to the students of this Province. What he is doing today is a good thing. I hope this will only be the beginning of more legislation that he will bring to this House that will see us agreeing to further cuts to tuition, expansion of programs, better delivery, and more summer employment jobs to our students.

I am going to sit down again right now. I will have lots of opportunity again to speak on this bill, but this is a good first step to the new minister. I just hope that he will continue on in this direction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am interested in some of the things that the member said. So everyone is clear on what we are doing today, she has tagged the bill as a good thing and not a good thing; what the minister is doing for students, and what he is not doing for students. The fact of the matter is that this bill is about a couple of things. It is about living up to a commitment we made during the election to increase the representation on the decision-making institutions within the post-secondary world, the Board of Regents and the Senate of Memorial University. We have increased that. It has been requested for some time, a fairly lengthy amount of time. It came about as a result of a meeting that took place with the former Leader of the Opposition, now Premier - if my memory serves me correctly - and some of the post-secondary leaders of the day in the Province.

This bill - I will leave it to my colleague to clue it up. I have that information for him here in terms of a question that was raised privately about why we are increasing the student representation on the Senate by one. I believe the answer is that we are doing that because if we do so the bill will give the Senate a seat for a Marine Institute student, which is not presently there. It actually ensures that all aspects of student representation in the Marine Institute - there are already two positions from Grenfell which are enshrined, a little more from Memorial. Those decisions are actually done - I remember when I was president of the student union at Memorial - twenty years ago now - that those appointments by the Senate are actually done by the students union themselves, by their own elected representatives, through an interview process, it used to be; I am not sure what it is today.

Just in answer to a quick question that came earlier, the reason why we are increasing the students' Senate from twelve seats - I say to the minister, you can confirm this when you get up - to thirteen is simply because it will provide a seat at the Senate level for a student from the Marine Institute, which does not now exist. It is no more or no less than that.

I want to compliment the minister for bringing forth this bill today. It is something students have been asking for, for some time. I know that it is his first piece of legislation as a minister and I look forward to more positive pieces of legislation to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of words on second reading here on this particular piece of legislation. The Government House Leader is quite correct in his comment that I raised the issue privately, and second reading, of course, is an opportunity to say aye or nay to the general essence of the bill, whether you are for it or against it. There is no question, we are in favour of the bill. It is not a problem here.

The issue I raise is, this bill - it is only short. It has three little clauses. One deals with a change we are going to make to the College of the North Atlantic, the board membership; the second one talks about a change we are going to make to Memorial University Board of Regents membership; and the third one deals with changes we are going to make to the Memorial University Senate membership. The question I asked is, because in the bill it says we are going to increase the membership in the Board of Regents and it specifically says at least some of who those persons will be. It says specifically that it will be a representative, one candidate, from each of the following student unions: the Memorial University of Newfoundland Students' Union, the Graduate Students' Union, Marine Institute Students' Union, and the Grenfell College Students' Union. I am sure the Minister of Justice, who is from Corner Brook, has this interest, the same as I do, being from the West Coast. That is what they say in the case of the Board of Regents change.

In this bill we have here today on the Senate piece, the third clause, we are talking about increasing the Senate membership from twelve to thirteen, and it says we are specifically, of those thirteen persons, going to make room for a position; one of those thirteen must be from the Marine Institute.

I just asked the question: If we are going to make specific places on the Senate available for specific institutions - for example, the Marine Institute - why are we not being consistent with what we are doing in clause 2 where we said it shall be four bodies there, the Students' Union, the Graduate Union, Marine Institute and Grenfell? Why are we not being consistent when we apply that to the Senate? Do not leave it to the discretion of the Senate bylaws or anybody else. We did not leave it to the discretion of the bylaws of the Board of Regents to decide that four of their number had to be from certain places. I just raised the question, for consistency, why would we not make it definite that on the Senate, of the thirteen, there shall be a representative from the Marine Institute? - which you want to do. You want to go down that road of being specific, so let's also be consistent with what we have done on the Board of Regents and say there should be one from the Marine Institute. Yes, we are all in favour of that, but why not be definite as well and say there shall be one from Grenfell, and yes there shall be one from the Graduate Students' Union and the rest from the MUN body? At least we are being consistent in the application of the legislation, and notwithstanding what the Government House Leader says - and he was President of the CSU, and they did operate in that spirit - all I am saying is: If we are here taking the trouble to spell out what the rules shall be, not what the practice is or might become, why don't we just make the simple inclusion now to say, like we are saying here in clause 2 for the Board of Regents, why don't we just say that in clause 3 for the Senate and say: Your membership shall have somebody from your campus out in Grenfell. It shall have somebody from the Marine Institute. It shall have somebody from your grad union, and the rest of them are from your general membership, or at your choice, whatever you wish to do, but at least you have guaranteed someone from the West Coast piece of this, the Grenfell piece, being on the board.

I say to the Government House Leader, it is fine to say that it is practice, it is fine to say it is guaranteed in the bylaws, but if we are here in the House doing this to make the change in the Board of Regents, obviously there is some requirement to do it. So, if we are doing it for the Board of Regents, why can't we here do it for the Senate membership? It is not a tough question. It is not a big hill to climb, and there is nothing wrong, if we are going to do it for the Board of Regents, in being consistent and doing it for the Senate.

Now, maybe it has been done in the House, but I have checked what books we have available this afternoon. I checked the Memorial University Act.

MR. E. BYRNE: Can I answer your question?

MR. PARSONS: The Government House Leader will certainly get an opportunity to respond. I have raised this question privately and I want to now publicly say my commentary on this bill, which is the purpose of second reading.

I think the bill is great. I think the bill is fantastic for student representation. I think it needs to be done. All I am saying is that I think if we are taking the trouble to do it, let's do it right. If we are going to give specific representation on CONA and on MUN Board of Regents and on the MUN Senate, let's go all the way. It is a simple amendment to say that one of the thirteen shall also be from Grenfell. That is not a quantum leap and it is certainly not a quantum leap in logic. It gets rid of any problems or concerns that there might ever be. That is all I have to say about the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 42, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act. This is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I say that as someone who has been involved as a student activist in historic times, not recently. I know the Government House Leader himself was also involved with the student union. He was president of the student union a few years later.

MR. E. BYRNE: Many years later.

MR. HARRIS: Many years later, he says.

I am very familiar with the kind of concerns that have been raised in recent years by the student representatives about participation in the governing bodies of the university. In fact, the first time we elected students to the Board of Regents of Memorial and the Senate, back in 1969, I am aging myself here, but back in 1969 we did that, and it is very important that students have a role to play in the governance of their institutions. We have been lagging behind. Other institutions across the country - in two respects, Mr. Speaker, both in terms of numbers of representatives on the boards of major public education institutions, and, even worst, in this Province the students did not get to chose their own representatives, totally. In fact, it has to be vetted, in the case of Memorial University, by the department of student affairs, and that was a source of real contention between the administration and the student representatives.

I am glad to see that the government has acceded to the efforts of the students to ensure that student representation on the board of these institutions is increased, particularly university where it is has gone up to four, and that the student representative organizations are part of this. Two members of the board of the College of the North Atlantic will be students of the college, who are nominated by the executive body of the student association of the college. I think that is a very important consideration, and the students can do it by direct nomination or they can have an election. If they wanted to have an election amongst the students of the college, they could have an election and put forth those who were elected as their nominees. So, it is left entirely to the student organizations themselves to act on the power that is given to them to choose and nominate the members.

Similarly, for Memorial University, where all the members of the board are governed by the Memorial University Act and the appointments are made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Again, there is provision for the alumni electing people to (inaudible) to the board. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council appoints people. They will be appointed by those who are recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council by the board following the recommendation to the board of one candidate, each from the following student unions. So, in other words, the student union, MUNSU, has the authority to nominate one person. The Graduate Students' Union, the Marine Institute Students' Union and the Grenfell College Student Union would each have one representative to the Board of Regents.

It is important that student concerns and student representation exist at the very highest level because they are the decision-making body. It is that body that often has information on the future of the institution, on the plans for the future of the institution, that are circulating and being put about for some time - gestating is the word I was searching for - that they are being proposed, the direction of the university.

One example was spoken about today by the President of the Canadian Federation of Students for Newfoundland and Labrador, Jessica Magalios, who talked about a plan that was launched by the administration of the university within a board meeting a few months ago to talk about the notion of getting rid of the freeze on student tuition and that the University Board of Regents is being encouraged to consider asking the government to get rid of the freeze so that they can increase tuition fees at Memorial University. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is something that the students themselves are opposed to having happen. They want to be in there on these debates from the very beginning because the philosophy of how the university, for example in this case, operates and raises money and gets its funds, is something that they want to be a part of at the highest levels within the Board of Regents. I think this is an important way for them to do that.

While we are on the topic of Memorial University, I think all of us in the Province were very pleased to see that the reputation of Memorial University, as determined by the Maclean's annual report shows that this university, our university, our flagship public school in this Province, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador - they want to change their name, and they may change their name, to just Memorial University - that university, Memorial University, has been given a very high standing as, I think, number five in the top ten universities in the country for the category of comprehensive university, one that offers both undergraduate and significant graduate and research programs and medical school and pharmacy school, professional social work school and others. In the comprehensive category, Memorial University has placed fifth in terms of recognition across the country for the quality of its program, the quality of its teaching, the size of its library, and other categories that Maclean's have used and developed over the years to give perspective students a look at what kind of universities they might be going to across the country.

Memorial University does have a significant reputation, not only amongst its graduates but amongst those employers across the country who are lucky enough to hire Memorial graduates to work in their enterprises or in their agencies or their universities. I think at one time there were four or five presidents of universities across the country who were from this Province; a very good indication of the quality of students and academics and intellectuals that this Province has contributed to our country.

I think that this is a good step forward, to give students more involvement in the governance of the university and ensure that they actually have a say as to who their representatives are going to be on those boards, so it does not become a token representative that is vetted by the university administration or by the college administration, and that it is someone who is truly independent of the administration and acts solely on behalf of students through their representative organizations.

I want to commend the students for once again successfully convincing government of the rightness of their point of view. I think we had that happen with respect to the previous government in terms of how the student aid programs were operating. They were very critical of the way the student programs, the aid programs, were operating and convinced the previous government to make at least a significant start in ensuring that the student aid programs were much better.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Education on his appointment as minister. I know it is a recent appointment, and I wish him well in his new job. I know he has a lot of experience in the education field at the secondary school level. I know that his role as minister responsible as well for post-secondary education is one that he takes seriously.

I want to urge him - I know we are going through a review this fall, a review of the public system, and finding a proper direction for the public system, and I think it is a very, very important undertaking that is happening. I was encouraged initially, Mr. Speaker, when the review in the White Paper was restricted to the discussion of the role of the public system, but I understand that there is another system that has been inserting itself into this process, and that is the private post-secondary system. They have been lobbying very hard. I am sure the minister has already had a number of meetings with them. I know they are trying to influence the course of this paper, but I am very concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, because this Province has had a very sad history - from the students' perspective - in what has happened with the private system.

We know what happened to the Career Academy. That is only one of the institutions that have not provided a good service to students. As New Democrats, Mr. Speaker, we do not want to see post-secondary education as a profit-making enterprise. We want to see post-secondary education as the right of students. We see the public education institutions, like the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University, with the philosophical bases and the proper approach to ensuring that their education, the education that they provide, is there for the benefit of students and the interest of education in their future and is not an industry, is not a private enterprise, that is designed to turn a profit on the basis that students need to have something beyond high school in order get on in the world.

There was a time, Mr. Speaker, - and I am sure the member is familiar with this argument about education and where you go in life. I remember the argument being made a few years ago by the then President of the College of the North Atlantic. He said: You know, twenty-five years ago if you left high school, if you had a high school education, you were prepared for the job market. You could go out into the world and become the president of a company. This man had been President of Newfoundland Telephone. I remember when I was a young fellow, the President of Air Canada was a fellow who had started - Claude Taylor was his name - as a guy who was packing luggage and filling up the back of the plane, and he was the President of Air Canada. The guy who was the president of the post office or the president of the bank had started as a mail clerk. We had all these examples of how you could leave high school, enter the job market, and make your way in that job market if you had the right stuff, Mr. Speaker, and a high school education was the starting point. That is not the case anymore.

That high school education was free. It was paid for by the public. You were given an opportunity to make your way in the world. You had a job entry level qualification that could take you - not anywhere. I just have to look for the Minister of Justice. He couldn't make you a lawyer, you would probably have to go to law school or you probably even apprentice in those days to be a lawyer. A high school graduation was a good qualification that got you many places.

Now, Mr. Speaker, people need at least some sort of program in order to have a qualification to get anywhere aside from a lower paying job, in some cases a marginalized job, one where there is no room for advancement. So we have an obligation as a society, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have an obligation as a society to give young people something that they can take with them to the job market, something that gives them a qualification to go on. I think the suggestion has been made that at least two years of education beyond high school is necessary to get some sort of program, a diploma, or at least a start on a degree, a decent level program at a college, presumably the College of the North Atlantic. These programs should be available, students should have the right to get access to them, and we have to find a way of making that possible.

In Ontario and Quebec they do it through the Cegeps. The Cegeps program is a great model. I don't think anybody else has adopted it across the country. They do things a little differently in Quebec. The Cegeps give young people coming out of high school a very good start in a way that we don't here in this Province. You either go into a four-year degree program at the university or you sign up for a program at the College of the North Atlantic, or try to get in, or you listen to the call of some of the private institutions. That call, a few years ago, Mr. Speaker, was blaring loudly on the radios, lifestyle advertising, I call it, to get people to come and spend a lot of money to take a program and a course.

I will give you an idea of how that distorts young peoples ideas about post-secondary education. I remember, Mr. Speaker, almost at the height of concern -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is the second time in the last few minutes I have had to ask for order in the House. If members wish to carry on a dialogue with each other across the floor of the House then I would suggest that they move their conversations outside. We are listening to the address by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Chair recognizes the hon. the member.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recall at the height of the public concerns, and my concerns - and we raised them quite a bit - about the Career Academy and what was happening there about the quality of certain programs and about the cost. I remember some of the students of the Career Academy defending the Career Academy, saying it was a much better college than any other college. The reason that they gave was because they charged so much. It must be better. It must be better than the university. It must be better than all these other programs because why else would it cost $9,000 a year in tuition if it was not better? They were able to be convinced by the Career Academy proponents, by the advertising that was paid for out of their tuition, of course, by the whole exercise that they were going through, that obviously cost was a sign of quality.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when we saw some of the things that were happening to their programs - when we saw, for example, the massage therapists who went to Ontario to write the - what were considered to be - standard exams for massage therapists, of a class of twenty-five, only seven of them were prepared well enough to pass those exams, while the other programs in Ontario were seeing an 89 per cent to 90 per cent, 96 per cent in some cases, success rate in writing those same exams. We had some objective way of testing the level of preparedness that the Career Academy, for example, was able to give to these particular students. We found out, Mr. Speaker, that was a problem and then we saw the financial collapse of the Career Academy and the consequences to so many students.

That is only one example, Mr. Speaker, but it is an example which proves the extent of the problems that we can have in a private system that is not governed by the same kind of motivations or philosophy as you have in the public institutions. I think we have to be very, very vigilant that we ensure that our public system is the system that is available to every student in the Province who needs to have access to post-secondary education to be able to get a proper grounding in a career, or in a job market, or in life so that they can be able to meet their potential, to be able to choose a career or an occupation, to get training in that and to carry on without the kind of burden that we have seen causing many students to leave the Province.

And not just students, not just ordinary graduates of university, I have talked to medical students. Medical students say they would love to be able to finish their medical degree and practice in Newfoundland, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They want to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. They would like to do that but they find themselves at the end of a medical school career graduating with enormous debt, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000. What happens is that they do not really have a level playing field or an alternative to take a job in this Province, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador or even in urban Newfoundland and Labrador, in many cases, because they have dangled before them financial packages, offers.

I have heard of cases where, you know, some community clinic in Georgia or Atlanta will write you a cheque. Well, they will write you three cheques. They will write you - what is your student loan? Ninety-thousand dollars. Here is a cheque for your student loan. Signing bonus, here is another cheque. If you want to get set up in our community, here is another $50,000 to get you set up as a signing bonus. Come to our community, you can get yourself set up and, by the way, we are going to pay you more than you would be paid in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Students, if they had an opportunity to work in the Province - and I do not mean just Newfoundland and Labrador students, because I have talked to students who are here from California, medical students here from California, saying: I really want to stay here in this Province and practice medicine. I really want to stay here. I love the province that I came to study medicine in. I want to stay here. We have to make it possible for them to do that by ensuring that when they come out of university or out of their training that they are not so saddled with debt that their options are so limited that they would see themselves spending the next ten years or more trying to pay off debt; because you have to remember, students who come out of medical school are twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty years old. Half of them are women who are anxious to set up a home and family.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired. Does the member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: I wanted leave to finish the sentence but it was a long sentence to begin with, and I have a few more clauses to add to it.

It is very important that we make sure that students who go to our universities and our public college, particularly those who want to stay in this Province, are not so saddled and burdened with debt that their ability to stay here is limited by the fact that they have such a significant debt to pay off before they can start carrying on and doing the kind of things that young people everywhere want and need to do. You know, have the benefit of their education, buy a car, establish a family, build a home, build a place to live in. I think we have to ensure that our policies, our programs and our public colleges are there to do that.

I am sure the students who are going to be participating on the Board of Governors of the College of the North Atlantic and the Board of Regents at Memorial University will be there in more numbers now to push those notions and the philosophy of what these educational institutions are there for, and I wish them well in their new roles as they come to participate in the Board of Governors of these organizations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If he speaks now he will close the debate.

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

Certainly, before closing, a question - but to the Member of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I would have to say to the member that twenty-some-odd years in teaching, I can recognize class and I must say the member certainly responded to this bill by talking about the importance of the students involvement here and highlighting our public institutions in a very positive way. Also, I am very encouraged to see that he is engaged in the White Paper process and look forward to that type of debate.

To the Opposition House Leader, in response to the question that was posed regarding the Senate, I say to the member that when it comes to the Senate, that is the internal workings of the university. The Board of Regents falls within our perusal as the government, but it is the Senate that is taken care of internally. With regard to the Senate, besides the something like forty-odd members, twelve of them are students. The act provides for twelve members from students in attendance of the University to be chosen in a manner approved by the board. Selection of student members to the Senate involves the following procedures: Graduate positions shall select three representatives; there are nine senators to be selected from the undergraduates, each representing a different academic area; the nine undergraduate student senators shall consist of seven student senators from St. John's campus and two student senators from the Sir Wilfred Grenfell College at Corner Brook. The procedures controlling such an election shall be determined by the respective student unions.

The University Senate has put in a request asking the Board of Regents to consider increasing the number of student representatives by one to provide a senate seat for the student representative from the Marine Institute, without reducing the student representative from MUN Students' Union, the Graduate Students' Union, or the Grenfell Student Union.

In response to the question from the member, I hope he understands that this was a request from the University, from the Board of Regents, from the Senate, to have this particular student representative identified.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, again I certainly appreciate the comments that have been given with regard to this bill from both sides of the House. I am satisfied that again this bill does fulfill a commitment that this government put forth on our election campaign, that the students have requested this to happen, that the university itself is on track, and that the College of the North Atlantic as well, and their students and representatives, certainly are in agreement with this bill.

Without further say, I would certainly again thank the members for their comments and we look forward to the passage of this bill in the appropriate manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act."

MR. SPEAKER: This bill not have been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, A bill, "An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 42)

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

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

Order 4, second reading of a bill, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine." (Bill 34)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this, I guess, has been the culmination of a piece of work that has gone on for a couple of years, this piece of legislation. The majority of the provisions, I suppose, within the revised act are considered to be housekeeping, if I can use that term very loosely, I say to my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, because not everything we do in this Legislature can be considered housekeeping, because everything we pass here is important to some group, agency or person.

The amendments are more than that, rather than any significant policy change with respect to how we govern veterinarians in the Province. Really, the essence of the bill is that it brings the standards for the veterinary profession in this Province to the same level, and in some cases a little higher than other provinces or jurisdictions across the country.

The veterinary profession, Mr. Speaker, in this Province is one of the many self-regulated professions, whether it be the legal profession, certified general accounting or CGA, CA, CMA's which we debated here and many others.

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent, I suppose, is the best way to use it, on the provincial government to support their legislative needs by providing an up-to-date legislative framework in which that profession must operate in and must continue to operate in. These changes essentially reflect how the profession has moved forward within the Province.

This is a process, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that started in the year 2000, as I mentioned earlier, and had the input of many governmental agencies to assure that the interests of the provincial government and therefore, Mr. Speaker, the general public at large, are always met. In terms of transparency of the complaint process, uniform measures and discipline, rights to appeal and other such enforcement procedures that all profession groups must adhere to, are contained within the suggested piece of legislation that we have here.

Fish will now be included within the definition of species of animals that will fall within the authority of this act. Prior to that, fish, generally, were not contained within this act. This will assure that the commercial aquaculture industry, which the government has just invested in heavily in terms of a commercial loan or a loan guarantee program - which we believe strongly in, Mr. Speaker - in the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune's district right now, where the aquaculture industry is primarily located, although there are other aquaculture initiatives underway along the Northeast Coast and other parts of the Province, but essentially this will deal with the aquaculture industry, that it is served through the same professional standard, or ensures that the industry is served through the same professional standard, Mr. Speaker, as any other species that is now in the act.

The direct impact on the veterinary profession itself, including the licensing of veterinary clinics and the roles of the Veterinary Assistants, for example, Mr. Speaker, are requests that came through this process since 2000, are requests that were made by the profession itself.

This act will bind the Crown such that any veterinary procedures, whatever they may be, carried out by agents of the Crown are subject to the same demands as placed on private veterinarians.

Mr. Speaker, with those few opening comments I believe I have captured essentially what the bill is about. How the process for these amendments came about: with the profession involved, ultimately, through a variety of governmental departments, culminating in a piece of legislation that we are now debating, known as Bill 34, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the debate that my colleagues may wish to get into, and look forward to the comments, commentary, questions, queries, or even potential amendments that may come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My comments will be very brief on this matter. We would concur with the minister, the Government House Leader, that indeed if anything falls under housecleaning or housekeeping types of legislation, this would certainly be one of them.

We have seen a lot of them here in the last number of years. The Law Society Act has been back for amendments and updates, the Chiropractors, the Optometrists, Physiotherapists. We have had a whole bunch, and that is the way it should work. There might be broad legislative guidelines that we set to these agencies, but they are basically self-governing, and fortunately, I guess, for us, they come back to the Legislature themselves on a regular basis and say: We found out that we have a problem. We found out that such-and-such circumstances happened and we do not have the legislative authority to deal with them. So, it is not a case of the Legislature wanting to control the various professions; it is a case of the professions themselves, very honourably, wanting to have proper regulations. In addition to a code of ethics that they all govern themselves by, they would like to know what are our administrative frameworks that we operate within. This is another one of those pieces of legislation and it is indeed good to see anybody in this Province who is a part of any association that is self-regulating, needs that guidance and we look forward to their input. We are only too pleased, as a Legislature, to avail of our opportunity and our time here today to make sure that this gets done.

We will be speaking in favour of the bill, and we would advocate its passage in short order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on this act, An Act to Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine.

It is important that we, from time to time, modernize and revise legislation to comply with the kind of standards that we see in professional bodies. We just did it earlier today for the Pharmaceutical Association, and once again we are dividing the veterinary medical group into two parts: one which is like the medical society, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, and, again, they have the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Board looking after issues of discipline and licensing and part of the self-governing profession.

This is, in a sense, a parallel piece of legislation to the medical profession. The veterinarians will now be able to have their association. The Newfoundland and Labrador Veterinary Licensing Board is continued as the College of Veterinarians, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Veterinary Association is established under the Corporations Act as a different organization, so we have that done in the veterinary profession the same as the medical profession now and we support that move.

We do have a positive need for good quality veterinarians in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is extremely important for our agriculture industry, to see that the professional standards of our veterinary college and veterinary regulations are in keeping with the standards across the country in terms of professional development and professional association as well as professional standards. We are part of a country that tries, across jurisdictions, to have relatively similar professional standards, so that when we are attracting veterinary doctors from other parts of the country that they are going into a regime that is substantially similar to what they have experienced in other provinces. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty supporting the principle of this bill and seeing that it gets speedy passage through the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader. If the Government House Leader speaks now, he closes the debate.

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

I appreciate the commentary made by my hon. colleague, the Opposition House Leader, and my other hon. colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on Bill 34.

While it has been described as housekeeping, it is an important piece of legislation to the profession that we are talking about. It does modernize the current act, brings in place a different standard, expands, as we have talked about, what is included in terms of fish being added to that species and the potential impact - positive I might add - that it has on the aquaculture industry.

With those few closing remarks, Mr. Speaker - I appreciate the commentary made by my colleagues and look forward to moving into Committee stage and potentially third reading on this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 34)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 34, "An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine."

MR. SPEAKER: It is move and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on Bill 34, "An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 57.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 57 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor in House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the enacting clause is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendments?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 34 without amendment, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

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

It has been moved that Bill 34 be carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matter to them referred and have directed her to report that Bill 34, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine, be carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that Bill 34, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine, be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 34, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine," read a third time, ordered passed, without amendments, and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

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

Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that Bill 37, An Act To Amend Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. Mr. Speaker, this is a very short bill, but it is a very important piece of legislation for the municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just so the people can understand what is going on here, I will just read the Explanatory Note. "The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Municipalities Act, 1999 to add a provision that would allow the minister to direct the manner in which taxes are to be harmonized when 2 or more towns or areas are amalgamated or annexed."

Mr. Speaker, Bill 37 stems basically from the amalgamation of Port Union, Melrose and Catalina, and that process was started some time ago by the previous administration, and the former minister is here in the House today. The three towns agreed to come together to form one town, Trinity Bay North.

The study that was carried out at that point in time included also Little Catalina, but Little Catalina decided, for whatever reason, Mr. Speaker, that they did not want to be involved in the amalgamation of what would then be four towns. Of course, as we said before this administration does not believe in forced amalgamation, so Little Catalina was not required to be involved in the amalgamation.

What we will be doing, I suppose, in the future, with respect to municipalities that want to amalgamate, we will assist them in any way we can, as a government. We will do studies on municipalities if they wish to come together. We will do studies on areas or communities that wish to come together to share services. Of course, any communities or towns that want to share services we will looking very favorably upon those communities. We will do what we can to assist these communities to come together to share services or, indeed, if they wish to come together to amalgamate as one town. This legislation, as I said, stems from the amalgamation of Port Union, Melrose and Catalina. We will certainly look to help in any way we can.

The most important thing, I suppose, about this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that often times when towns want to come together one of the major obstacles is the various poll taxes or the various mill rates that are being charged by the different towns that would be involved in any amalgamation. Some towns may have ten mills, some may have eight, six, twelve, whatever the case maybe. The whole intent and purpose of this legislation is to phase in or harmonize those mill rates. If a town or a community wants to be involved with another town, therefore what would happen - and it would be at, I suppose, the involvement with the minister, involvement with the towns and some discussion and preparation - that the towns themselves then would say, if we are going to go from six mills to eight mills or ten mills we would phase it in over one year, two years, three years, five years so that it would not be so hard on those municipalities that have a lower mill rate. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is probably the most important aspect of this piece of legislation.

I want to say also, of course, Mr. Speaker, that government certainly supports sharing of services across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Just recently, we saw on the Port au Port Peninsula this weekend where there was a fire and one town would not respond to another community. Basically what had happened, I believe, the community that was not responded to had not paid their fees to the town that would have responded. I can understand. We were lucky, Mr. Speaker, that there was no injury or loss of life in that situation, but I believe the towns and communities across this Province have to start sharing services, have to come together to start talking. As I said earlier, this piece of legislation would make it that much easier for the towns to come together.

The point to be made, also, on this legislation - as I said, it stems from the amalgamation of the three towns mentioned: Port Union, Melrose and Catalina. At the recent Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities annual general meeting - their fifty-fourth meeting, by the way - these three towns received an award of the Torngat Municipal Achievement Award, and that award honours innovation in regional cooperation. Again, I cannot say too much about the three towns coming together. We have seen it in the past. It is something that has to be done in the future.

When we look at rural Newfoundland and the costs involved to supply or to give services, it only makes commonsense that some of these towns, where it makes sense to come together, to do so. They can cut down their costs. They can cut the tax rates to their taxpayers by sharing services, by amalgamating their services. For example, in administration you might have three or four towns come together, as we just talked about, and then we have now instead of three town managers, three clerks, three sets of administration, three buildings to administer, to run, now we could cut the costs down to possibly a third of that or maybe half. Therefore, the taxpayers in those towns will certainly save in the long run when they look at this type of thing.

Since I have became minister, every meeting that I had with any municipality in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - and there has been quite a few, Mr. Speaker - I am always, basically, encouraging people and the town councillors and the mayors to look at their neighbours, talk to their neighbouring towns and communities and see if they want to come together and share services. I think, in the long term, this is something that is going to have to be seriously looked upon, again, where it makes sense to do so. We will be at the discretion - and our policy has been that there will be no forced amalgamation. It will be at the request of municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will not be forced upon them but people do have to realize, and I think the mayors and councillors do have to realize that the Province only has so much money to go around. We try to be as fair as we can with it. When we are looking at the costs for the municipalities, themselves, to operate, when we try to share out the money throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we try to be as fair as we can.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just say a few words with respect to last year on the Municipal Operating Grants. It took some criticism for the cut to the Municipal Operating Grants but when we took over as a government we know now, or most everybody in the Province understands, the financial situation that we found ourselves in across the Province. We had to come up with some cuts to the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The only place that we could really go to were the Municipal Operating Grants and the special assistance grants. So what I did, because of rural Newfoundland - and I understand the importance of $1,000 to some of these small municipalities. It is equivalent to $100,000 or $500,000 to some of the bigger municipalities. Basically, we could have went straight across the board, but I did not want to impact the smaller municipalities. So what we did, we came up with a formula to require the major centres in the developing areas to take the impact. There was $21 million in Municipal Operating Grants in this Province last year, and we decided to cut $5 million over three years. The fourteen municipalities that were involved took basically 50 per cent of that $21 million, $10.5 million. We felt that those fourteen municipalities could take the impact rather than rural Newfoundland, the small towns our there who are fundraising to run their fire departments. That is where we were too. That was our mindset, to try and support rural Newfoundland as best as we can.

I would just make that point because, again, we have to emphasis and stress the importance of trying to share services. There is one area of this Province, and within thirteen to twenty kilometres there are seven volunteer fire departments. That puts a stress on the communities involved, the fire halls themselves, the volunteer fire department, the firefighters and the firettes trying to fundraise to support these fire departments when, if they came together, they could share the services. We have so some many fire trucks and firefighting equipment and breathing apparatuses in those seven fire departments.

Basically, I just want to make those points that we, as an Administration, will be looking very favourably upon communities that want to come together to either share services or want to amalgamate, and we will support them in any way we can, financially, with respect to paying down their debt - which is what we have done for the communities that were just mentioned. We paid down a significant amount of money for those three towns involved. So in the long-term it is beneficial to them, it is beneficial to the taxpayers, and I just wanted to make that point.

I am sure that my critic on the other side will want to say a few words to this piece of legislation. I just want to stress once more, it is a very short bill. It does not have a lot of content with respect to the wording of it, but it is a very important piece of legislation to the municipalities across this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially the smaller municipalities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to say to the minister, I think this is my piece of legislation.

Back a little while ago, probably a year or so, probably a bit more than that - as the Member for Bonavista South would know - I had consultations with the Mayor of Catalina, Little Catalina, Port Union and Melrose as to what they wanted to do. In fact, they came to see me. I went to their town on a number of occasions and at the end of the day they had consented. I had commissioned Clarence Randell, who was a former Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, to do the work for me, and as the minister just said, one of the four communities decided not to become a part of it, Little Catalina. The minister, like I did, granted their wish, but I think that it is a mistake on the town but nevertheless, it is one that they have to live with and it is not for me to make a judgement whether they did the right thing or not. That was just one.

Then, of course, we had the communities on the Eastport Peninsula where Art Colbourne, who was a former ADM, did some work there; Eastport, Sandringham and so on. These communities decided that, I think at that time they did not want to be a part of it, but I am sure that the exercise that we did will eventually pay some dividends.

Then, of course, we had a look at Fogo Island, where there are a number of municipalities on that particular Island. I had the Mayor of Clarenville, Fred Best, do some work for us there. I think that might even be still ongoing.

One of the other areas that we decided to do some work on was Grand Falls-Windsor-Bishop's Falls. I cannot remember, but I think the engineering company - through a bid process or a call for proposal process - might have been SEG or SGE or whatever, who did the work on that. That work is still in progress, as to see what would be the advantages of Grand Falls-Windsor and the Town of Bishop's Falls becoming one entity. As I said, that work is still ongoing and I am hoping in the future that might very well become a reality. Again, as the minister indicated, that will be the desire of the people who live in the region.

The minister also talked about many of the smaller communities, of course, and the Municipal Operating Grants, and encouraged the communities to become a part where they would share services. In many instances they do share a lot of services, like the Northeast Avalon. You share water, you share waste, you share fire protection. In many instances, in this part of Province here, the Island part of the Province, the only thing probably that the City of Mount Pearl and the City of St. John's is not sharing would be administration. Hopefully, in years to come, they might even consider doing that. Again, it is their desire and their wish.

One thing that we decided to do - and I think the minister mentioned about it and is probably still considering it - is debt consolidation for many of the smaller towns. While I was minister we did not do all of the amount, but I think there is more than $50 million that has gone into debt consolidation. One of the things that we put in place was a minimum tax, and many people do not realize that many of these communities do pay a substantial portion of tax. Where we did debt consolidation, the minimum tax for water and sewer was $1 a day, and minimum property tax, regardless of the mills, was $300, so they had a minimum tax of $365.

There are communities in Newfoundland and Labrador where the residents pay more than $500 a year for water and sewer, and it is not uncommon for the communities to pay more than $400 a year for water and sewer, so they do pay their fair share. The problem with many of the smaller communities out there is, they do not have any tax base to be able to bring in the commercial part of it, so therefore we find them really struggling.

In the piece of legislation that we have in front of us, I would hope that the intent - and I would probably be able to question the minister later on in Committee about it - it says it gives the minister the right, or the minister may.

I would think that the spirit of the legislation would be to allow the communities that would be annexed or to amalgamate, among themselves, with the new councils in place, see for themselves first if they would decide on what the particular level of taxation would be. If, at the end of the day, the new council could not agree on what the level of taxation would be either for water and sewer or for property tax, the minister could then step in, set the rate for the new town, whatever that new town might be, and then that would be binding on the communities, but it would only be done as a last resort, and I would hope that is what the minister had in mind in that particular piece of legislation.

Obviously, we encourage it. More and more needs to be done, and let's hope that many of the communities out there can see the benefits of coming together, sharing services, and sharing the ultimate one which is administration, and forming a town like what has happened for the former Towns of Catalina, Melrose and Port Union.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will have my particular remarks come to an end, and again, as I said, be able to talk to it a bit more in Committee when the minister brings forth the bill.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand today, as well, and say a few words on Bill 37, and compliment the Towns of Catalina, Port Union and Melrose, and the three mayors: Mayor Darryl Johnson from Port Union; Mayor Brendan Peters from Melrose; and Mayor Duffett from Catalina.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to compliment the former minister as well, because I attended a number of meetings with those people, those three mayors who came here and wanted to get clear direction of where they were going and what they were getting themselves into.

Mr. Speaker, it was a situation where you had three towns, and the only thing separating them was the sign saying: Catalina, Port Union and Melrose. Those three communities already share fire protection, they already share a common water supply, and they already share a common waste disposal committee, a waste disposal field.

Mr. Speaker, this regionalization, I say, was tried in the past but it went in the wrong direction. In the past, somebody went out and tried to push regionalization, or amalgamation as it was referred to at that time, on the people; but you know and I know, Mr. Speaker, having served on councils and having served our communities, that this movement must come from the council themselves, and come it did.

People looked around and saw what their communities were going through with the downturn in the fishery. They saw, as I referred to here many times before, many of their businesses close. They saw the cost of operating their three communities separately, and they also saw the cost and they also saw the need in order to look after the debt that they hold to Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing.

Just a short number of years ago, as anybody would know who was involved in municipalities, there was almost a race on the go to see who could get the most money, because it did not matter how much money you collected; you only had to pay 20 per cent of the revenue that you collected towards your debt. As a result of that, many communities, through no fault of their own, ran up a tremendous amount of debt. Then, Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing was formed and the debt of every community was passed over to this entity, and the communities were responsible for paying back the monies that they owed to Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing, and at high interest rate as well.

What that meant for communities like Catalina, Port Union, Melrose and other communities with very little tax base, was that they were unable to meet their financial commitment and look after repairs to their water, look after donations to the fire department and the operations of the fire department, and to look after the other services that their towns and residents expected them to deliver.

So those three leaders said: We have to do something about this, and one approach is to go out and poll the people and find out what they think about joining our communities together and putting a name on our three communities which will still maintain the identity of Catalina, Port Union and Melrose, but we will be able to realize some benefits from government as well and put services back to a level that people expect.

As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, they made many journeys in here looking for direction, talking to people, finding out the moves to make and the direction that they should go in, and they did it themselves, I say to the minister. It was all done by themselves, and from direction from this building. I wasn't included in it, and did not want to be, because they are not my towns. They were the mayors. They were the people who were elected, and the councils that were elected to represent their towns, but I can tell you that I supported them morally. I supported them morally, and every time I had a chance to help them out or to be asked to go to a meeting, I certainly attended.

I am not exactly sure of the number of councillors now who have offered themselves for election. This election is supposed to take place, or will take place, on November 30, but there is a fair amount of interest. They have divided the communities into three wards. There will be one councillor elected from each ward, which will be a community, and there will be four councillors elected at large, and from that election they will choose their mayor and their deputy mayor.

I compliment the minister and his department for bringing in this piece of legislation, because that is not going to be the end of the day. They are still going to need some help. They are still going to have to realize the benefits that they want to achieve by amalgamating; and, with this bill, that will allow the minister and allow them to reach a certain level of taxation over a period of time when nobody will be saddled with big bills, Mr. Speaker, because that was the big concern. That was the big concern; that is the big deterrent. It is not only about losing the identity of your town, but it is also about the level of taxation.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will conclude my remarks and say that this is a good bill. I compliment the prior minister and this minister for showing the support to the Towns of Catalina, Port Union and Melrose. I am certain that they will set a standard and they will be a flagship for a lot of other communities that will be calling them now for advice and asking them what benefits they derived by taking their three towns - and the name that they have placed on the three towns is the Town of Trinity Bay North, but they will still maintain their identity.

I congratulate the people who have offered themselves for council, and I look forward to the day - and I think the minister has already agreed that myself and him will attend the swearing-in ceremony in early December, the first swearing-in ceremony of this council, and be there to attend that first meeting.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on this legislation with respect to the Municipalities Act. The act itself really just deals with the taxation implications of it. It is obviously to facilitate the proper merger or amalgamation of towns. I think that it certainly has the wholehearted support for that action.

I do want to say something about amalgamation in general and about the amalgamation to which the Member of Bonavista South refers. It is a very good example of communities working and co-operating together. Some of the larger communities in the Province should learn some lessons from that, the benefits of co-operation and working together. We have a situation in the Northeast Avalon, as many members know, where the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, the Town of Paradise and various other communities are now competing against one another to lower taxes, to bring businesses from one place to another, really having some sort of a race downwards in terms of providing services.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The former Mayor of Mount Pearl is acting up over there now. Obviously, he must feel threatened if anyone even talks about amalgamation. It is a good discussion we are having here about the values of amalgamation.

As the Member for Bonavista South said, you could go from Port Union to Catalina to Melrose and they are all on the one road, it is all the one community. Well, I will defy anybody driving through St. John's out Topsail Road to tell me where - without the signs - where St. John's stops and then starts again. When you are driving out the Trans-Canada Highway, when you get out past Foxtrap somewhere, you will see a sign saying the city limits have just ended. Somewhere in between all of that there is Mount Pearl and there is Paradise and there are various other communities. I think there is a sensible way of dealing with these issues, particularly in a large urban area like we have in the Northeast Avalon, the area of St. John's, Mount Pearl and Paradise, in particular, and parts of CBS are part of that as well.

When we see three or four of the larger municipalities in this area sending delegations down to Houston competing with one another to have a company put their business in my town or my city versus St. John's or Mount Pearl, I think there is something very wrong with that. When we saw what has happened over the last number of years - look at Donovans Industrial Park, which is part of Mount Pearl. Donovans Industrial Park, for example, was built -

MR. E. BYRNE: Jack, you must be running for mayor again, are you?

MR. HARRIS: I do not need to run for mayor to recognize a sensible -

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, Jack!

MR. HARRIS: Even Andy Wells thinks it is a sensible idea to have a proper amalgamation.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I think members get my point here, that there is something that can be gained from amalgamation, but I want to talk about a more - people talk lightly about this but this is a serious issue. It is a serious issue in the City of St. John's, a serious issue in rural Newfoundland, and we have an even more serious issue. The minister alluded to it when he referenced what has happened in the Port au Port Peninsula in the last couple of days. Frankly, I have never heard of this happening before and I was - I am sure, along with a lot of other members - shaking my head when I heard the discussion on the radio this morning.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I do not know what the Government House Leader is talking about, but I am talking about a fire that took place on the Port au Port Peninsula over the last few days. I was shaking my head, and I am sure members here were shaking their heads when they saw what it has come to in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What has it come to in rural Newfoundland and Labrador when one community and the adjoining community cannot work together to stop buildings from burning down? The mayor of one of these communities was on today - I am not going to go into details. I do not really want to vilify any communities here because I do not think it is a question of pointing a finger at a particular community - to say that if the town had responded to the call there would have been at least one less house which would have been destroyed and perhaps one less shop. The possibility of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That was a possibility. That was his opinion. He was offering an opinion, and I do not want to make any judgements here about whether that was a fact or not.

But, when a town feels unable to respond to a call for help when there is a fire because of the financial circumstances that that town is in, or the other town is in, perhaps they did not pay and make the contribution for the firefighting service. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they did not want to? Was that the reason? Did they not pay the adjoining town because they did not feel like it? Were they having some kind of dispute? I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that it was because they did not have the money to be able to do it, that they did not have an adequate level of financing, or that the mechanisms were not in place to ensure that each of these towns involved - there were, I think, three towns involved - that each of these towns involved had the wherewithal to make sure that they could provide adequate firefighting service for those residents and for those homeowners.

As the minister said, it is a lucky thing that nobody was injured or killed. We are all thankful for that, but I think there is a real lesson in this. There is a real lesson in this, Mr. Speaker, because it is not like people in Newfoundland and Labrador to refuse somebody's help when their house is burning down or when their business is burning down. I have never heard of it before, Mr. Speaker, and I heard a town councillor justifying that today on the basis of finances and economic contribution to a firefighting service. There is something very wrong with that, and I want to ask the minister - he is obviously not a position to address it today - to take a serious look at how firefighting services are financed in this Province and to find ways to ensure. I know that this government has made a very political point - I have to say, very political point - we are not going to force amalgamation.

Well, I know why they said it, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with the St. John's area. I know why they said it, but there are circumstances where the public interest demands that services be shared, where the public interest demands that the tax base be shared. That we do not have competition on tax bases in some places. Where the public interests demands that we do not have a circumstance where one town is saying we are not going to send our fire truck next door because you did not pay for this fire truck. There is something very wrong with that, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking this minister and his department to come up with a solution for that because this incident that occurred over the last few days is a real clarion call, and I do not mean to make a pun here, but it is a real clarion call to this Province and to this government and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we have to start working together and ensuring that basic services and basic protection from fire is available in our communities on a proper, regularly financed, well financed, organized basis.

I know the minister takes his role very seriously, just as he took his role as municipalities critic when he was over here. He took that role very seriously and if he were over here today he would be making the same demand of the Minister of Municipal Affairs as I am making here today because I am sure - I know he comes from a small town surrounded by other small communities and I know he would be very shocked if his town did not send a fire truck to an adjoining town when there was a loss of property or a house burning down for financial reasons, that something would have to be done about it. I am asking him to ask his officials to start looking at ways and means of ensuring that fire services in rural Newfoundland are not allowed to deteriorate or to operate in such a way that this kind of thing could happen again.

I was shocked to hear this story today, but it told me that there is something very wrong with how our municipalities are operating in the Province, and what kind of financial support is available for certain basic services.

We talk about the problems that we have with insurance, and property insurance, but you cannot get insurance on a property if you do not have fire protection. So the whole thing comes tumbling down around your ears. If you do not have fire protection, you cannot get insurance for your house. If you cannot get insurance for your house, you cannot afford to build a house and put any money into it. You cannot get a mortgage for your house. Rural Newfoundland cannot operate without modern services such as fire protection, because the economics do not allow it to do that any more. This government or any government - whether it was the previous government or this government or the next government - has to take this issue seriously and find a way.

I am not here with any ready answers today. I am not saying it for that purpose. I am saying that this is something that I, personally, as a member of this Legislature, and as a politician in this Province, was shocked to learn today that kind to thing happened in this Province. I think we should all take it very seriously, and we should all work together with suggestions and solutions to try and see how this can be fixed so that it does not happen again.

I ask the minister if he will take that under advisement and perhaps be able to tell us within a few weeks what progress has been made on coming up with some solution that the government can start implementing, or ask municipalities to implement, that is going to make that work. I do not think we want to see that happening again, where houses are burning down, properties are burning down, and the adjoining town feels that it cannot send a fire truck to help save property, and potentially save lives if there was a house on fire.

I think that is a very serious circumstance, and I know the minister will take it seriously. I hope he will ask his officials to come up with some possibilities and some possible solutions for that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. If the minister speaks now he will close second reading.

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

I have just a few quick words. I would like to thank the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune for his comments, the Member for Bonavista South, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I had a few more words to say on this, but it is getting close to 5:30. I would want to comment on the last speaker, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, with respect to the department taking seriously this issue with respect to the situation on the Port au Port Peninsula, and one department not responding to another community.

Mr. Speaker, we take it very seriously. I have taken it very seriously since I became minister just over a year ago. We have had discussions within the department on this very issue numerous times. We are looking for solutions to it. We are actually in the process now of having studies done in certain areas of the Province with communities that are looking to share firefighting services. This is an unfortunate situation that happened the weekend. It is something that, as I said, we take very seriously. We will work towards resolving this in the not-too-distant future, but again I would like to stress that communities have to start coming together, working together to share services, and this piece of legislation goes a long way toward that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has been now read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 37)

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

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

It now being 5:28 p.m., close to closing time, I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.