December 3, 1996           HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLIII  No. 45

 


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome today to the House of Assembly forty-five students from the Democracy class in the Queen Elizabeth Regional High School. These students are from the districts of Topsail, Conception Bay South, and Conception Bay East & Bell Island, and they are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Lloyd Johnson and Mr. Fred Wood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding with routine business the Chair would like to rule on the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Terra Nova yesterday following Question Period. The point of order related to the question asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition to the Minister of Health. The Chair took the question under advisement to review the Hansard transcript. In this respect I want to draw hon. member's attention to our own Standing Order 52 which states that no member shall use offensive words against any member of the House. In addition to our own Standing Order, of course, I refer hon members to Beauchesne, Section 481, ` Members, while speaking, must not impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a Member, nor make a personal charge against a Member'. Again Beauchesne, Standing Order 409, `A question must adhere to the priorities of the House in terms of inferences, imputing motives, or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it'.

I want to refer members to the Hansard transcript of Question Period yesterday. The hon. Leader of the Opposition was questioning the Minister of Health. The Leader of the Opposition says, `Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your own Assistant Deputy Minister is a member of that committee and he is involved in the writing of that report. Now, you are up to your neck in this in a cover-up, I say to the minister. Will you come clean and table this report?' Again the hon. Leader of the Opposition, `Minister, you have been involved in this all along and I say you are involved in a cover -up.'

Clearly, of course, these comments are inappropriate and are out of order, so I ask the hon. member to withdraw them.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I respect your ruling, that `cover-up' is unparliamentary, and I withdraw that remark.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues in the House of the pending expansion of Internet services to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and of the positive impact this initiative will have for communities throughout the Province, for businesses, and for the economic development of this Province in general.

I recently participated in a news conference with NewTel Communications when they announced their intent to expand Internet services to 300 additional communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador by the end of 1997. This expansion will bring the total number of urban and rural communities with access to Internet services to 450.

This initiative is an important one for the whole Province, but especially for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Currently, residents and businesses in most rural communities have to pay long distance charges to access Internet services. This acts as a deterrent to the utilization of this increasingly important technology in society and business today.

NewTel's initiative will eliminate long distance access charges and thereby allow more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout the Province to be placed on a level playing field on the global information highway through the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, one in every ten homes in this Province had a personal computer. As of May, 1996, one in five homes had a personal computer. By the end of 1997, thanks in part to this initiative, it is estimated that one in three homes will have a personal computer. Newfoundland and Labrador has the fastest growth in Internet use in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: NewTel's initiative will ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador continues to be a national leader in utilizing modern communications technology for social and economic advancement. Newfoundland and Labrador's growth in these services not only leads the country, but also most of the United States. It will also provide businesses throughout this Province with the means to participate in the global marketplace by having ready access to information worldwide. This will improve their competitive position overall. No longer will location be a hindrance to conducting and succeeding in business internationally. The technology is available and we are in a position to take advantage of it and to be full participants in the new economy.

With hundreds of communities online, this initiative will also make it easier for each of the Province's twenty economic zones to interact with each other. Each of the zones will become more empowered as they learn from each other and work towards their common goal of a revitalized economy in every region of this Province.

In partnership with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, my department has begun to place information on the economic zones on the World Wide Web. I express government's appreciation to the Federation for their support in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we believe in our rural communities. This initiative will enable them to be competitive in an increasingly global economy that thrives on information for growth and prosperity. Government applauds NewTel for its vision and commitment to placing communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador on the leading edge of the information economy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to rise today to respond to the minister's statement and I would like to thank the minister for giving me a copy of the statement just before the House met. Of course, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we also commend this initiative. We know how important it is, especially for a Province such as Newfoundland with its geography, and Labrador and around the coasts and all the rural communities. We know it is very important for the people in general and also for small businesses to be able to tap into this.

I too, have used the Internet in my home and I know there are a lot of people who have it in their homes and it really contributes to business, to people in general, through our education process and so on. So we are, of course, glad to see this happening in the Province. It is positive, something that should steer us in the right direction. But, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister, too, that with Rural Renewal, that is the main - and I do not want to prejudge her, of course, she is new in that portfolio - but a lot of people in rural Newfoundland are hurting right now.

Yes, computers are positive, but the idea of schools, of hospitals, of roads and so on has to be addressed and it remains to be seen if this government will respond in a positive way to Rural Renewal in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. That is what we will be waiting on and that is what we want to see, a bigger statement from the minister about something else positive in rural Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to table a White Paper entitled Challenging Responses To Changing Times - New Proposals For Occupational Regulation. This White Paper examines existing statutes related to regulation of occupations and contains proposals to promote comprehensive and consistent practices and procedures.

Government intervention in the regulation of occupations is justified as a way to protect the public from potential harm. As occupations grew and practitioners began to deliver services in this Province, statutory frameworks were established. Unfortunately there has never been a uniform policy to guide the creation of these frameworks and, as a result, many inconsistencies now exist.

Mr. Speaker, this White Paper highlights the need to reconsider these statutory frameworks and the procedures which they have put in place. The paper outlines a process to determine whether, and what kind of, regulation might be necessary. It proceeds from the premise that occupations which are already self-governing should be allowed to operate freely as long as the public is protected. It suggests changes to promote public accountability and to ensure the public has access to information about the self-governing occupations. The paper outlines a new disciplinary model and proposes the creation of a uniform board to provide an effective and cost-efficient discipline process for the self-governing occupations.

Mr. Speaker, this White Paper encourages a critical look at self-governance, puts forward suggestions for change, and asks for public input. Mr. Speaker, the goals are: to ensure comprehensive and consistent practices; to improve public protection through the establishment of an efficient and effective disciplinary mechanism; to engender more public trust in the process of self-governance; to ensure practitioners are dealt with fairly.

Comments on the proposals contained in this paper are welcome. Everyone has a stake in the regulation of these occupational services. Members of the self-governing occupations and the public are encouraged to provide written comments by January 31, 1997.

Copies of the White Paper are available from the Communications Division of the Department of Government Services and Lands. It is also available at government's Internet site (http://www.gov.nf.ca). Written comments should be forwarded to the Deputy Minister, Department of Government Services and Lands, Confederation Building or e-mailed to the Internet site.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement and a copy of the White Paper sent over just before the House sat. I did not have time really to review the White Paper itself but from his statement, it certainly seems logical, it makes sense to do what he is proposing. It is always government's responsibility to have the public protected and have regulations review for all associations and groups that are controlled by government and the self-governing bodies. Of course, it is a given that this White Paper will be sent to all the groups concerned, and I expect the minister to listen to the input of these groups and listen to the public who are affected by these groups. Because these groups are far-reaching within the Province, Mr. Speaker, and the professional associations themselves are there to protect the public. I believe overall, Mr. Speaker, I believe overall that it is a good move and I look forward to positive results. Thank you.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. members of the House of Assembly of the five-year strategy for the fur industry of this Province. Produced by the Newfoundland and Labrador Fur Breeders Association, this document is very timely for the industry, as the marketplace for fur has strengthened over the past few years.

Only five years ago, pelts were sold at an all-time low of $40 each. However, over the past three years, fur prices have increased by 25 per cent to 30 per cent, stabilizing at approximately $230 for blue fox and $110 for silver fox. While this might represent a peak in the industry, the overall outlook is promising with major new markets in the Far East, Russia and the other former Communist bloc countries, as well as a favourable climate in the fashion industry for furs and fur products.

This five-year strategy is designed to set the building blocks for a long-term, strong viable industry. It sets out ambitious goals to raise production from the current levels of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 silver fox to 60,000 silver and blue fox and 20,000 mink. This is not an unreasonable goal. The Newfoundland fur industry has a competitive advantage, given the availability of raw feed materials, favourable climate, proven fur quality, readily available markets, labour supply and human resources talent. However, this is the first time that the markets and the Newfoundland and Labrador fur industry are on track together.

The strategy will make a meaningful contribution to the rural economy through increased fur production on new and established farms by focusing on development components such as diversification of species, feeding locally produced feeds, markets and marketing, research and development, education and training, and various financial support structures. Ultimately, this strategy could create 2,000 direct jobs for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, a co-operative approach between industry and government is essential in order for this strategy to succeed. To this end, I have set up a Core Working Committee made up of representatives from the Newfoundland and Labrador Fur Breeders Association, the Department of Development and Rural Renewal, and my Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. This committee will use the forty-nine recommendations in the Fur Strategy document to prepare an implementation strategy.

Furthermore, the recent announcement by the hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Agriculture and Agrifoods Canada, and myself relating to the signing of the Canada-Newfoundland Agricultural Safety Nets Initiatives forms an excellent basis to achieve some of the development goals outlined in the fur strategy. The agreement involves approximately $6 million to be administered over a three-year period. This program will be available to the fur sector as it undertakes this industry development strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I would at this time like to commend the efforts of the Newfoundland and Labrador Fur Breeders Association and the existing fur farmers who have demonstrated an extraordinary commitment by remaining with the industry through hard times and coming out with a proactive strategy exactly at a time when it is needed. This commitment provides a solid base for this new strategy to succeed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his ministerial statement prior to the House opening. We over here on this side commend this particular initiative as well, I say to the minister. When you see the possibility of 2,000 jobs being created in rural Newfoundland today, with an unemployment insurance level - or an unemployment acceptance level, I suppose, if you would - greater than 20 per cent, it is hard for anybody to be negative when you see something positive happening towards employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister goes on to talk about feeding locally produced feeds, and I commend him for that, and I think he should take that one step further. It is criminal in this Province today to see our raw materials taken and frozen here in Newfoundland, and carried to Montreal and Toronto, and brought back into this Province again to be put on the supermarket shelves and served as pet food.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I think we should take this one step further. In fact, I know of a very reputable fish company that would be willing to enter into a partnership should such an initiative be put forward by government or by industry. Let's get to doing what we should be doing to create jobs. Instead of shipping out raw material, let's ship out value-added material to go to other provinces like Quebec and Ontario, and the United States, to be put on supermarket shelves, and try to get our people in this Province back to work.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Health. There are a couple of areas I want to address with the minister today.

I ask the minister if he can confirm that several doctors at St. Clare's Hospital have been booted out of emergency room service on a week's notice?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If your level of knowledge ever rises to what you are now looking at, you will be a happy man, and better served.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the Health Care Corporation of St. John's is reorganizing where casualty officers and salaried physicians who do emergency room services operate from. At the moment we have both salaried and fee-for-service who come in on occasion to do emergency room coverage at St. Clare's and the Grace, operating in both locations. I am also aware that the Health Care Corporation of St. John's is moving to create a circumstance where essentially salaried employees within the system who are working within the hospitals will be working in one location, and the fee-for-service doctors who come in from the community who do some coverage in the emergency rooms will also be working in a second location. What the hon. member puts forward and refers to is essentially a reorganization of the usage of physicians within the system as opposed to what he puts forward to be the case, which is infactual.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that none of the family physicians at St. Clare's site were in agreement with this decision?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I am aware of was that the implementation of this new arrangement was supposed to happen within a relatively short period of notice being given. I also understand that the doctors who are impacted and who are affected with the changeover in site location in terms of their workload are meeting I believe tomorrow with the people at the Health Care Corporation to arrive at a time frame within which these adjustments will be made from which they work.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. He didn't answer the question.

I asked him is he aware that none of the physicians were in agreement with that decision? Has the minister received a copy of a letter from a physician who worked at St. Clare's for over twenty years and resents being dismissed when physicians were told that a meeting would be held to discuss the options available to them but they were not given the opportunity to do so?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member continues to ask questions really which are of an operational nature and are the responsibility in the first instance of the Health Care Corporation in St. John's and there are sources from which he can get that information but having said that, I am glad to be somewhat aware of what is going on in the system as well. I can confirm to you that I did receive a letter from a physician who worked within the emergency rooms as a fee for service physician who used to come in on the weekends. I can confirm that he expressed some displeasure and disappointment as to the short notice that he was given as an individual with respect to this changeover. I am aware also that the discussion is ongoing with the Health Care Corporation and the doctors to ensure that everybody is comfortable with the new arrangement or at least they understand the basis for which it is being done and the context in which it is taking place and that is really within the context of restructuring health care within the St. John's region as the hon. member is well aware, is well underway.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a copy of those letters too. A decision was reached without the consensus of any of the medical doctors there and there are many more things in that I say to the minister and you are copying on this letter. I ask the minister, why is the Grace Emergency Department cut back to eleven hours a day due to physician shortages you have indicated, when you are dismissing seven part-time physicians and transferring three more full time physicians from the Grace to St. Clare's?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member alleges something again that is factually incorrect. At no point did I indicate any doctor was being dismissed. The doctors that are working in the emergency rooms are being moved around from one site to the other. The level of emergency room service that we are providing at the Grace and throughout all of the hospitals in St. John's is consistent with the demand, the need, for that particular type of service. The hon. member will recall that during the summertime the Grace Emergency was closed down for extended periods of time and quite frankly, based on the volume of people that they were seeing there, it was quite easy to look after that volume of people in the other emergency rooms. There was no difficulty experienced and it worked out very well. I say to the hon. member that the Health Care Corporation has the responsibility to organize the delivery of all services in the city, including emergency room service, in a manner that is appropriate in their judgement and that meets public expectation and public demand.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the doctor tells you there are seven dismissed and three transferred, when your department and the Health Care Corporation indicate it is closed due to shortage of doctors, that is not a true statement.

Now, I want to ask the minister another question, a question concerning health care. This government has refused to accept its responsibilities to home support workers and is trying to make a home support agency as a scapegoat for government's inaction.

Now, with the minimum wage announced at $5.25 in January those workers will barely exceed this minimum wage. I ask the minister if he would move immediately to correct those inequities and to pay home support workers a decent wage?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reiterate what has already been put forward by my hon. colleague the Minister of Social Services on a number of occasions with respect to the issue of home support workers and how they are being paid. I would remind the hon. member that no government has, in his recollection, and no government probably ever again will, have the level of commitment to ensuring that, to the degree we can provide it, equity as a part of our compensation packages.

Last week this government announced a pay equity agreement for employees within the public service. It is an initiative that has been going on since 1989 and we will continue to do what is right and appropriate in terms of providing equitable and equal, and fair compensation, to everybody who works for the public purse. The issue of home workers has already been addressed by my hon. colleague on a number of occasions, and as the hon. member said yesterday if he has not heard it already Hansard is available in many forms and under many dates to give you the answer.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the fourth time we have brought this issue up here in this House of Assembly. This government did just announce its pay equity for its own workers, but still you ignore the concerns of the lowest paid health care workers in this country today, I say to the minister, and that is not acceptable. Now, will you commit to getting a quick resolution to those concerns?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Again, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time, and so as not to deprive the hon. members on the other side of any time in Question Period that they should really have available to them to ask a question, I refer him to Hansard and the answers that have been given by my hon. colleague.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see why the minister would like to get other members here in this House on matters. He has not been doing his job in health care. That is why he wants other members to get up. These concerns have been going on for six months, I say to the minister, and that is far too long. Many people have been effected, not just the workers but the health of the people in the area. Now, elderly people, and I have had calls from them, in need of home support services and with no family members to look after them are being denied basic services. Mr. Minister it is your responsibility to do something about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister if he would act immediately to ensure that the health care needs of the people in this area do not continue to be jeopardized any further?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the largest concern that the people of the Province have about health care is the deliberate campaign by the Leader of the Opposition, may I suggest for political purposes and to cast doubt and aspersion on the quality of the health care workers of this Province, be they doctors, be they nurses, be they other professionals or support workers in the hospitals of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, by now it is blatantly transparent that the Leader of the Opposition only has one objective. Having been told already today that a statement he made yesterday was unacceptable, either in terms of the rules or in terms of the facts, Mr. Speaker. We have seen a week of allegations, all the way from asking the Minister of Health whether or not he has checked the garbage cans in the facilities available within the hospitals, to whether or not he is personally aware of a $900 million Budget expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, we have health care boards in this Province and those boards have the responsibility, they are discharging the responsibility, and when serious matters are brought to the attention of the government, of the minister, or of the boards, those matters will be addressed, but when the Leader of the Opposition attempts to solve his political problem by trying to frighten people about the quality of health care the Leader of the Opposition ought to re-examine his conscience in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. It looks like there could be a vote in the House of Commons as early as today with respect to Term 17. I would ask the Premier to inform this House of what exactly his government is doing today to actively encourage MPs to support passage of the original resolution passed in the House of Assembly last year, and once already in the House of Commons? Has the Premier received any assurances from the Prime Minister that he will press the members of his sizeable government caucus to support the original resolution?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for this very important question. A substantive question that affects the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, and more importantly the future of education, and therefore the young men and women of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a good question.

I want to assure him that I hope we have a far greater degree of success in influencing Jean Chrétien and the Liberal Party of Canada in supporting Newfoundland's legitimate aspirations to reform its education system than the party opposite had with Mr. Charest and the Tory Senators who defeated the amendment in the Senate of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, what the Senate does is well within its right and well within the law. I'm now asking the Premier, today, in view if the fact that this matter may well come up in the House of Commons this afternoon, what has his government done today to in fact encourage MPs in the House of Commons to vote for the original resolution?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we didn't wait until today. We had members of the government, the Minister of Education, who is one of the most persuasive, as we know, orators in all of the land go to Ottawa and talk to members of the Liberal caucus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, then we had the very even-handed Minister of Justice join in that crusade.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the member is saying to me - and I think this is what he is saying to me, and I congratulate him if this is what he is implying - that after the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, full members of this federation, mature members, able to make up their own minds in a referendum say it is time for education reform; if after the Legislature and all of the parties in the Legislature, and all of the members - and I acknowledge all of the members - recently said it is time for education reform; if the House of Commons, and indeed the House of Commons in majority said it is time to respect the will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the Legislature; if he is saying that after all of that it was ridiculous for the Conservative Party of Canada in the Senate to defeat education reform, I say the member is right, and right again and again and again!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I would indicate to the hon. Premier, Mr. Speaker, that he ought to do a head count. When he does the head count in the Senate he will find out exactly why perhaps we are in the predicament today that we find ourselves in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the hon. Minister of Education on the same matter. Hopefully the minister will not need to fall back on a contingency plan, but that begs the question, and the question is: Did the government in fact develop a detailed contingency plan to allow certain education reforms to proceed promptly if Term 17 were to fail? Is the minister prepared to say what those contingency measures are?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, only the Official Opposition in this regard would plan for defeat. We plan for victory. We are going to go forward with education reform.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Some of the 125 home care workers from the Southern Shore who have been fighting for justice for six months are in the House. The government's attempts to wash its hands of this dispute is nothing short of a scandal. Will the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women tell the House that she and her government are prepared to recognize its role as employer, the same as it does for hospitals and nursing homes in the Province, and sit down and try and negotiate a deal?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues have spoken to this issue many times over the past number of weeks. The Ministers of Social Services and Health have both referred to this particular issue in the context of the employer in this situation who is not government, and in the context of the kinds of funding capacity that the government has to allocate to this particular aspect of its services. We have explained and the ministers have explained, time and again, that, they were very difficult choices that this government had to make in this current Budget, and in doing so, it had to ensure in allocating resources to this and to many other areas, that it was distributing its resources as best as it could under the circumstances and ensuring that the majority of people would be able to access the services that it needs from this government.

We will continue as a government to provide the resources that we have provided in the Budget that are available to us and to ensure through the departments that they are allocated fairly and justly; but in the instance of this particular service, government, in this case, is not the employer and it is being administered through the other boards.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that this is a very necessary public service being performed by public sector workers.

What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is, how can she and the other women in the Cabinet and indeed the entire Cabinet, not react with shame to the fact that they have allowed this situation to continue and are continuing to let these women be treated as second class citizens when they know that women who perform the very same jobs as these women, in a nursing home, get paid almost twice as much? How can she let that go on without being ashamed of herself and her government?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would have to acknowledge on behalf of my government that this is a very vital and a very necessary service to the Province as the member has indicated, and this government has certainly recognized that and continues to.

I would also like to recognize however and acknowledge, that in the past eight years, this particular Budget item has grown from the sum of $700,000 to $30 million, and it is at this point that the government has had to make choices within its total Budget allocation in order to wisely and prudently distribute its resources amongst the services that are all very necessary to the people of this Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier likes to talk about education reform. I want to ask the Premier, will you confirm that during the election campaign, that your brother and another high-ranking Liberal met with Mr. Gerry Fallon during the election campaign and an agreement was reached not to make this an issue during the last election?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, but I suspect that at the rate the Leader of the Opposition is going, he will be withdrawing two days in a row.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, our caucus was informed by Mr. Gerry Fallon that he met with two individuals and agreed not to make this an issue in the campaign, I say to the Premier. We saw the framework agreement after.

Will the Premier now stand and indicate that he had no knowledge of anyone meeting and to keep this secret during the election campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the desperation of the Leader of the Opposition is obviously directly relevant to his position in the opinion polls and obviously, the lower he goes the more desperate the questions become.

Mr. Speaker, in the last election campaign, representatives of the Liberal Party met with representatives of every single interest group that we could possibly meet with to consult on the preparation of the Liberal Red Book and to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that in going forward with a platform that we had actually consulted in advance.

If the Leader of the Opposition and his party had done a similar exercise with respect to the fishery, they would not have brought in a foolish fisheries policy, promising a $75 million expenditure to open every single fish plant in the Province when everybody knows it cannot be done.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is manipulation. That is manipulation, that is what that is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

My questions are to the Minister of Social Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: My question is to the Minister of Social Services.

In a recent Ministerial Statement, the minister noted that changes to adoption laws, procedures and regulations, are being considered by government. It now takes years for adoptees or birth parents to access information. In fact, the department has downsized its staff allocation of one-and-one-half units to handle all the requests for information. What changes does the minister intend to introduce to streamline access to information for both birth parents and adoptees?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

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

The points that have been raised by my hon. colleague are points that are of concern to the Department of Social Services.

As I mentioned in my statement, we are in the process of reviewing our adoptions legislation. We are looking at trying to address the backlog - we openly admit there is a backlog - but I will come back to the issue of choices in a department that services the children of the Province. We have to make choices, and right now our priority is on delivering front-line services to children and trying to deal with the backlog as it arises. Through this summer, in particular, we allocated some summer help to one of the very few departments within my program area to help address the backlog. It is a concern. We are looking at it more thoroughly through program review, and we are hoping that we will, at the end of the day, change how we even deliver the adoption services in this Province.

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

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

Madam Minister, we all welcome greater openness in the adoption procedures in this Province. The most progressive legislation in Canada today is that recently adopted in the Province of British Columbia. Will the minister indicate today that she will be following the same general principles as followed in that Province when they changed their adoption procedures and regulations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

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

I would not confirm anything at this point in time. As I said, we are in the process of program review. We are in the process of receiving a document from our social policy advisory group. We are thoroughly investigating the open adoptions issue, and how we deliver adoptions in this Province. I cannot conclude how we will do that service, but we will look at it in a very thorough, comprehensive way, and report in an appropriate way when it is completed.

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

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

Given the complex nature of the adoption process, the general willingness of society to be more open about adoptions, the need for respect for the legal rights of all involved, and the sensitivity and compassion required, will the minister today state her intent to publish a White Paper for consideration by the House and by the general public prior to the tabling of any legislation here in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, until we identify the direction in which we are going, and get the recommendations from the various groups that are involved, I will not commit to submitting a paper, but I will commit to thoroughly reviewing the existing legislation seeking ongoing public input, as we are doing through the policy advisory committee, through our own program review, and through any other means, particularly in dealing with children who are looking for their birth parents, and also birth parents who are looking for their children whom they gave up for adoption. We will do it in a very comprehensive way, and when we have come to some conclusion as to how we are best able to address it, we will bring it back to the House.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are again for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday, I asked questions of the minister, some very specific questions regarding the HST, and in particular, the unanimous consent needed to decrease the provincial share, the PVAT with this HST. Mr. Speaker, I got two answers. During Question Period, the minister said no, and after Question Period, the minister said yes. I would like for the minister to clarify today which is correct.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think the hon. member understood my answer. What I said was that for the four years that the agreement endures, we are party to it, we can neither increase, nor do we intend to decrease it.

What we have also agreed to is that should it extend beyond the four years, we would include the mechanism whereby changes can be made. One of those change is that if we wish to decrease there will be unanimous agreement of all the participating provinces.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, that adds to the confusion again. Because it is in Hansard for anybody to read, and I encourage the minister to read it afterwards to see what he did say in two different answers. I asked a second question. To add to the confusion, my second question also had two contradictory answers. I asked if the Federal Government could unilaterally raise their portion of the HST, known as the CVAT, as the minister knows, without the consent of the provinces. I did not ask if it was 1 per cent or 5 per cent. I just asked could they increase without the consent of the province. Could the minister tell us that?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gave a lengthier answer during the interval that we have called Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given. I referred the member to the text of the Act which is now before the House, printed and distributed, and the answers that he seeks are in section 14, first of all with respect to an increase, and section 15 with respect to a decrease, and the mechanism for the Federal Government is in the sections between 20 and 28. The hon. member does not believe or understand the answers I gave him, so I suggest that he read it and draw his own conclusions. I outlined in some detail yesterday, Your Honour, and to go beyond it at this point seems meaningless.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister I did read the Act and that is why, I guess, the minister felt a little guilty yesterday and got up after Question Period, after the press left, to give the right answer. It is in black and white in the Hansard and the minister can read it afterwards.

Now, I will ask the next question of the minister. This new tax, the HST, will more than double taxes on such things as electricity, heating fuel, children's clothing - basic necessities. I am sure the minister would agree to that. The minister knows that people on low income in this Province spend a large portion of their disposable income on these basic necessities. Is the minister telling these people, the poorest people of this Province, that they will be hit the hardest by this GST in disguise, which is now called HST?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. The analysis we have done using the Statistics Canada analysis of what people at all income groups spend their general monies on indicates that there will be tax savings at all levels. At the level of someone earning at little as $10,000, or whose gross income is in that amount, they will save $180 in tax per year.

The hon. member can focus on a few items across the broad spectrum of things people spend money on that may result in a tax increase. But, by far and away, the vast majority of goods, and I am sure, in excess of 90 per cent, that people spend their money on, will have a tax reduction of 25 per cent. So in the general weighting of things there is a very substantial advantage to taxpayers. It is a decrease of over $105 million. The hon. member may contort, twist and construe it how he likes, but you cannot contort a tax decrease into a tax increase. I commend him for his efforts, I admire his energy, but not his conclusions, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Can the minister inform the House as to the status of the Atlantic salmon stocks? Have those particular stocks increased since 1992, and if so, to what extent?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. member how much the stocks have increased, but certainly, according to the latest scientific information, the stocks are starting to rebound. The information is encouraging, but we look forward to the future to make sure they are increasing to the numbers that we can be satisfied to provide a recreational salmon fishery that can build the economy in this Province to the way in which we want it to build.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Leader of the Opposition asked a question and in asking the question made an allegation which I responded, in part, to. With leave, Mr. Speaker, I wish to give a full response to the question that was raised with respect to the allegation regarding Mr. Fallon.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: If I have an opportunity too.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to remind members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Premier have leave?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would be delighted to give him leave if I have an opportunity to respond, since it is outside of Question Period.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Leader of the Opposition got up and made an allegation which was entirely unfounded and which the Leader of the Opposition, had he bothered to check at all, even the minimal amount of checking, would know was unfounded; but I have to assume that that investigation was not done.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a statement issued on July 10, 1996. The statement is released by the Catholic Education Council and it reads as follows, and I will read the statement: Gerald Fallon, Executive Director of the Catholic Education Council takes exception to news reports from some media outlets suggesting that there was some form of secret deal during the last provincial election between the Liberal Party Leader, Brian Tobin, and representatives of the Roman Catholic people respecting Term 17. There was no such deal. The Liberal Party made no commitment, other than that made in the election campaign Red Book, which was that there would be consultation with all parties, including the representatives of the denominations on the education reform agenda after the election. `There was an understanding, it says here, `well known among Catholic and Pentecostal people and the Liberal Party that Term 17 would not be an election issue. Mr. Fallon's comments to the Senate Committee were merely intended to explain why the status of Term 17 was not an issue during the election campaign.' That is July 10.

July 9, is a statement issued by my office saying, and I quote, `Premier Tobin has called upon - this is the day before - Gerald Fallon of the Catholic Education Council to correct the public record on a statement attributed to Mr. Fallon during the Senate hearings in St. John's on Tuesday. Any suggestion that the government had any kind of deal with the Catholic Church or anyone else with respect to the process of education reform prior to the election is totally false. The consistent position government held was that we would consult all of the affected parties and at the end of the day, education reform would proceed.' That position was part of our Red Book platform and it was part of hundreds of campaign speeches by me and by other spokespersons.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand the Leader of the Opposition is feeling a little embarrassed by the position of the National Conservative Party Leader, Jean Charest, who voted against this in the House of Commons, and by all of the Conservative members of the Senate. But to once again today be making a false allegation, Mr. Speaker, does not help the cause of promoting public debate in this Province and I would ask him to withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, and I am sure the Premier should be a bit embarrassed that a Liberal controlled Senate could not pass this resolution, and the House of Assembly with his own colleagues -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked for time to respond to statements the Premier made. I was given leave to do that. Anything the Premier said - Mr. Speaker, my comments will not go outside issues that the Premier raised here today.

Mr. Fallon was asked a question by a Caucus colleague of mine, in Caucus, if he met with people from the Liberal Party and agreed that it would not become an issue during this campaign, and he said yes. In fact, the day of that statement, Premier, he called you and told you who it was. You know as well as I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was it? Who was it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not going to name -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not say Mr. Fallon told us who it was. I said he told us he met with two. I ask the Premier: Will he confirm that it was his brother and one other whose name I know, who met and agreed to keep it secret during the election campaign? Then we saw the frame work agreement. We saw the famous -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I gave the Premier an opportunity. I listened to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked for an opportunity. I gave the Premier the courtesy of his statement and I am only addressing statements the Premier referred to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Since that election we saw a frame work agreement of backtracking by government, and when they got their knuckles rapped they turned around and went back to where they were before. That is very significant on what was reached during the campaign. The Premier can sit in his seat, when he knows fully well that what we are saying is true?

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of all members of this place, not abusing the privilege we have, which is the privilege of immunity, if there is any suggestion in any of this debate - and I know it would be inadvertent on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, he would want to join me in saying this - surely you are not saying now that Mr. Fallon, in his statement, has lied to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I accept his public statement and I would ask that the Leader of the Opposition does the same.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly my hon. friend for Bonavista South asked me a question as to how much money was spent on the St. Lawrence fish plant since June of this year. In June of this year electrical repairs were done to the tune of $7866 and in August we spent $210 on an ammonia leak. Those were the total expenses this year, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Cape St. Francis, I say to the Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I know the resemblance he has to the former member for Cape St. Mary's, so I understand it completely.

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

That is what happens when you have a previous administration changing electoral boundaries and putting names on them that people are not familiar with.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition, a very serious petition, I say to the Minister of Education, and I can read the wording, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened. The petition of the undersigned residents of Pouch Cove, Newfoundland has seventy-six signatures, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS we the citizens of the town of Pouch Cove have lost confidence in the ability of the town council of Pouch Cove to effectively govern the town as demonstrated by the 1993 financial audit in which $18,000 was misspent, and the 1995 financial audit in which $16,000 is unaccounted for, and

WHEREAS the town council has adopted a very uncooperative attitude towards the taxpayers, residents of the town, and have demonstrated total insensitivity to the concerns of the taxpayers, residents,

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instruct the Auditor General for Newfoundland and Labrador to undertake a full and comprehensive investigation into the practices, policies, finances, administration, and all aspects of the town council of Pouch Cove.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition here today on behalf of the people who signed it.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows - and as he has been kept well informed of this situation - in 1993 there was a police investigation by the RCMP in the town of Pouch Cove and there was upwards of $18,000 misspent. Shortly after that, in the Fall of 1993, there was an election and a new council elected. Then the people of the town were expecting proper procedures and policies to be put in place to prohibit this sort of thing from happening again. Then in January of 1996 the assistant town clerk at the time was dismissed because of irregularities found in the bookkeeping of the town. A police investigation was then called by the town council of Pouch Cove, and rightly so. Immediately there was a police investigation. The report was inconclusive - I believe it was in September - and the town council requested that the RNC further investigate. A report recently came in which was again inconclusive, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime, the town manager was dismissed. At the time the town manager was dismissed, there was a lot of concern in the town as to who was being investigated. Was it one person, two people, was it a councillor, more than one councillor, all councillors or everybody involved? There was a lot of confusion in the town, and subsequently there was a committee formed and a public meeting held. There were something like 300 people who showed up for that meeting. The people were genuinely concerned and they asked that the committee go forward, speak to the minister, or representatives of the minister, and see what they could discover with respect to the monies that were missing in the town of Pouch Cove.

Further to that meeting, the people on the committee felt they were not getting the cooperation of certain people within the town council itself, and they called another public meeting and basically the same thing was done again. The committee had some research done themselves and presented it to the public at the time, probably another 300 people, but they could not come up with any conclusions.

Recently, this past week, last Thursday night, I believe, the town council itself, with all the councillors there, the representatives of their legal counsel, the Town Engineer, Keith Warren from Municipal and Provincial Affairs was there, their auditors were there and there were about 300 to 400 people there. There were two police from the RNC who had done the investigation, and the meeting was quite hot and heavy, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. I was there, I attended the meeting. But the people really did not get what they wanted. They did not get the answers and possibly why the police report was inconclusive, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that the procedures and policies that were put in place, were not complete enough to allow the RNC to get to the bottom of the problem.

Now, the people at that meeting, close to 400 people, I would think - the media was there, Mr. Speaker. And everyone who spoke - and almost everyone spoke, called for the resignation of the council. But the council really did not want to resign at that point in time because they felt that they had done nothing wrong.

Mr. Speaker, what these people are calling for now - and really, to get to the bottom of it, is a legislative audit done by the Auditor General, Mr. Speaker, which could very well vindicate a number of people whom the finger is now pointed at, and I think, really, that nothing less than a legislative audit would be acceptable to the people of the Town of Pouch Cove.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that this petition I present here today, has seventy-six signatures but there is another petition coming, let me tell you, with hundreds and hundreds of names on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is a petition coming in the next day or two, with, I would say, upwards of 800 to 1,000 names and the population of Pouch Cove is only 2,000 people, including children. So that would lead you to believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is an overwhelming support in the Town of Pouch Cove for a legislative audit, and obviously, there is very little faith and confidence in the town council of Pouch Cove. Hopefully, if we get a legislative audit, it will -

AN HON. MEMBER: A legislative audit?

MR. J. BYRNE: An Auditor General's investigation would actually get to the bottom of this and vindicate certain people who should be vindicated, and point the finger, Mr. Speaker, at the people who are guilty of incompetence within the town council itself.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise today to support my colleague, the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis in his presentation of the petition on behalf of the citizens of Pouch Cove.

I have some familiarity with Pouch Cove, having married into a Pouch Cove family. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the appropriate minister that the difficulties in Pouch Cove are not unlike the difficulties in many other municipalities in this Province. And it goes to show that the procedures and practices that are followed in many municipalities need to be reviewed more often by the Auditor General or by some other comprehensive auditing system than they are at the current time.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Pouch Cove have had some great frustration in the past four or five years, frustration brought on by missing funds or misappropriated funds, and it is hard to find out exactly what happens. In themselves, you cannot say because their funds are missing that someone indeed has broken the law. You cannot jump, you know, from A to B. you might say. It may just simply be that there are improper or inadequate at least, accounting procedures in place.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think the message to the government from the people of Pouch Cove is that, they would like to see a proper audit carried out, a legislative audit that would examine, not just the bookkeeping procedures, but whether or not all of the expenditures and the procedures followed in Pouch Cove do comply with the legislation contained in the Municipalities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition. I could not support the part where it says that they wish to call upon their town council to resign because I have difficulty with that. Because the town council of Pouch Cove have been found guilty of nothing. They have not been found in a court of law to have done anything wrong, and therefore, I have difficulty saying to them: We are going to call upon you to be dismissed from office. However, the people of Pouch Cove have every right to call upon the government to do a legislative audit, and I would support that part of the petition, and recommend it highly to the Provincial Government.

Also, I think the Provincial Government should now be looking at the circumstances that evolved in Conception Bay South, and looking at what is happening in Pouch Cove, to a message that says that all is not well in municipalities in this Province. When we have two major municipalities that have encountered difficulties, I think it sends a signal that the Province should be doing more, that the minister should be aware of the fact that we should be looking closely at the bookkeeping, the auditing practices and the financial procedures in municipalities in this Province.

With these comments, I support the petition. However, as I said before, we must be careful how we proceed, that we do not hurt the reputations of the duly elected councillors without adequate research and due cause.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting A Provincial College," carried. (Bill No. 47)

On motion, Bill No. 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it seems that I am missing a minister again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes I have. I am looking for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. She is outside with the media. Maybe, if the hon. gentlemen want to, we might do An Act To Amend The Freedom Of Information Act And The Privacy Act. Or we could do An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, Mr. Speaker, Order No. 11.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act". (Bill No. 26)

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

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

This amendment is a follow-up to a report on labour standards that was done in the past year, and would see a couple of changes made to the Labour Standards Act.

"Clause 2 of the bill would amend the Act by adding subsection 8(1.1) which would allow an employee with more than 15 years of service with the same employer to take 3 weeks paid vacation per year or 6% vacation pay." That is a change there to the benefit of the worker.

"Clause 4 would expand entitlement to bereavement leave to include leave upon the death of a grandchild." So it would expand bereavement leave provisions for workers covered under the Labour Standards Act.

These are two amendments that are being brought forward at this time. Further amendments are being considered, and a further discussion of the labour standards report is underway. These two are ready now. We are looking at some other provisions. The Labour Standards Act covers working conditions in the Province for workers, and I would like to introduce it to the House of Assembly for further debate.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to the legislation, the amendments to the Labour Standards Act. These amendments provide that a person with fifteen years of continuous employment - it must be continuous - is entitled by law to three weeks vacation and, furthermore, bereavement leave if the grandchild dies.

Mr. Speaker, what I find very interesting about this bill is that it is necessary. There are those who think that the private sector must work out its own arrangements, and that the government regulation: keep away from the workplace; keep away from business; keep away from free enterprise; do not put any restrictions on people in their hiring because we are going to scare away employers; we are going to scare away, frighten away, business; the rugged, rampant, capitalists of the United States who can go to Georgia or come here are going to go to Georgia because they have no laws. They say that we have to keep our standards low.

Mr. Speaker, what is very interesting is that this government feels that it must legislate, must legislate, that someone is entitled to bereavement leave because their grandchild, a grandson or granddaughter, has died. It is a sad, sad, sad commentary on the state of life in Newfoundland at this time, or the attitude that employers still have.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the state of the law in this Province, and employment in this Province, I think the minister had better have a good, long, hard look at all labour standards and make sure that every part of the contract of employment is regulated far better than it is.

Let's see some better rules and regulations for wrongful dismissal. Never mind letting employers sit down and look at the Labour Standards Act after they are going to throw someone out the door and say: Well, the Labour Standards Act says I only have to give you one week severance pay here; or if they are there for two years, I only have to give you two weeks notice. That is the minimum. In fact employers, and lawyers for employers, have gone to court and argued that the minimum standard of the Labour Standards Act, of one week or two weeks, is also the maximum, that the government has legislated that you are only required to give one week, or in some cases two weeks, notice.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that this minister is bringing in this legislation is an admission and acknowledgement by government that there is a need, and a great need, because obviously the minister feels that there are employers in this Province so callous and so mean-spirited, and so ignorant of the needs of families and people, that they would deny -

MR. TULK: Mostly private law firms.

MR. HARRIS: I have talked about law firms. Law firms employees are not treated very well in many cases, I say. They should get out and get organized, join a union.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Employees of law firms, yes they should.

MR. TULK: Law firms?

MR. HARRIS: Join unions, yes.

MR. TULK: Yes, I agree.

MR. HARRIS: Collectively bargain.

MR. TULK: Have they got a union down at your?

MR. HARRIS: That is not my job.

MR. TULK: Oh, that is not your job!

MR. HARRIS: No, no. Employers do not impose unions on people. It is a choice of individuals to collectively bargain.

What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a way in which employees can fight for collective rights. They can join a union. They can bargain collectively. They can sit down and negotiate collectively with their employer. Sometimes there is uncertainty as to who the employer is. The health care workers who are up there in the House are being manipulated and abused by this government who is trying to pretend they are not the employer, that the Minister of Social Services, turning to sick people, old people, and disabled people, and pretending that they are employers, making them fill out forms to Revenue Canada which they cannot read, in some cases cannot see, pretending that they are the employers.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about labour standards here now and the fact that government has required to impose that someone, as an employer, must give three weeks vacation after fifteen years of continuous employment, that the law must impose an obligation on people. The law must impose an obligation on employers to give someone time off to attend a funeral of as close a relative as a grandchild.

I think, Mr. Speaker, anybody who sees this legislation and sees that this is regarded by government as a necessary improvement to the Labour Standards Act, so necessary they are prepared to bring it in on a piecemeal basis as opposed to part of a general review, is a sad commentary on the state of attitude towards employment, towards employees by employers of in Province.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister can tell us why he feels it is so important, at this time, to bring this in right now before Christmas without it being part of an overall review?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be bated by the Government House Leader, who is trying to get me off track. I am not going to be bated by him.

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister really should tell us why it is he is bringing this in, piecemeal at this time, without looking at the whole of the act and bringing it up to par with the modern employment standards and making it easier for people to have claims brought to the Labour Standards Board and dealt with. Some of these reviews have been going on for some time, Mr. Speaker. Why isn't he bringing it all in and letting us debate all the changes and fixing up all of the problems with the Labour Standards Act?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The other side of the House want to indicate to the minister that we are in general agreement with the amendments and that, as my colleague to my right here has said, it is a -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) to your right, but read it to your left?

MR. H. HODDER: Well, to my right.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) to your left. He pretends to be.

MR. H. HODDER: He is to my right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he is to your right. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the point has been made that in 1996 we need to have a piece of legislation brought forward in this House that would do two things; it would assure that those people who have fifteen years of continuous employment with the same employer shall be permitted to have three weeks paid vacation per year, fifteen days. Mr. Speaker, we would totally agree with that. In the absence of taking that particular vacation, there is provision in Section 3 for them to be paid 6 per cent of their gross salary.

Mr. Speaker, in themselves, these particular amendments are very important, because we have to remember that we, as legislators, have to stand up for the ordinary person, the little guy. It is the person who is out there in the community, who finds today that he needs this piece of legislation, that I have great sympathy for; the fact that we have people who are important in this Province in 1996, who must look to this piece of legislation to have three weeks vacation every year after fifteen years of continuous employment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty I have with that is a definition of the word `continuous.' Therefore, all seasonal employees will not get vacation because if they are off for some period of time that will not count. If you happen to have an employee who is not employed for some time, maybe two weeks, two months - and I have known instances where employers have said that in year number seven, you were off for two months. Fifteen years arrived and they would not be able to qualify. The sad commentary is that we still have employers who are that picky with employees. That is a sad reflection on our society.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have to keep in mind, as well, that when we have to put in legislation to say that upon the death of a grandchild we will guarantee the right of a grandparent to have bereavement leave, what does that say about our Newfoundland society? What does it say about the people who are in big business? What does it say about we, as a Newfoundland community, where we traditionally prided ourselves on sharing and being involved in outreach when families go through these kinds of tragedies? Now we have to put in law that a grandparent is, by law, given the right to have bereavement leave when their grandchild dies.

Mr. Speaker, I support the government in putting it in here. I say to the government that it is, again, a step in the right direction. We look forward to a comprehensive review of the labour laws and the Labour Standards Act. However, I say to the Government House Leader, that we look forward to that, because this is not the only part that needs to be reviewed. As far as this goes today, we believe that this is a positive thing, good for employees who need this kind of legislation, but a sad reflection that the party opposite, as the government, find it necessary to bring in these kinds of amendments right now.

Mr. Speaker, with these comments I will yield to my colleague for the District of Kilbride.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The hon. Government House Leader says: What do you have to say for yourself now? Mr. Speaker, this is essentially -

AN HON. MEMBER: This is unbelievable.

MR. TULK: They have four people on that side who have to stand and say we support this.

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to make a quick point, that is all. I'm not going to reiterate the comments that have been raised by other members on the issue, but just to say that this is a quick house-keeping piece of legislative business that came as recommendations to the department in terms of bereavement leave, and we support it. That isn't the issue. The Official Opposition certainly supports the amendments as have been put forward here.

As I just said to the minister in my initial discussion with him on the piece of legislation, with respect to other recommendations, a whole body of recommendations that refer to the department by the labour standards act review, that this should be, and I hope that there is a longer or more substantial body of information coming, or legislation coming, that acts upon those recommendations, because they are important.

A quick commentary, Mr. Speaker. I see no problem in supporting this piece of legislation. I suggest we move it quickly and move on to other issues that are of contention.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, having heard the hon. gentlemen on the other side, except for the attack of the sole NDP member in the House, the voice of labour in the House, that ultraconservative from Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, having heard the comments from the Opposition House Leader, and the comments of the Member for Kilbride - he was, as is usual with him, very forthright and very straightforward - Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 26)

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

MR. TULK: Order No. 9, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act". (Bill No. 35).

Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act", (Bill No. 35).

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce for debate on second reading, a bill, " An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act".

The proposed amendments to the Urban and Rural Planning Act are designed to speed up the plan amendment approval process, to introduce fees for the lodging of appeals and to clarify the purchase notice provisions.

The approval process with respect to the process amendments will be speeded up by reducing from one month down to fourteen days, the notice period required for a proposed public hearing. If the hearing does not have to proceed because no representations are being made, cancellation can be carried out by staff in consultation with the municipality, so avoiding ministerial approval for this routine matter.

With respect to the appeal board fees, presently the costs of operating the appeal process are borne by the Province and not the users of the system. It is proposed that a fee be introduced which will be retained by the Province to defray costs associated with operating the system and this fee will be paid by the losing party of the appeal. The proposed fee is in the order of $100 per appeal.

In the third area, the purchase notice provisions, the proposed amendments to section 124, purchase notices are designed only to clarify the present wording of that section. There is no substantive change, and concern has been expressed in the past about the ordering of the current section and its lack of clarity in the options available for the minister to accept or reject a purchase notice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a few words on Bill 35 which amends The Urban and Rural Planning Act.

I have to ask the question: What is going on in this Province, Mr. Speaker, today? What is going on in this House these days, and what, Mr. Speaker, is going on in Cabinet, these days? That is the question that is going to come to light very soon, I would say, because each bill that is going through the House this week - just look at each bill. The Lands Act, what was going on there? It is giving more powers to the minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: Good governing.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is not what is called governing, I say to the Minister of Health.

Then, we had the Expropriations Act, Mr. Speaker, and what was going on with the Expropriations Act? What was the main theme, what was the main thought, what was the main idea of the Expropriation Act? Give more power to the minister, that is what the main theme, the main idea was. Then, we had the Fish Inspection Act.

Not only do members on this side of the House agree with this, but people in private industry in the fishery agree, that the main theme of the amendment to that Act was to give more powers to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. And now, we have another bill before this House of Assembly, which amends the Urban And Rural Planning Act, and what does that do, Mr. Speaker? Exactly the same thing; it gives more power to the minister.

MR. TULK: Is that right, `Jack'?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader is over there saying: Is that right, `Jack'? Is that right, `Jack'? Is that right, `Jack', and he sounds like a broken record. That is right, `Jack', I say to the minister. That is right.

MR. TULK: Okay, `Jack'.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will do that, I will.

Mr. Speaker, this bill gives more -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will ask this: Minister, are you a man of your word?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are?

MR. TULK: Oh yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Definitely?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will see you tomorrow and you will have an answer for me.

MR. TULK: Oh yes, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: A positive answer.

MR. TULK: I didn't say that.

MR. J. BYRNE: You committed.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) answers.

MR. J. BYRNE: You committed, you said you would do it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I stood up as I usually do to speak for five or ten minutes on a bill, and the Government House Leader continues to interject and I'm up here thirty-five or forty minutes, or a half-hour, because he continues to interject. If he wants me to be up for half-an-hour, please feel free. It is no sweat to me.

With respect to Bill 35, there are three basic problems with the bill. First, it gives the minister new power to impose fees for appeals. Now, we had the Minister of Finance this year bring down a new Budget with no tax increases, Mr. Speaker. That was the main idea of the Budget. That was what all the praise and all the talk was about from that side of the House, no taxes, and what have we seen ever since?

MR. TULK: You must be gaining a reputation for talking.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, a good one. You need not worry.

The bill gives new powers to the minister to impose fees for appeals, as I said, another tax grab, Mr. Speaker. And not only does he have the power to impose fees but he can also set the rate or the amount, how much the fee will be. What is this fee for, Mr. Speaker? If I have an appeal to the urban region planning board, if you want to refer to it as that, and I want to appeal it, now I have to write a cheque to someone to have the right to appeal.

My basic rights are being taken away from me as an ordinary Newfoundlander, and when I say me, I refer, of course, to other people in the public, in the Province, in the municipality, and what have you, we have a situation now where I would have to write out a cheque to appeal a decision that I feel was made in error against me as an individual within the Province. The minister can do that. Not only now do I have to write out a cheque to that person, but this bill, also, from what I understand, gives the council the authority, depending on the town council, to also charge a fee.

When the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs gets on his feet and explains what is going on with this bill, at the end of debate on third reading, he will maybe alleviate my fears and say it is not the case. But he will have to prove it to me, Mr. Speaker. From reading the black and white of the bill, it certainly appears that, in actual fact, for me to appeal a refusal or even a condition - if I apply to build a house somewhere and I get the land approved and the town council sets down a condition of the approval and I want to appeal the condition of the approval, I now have to write a cheque to have that right.

That in itself is a tax grab. I want to go back to what I said earlier, that the ministers were bragging and talking to the media, and every chance when he gets on his feet, the Minister of Finance says there are no new taxes this year. But what have we seen, Mr. Speaker? Every time we stand in this House of Assembly to discuss a bill, we see new taxes going in, hidden taxes in the form of fees and permits, and what have you.

Now, this bill also gives the minister the power to set an even shorter period of notice for public hearings on a municipal plan, which gives citizens less time to respond to these plans and gives council less time to prepare. From memory when reading the bill - and I do not know if I will get into the actual details - I think the time was a month. If a town adopted a town plan, they had a month. They gazetted it for one month and then they put it in the local paper and got response. Now, that is being cut back to fourteen days - fourteen days to respond to a town plan. It really is not a lot of time. Somebody could be on holidays and come back to find their town plan has been adopted. It might affect a piece of property right the middle of a town that could be zoned for anything at all and you would not be able to have input into it, Mr. Speaker. So that is a major concern.

Also, this amendment gives the minister new power to use his own discretion in deciding whether to purchase land from a landowner who claims to have been hurt by a municipal plan or a zoning change. Now, previously, if a town plan was in place and an individual made an application to, say, build a house or put in some sort of commercial development, or what have you, and it was refused by the municipality, the individual could then apply to the town and have the town put in what they call a purchase notice. Then the town could be required to purchase the land, but now the minister may have the right in himself, or herself, to say, no to it, to automatically refuse it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: The purchase notice, the minister can say no to it. As a matter of fact, previous to this amendment going through, if the purchase notice was refused, of course, there had to be conditions and explanations as to why it was refused. Now the minister can say: No, that is it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is the truth. Those are the facts.

The problem with bills going through this House of Assembly is the fact that the Government House Leader is over there making comments all the time, and I can lay dollars to donuts that the minister never looked at one of these bills. He is making comments right, left and centre, and he does not know what he is talking about. Then he tries to mislead people - I am not going to say mislead; that is not true - he tries to get people off their train of thought.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am talking about you now.

MR. TULK: Me?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. TULK: I am not doing that.

MR. J. BYRNE: I was talking about you that time, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: You were?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, definitely. That is what I am saying; you should be paying attention, I say to the Government House Leader.

As I said earlier, there are two types of fees being introduced here - not one, two - for me, for you, for anybody sitting in this House of Assembly, or anybody out of the 600,000 or 700,000 people in the Province. Any property owner, any landowner in the Province can end up paying two fees to have an appeal heard that he doesn't have to pay now.

Also, now we have an administrator. Someone appealing a decision of an authorized administrator under this act must also submit a fee. That is what I spoke to earlier with respect to the town or the urban region planning group or the town council in itself.

Another point, as I said earlier, is the current act is being reduced with respect to the time and notice for public hearings. That, in itself, could be a contradiction within this amendment. I think, if the minister was here, on third reading we would probably have to introduce an amendment to this, and a very good amendment, too, because of simple logistics. What is happening now is that basically the time frame says fourteen days but it should read fifteen days because there are varied amounts of time. If today I have notice of an appeal, or an act that is going to be put in place in fourteen days' time, how am I going to actually have the time to respond? The bare minimum would be fifteen days, I would imagine, and probably twenty-one, so that is something that is going to have to be looked at.

MR. TULK: Sing a Christmas carol (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader asked me to sing him a Christmas carol. I am letting you know, I know my own limitations; let me tell you. I hope you do. I cannot sing. I cannot carry a note.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) sit down.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: If you knew your limitations you would sit down right now.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely. I am only getting going now, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Well, you don't know your limitations.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are getting irritated now. There you go; that is what I am here for.

Mr. Speaker, under the current act the objective was to file a list of objections with the council at least five days before the hearing. So if I have problems with the act, or with the new plan going through, I have to at least - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: What bill are you doing?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Urban and Rural Planning Act.

I can tell you, I can get onto the St. John's urban region planning regulations which were put in place, and I can talk a long while on that. I don't even need notes. I can get on to that. I might get on to that yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can if I want to, yes. I am not sure I will, but I might. If you guys keep interrupting me, I may go an hour; I am not sure. It depends on how I feel, I say to them.

Mr. Speaker, I as an individual, or you as an individual, if we wish to appeal now, under the current act, I have five days to lodge an appeal. I have to give notice of five days to the municipality. Now that is going to be reduced to two, forty-eight hours. Can you imagine me walking into a council office in St. John's, or Torbay, or Flatrock, or Stephenville, or what have you, and with forty-eight hours notice come in with a list of concerns that I wish to appeal, and give it to the councillor, or the town clerk, or the town manager, on, say, a Thursday morning, the office closed Friday, and the appeal is going to be on Monday, say; what time does the town have to properly review the concerns, to properly do an investigation into the concerns, to properly deal with all the different governments that they may or may not have to deal with?

The minister, when she stood on her feet and introduced this bill - I haven't even gotten to that yet, have I? - talked about speeding up the process. In actual fact it may, from this perspective alone, actually extend or lengthen the process.

Now the minister, under this new section, under the new amendments, Mr. Speaker, now has the power to reject a purchase notice on his own. He does not have to give any reasons why and (inaudible) reference to any conditions as to why he was rejecting a purchase notice. That, from my perspective again, goes right back to the question that I asked when I stood up, what is going on with this Cabinet?

MR. GRIMES: Who writes that stuff (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Ourselves, we prepare our own.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: This is only parts of it, only parts.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Education, I never cease to amaze you. There you go, and further things to come.

MR. MATTHEWS: Jack, why don't you help your leader with his questions?

MR. J. BYRNE: Well my leader is well capable of taking care of himself, I say to the Minister of Health. Now there you go, can you believe that Minister of Health, what he is saying there? He wants me to take care of my leader and when he was over answering questions today and the other day when he was over answering questions, who got up to answer the questions, I say to the Minister of Health? To the Minister of Health, who got up and answered your questions? Who protected you? It was the little fellow from Labrador. The little fellow from Labrador had to stand up and take care of that great big man right there, the big Minister of Health. So he is over there now with the audacity and the nerve to say, `Who rights my leaders questions and I should protect him.' Well how two-faced can a person be, I say to the minister? It is like - I won't get into that.

Now this new act will give the minister, Mr. Speaker, the new discretionary powers to refuse expropriated land compromised by the municipal or other plan. He has the authority, himself, no one else, to say, yes, no, whatever. He can have all kinds of recommendations from the staff. He can have all kinds of recommendations from the planning group. He can have all kinds of recommendations from the town council and he can come to them and say - for whatever reason, it could be political maybe, political, Mr. Speaker, that no, that is it, forget it, out the window, no. The minister seems - and here is the point, the minister seems especially anxious to spell out that he has the power to reject a purchase notice and that such a decision means that government is not liable to award compensation to the land owner. Why is he so anxious to spell this out? Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. It just hit me, Mr. Speaker. We have all these -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, now we are getting to the crux of the matter on what is going on. I asked a question when I first stood, why are all these ministers getting extra power or extra authority that they do not have at this present time? We are looking at the Expropriations Act, the Lands Act, basically the Municipalities Act, Urban and Rural Planning Act, Mr. Speaker, and the Fish Inspection Act. Well what is going on in the Province today, I say to you, Mr. Speaker? What is going on in the Province today, Mr. Speaker? Well we just had an announcement out in Argentia of a smelter going out there. I wonder could it have anything to do with that? We have a transshipment site coming to the Province. Good news, great news, I commend it, great stuff. All kinds of jobs, wonderful, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping actually, I am hoping, if things work out, that we will get people coming back to the Province. As a matter of fact, I am hoping to get relatives to come back to the Province because of that situation out there and if I am fortunate enough that will happen.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is the type of things but now with all these changes to the act is it because of something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about? Now I don't want to cast aspersions on anybody or what have you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) boring speech.

MR. J. BYRNE: We all have to pay our dues, I say to the Member for Terra Nova. I have been here sitting in this seat here on a number of occasions and when yourself got up to speak on a number of times, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I had to fight to keep my eyes open. So I am only paying back retribution. Pardon?

MR. MATTHEWS: We got the same kind of (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am glad to hear it, Mr. Speaker. Well here is a solution, no problem, when I sit down in another thirty or forty minutes why don't the Minister of Health get up and give one of his elaborate speeches and keep us all amused? Amused would be the right word because when the Minister of Health gets up to speak on questions in this House of Assembly in Question Period, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of words from him, and repetition, and boring repetition. He is gone now, thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you going to leave soon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are going to do your motion tomorrow. You had better save your voice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this bill that is going through the House of Assembly today is very questionable, from my perspective. There are a few notes here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have notes on it?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Just a few quick notes when the minister was speaking, that is all. I will find them. Here they are. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who introduced the bill for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs stood in her place and read out a short few words, almost as short as the few words the Minister of Environment and Labour read out when he introduced his bill. She said: The whole intent of this bill is to.... What? Let me see if I can make out my own writing here. To speed up the application process, Mr. Speaker, for individuals within the Province, within a given zoning I suppose.

From the very comments I made earlier obviously that may not take place. It very well may be the intent, but it is certainly not going to be the result of this legislation going through the House. She talked about reducing notice to individuals. Notice with respect to a new plan being adopted by a municipality. Also, giving notice from a month down to two weeks, and from five days down to two days if I want to go in and make an appeal. I don't know if that is going to speed up anything. Because it may be the intent to speed it up, but, as I said earlier, if I want to make an appeal and I only have to give two days' notice, and I have a list of problems that I want to be addressed, and all these problems have to be addressed (inaudible) Departments of Works, Services, and Transportation, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Health, Environment and Labour, and they are only going to give two days' notice? How can it be? How will that speed up the process? I don't know.

Another thing too is that the minister mentioned something about if there are no presentations there are to be no hearings. I suppose that makes sense. I can agree to that. That makes a bit of sense, I suppose. She talked about fees defraying costs. We had a situation here, I think it was yesterday, under the Expropriation Act, where the minister now, or the PUB, can set rates for people who wish to appeal their expropriation of land that is being expropriated from them. Of course, from what we can see the amount the individuals would have to pay could be unlimited.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know. I'm only referring to the common trend that this government is doing with respect to all the bills that it is pushing through the House of Assembly, I say to the (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am, I'm doing the best I can, and let bygones be bygones, let me tell you that. That is why I'm so nice to you.

The minister mentioned that there is $100 appeal. Is that $100 per appeal?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not for (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Actually, I wish I had a few more, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a good point the Government House Leader brought up then. That was a fact, that he talked about surveyors charging fees. The Minister of Government Services and Lands today made a ministerial statement, presented a White Paper that I even agree with the minister on, that it was probably a good idea to review the different associations and to get some kind of a common trend throughout those. I agree with him.

In that, of course, groups listed, are engineers, lawyers, nurses, architects, surveyors, and what have you. Therefore all these acts that are going through - self-governing bodies, as we refer to them as, professional bodies. Never hurts to review and keep things in line with the modern day, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

But there are a lot of concerns with respect to this bill, let me tell you. What we will do, when we get in third reading, we will address many of them, in due course. The act itself - Yes, I'm just skimming this here now, Mr. Speaker, it will just take a minute. Yes, just one point here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I have all kinds of notes made. I was just reviewing them to see that I hadn't covered them already. If I was over there I would not have too big a smile on my face if I was sitting in your chair, I say to you. I would not have too big a smile on my face after the smelter went to Argentia and we have three members from Labrador. Three?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, three members from Labrador and the smelter goes to Argentia. Just think about that, now. That is a good point. Here we are, seven PC members here on the Avalon Peninsula, and three members from Labrador, and the smelter going on the Avalon Peninsula. My sonny boy, that is a good question.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will be addressing this bill further in committee stage. I think I have pretty well said what I want to say today on this bill. I hope that a few members on the opposite side will get up. Maybe the Member for Humber Valley, the former critic for municipal affairs, may want to say a few words. I suppose if he gets on his feet he will disagree with everything I say; that would not be unlikely.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want me to get up?

MR. J. BYRNE: You can; it is up to yourself. The Minister of Education can refer to it. I am sure there are other people on this side of the House who are just waiting for me to sit down, to get up to speak to this bill.

In conclusion, I thank the House for the indulgence and I look forward to speaking on this bill in third reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise again today to speak on this particular piece of legislation, "An Act To Amend The Urban and Rural Planning Act". In particular, I wanted to draw reference to a couple of the clauses that are contained in the explanatory notes, and to say as well that there are some good sections to this particular piece of legislation.

Clause 1 of the bill amends the current act "...to add to the requirements for making an appeal to a board established under section 8, the inclusion of a required fee for the appeal."

Mr. Speaker, when we start talking about people having to pay for the right to appeal, we are again placing significant numbers of our citizens at a decided disadvantage. In other words, what we are saying is that if you have a perceived injustice which you, as a taxpayer and as a resident of a province, feel is an injustice, then if you want to have that addressed you had better be able and willing to pay a required fee. That seems to be unfair. It seems to be unjust.

We have difficulty with the fact that we are saying that if you want to have justice done that you have to be willing to pay for it. Therefore, in clause 2 we have the amendment which says this "...would add a new section 8.1 to the Act to establish the payment of fees for appeals and the means of repayment of fees where an applicant is successful."

What that really says is that people have to be very, very sure that they are going to be successful. So, if there is any shadow of a doubt then the applicant for the appeal will lose his or her money.

As far as the publication in the local paper is concerned, that is a positive thing. When we find that you have to publish in the Gazette the notices required under the Urban and Rural Planning Act, this is a significant bit of a nuisance to municipalities, and it is also a nuisance to the ordinary individuals, given the fact of the publication schedule of the Gazette itself.

Clause 3, saying you have to publish in a local paper, is quite okay. That is a positive thing because the idea that somebody who is, let's say, living in Twillingate has to, when doing an appeal, publish the notice of their appeal in the Gazette really doesn't make much sense. Therefore, we accept the fact that publication of the notice done in a local paper is quite okay. In many cases that would be more meaningful, because I do not know great numbers of people in the Province who rush out every day to buy the Gazette but they do buy their local papers so, publishing in the local paper, the notice of an appeal is indeed a positive step forward.

When we are looking at clause 4 and reducing the publication notice from one month to fourteen days, I really do not see any great difficulty with that because for the most part, people who are going to be affected by the appeal will have already known that the appeal would be coming up and that the people making the appeal would indeed notify for the most part those people who are affected, so fourteen days appears to be okay with the exception of course, and I notice that the minister may, on rare occasions, extend them and then we are looking at a major development with a lot of legal complications that might be extended.

Mr. Speaker, with these couple of comments, and again, I go back to my initial comment that the intent here is to transfer the expenses of the Province on to the backs of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that in itself seems to put a dollar value on justice, a dollar value on people's rights, therefore I have difficulty with that, because a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who feel that they might be disadvantaged by the decision of a bureaucracy might be reluctant to take on that bureaucracy and the old saying that: `you can't fight City Hall' may be true because in many cases people feel terribly intimidated.

They feel that the bureaucracy, be it the provincial bureaucracy, be it a municipal bureaucracy, whatever it is, ordinary people feel that when you take on the bureaucracy, you are taking on the lawyers, the accountants, the city managers, you are taking on the people in the planning divisions, the city planners, the municipal planners, the engineers and all of these people who are very, very highly educated, therefore many people feel intimidated and that certainly is to be expected and so we have to keep in mind the position of many ordinary people. They do not have money to go out and pay $1,000 a day to some high-powered lawyer or an influential lawyer or well-read lawyer or a learned friend, as the former House Leader would say, but these people know that there has been an injustice put upon them.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill has the potential, the real potential of denying to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, access to a just cause that they themselves have interpreted to be unjust. In other words, they feel that they have been wronged and now they have been told, if you want to take that through an appeal process that now there is a dollar value placed on it and if you go and you spend your money and you lose, therefore you are going to lose your money as all the costs would be borne by you and only when you are successful, will you be able to have those costs returned.

Now we recognized that municipalities and government have expenses but, is it reasonable to expect ordinary people to have to pay their taxes, they pay for the bureaucracy, the citizen who lives in Gambo or Mount Pearl or Cartwright, wherever they are, these people pay their taxes, they pay for the bureaucracy and now when they come to the bureaucracy and say: we feel that what you have done is not right. Now if you want to challenge us you have to pay us again. There is something wrong with that. People should be able to approach their civil servants - and you are a public servant when you are in the bureaucracy - and put forward their case without having to say I am going to do this, I am going to put up $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 to put my case forward and if I don't win my case I am prepared to lose it all. There is something wrong with the philosophy and in a way this procedure is really another way of being a tax grab. It is similar to the measures taken by the minister, she wants to go relative to Crown lands because people will have to pay this money. People who feel that they have been wronged will have to pay this money because if not they will lose property, they will lose their inheritances by way of land or whatever and so they will have to pay this money.

So, Mr. Speaker, the parts of the bill that I have mentioned that changes some of the notices and that kind of thing, there isn't any difficulty with that but the real sting here is when we are saying to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to give us pay for the appeal process. That is better I suppose than in Social Services with home care where they said no, we are going to make the decision. We are going to cut it back and you don't have any appeal at all but it certainly sets a tone for this government that they, in the last few days, an Appropriation Act was along the same line. It is taking away the rights of the ordinary and as Steve Neary would say, `the ragged arsed artillery in Newfoundland and Labrador.' In other words he talked about the rank and file, the people who are the little people in society, you might say. Not little in terms of their value but little in terms of their impact on decision making. So these are the people who are being negatively impacted by these kinds of measures. I would call upon the government to reconsider because if it is not good enough to happen to somebody who is next door to you, then it is not good enough to happen to anybody.

So, Mr. Speaker, with these comments I will yield to any of my colleagues who wish to make a comment and if not then I will leave it to the Government House Leader to follow along with the procedure.

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

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading on the amendment to The Urban and Rural Planning Act.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban and Rural Planning Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow, by leave. (Bill No. 35)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Freedom Of Information Act And The Privacy Act." (Bill No. 39)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Freedom Of Information Act And The Privacy Act". (Bill No. 39)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note pretty well says all that can be said about this bill. It would allow information regarding the criminal history of a person to be released to the public where it is in the public interest to release it. Now hon. members will recall that a few weeks ago government issued a policy about the release of information on high risk offenders. The policy is in place now where if a high risk offender is about to be released from a correctional centre anywhere in the country and it has been determined that the likelihood of that person re-offending is very high, then information can be made available to the public. Already there has been one case in Newfoundland and Labrador of a person returning to the Stephenville area, in which extreme measures were taken. The person's picture was actually posted, and there was full disclosure made.

We believe there is a possibility that we could have a problem with our own Freedom of Information Act unless we change it. When we made the information public about the person in the Stephenville area, that was done under the federal Freedom of Information. It was not done under the Newfoundland Freedom of Information.

What we will be doing is changing subsection 10(2) of the Freedom of Information Act by deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (d), by deleting the period at the end of paragraph (e) and substituting a semicolon and the word "and" and by inserting immediately after that paragraph the following: (f) information regarding the criminal history of an individual which, in the opinion of the minister or his or her designate, it is in the public interest to disclose.".

That, we believe, is a very worthy amendment to the Freedom of Information Act, and I would highly commend it to the members of this House.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments.

I recall the protocol regime that was put in place by the hon. the minister several weeks ago. I remember, at that time, making a comment publicly that generally speaking it was positive legislation and one which I think is generally well received by people in the Province. The only question I had, or raised at the time, was the perhaps certain vague language that may have formed part and parcel of it, particularly where there is discretion given to the law enforcement bodies. That use of discretion can sometimes be, I suppose, abused, and that sort of uncertain wording was one area of concern that was expressed by myself, and indeed another member on this side of the House. In principle, we can certainly, I think, share the minister's view that the legislation was indeed well received.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular bill, Bill 39, it raises civil liberties issues. It gives the minister, as well as any of his designates, unlimited power to access criminal histories and to release any information that, again, in the opinion of the minister or the designate, is in the public interest to disclose. So we have those words, `in the opinion of the minister or designate'. Again that suggests, I would submit, a wording which is again uncertain, somewhat vague, and perhaps potentially subject to abuse. That is why I indicated by saying at the outset that it raises a civil liberties issues and one, I am sure, that certain proponents of civil liberties issues would be somewhat concerned about.

Secondly, we also have the reference in Bill 39 to the wording, `in the public interest', and we have to ask what is meant by, `in the public interest'. We often hear reference to that term in various capacities within the criminal law; however, it is often not clearly defined. So again we have two uncertainties. We have what is in the opinion of the minister or his designate combined with what is in the public interest. And those two uncertainties, I would suggest, lead to some areas of concern to those individuals concerned with the topic of civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, the bill does several things. It allows someone to make a freedom of information request for information on the criminal history of any other person. Presumably, the minister or his designate would review the criminal history documents and form an opinion about the merits of releasing it. Again, I refer to that use of discretion by the minister or his delegate, in determining what in his or her opinion is considered to be worthwhile releasing.

It also allows the minister, Mr. Speaker, and again his or her designates, to have access to the criminal histories of individuals. No reference has been made with respect to this legislation as to when the minister may obtain this information or under what circumstances, so again the criminal history of an individual, it seems to be arbitrarily, may well be reviewed and portions of it selected for a particular use. It puts no limitations on the searches for criminal history information, so again there is wide discretion, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, where the minister can search indeed any aspect of a criminal's background, and again one has to ask the question: Under what circumstances, and in what manner, and for what reasons can that search be carried out?

Therefore, it puts no limit on the release of when the minister can obtain the criminal history of an individual. It puts no limits on the kinds of criminal history. So, is there again a certain type of criminal background that the minister may want to release? It puts no limits on how the criminal history information is released. How is this information forwarded? For example, is it forwarded by registered mail, is it forwarded by fax, it is forwarded by telephone conversation? So what are the limits, or what are the limitations, what are the protections out there for those individuals who obviously are entitled to confidentiality with respect to certain backgrounds? It puts no limits on the reasons for releasing the information and it does not make an individual's definition of opinion, or public interest, subject to any standard or regulatory body. The minister or designate is answerable to no one, and again, I am sure, as I mentioned earlier, an issue such as that specifically would be of grave concern to civil libertarians.

The question has to be asked, Mr. Speaker: Why is this new power being requested by the minister? Does not the existing Privacy Act give the minister the ability to publish information deemed to be of public interest without violating the privacy of an individual as defined in the Privacy Act? The minister referred at the outset to the protocol, and as I have indicated, that is generally well-received and people have no difficulty with that, but again where is the line drawn? How is the discretion used? Will the civil libertarian interest of an individual be overstepped by an over-zealous minister or minister's designate?

Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to make any further comments with respect to Bill 39 other than to in summary indicate that the spirit of the legislation is generally well-received. However, we must be mindful of the discretion given to the minister, and we must always be concerned about the possibility of a minister overstepping his or her bounds with respect to civil libertarian issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on Bill 39, "An Act To Amend The Freedom Of Information Act And The Privacy Act." The issue before the House of this Act is one of a particular interest. There also seems to be a lot of interest in the Freedom of Information Act lately, certainly at university circles. The controversy seems to be around the cost of compliance and the cost imposed upon people for compliance. The Freedom of Information Act seems to be a valuable tool. It seems to be more effective than asking questions in the House, for example, or putting questions on the Order Paper, such as the question I put on the Order Paper in July of this year. In July of this year, I put a question on the Order Paper asking the Minister of Social Services, and the Minister of Health, to indicate what policy changes have taken place that cut back services to people in this Province, and I haven't had an answer to that yet, but if I had asked the question under the Freedom of Information Act, I would have been required to have an answer in thirty days.

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is more a point of information for the hon. gentleman. I do not see the Order Paper being filled out with his questions. Maybe if he put some down there as the Opposition do, he might get some answered, I say. It is a good technique if you are in the Opposition and he should use it.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps the Government House Leader could advise the Speaker whether, in fact, it is part of his duties as Government House Leader to see that questions that had been put on the Order Paper are answered.

MR. TULK: It is not there (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, it is there.

MR. TULK: No, it is not.

MR. HARRIS: Oh yes, it is.

MR. TULK: It is not there, look.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, it is.

MR. TULK: The topic that was there was supposed to appear on the Order Paper.

MR. HARRIS: Oh well, perhaps it should be brought up with the Speaker of the House. It was put on the Order Paper in July of 1996 and I have not seen it since.

MR. TULK: It was answered.

MR. HARRIS: It was answered, was it? Well, perhaps the Government House Leader would like to table the answer again because it has not been tabled in this House.

MR. TULK: July, when?

MR. HARRIS: July, whatever date - July 23, I think.

MR. TULK: When?

MR. HARRIS: In 1996, the House was only open for two or three days.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible), you keep putting them back.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, I see. The Government House Leader is now giving me advice that questions on the Order Paper - it is no good to put it on the Order Paper once because you won't get an answer, you have to put it on the Order Paper every day.

Well that is a good idea - a good idea.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, no, no, no. I expect, I think you put questions on the Order Paper and they either should stay there until they are answered or they should be answered within a reasonable period of time.

MR. TULK: You know why (inaudible) because they are (inaudible) experts and use the (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I must say, I have to commend the Government House Leader for his creative imagination but I would have to say that it goes a very, very long way to say the questions on the Order Paper are what defeated the Peckford Government. That's has to go a very long way. I would like to see the history book that would be written by the Government House Leader, but he succeeded in one thing, Mr. Speaker. He succeeded in diverting my attention slightly.

What I said at the beginning was: Questions on the Order Paper are not very effective. I would have been better off asking them under the Freedom Of Information Act, because there would have been a 30-day requirement of the Minister of Social Services, the Minister of Health to answer the questions. Perhaps I will have to do that and deal with it, but I want to speak to Bill 39 and the specifics of Bill 39, because I think it is an important point and I believe that the policy behind the changes is appropriate. I think the government has to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit in the case of information being released as part of this program. But I have a little bit of a concern because that seems to open the door for all kinds of public interest that the minister might determine at some point in the future.

For example, if a prospective employer were to ask the government for a copy of the criminal record of prospective employees, for example, a future government or a future minister may determine that it is in the public interest to have access to the criminal records of individuals. That, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, would be too broad.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why is he always (inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: Don't you ask that question anymore. You had a good answer to that one day and you might get it again.

Mr. Speaker, this particular wording, as provided here, opens the door to a minister in the future, deciding, for example, that a prospective employer may come to the government and ask under the Freedom Of Information Act, for information about the criminal history of a perspective employee. We may have other private investigators or other people out seeking out this information and the minister may determine that somehow it is in the public interest for a certain type of employer to have access to that record or that information. Mr. Speaker, I have a concern about that. I don't have a concern about the program that the minister spoke of.

The program the minister spoke of provides a certain measure of protection to the public where you have particular predatory, sexual, perverts, people who have a high propensity to re-offend. It is one of the areas of criminal activity where it is noted by experts in the field that predatory paedophile, for example, are very difficult to rehabilitate and cure. You let them lose and the opportunity to re-offend is there, the propensity to re-offend is there and the risk is very high. So there is good reason to make sure the public has every right to have access to that so that their children can be protected, so that their families can be protected.

I have the greatest degree of sympathy with the government's position with respect to this particular program but I do have a concern with the wording which says; "...in the opinion of the minister or his or her designate...", so it goes even further. It is not just a matter of government policy supported by Cabinet directives saying that these are the circumstances in which a criminal history will be made available, not just the Lieutenant-Governor in Council establishing the policy and the categories. It allows the minister or his or her designate to decide what the public interest is and I am not sure I have ever seen that in any piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I don't think I have ever, ever, seen that in any piece of legislation that the designate of the minister is entitled to determine what the public interest is in a particular case.

There are not a lot of lawyers in the House these days but I think anyone with legal training would be surprised to see that a piece of legislation would allow the minister to designate some person named by him or her to determine what the public interest was in a particular case. I think it is something in this particular - in the category that the minister is talking about, this particular program that is sponsored by and organized by the federal government, it is a very delicate program because the rights of an individual to privacy and the rights of an individual to have an opportunity to go forward and make a new life for themselves after offending are important rights and they should only be interfered with to the smallest extent possible.

I see a situation here, Mr. Speaker, where access to criminal records could be argued for in any number of circumstances and I am thinking principally of employment situations. Perhaps where public safety is at affect, people who are running ships, people who are flying airplanes, people who are operating sensitive equipment, people who are running oil rigs, I can see somebody, not necessarily this particular minister but maybe some designate saying, `Oh well sure, we will give them the criminal records of all the people working on the oil rig. We will give them the criminal records of all the people working at the oil refinery.' I can see some individual who may be appointed by this minister or some other minister, who has the right to determine what the public interest is in making available certain information. It is a very vague, broad and sweeping power, Mr. Speaker, to invade the privacy of individuals and it ought not to be granted in this way.

If the act were to read: that in the opinion of the minister as a part of this particular program, if the act were to read that I would have no difficulty supporting it if the act were specific to the program that allows criminal records to be released in accordance with the program of the federal Department of Justice, and that this is a tandem legislation that provides protection for the Minister of Justice provincially. I think that would be sensible. But to open the door here to much broader new categories, other categories, the public interest being determined not by the minister alone, not by the Cabinet for this particular program, but by someone who may be designated by the minister, an official of some sort presumably, who is then allowed, under this legislation, to determine the public interest in any given case.

The minister may still be responsible, but there is no provision here even for disclosure of this. The minister may be releasing information about my criminal history and I might not even know about it. The minister may well be responsible, but I cannot sue him. I cannot do anything about it. I cannot stop him, because he has the protection of this legislation, broad protection, to allow him or his designate, whenever he or that designate determines that the public interest allows them to release a criminal record, to do so. I think that is a very far departure, far beyond the intention that I think the minister expressed when he stood up and spoke. The intention was to have provincial legislation that protected the Minister of Justice, and his department, who has responsibility for the administration of justice in the Province. It goes far beyond that and opens the door to a great deal of disruption.

I have no difficulty supporting the intention of the minister, but I have a very great difficulty supporting the intention of the act as expressed in the act. Perhaps I can talk to the minister about it afterwards, and perhaps he can consider in committee amending the legislation to limit the release of information to this program that is specifically aimed at protecting the public in that particular program, because I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which program?

MR. HARRIS: The federal program to allow the public to know about the criminal history of an individual for the sake of protecting the public of Stephenville; I guess that is what you are talking about. It is a federal government program that allows the police to notify the public of a particular problem of an individual.

I think, if the minister or his department is involved - the Department of Justice provincially would be involved in that - then there is a need for protection for the minister in case of possible defamation actions, or even mistakes perhaps that might be made in a criminal history, or mistakes that might be made from time to time. I am not even sure if they would be covered by that.

I really do think, and I say this sincerely, this is not a political issue but it is a civil liberties issue. It is an issue of how far should the government, or how far should this Legislature, give power and authority to either an individual minister or a person designated by him or her to decide what the public interest is when it comes to a matter of privacy, such as we are talking about here?

As I say, the public interest can be determined in many and various ways, and when that power is given to an individual, the minister may be responsible to this House, the individual may be responsible to the minister, but that is a far way from having a policy that says, for this particular program, the minister can determine whether, in a particular instance, this person's criminal history ought to be made know. I have no difficulty with that, but I do have difficulty with the very broad and expansive power being passed out here for not only the minister but for an individual to determine the public interest. I hope that the minister will consider sincerely reducing the scope of that act to limit the power that is being offered here. I say that as a person concerned with public policy and making sure that the particular policy interest that the minister is expressing is able to be carried out, but also a person who is very concerned about civil liberties and about the personal freedom and personal privacy, and about making sure that individuals who may have run afoul of the law, not be exposed holus-bolus for the rest of their life to have this happen to them.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their contribution to this debate. They quite rightly have identified one of the problems that we have in democracy, and that is striking the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society at large. There are those who would say that under no circumstances should the rights of the individual be touched, and they should have absolute total right to do what he or she should wish. Then on the other side there are those who think the other extreme and say that the individual should be totally ignored and that the rights of society must stand supreme over all. It is the place of wise people to strike that balance so that society can be well served and so can the individual.

When we talk about bills such as this one, these are the bigger issues that we have to discuss. I don't believe anybody in the country would deny the fact that the high-risk offender, a policy which we put in place a few weeks or a month or so ago, is a good one, and it did strike the balance. No one will deny that. Hon. members opposite have admitted freely that indeed that was a good policy. But I tell hon. members they can't have it both ways. In order for us to enforce such a policy as we have done, which is a good one, and everybody agrees it is a good one, we have to make some changes. Something else has to be changed. That is exactly what this will do.

I certainly will take under advisement the excellent points that were raised by both critics, identified first by the Member for St. John's East, and piggy-backed on as usual by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Having made these few remarks, I will now move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Freedom Of Information Act And The Privacy Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 39)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 13, Bill No. 25, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act". (Bill No. 25)

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce for debate on second reading a bill to amend the City of St. John's act. The proposed amendments to the City of St. John's Act will address the following issues.

First of all will be council membership qualification. This amendment will repeal a provision of the act which requires a member of council who becomes bankrupt or insolvent during their term of office to relinquish their council membership.

We will deal with providing winter maintenance regulatory authority with respect to City streets. This amendment will simply provide a clearer authority for the City, and a more expeditious means for the City to deal with snow clearing and other winter maintenance problems on City streets.

The amendment will provide the City with nuisance liability protection. This is necessary to protect the City against damage actions arising from the exertion of discretionary authority.

The final aspect of the amendment which is being proposed is to repeal the annual grant provision. This amendment will repeal a provision in the act which requires the Province to pay an annual $20,000 grant to the City towards the upkeep of Bowring Park and City streets.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say a few words on Bill No. 25.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twice in the same day.

MR. J. BYRNE: Twice in the same day. I'm not going to take a lot of time, Mr. Speaker. We have other members here wanting to speak on the bill, and I'm sure the Government House Leader would like to have the bill dealt with expediently. I have no problem with that.

Basically this bill, there are no major problems with it, except for the one with respect to the cutting of the grant, but I will address that in due course. One clause in the bill, or the intent of it, is to basically delete the section whereby a person, if he or she becomes insolvent, is on council, or becomes bankrupt, that they have to resign from council. I really don't know why that was there in the first place. People, for any number of reasons, may fall into bad times. That doesn't mean that they can't do a good and competent job on any council not only in the City of St. John's so really, I do not see a big problem with that.

The section with respect to the term `nuisance', is not really defined so I do have some concerns with that as it is not defined, and really, who is going to be liable? When we talk about a nuisance, Mr. Speaker, it can be an individual or a situation, so you know, if an individual causes some problem and in turn causes a breakdown in any given system or that the city supplies or services, will the individual now become liable or is the city liable, for a third-person problem? So that is a situation that needs to be addressed, the definition of `nuisance'.

Now the situation where the grant of $20,000 is being cut, a grant needed for the upkeep of Bowring Park, was received by the city council, this is relatively a small amount of money, Mr. Speaker, and we have had petitions I believe presented in the House here with respect to that very issue and that concern. The City of St. John's has concerns that Bowring Park itself is pretty well a provincial park. People from all over the Province utilize that park; people at the nearby hospital utilize that park and for tourists coming into the Province, it is one of the main attractions in the City of St. John's so the small amount of money that the Province is talking about cutting, really, is pretty measly, as we would say the word measly, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government to not carry their fair share with respect to Bowring Park in the City of St. John's.

The other point here too, is that this bill is being made retroactive to April 1, 1996. I have a question with respect to that in itself, Mr. Speaker, because it may be very well be legal right to bring in legislation and you can make it retroactive. I have questioned one member of the House of Assembly who has been here a long period of time, Mr. Speaker, and he says: yes, that has been done back then, it was done in the past but since I have been here, it seems to be more frequent and the problem with this one if we are making this retroactive, if indeed the city has received the $20,000 from the provincial government, and this is back-dated, the city may have to pay back the $20,000 to the government and I do not think that would have been allowed for in the City of St. John's budget so I do not know if that would be a proper action on behalf of the government.

With respect, again to Bowring Park, I think that this is a situation again that maybe, the provincial government has not really given proper thought to it and maybe they might, in third reading in Committee, they may want to move an amendment to allow that small grant to stay in place and support the City of St. John's the way they should. I also want to get back to the `nuisance' (inaudible). I think that is a very important issue to be dealt with.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I had a call from a couple of individuals with respect to this legislation and in particular with reference to the definition of `nuisance' I suppose, and some of the smaller municipalities in the Province too, often times have problems with the nuisance law, that it is not properly defined and the smaller municipalities are often taken to court because of some small situation that occurred, that could have cost the municipality maybe $10,000, $20,000, $30,000. I know one in particular, Mr. Speaker, the Town of Paradise, has been taken to court I believe on a couple of occasions under this nuisance law and have paid out money which they would like to see ended, so in effect, I suppose, if they take care of the situation under this bill with respect to nuisance law or nuisance situation, they could be, in actual fact, helping out a lot more than they know, but I think the term `nuisance' should be defined somewhat, even in a general way, so the City of St. John's will actually be more prepared I suppose in even preparing their budgets to allow for x amount of dollars to address any nuisance situations, Mr. Speaker.

That is all I have to say on this bill at this time, Mr. Speaker, because I know someone from our side would like to say another few words. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only concern that I have with the bill is clause 4 which repeals funding under Section 284. Under the old clause it stated that, `there shall be paid to the council annually, by the Minister of Finance, from the funds of the Province the sum of $20,000 in substitution for motor car fees and a grant in aid for the upkeep of Bowring Park formally received by the council.' Both of these fees, Mr. Speaker, were received prior to the Province taking them over by council. The city of St. John's used to sell registrations on motor vehicles on an annual basis and collect the money for that. The Province took over the responsibility of selling registrations on motor vehicles and in turn, granted the city of St. John's a $10,000 annual fee.

In regards to Bowring Park, the grant for Bowring Park is a relatively small sum and its removal has practical, as well as symbolic consequences. Presumably the money went to help with the cost of running the park, the upkeep and maintenance of the park which is a regional park, not just used by the residents of the city of St. John's, although it is completely within the limits of the city of St. John's. It was used by many different municipalities as well as tourists and indeed the patients of the Waterford Hospital which is a provincial hospital. The funding for Bowring Park again is the sum of $10,000. While it is a small sum it seems quite petty that the provincial government would cut this funding as the municipal park is used by many regions of the Province.

As well, clause 5 makes clause 4 retroactive to April 1 which basically states that if the city was already given the grant for Bowring Park then the Province could take that money back, although it has already been paid to the city which makes it seem even more petty. The city, as well as many other municipalities throughout the Province, has undergone many, many cuts in the past years and a $10,000 cut or a $20,000 cut is something that the municipality of St. John's could probably deal with quite easily. It is not the fact of just $20,000, it is the accumulative sum of the entire amounts cut to the municipality of St. John's over the past number of years and it is the symbolic - the circumstances of the $20,000 are symbolic reasons that the funding was given to the city in the first place back in the 1920s or 1930s when the (inaudible) Section 284 was first put into place. So, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of passing the bill with exception to clause 4 and clause 5. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments with respect to Bill 25. Bill 25, "...repeal the provision in the City of St. John's Act which requires that members of council who become bankrupt or insolvent during their term of office cease to be members of council." Generally speaking I think that is a reasonable limitation however, with respect to being absent for a period of twelve consecutive months and under Section B is convicted for an indictable offense. That is an issue that perhaps will be referred to at a later date.

However, what is interesting, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill 25, refers to clause 3 where Section 179.1 now indicates, under this new legislation, that the city is not liable for nuisance, and what is peculiar about this is the fact that the word `nuisance' or term `nuisance' is not defined in these bills, so the word `nuisance' has a strict legal definition, Mr. Speaker, but it is not defined. We are not talking about individuals, we are talking about the act of nuisance which is a tort. And it is not clearly defined, and I would suggest that the section is weak simply because the reference is not complete and it is unclear as to what the intention of the legislation, in fact, is.

It does not indicate, as well, Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for the nuisance, and is the City or the individual responsible for the nuisance contributorily negligent? Is the Province liable, for example, or is it possible than anybody else is liable? The whole discussion of nuisance, from a legal point of view, is weak in this legislation, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, and ought to be improved upon.

I concur with my colleague, the Member for St. John's South, in his comments with respect to the $20,000 now being removed by the Province with respect to the coffers of the City for both motor registration fees and a grant in aid for the upkeep of Bowring Park. The amounts, generally speaking, are considered to be nominal but, nevertheless, two things: one, it shows, I think, the direction this government is going in, in terms of its commitment to the City of St. John's and, two, $20,000, Mr. Speaker, is $20,000, and can go a long way towards the upkeep and the maintenance of Bowring Park, which is a regional park and one which is visited by our local people, people in the region, and indeed tourists alike.

Mr. Speaker, these are a few comments I wish to make to Bill 25. There are sections of this legislation that I do have difficulty with, and as indicated earlier, we will refer specifically to one particular provision during Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to make a few comments dealing with Bill 25, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act". While this, for me, is not a major piece of legislation, it is just another little piece of how this government views and deals with the City of St. John's. We saw yesterday in Question Period a specific issue raised by the Member for St. John's East.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not according to the Mayor. The Mayor of the City did not ask for this piece of legislation, I say to the Government House Leader, because publicly, at least, his comments, and the letters he has written each and every member who represents a St. John's district certainly would indicate the opposite of what the Government House Leader just said.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes? Specifically part - not the entire piece of legislation, but the financial commitment (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Section 284.

MR. E. BYRNE: Section 284, of dealing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You would suspect he would, and he does. But yesterday we saw another example. The Member for St. John's East asked the Minister of Social Services or the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I am not sure which at the moment, dealing with the Provincial Government's aid or grant to the City dealing with the transportation of disabled people, I believe; how the City has not - and how the government is clawing that back, not living up to the agreement and leaving, essentially, the taxpayers and a certain portion of people who live within the City of St. John's and the transportation system, really at the whim of their own discretion, and people who really have no other choice but who have become dependent upon the system that government funded and government, as a policy statement, agreed with.

Mr. Speaker, also it would be remiss of me not to talk about, within my area, the district of Kilbride, (inaudible) in the city of St. John's, that district has more needs than the rest of the city put together, in terms of municipal infrastructure, in terms of the state and the condition of the roads where about 15,000 to 16,000 people live, in terms of - just to give you an example. About six weeks ago when the city had about 60 millimetres to 70 millimetres of rain that fell on one Sunday afternoon, about twenty homes in one subdivision flooded extensively.

MR. J. BYRNE: Where was this?

MR. E. BYRNE: In Kilbride. We talk about the needs of a district within the municipal government. About twenty homes flooded in what would be considered a major downpour. When they talked to the City about compensation for such flooding, the City said that it was an act of God, and on the surface of it, it would appear to be that. But six weeks before that, 40 millimetres of rain fell. The same twenty homes were flooded again. The year before that, the same twenty homes, twenty-three or twenty-four, there were about 60 millimetres to 70 millimetres of rain. I know the issue I am talking about because we have recently had to deal with it in a district meeting, and trying to pressure the City to come to terms with the major infrastructure problems that exist.

Essentially within one area, we are talking about a significant number of homeowners who the City has said, that each and every time we have an inordinate amount, or a more than average amount, of rain, these homes get flooded. It is costing taxpayers in the area tremendous amounts of money, and yet the City maintains that it is an act of God. Well, if that is the case, in my district, then God has been pretty active in the last two-and-a-half years, each and every time that it rains. The reality is that it is a major infrastructure problem, and the City's own engineering department confirmed it.

In a recent meeting with councillors on the issue, the deputy mayor said: Look, I understand there is a major infrastructure problem in the area, but that is the fault of the Provincial Government. In 1985, when it was transferred over, there was not enough money given to us when the town or municipality, or the metro area known as Kilbride, was amalgamated with the City of St. John's.

That answer is not good enough for one simple reason, because that area of my district has been part of the city for some ten to twelve years now, so the City of St. John's has a responsibility.

More recently, in another area, what was formerly the Town of the Goulds -

MR. J. BYRNE: The odd couple.

MR. E. BYRNE: Who is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: How are your ribs today?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: More recently, in 1991-'92, the Town of the Goulds was amalgamated with the City of St. John's - forced amalgamation -another area that has major, major infrastructure needs. To give you an example, just to correct the problem in that area alone right now, without bringing in new service to other areas or to other home-owners or to other taxpayers, we are looking at about a $10 million to $11 million problem. That is just to correct what is in the ground today. That does not expand it, or put in place an infrastructure that will meet expanded needs or the growing needs of the area.

The problem is simply this: Since amalgamation in the area, this government has really failed to deal adequately with the numbers of people who live in that area. This piece of legislation is yet but another example.

Now, $20,000 is not a lot of money, some people would argue, but as the Member for St. John's East has pointed out, $20,000 is $20,000. It may not mean a lot in the multimillion budget that we debate from time to time here. It may not mean a lot to members specifically who are not representing the City of St. John's, but it is yet another example of the types of, I guess, attitude, philosophy, behind which government is dealing with the City and really downloading what it has made in terms of overall or long-standing commitment to the City of St. John's. Bit by bit, piece by piece, so that it is not all done overnight, but little bit by little bit, one little bit of legislation today, some time next week, another one in the Spring, maybe another piece of legislation dealing with amendments to the City of St. John's Act, that looked at, in whole, all of them together - pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? I have to keep going till 4:58 p.m. That all of them together, when viewed, see what essentially has been not necessarily a long-term plan, but the consequences of long-term action dealing with the largest municipality in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to stand and raise those few points because I think they are important. I happen, as I say, to represent a district that is in need of provincial government help in the City of St. John's. It is in need of municipal help. The commitments that my area needs we have been working on for some two or three years, continue to work on. This piece of legislation doesn't send a good signal, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't shed a positive light on what government should be addressing as a major need. In reality, seem to be bit by bit, looking at the City of St. John's Act, and any commitment that has been made over time seems to be, and being stripped away over time.

With that I will conclude my remarks. If there are other hon. members who wish to speak to it they certainly can. Thank you.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have a few comments. I wanted to ask the hon. minister if she has further definition of the word nuisance which is in clause 3. What does that mean? It isn't defined here. We are wondering if that would apply to somebody who builds a building that, shall we say, stops someone's view of the Harbour or that kind of thing, or whether it would apply, for example, to the situation like in the (inaudible) situation that the hon. the minister who is bringing this through has great familiarity with, and which has been an issue of debate for some great time with the Federation of Municipalities, and with the Canadian federation as well.

Without a definition of the word nuisance, as we know this has been a significant issue for municipalities for many years, ever since (inaudible) took the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board to court, and I believe that would have been in the early 1980s. It has been appealed all the way through to the Supreme Court of Canada. I don't think it will address that issue, but I would like to have the minister's comments on that before or when she comes to conclude her remarks.

Also the section where we talk about the registration of electrical wirers. I wonder what gives rise to clause 2 and the circumstances we are talking about here. Is this regarding the registration of wirerers, for example, when we have, in the winter time, people who are thawing out frozen pipes. Is that what we are talking about? I am not quite sure what the intent is here in clause 2.

As to the section in clause 4, my friends who have spoken already have mentioned the downloading that is occurring relative to all municipalities, in particular to the City of St. John's here. The $20,000 is, in itself, not significant, but it does set a certain tone.

With these comments, Mr. Speaker, I will adjourn the debate for today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. H. HODDER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Government House Leader, I have a request here from the Select Committee on Property and Casualty Insurance. They will be meeting in the House tonight at 7:00 p.m., and they are asking members to kindly remove papers from their desktops for safekeeping.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday the Opposition House Leader gave us notice that he was going to debate on Wednesday a bill put forward by the Member for Kilbride. I believe he has now changed that to the Member for Bonavista South. So tomorrow, on Private Members' Day, I understand - and I say to our people that we will want, I am sure to get into the debate - that tomorrow, Wednesday, we will be debating the private members' resolution put forward by the Member for Bonavista South.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that this House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: On insurance.

MR. TULK: On insurance.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.