The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As today marks the beginning of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, I rise in this hon. House today not just as the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, but also as the coach for of an MHA hockey team who did their part last night in helping raise a little over $36,000 for the General Hospital Health Foundation. On a side note Calgary fired their coach this morning; I was fired last night.

Led by such notables as the "Rocket" Roger Grimes, the "Mountain" Wally Anderson, the "Wildman" Rick Woodford and the "Killer" Kevin Alyward, as well as "the Streak" Loyola Sullivan, this team of MHAs, as well as political staffers, valiantly battled a group of doctors and health care specialists called the Hockey Docs, but fell short by a score of 5-4.

A special mention is given to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology who tallied our team's second goal on a penalty shot, much to the delight of our bench.

Fans also came out in droves to take shots at our Minister of Health and Community Services, who donned the goalie pads before the game began as people paid $10 each to shoot the puck at the minister. Despite the valiant effort, I do have to point out to him that he is no Chris Osgood.

Mr. Speaker, our team may have come up short in scores this year, but there is one big winner, and that is the General Hospital Health Foundation who, combined with the help of the MHAs, have raised in excess of $36,000 as a result of this event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: I extend my congratulations to all members and to indeed all those who participated in the fundraiser. We wish them the greatest success again next year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to make special acknowledgment of Janine Browne, an eighteen year old student of Fatima Academy in St. Bride's, who has just been recruited by Memorial University's Lady Sea Hawks basketball team to play for them in September of this year.

Janine was born and raised in St. Bride's and is the daughter of Keith and Rose Browne. She has played basketball since she was in grade VI and has played for the Fatima Royals on both junior and senior teams. Janine maintains a 94 per cent academic average in level III and still manages to play basketball.

Over the past few months Janine has received letters from numerous universities such as Simon Fraser in British Columbia, Butler University in Indiana, Cape Breton University, and the universities of Dalhousie, Acadia, St. Mary's, and St. Francis Xavier in Nova Scotia. However, she has opted to attend Memorial University and play for the Sea Hawks. She has been a member of the Newfoundland provincial team for the past three summers and has traveled to PEI where they captured the gold medal, to Vancouver and Halifax, as well as many places in Newfoundland.

This past fall Janine attended the Nike Camp in Toronto where she draw the attention of the mainland universities. Janine just recently played her last game with the Fatima Royals at the 3 "A" basketball tournament in Fogo. She has been awarded many individual and team awards. Janine is a role model for younger people and has a promising and bright future ahead. I want to wish her the best of luck in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like leave, please, to do a member's statement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

Today I would to recognize one of our most dedicated and innovated teachers. Mr. Derek Moore, who is principal of Booth Memorial High School in my district of St. John's Centre, recently received the Distinguished Principal of the Year Award for Newfoundland and Labrador. This morning I attended an award ceremony in his honor.

Under Mr. Moore's leadership, Booth Memorial has been recognized many time for their progressive and valuable initiatives, such as the Future Pathways career exploration program and their information technology education program.

Mr. Moore has lobbied for an infant care program at the school to allow students who have children to continue their education while having their children cared for at the school. It lets mothers be close to their children throughout the day while still pursuing their education and better preparing for their futures.

Mr. Moore supported and enabled the beginnings of the Coffee Booth, a restaurant at the school which allows challenging needs students to get a practical sense of the workforce through their own experiences while offering a service to students, staff and visitors.

Under Mr. Moores' leadership Booth Memorial has received distinction and recognition through the national award in co-op education, the Royal Bank Partners in Education Award. The school has also received national recognition for technology as a Member of Industry Canada's Network of Innovative Schools.

Mr. Moore is an excellent role model, is action oriented, and he gets things done. I'm sure that through the combined efforts of Booth Memorial's students, teachers and staff the school will continue to receive awards and special recognition under the guidance and leadership of Derek Moore. Congratulations, Derek Moore, on receiving the Distinguished Principal of the Year award for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I and my colleague, the hon. Roger Grimes, participated in a news conference to announce government's intention to proceed with legislative changes to pursue legal action against tobacco companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: This the first step on the road toward health care costs incurred by the Province as a result of tobacco products. The care of those individuals impacted by tobacco has placed a significant financial burden on the Province and government believes that this burden should be rightly borne by tobacco manufacturers and not the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Government of British Columbia is leading the way in Canada in this new area of liability and civil litigation. BC has put forward legislation in support of legal action against tobacco companies.

In February of this year, the BC Supreme Court ruled that parts of the proposed legislation violated the Constitution. However, the Court upheld more than 80 per cent of the BC legislation and that government announced in March of this year its intention to amend and re-enact the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

It is important that we in this Province have the proper statutory framework in place in order to initiate this action. That is why my department is closely monitoring the progress of legislation in British Columbia. We plan to review BC's amended legislation prior to finalizing the legislation for this Province. It is intended that the legislation would affirm government's right to seek compensation for the health care costs incurred and address certain rules of evidence and procedure.

We intend to work closely with the Government of British Columbia with regard to both legislation and research. In fact, we are entering into a collaboration agreement with BC to share research in this matter. This will, of course, benefit both provinces.

I am also pleased today to inform my hon. colleagues that we have a legal team in place to assist us in this initiative. We have retained Graham Watton, Q.C., Dennis Browne, Q.C., and Jamie Smith as legal consultants to assist in the development of legislation and act on government's behalf in litigation against tobacco manufactures.

In addition, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Community Services will form an instructing committee. This committee, comprised of senior officials from both departments, will provide guidance and advice to the legal team.

Than you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this obviously can only be viewed as a very positive initiative by government . We certainly have no objection, in our Province, working closely with the Province of British Columbia both in the preparation and finalization of legislation and research, and also in working with British Columbia from a procedural point of view.

I would suggest to the minister that perhaps he could consider even going a step further. That is to suggest that maybe once the preparatory work is completed, to wait and see what the outcome of the British Columbia experience is before embarking on the actual litigation in this Province. In doing so, it would seem to me, depending on the outcome, the results of that litigation could be cost saving to this Province and quite possibly unnecessary, depending on the outcome.

Nevertheless, having said that, it is indeed a very positive initiative and I certainly encourage government's decision to work closely with British Columbia. However, I would just suggest perhaps that extra step: see what the actual outcome is before actually advancing to the litigation stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ask and ye shall receive. It was only a week ago I urged the minister to move forward on this particular initiative and I am glad to see they are going swiftly forward to follow the actions of the British Columbia government and to work closely with them to recover some of the many hundreds of millions of dollars per year that are lost.

Based on the information released by the minister today, the $16.5 billion annually health care cost in Canada, using the same formula that the Minister of Health used for federal initiatives, it would over $300 million a year in health care costs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - for this Province. I hope the minister is going to pursue this aggressively and not take a wait-and-see approach as is proposed by the Opposition just a moment ago.

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

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

I would like to bring to the attention of the House that this is National Wildlife Week, with the theme this year being: Migration. Accordingly, I would like to speak to initiatives in this Province which are promoting the concepts of partnerships and stewardship in wildlife habitat conservation for migrating species.

One of the shining program areas pioneered in this Province has been the stewardship program which informs residents and corporations about the value of wildlife habitats in and around their homes and workplaces, and encourages them to commit to conservation beyond that of normal legislative requirements. I am pleased to inform this House that the response to this initiative by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians has been so positive over the past ten years that our stewardship programs are now being used as a model by other provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador is considered to be on the cutting edge of stewardship concepts in Canada.

The task of promoting wildlife conservation in this Province has also been supported by municipalities, community organizations and the corporate community.

Several municipalities, through the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, have entered into an agreement with government which sees them supporting a variety of stewardship initiatives aimed at habitat conservation. Included among these are Whitbourne, Spaniard's Bay-Bay Roberts, Come By Chance, Gander, Carmanville, Grand Falls-Windsor, Stephenville Crossing, Winterland and Torbay.

I would also like to acknowledge important work being done by the Codroy Valley Area Development Association supporting stewardship practices being carried out in the Grand Codroy Estuary. Efforts here have resulted in 300 acres of islands and important marshlands being purchased for long-term protection in this estuary. In addition, over 2,000 acres of other private lands surrounding the estuary have been signed voluntarily by the landowners for stewardship commitments. This action is a positive response toward the protection of the only designated Wetland of International Importance in the entire Province.

Important work is also being done in Labrador. For example, a total of thirty-eight tiny islands have been identified as important nesting habitats for the common eider duck. Accordingly, these areas have been set aside by Crown Land Designation as areas to rebuild duck populations.

Mr. Speaker, more wildlife conservation challenges are mounting every year. To meet these challenges, government is providing resources to support these initiatives. Last year, the Inland Fish and Wildlife Division was given a new senior biologist with expertise in habitat enhancement, stewardship and developing partnerships. One of our partners, Wildlife Habitat Canada, has provided two biologists to assist with our provincial programs. Starting next year, we will be implementing a coastal stewardship program in Labrador for a variety of species, including those which are endangered. Stewardship agreements are being pursued with more communities and municipalities as well.

Mr. Speaker, these are challenging times for wildlife management and conservation. I am confident that we are meeting this challenge. I assure the House that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to put every effort into protecting and conserving our natural heritage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for forwarding a copy of his statement. I, too, support National Wildlife Week, and I do agree with the concept of partnership and stewardship in wildlife habitat conservation.

We must recognize the value of our wildlife habitat everywhere in this Province, and we must realize that the wildlife has been a stakeholder in our environment long before us. I also congratulate the participants in the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, particularly the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, which is part of my district. I also recognize the Codroy Brook Enhancement Association in Grand Falls-Windsor, which is certainly working diligently to enhance the environment and wetlands in their venture with their trail. It is a beautiful trail, and I encourage anybody visiting Central Newfoundland to have a look at what the Codroy Brook Enhancement Association has done with respect to the environment in Central Newfoundland.

I also welcome the biologists. It is important that we do put the resources in place to also protect our environment and protect the areas of our wildlife. I am very pleased to see the interest in the stewardship of our wildlife resources. We must meet the challenges of wildlife management and conservation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It being National Wildlife Week, it is an appropriate time to congratulate and thank all those who work so diligently to support habitat for wildlife and encourage programs to support proper wildlife management and efficient use of our wildlife resource. However, it is also important to acknowledge that habitat loss is the single most important contributor to species decline. We have twenty-two species in this Province who are either on the list as endangered, threatened or vulnerable. I urge this government to proceed quickly to adopt what was promised for many years, and that is a systems plan that will ensure the protection of wildlife habitat for the many years to come, which government has promised for many years but not yet adopted.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform Members of the House of Assembly today that our government has reached an agreement in principle with Nolan Hall on the sale of the King George V Building on Water Street, in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, a total of seven parties expressed interest in acquiring the building and responded to an invited proposal call by government. The proposals included plans to demolish King George V, requests for government funding to redevelop the building, and offers to purchase the building for various prices. With its plans to restore the heritage features to the building, and its offered price of $70,000, Nolan Hall was the successful proponent. Mr. Speaker, of all proposals submitted to my department, Nolan Hall offered the best scenario for the Province. Nolan Hall offered the best proposal for redevelopment of the property and have stated that they will restore and retain the building's heritage features, which is very important to the people of the Province, especially in the St. John's area.

Mr. Speaker, Nolan Hall has an excellent track record for preserving heritage buildings, and as part of this deal they have agreed to begin restoration of the building's exterior immediately. Redevelopment and refurbishment of the interior will take place within the next twelve to eighteen months.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good deal for the people of the Province. King George V has been vacant since late 1998 and, because of the costs associated with maintenance and repairs, it is in the Province's best interest to sell the building. We are pleased that the building will be sold to an established company, such as Nolan Hall, who are committed to its refurbishment and preservation. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are very pleased to make this announcement today and expect the sale to be finalized by the end of April.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just hope that a competing bidder is not embroiled in litigation with the provincial government in some two or three years time.

With respect to the statement that has been presented, I am familiar with the work of Nolan Hall. In fact, there have been a few buildings in my own district, in St. John's East, a few residences - for example, on Darling Street and Rennies Mill Road, I am familiar with a couple of homes that were developed. They are quite beautiful homes and they have been restored very well in that district.

I am also familiar with this particular building, the King George V Building on the East End of Water Street, which I understand is in the district of my colleague here, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. They do good work, and I think what is encouraging about this particular announcement is that heritage is quite important. It seems to be front and center in terms of the work that they tend to undertake. So, generally speaking, we support this particular incentive -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - and we hope that the completed work is to the minister's satisfaction.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly good news that this building will be restored. I would certainly hope that these improvements are a condition of the sale and not left to them afterwards to decide what to do with it, although they do have a good track record. I have no doubt that they would want to do what they have suggested.

This is a very good idea, but may I suggest to the minister that he consider a larger policy that would provide for the banking of heritage properties or public buildings that could find another use after a couple of years time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: So that instead of having each building's fate decided based on the vicissitudes of the market on a particular time but rather be part of a longer term government policy and strategy to preserve buildings that are of architectural merit and that can find other uses, perhaps not immediately but in a couple of years time. I think it may be a worthy consideration. We do it with land banking for housing developments. There is no reason why we couldn't consider something like that as a long-term policy to preserve this type of structure.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the acting Minister of Environment and Labour. They concern a fair wage schedule for federal government construction contracts, and the effect this wage schedule is having on the working trades people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This wage schedule prescribes the rates of pay applicable to each trade for federally-funded projects. Under this arrangement, a contractor is required to quote the wage rate set out in the federal schedule when a company is bidding on a federally-funded project. This requirement came into force in the fall of 1999.

I would like to ask the minister: Is she aware that this fair wage schedule contains discriminatory rates for the workers of this Province?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. What I will do is take it under advisement, get the details, and we will bring an answer back this afternoon and get the details for it. We are aware that the new schedule is in but, as to your comment about whether or not it is discriminatory, we will check it out.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have in my possession documents that show dozens of examples of discrimination with workers within the Province. As an example, a carpenter working on the federal government funded project on the Avalon Peninsula, St. John's region, receives $14.12 per hour, while a carpenter doing the exact same work in Corner Brook is receiving, by law, only $11.52 per hour, a difference of $2.60. Does the minister believe that this is fair? Can he tell this House today how his cousins in Ottawa justify this discrimination?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to look at the family tree, as to whether or not we are cousins.

I say to the member that it sounds like there is a problem and we certainly will check it out. What we will do is have our officials check it out this afternoon and talk with the federal Department of Labour about the situation. We want to see - it says it is a fair wage act. It is supposed to be a fair wage. We will check it out.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, whether you are fifth cousins or you are first cousins, the fact is that we believe that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are being discriminated against. That is the issue here. It is called a fair wage schedule.

Many workers in this Province commute, particularly those involved in the construction industry. Whether it is a union or non-union work site, this unfair wage schedule, as I would call it, requires payment of different rates to two different workers from the same community doing the same work but at different job locations, one in the Avalon region and one on the outside.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I ask the minister: What steps has this government taken to correct this situation? And what, if anything, has been the response from Ottawa?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to ensuring that our people get treated fairly when it comes to - be it federal wage law or even internal trade. We see in Quebec where we had an unfair practice up in Labrador West, which the Minister of Environment and Labour, only in the last year-and-a-half, was able to help fix the law which now sees our workers on this side of the border being treated the same as they are on the other side of the border, and where contracts were coming across the border and we were getting contracts and bringing workers in and our workers were not allowed to go across.

That was action taken by this government. I am sure that the minister will undertake to do the same here.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the federal government released the fair wage schedule in the fall of 1999. Discrimination in the federal wage rates is not only within the boundaries of this Province; it goes much further. In the economic region of Halifax a carpenter on a federally-funded project receives $17.06 per hour while in the economic region of St. John's a carpenter receives only $14.12, while in rural Newfoundland a carpenter doing the same work receives only $11.52.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: I ask the minister: Does he believe that Newfoundlanders are being discriminated against in this situation? Can he tell us: Has his government taken this issue to his counterparts in Ottawa to remove this blatant show of discrimination for Newfoundlanders?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we will have our officials this afternoon check out the situation. On behalf of the minister, who is not here today, we will make sure that we get a response and we will come back with the details; but we are committed to ensuring that our people in this Province are treated fairly and we will get the answer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, this has been ongoing now since October of 1999, I say to the minister. The absurdity of federal regulations goes even further, I say. The hours of work required in the EI system is based on a person's place of residence, while the wage rate in federally-funded projects is based on the job location. Therefore, as an example, a worker living in Clarenville or working in St. John's receives EI based on his place of residence but his federal wage rate is based on where he was employed. This shows that people are being treated unfairly based on where they live, even though they are all Newfoundlanders.

I ask the minister: Doesn't he believe this is grossly unfair to the tradespeople of this Province, and can he give them the assurance today that this issue will be resolved quickly so that wherever you live in this country you will be treated fairly by the federal government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken to get the information and to report back to the House, and we will do that. We will make sure that the minister gets back to the House and I will get the information for this afternoon.

We are always working here to ensure that our people are treated fairly. I am sure that we will check out the situation and we will find we will get a response and hopefully we can get it worked out.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Today I have questions for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. In 1997, the Province gave $500,000 of taxpayers' money to an individual to build a commercially operated sportsplex in Clarenville, but two years after it opened the sportsplex closed amid reports the facility is structurally unsound. For more than two years we demanded caution and accountability for this investment but the government dismissed those concerns as nonsense. Now that those concerns have proven to be well-founded, let me ask the minister this: Did the Province have any security on its investment in this commercial operation, or has yet another $500,000 of taxpayers' money slipped through this government's hands?

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

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

In fact, the Province has entered into an agreement with the individual who obtained the funding to do this, and right now we have that agreement before Justice to actually make sure, in fact, that it is a reliable agreement and that everything is in order; but there were many partners involved in this whole process, as members opposite would know, including the FBDB as well as the provincial government and the individual involved, who also gained money, as well as the federal government.

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

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

Minister, you did not publicly tender the sportsplex but instead put $500,000 into the pocket of a hand-picked private business man. You did not protect taxpayers monies, but instead you left the investment unsecured and that was pretty well confirmed by a previous minister. Didn't you at least monitor the project you were funding? If so, could you explain how it is that the facility is now closed due to design problems and who is benefitting from this facility now?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You know, Mr. Speaker, this is another example of trying to put something really in the red before it has a chance to get off the ground.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is closed down.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In fact, the owner of this right now is trying to secure a new owner. He has been actively seeking to find someone to take over the sportsplex. He has not declared bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I have to refer back because I think this is important about this hand-picked person. This hand-picked person, I would like to say, has been supported by the town council, by the district school association and I might add, by someone by the name of Roger Fitzgerald as well. So it has been supported -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The Member for Bonavista South. This facility was supported by all groups in the surrounding areas as a regional complex, from people all around, and I think the member opposite knows this decision to support this was well founded in support.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind all hon. members that when referring to members of this House they should use the district that the member represents.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I would like to inform the minister that the town of Clarenville actually supported this after they received a letter from a previous minister, Minister Reid, asking them to support it and putting pressure on them to support it. They were opposed to infrastructure money being spent on that project in the first place, I say to the minister. So when she is doing her research she should do it properly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, isn't it the case that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Isn't it the case that government has a policy of not providing public subsidies for businesses that compete with existing commercial operations because that is unfair? How is it then that this individual was able to put in his subsidized sportsplex a commercial Don Cherry's restaurant? Why did you use taxpayers money to help create an uneven playing field that helped drive an existing Clarenville employer out of business?

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

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

I would again say there is a letter on file from the Member for Bonavista South supporting this issue. I will also say, and the members opposite know, that there are many businesses in this Province, including right in Clarenville, that have availed of government money to build and to get their facilities off the ground. If the member was to do his research on this issue, he would find that there are businesses actually in Clarenville themselves that have availed of government money to get their businesses off the ground. He knows that very well.

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

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

I would like to inform the minister that we asked questions in this House of Assembly in May 1997 and in December 1998 with respect to accountability and security on the money, that $500,000. With respect to businesses in the area, it is a government policy from my understanding that they do not give money to compete with other existing businesses in the exact same location.

Madam Minister, isn't it true that there are reports now that the application which was made through ACOA and the funding that was provided was for a certain type of building and certain requirements within that building, and the building that was actually constructed is not the same that was applied for?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, just for information, government did not build the building. The gentleman who actually secured the money hired a contractor to do that particular building. We did not oversee this building. I would say again that his colleague supported this initiative along with the town council, the mayors, and the school board association. This was a broadly-based, well supported initiative for that particular area.

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

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

Madam Minister, isn't it true and would you not confirm that a previous minister, Minister Reid, actually put in writing, and in this House of Assembly, that he did not know if they had security on the money, the $500,000 of provincial taxpayers dollars, that went into that facility? That this government did not have security on that money? True or false.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the comments that are being asked and requiring an answer are comments that were made by the former to the previous minister. I am not prepared to comment on what may or may not have been transcribed in Hansard at this particular time.

All I can say is that there are a number of parties involved. In addition to the current owner, there is the FBDB as well as the provincial government and the federal government. I do know that the bank has first call on the loan. I am well aware of that. I have also said that there was a written agreement that we have in place that is currently before Justice now as it relates to the guidelines associated with the funding and what would happen, in fact, if this sportsplex facility was not to get off the ground. That is the current status of this right now.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. The number of beds in a clinical investigation unit at the Health Sciences Centre allocated for endocrinology was reduced from eight down to six over the past few years. Now notification is given to reduce it further, down to five. That is going to create tremendous hardships for people that are waiting to use the facility. There are currently four endocrinologists now utilizing this unit, which is the only one of its kind in the Province. It is essential, in many cases, to treat people on an in-patient basis, because the specialists are in here in conjunction with the School of Medicine and the availability of experts. It is not practical to serve people from an outpatient basis.

I ask the minister: Has he looked at the impact this will have on the treatment of patients that have endocrine disorders?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, I can readily admit that I have not. It is the first time that I have heard tell of it. It is not the kind of day-to-day administrative issue at any one of the health care facilities that I actually deal with.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister was copied on the same letter I was copied on that was written on April 2, and the Premier was copied on this letter. The letter went to Sister Elizabeth Davis, the CEO there. So I'm sure the minister has the correspondence in his department.

This recent move by the Health Care Corporation of St. John's drastically downgrades the service and it increases the time a patient must wait for adequate diagnosis and treatment on a follow-up basis. Early intervention is the key to successful treatment and the cure of many endocrine disorders. If a patient has to wait four to five months now to be admitted to this unit, it increases the risk factors associated with the disease. I ask the minister: Does he realize that delayed diagnosis and treatment could actually cost more money in the long-term?

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

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, there is no question to that. As pointed out, the letter was not a letter to me, it was a letter to Sister Elizabeth as the CEO of the Corporation, which is the right place to raise the concern.

We have wait lists in a whole range of areas. We do understand and acknowledge that of course if you have to wait for any particular treatment or procedure the potential is that there could be a higher risk in the future and maybe a bigger cost, but that is one of the realities of a publicly funded health care system. As soon as somebody can be seen, they are. The medical professionals make a decision, and make hundreds of decisions every day, as to where the priority is, who should be seen, in which area. That is where I leave the issues. I do not suggest to them that I know better than the health care professionals that are making those day-to-day decisions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the department funds money to their appointed boards at a rate of close to $700 million a year, there should be an accountability as to if we are being cost effective in how we utilize that money. That is the role of the minister.

I spoke yesterday with a woman who spent nineteen years commuting between Goose Bay and St. John's to deal with her medical condition. This woman wrote the Health Care Corporation - the letter I am talking about, copied to the Premier and the minister - strongly urging the Health Care Corporation to reconsider its decision and reinstate the number of beds to eight. That has been basically a 37.5 per cent reduction in beds over the last number of years.

I ask the minister: Will he stop those devastating cuts which are jeopardizing the health of patients that are needing the services of an endocrinologist?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the hon. member in his line of questioning often raises the issue about the fact that we as the government choose to use boards to administer the health care system instead of having the minister and the Department of Health and Community Services do it directly every day. Mr. Speaker, that issue was fully explored in the last election. The Blue Book, which managed to attract voters for fourteen members, suggested that there would be no boards, and that the questions raised by the hon. member would be the right and appropriate ones; because, by the model that they put forward to the people of Newfoundland for the delivery of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, they suggested that the minister should answer every single question and be responsible for every single decision, because that's the model they put forward. They would have no boards and every single person who made a decision in the health care system would answer directly to the minister. So, in their model, the minister should stand up and answer the question. Our model that the people accepted, because thirty-two of the people got elected to this side -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!.

I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - was the boards would make the decision. They would hire the staff. The ministry would monitor and would provide funding and policy direction. That is the model that got accepted by the people of the Province. That is the one that we are using, not one where the minister deals with individual issues every ay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Among the many victims of the federal UI changes are approximately 150 seasonal workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: EI.

MR. HARRIS: I am going to continue to call it the UI system, unemployment insurance. It is about people who are unemployed, not about people who are employed.

There are about 140 or 150 seasonal workers who are unemployed annually by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, who received their last UI cheque on Friday of last week, or will on Friday of this week. Normally these people aren't re-engaged until after the May 24 weekend, so they won't get another cheque until the middle of June.

Is the minister prepared to see these people go to social assistance to be able to afford to continue to live, pay their mortgages and feed their families? Or is she prepared to take some action now to see them re-employed earlier, perhaps as early as next week or the week after, to start the seasonal maintenance work that has to be done anyway, so that these employees can in fact feed their families and not be forced to go on social assistance between jobs for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the member opposite for the question.

I, in fact, have met with all of the outside workers in St. John's, as well as all of the inside workers in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, as well as the executive. I have actually committed that we will try to get them back to work just as soon as possible. We are working with the senior management to try to do that, but I think the member opposite would know that members of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing are not the only ones in similar situations. We have been trying to do the best we can. In fact, our employment numbers are the highest they have ever been in St. John's, particularly in this area, and across the Province. We have been doing very well in our economic growth. We will continue to work with the members of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. They know they have the recall rights, and as soon as we are able to bring them back into the workforce we will do that. In fact, I have told them that personally.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister agree with her colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who said on March 27 in this House, that one of the things we have to do is to try to persuade employers, "...to try to find ways to extend the period of employment for people who are not able to work enough to make a decent living."

As the employer of these 150 workers whose job it is to maintain the 5,600 housing units owned by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, is this minister, in addition to seeking an early date to reinstate these workers, going to extend their employment long enough to make up for the deficiencies of the UI system that her cousins in Ottawa have imposed on the people of Canada? Will the minister, in addition to bringing them back to work early, agree with her colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and extend their period of employment as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

I am only too happy to make reference to our first cousins as opposed to our fifth cousins - your fifth cousins.

I will say again that I have met with these people and in fact we have already extended work where it was possible to do so. We have done that a number of weeks back, and if you have spoken to many of the people at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing you will know that we have been able to do that where work existed and we were able to do it. We are only too happy to do it, and in fact we have done it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services, and they concern respite care workers. The government has a program where it provides money to the families of individuals who are severely mentally and physically disabled, to hire respite care workers. Many of the clients who are hired are severely challenged, many of them are not mobile, and their conditions pose a definite risk to the physical health of the respite care workers. What I want to ask the minister today is: Who will be responsible? Who is responsible, because they are not covered under workers compensation, if one of the respite care workers is injured on the job as a result of taking care of one of the clients? Who will be responsible for the respite worker if he or she is then off work or possibly injured for the rest of their life?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the hon. member already knows the answer to the question. We have been struggling with the whole issue of trying to provide coverage for individuals who provide such services, similar to workers compensation or through private insurance plan. We have been actually wrestling and grappling with the issue for a couple of years now and we cannot find - as a matter of fact, we even put $1 million into the budget just a couple of years ago to try to provide some insurance coverage for these otherwise uninsured workers.

There is no easy or ready resolution, or somebody would have found a resolution a long time ago, maybe even ten or twelve or fifteen years ago when they used to be the government, because this is not a brand new issue. Lot of people have struggled with the issue over the years. The fact of the matter is that if the individuals do not have some kind of private insurance coverage, which many of them do not because the wages and benefits are not very high or great, then in fact they are at risk themselves and nobody is going to take responsibility for them other than they, themselves, which is unfortunate, which is why many people have been trying to find a better resolution than that for many years but we have not arrived at one yet.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: If one of the respite workers are injured on the job, Minister, who would you suggest they sue in the event of an injury?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question that I can answer. I don't give people advice as to who they can or cannot sue, or should or should not sue.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Mr. Speaker, a social assistance recipient has to carry his disabled wife upstairs and downstairs because there are no accessible housing units available in the area. In another community, an elderly man and his disabled wife are finding it nearly impossible to live in a home with narrow doors and an inaccessible washroom. Government is not doing anything for these people, and the problem is not unique to my district. Hundreds are waiting for five, six and even eight years on a waiting list for home repairs and accessible housing units, and the backlog just keeps growing.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: When is this government going to clear up the backlog for home repairs and accessible housing units so people can live in decent, accessible accommodations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

As the member opposite knows, in addition to providing social housing for the Province, Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest percentage of home ownership in the country, and many people residing in their own homes do seek help to upgrade their homes and to put them in a situation where they are able to stay there.

We do have a waiting list. It is done on an urgent basis, and we are right now in the process - in fact, we have just looked at putting forward a pilot of combing all the programs to create a new program where we would only look at our urgent repairs.

Mr. Speaker, the list is long and certainly, as I said, when you have the highest home ownership in the country, you can expect the list will continue to grow as people want to upgrade their homes. We will do the best we can, keeping in mind that we have committed over $10 million to do that this year, as we have done last year.

I heard a member opposite saying it is not enough. Well, you have priorities and we obviously, as a government, chose health care as our number one priority. We put a lot of money into education as well and we do, I think, a very fine job on behalf of the staff who work very hard for the people of the Province. We will be looking at trying to merge the lists as quickly as we can, keeping in mind that we do have a finite amount of money to deal with these kinds of requests.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, one of my constituents returned home from heart surgery to a house whose roof is leaking and buckets are scattered all over the place. This is no situation to leave a person in when they are trying to recover from such surgery. Yet, housing has determined that this situation is not urgent. Another family has nine or ten buckets throughout the house to catch water, but again housing says it is not an urgent situation and there is no help available. I doubt the minister would tolerate such conditions in her own home.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister: When will she fix what is wrong with the criteria for urgent repair so that people who are so obviously in need of urgent repairs can get them? When, Minister?

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

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

As I mentioned in my previous question, we are currently looking at reviewing our criteria and hope to pilot very soon.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, another family whose income is around $20,000 a year has been told that they are too wealthy to qualify for housing repairs that they badly need. Minister, something is wrong with the criteria, but you can't broaden the criteria without additional funding. Have you had any success in getting assurances from your federal counterparts that they are looking into the seriousness of providing additional funding to work with the Province to clean up this ridiculous backlog? How much longer will these desperate families have to wait before the federal and provincial government get together and clean up this backlog? How much longer, Minister?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to talk to my federal first cousins about this at the first opportunity. In fact -

MR. TULK: Not the fifth cousins.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Not the fifth cousins, the first cousins.

Minister Bradshaw, in fact, was in town on Friday but unfortunately, due to personal circumstances, I wasn't able to meet with her. We do have a follow-up meeting planned because we want to address the homelessness initiative. In St. John's it isn't a homelessness initiative and in the Province it isn't a homelessness initiative, it is a hard-to-house initiative. We will be working very soon with our federal first cousins to try to address this and work collaboratively with both levels.

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

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report of the Public Tender Act Exceptions for December of 1999, January and February of the year 2000, which brings everything up to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise again to present a petition on behalf of the people in my district, with the following prayer:

WHEREAS the deplorable, unfit conditions of the La Scie Highway, Highway 414, make travelling to and from school unsafe for our children; and

WHEREAS road conditions jeopardize the safety of the travelling public and betray a lack of commitment to rural areas of our Province;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned residents of the La Scie area and the Baie Verte district, do hereby petition the government to upgrade and pave this highway.

Mr. Speaker, I did make a commitment to people on the protest lines that I would continue to do this for today and tomorrow, until the House closes. I will follow through with that commitment, but I am also glad to say today - an update on that - that the protests were called off late yesterday afternoon with some understanding that they would get a final word from the government in the very near future. I forget the exact date. I think it is April 28, if that is correct, but they will get some kind of an answer.

Those people, like many people in the Province and other districts that I have had calls from, understand that everything is not going to be done at once; but they also believe that when it gets to such a condition, as the La Scie Road is in, that something has to be done. I believe - and I hope I am right in believing - that officials in the minister's department, and the minister himself, do realize that this particular road is probably one of the worst. I see the Member for Bay of Islands nodding in agreement with me, that it is one of the worst roads in the Province. There is no doubt about that. I don't think anybody can argue that. That point was made, and it was made loud and clear.

I say again, after talking to many people last night who continued to call, who were on the protest lines, I want to reiterate the point that they certainly did not want to take that route. They are not people who wanted to stand on a line at 6:00 in the morning. One man was telling me he was there from 5:30 a.m. and went home at 9:00 p.m. the first day of the protest. He certainly did not want to be there. He never took part in a protest before in his life and it is not something he would normally do. Other people who were more frustrated and more adamant continued to be there, but they did receive this commitment from the minister that they would have an answer forthcoming very soon so that they can get on with their lives.

They are not asking for some luxury here. They are just talking about something half decent, a decent road that they can make their way over. There are lots of times that people are asking for things that are out of touch but this is not out of touch. It is the simple, straight, common decency of a road.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You might be talking about the MP for the area, not the MHA, I would say to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, they certainly made their statement loud and clear and I make it loud and clear for them as their member in this House of Assembly, and I am proud to do that. I am proud to support those people who made their own statement in their own way. It is too bad it had to come to that. I am very glad to say that people could get back to work today, and I am also even more happy to say that students can go back to school today because nobody wants to see that. I certainly do not. That is one of the reason I have problems with protests, but at the same time you understand their statement. I understand that the Member for Bay of Islands -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - supports that also.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, we now move to the private member's resolution.

I believe it is the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to stand in my place today and speak to my private member's resolution which has been basically discussed in the House of Assembly before. I have brought it to the House of Assembly on a number of occasions and there has been no action taken on it. Again, I hope to get support of both sides of the House on this issue. I am not going to go into all the ‘whereases' because that is recorded in Hansard, but just for information purposes here I will just read this part:

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take whatever action is necessary, including legislative action if deemed appropriate, to ensure that the University, without further delay and promptly whenever requested, effectively gives the Auditor General full access to all books, accounts and records of the University to which the Auditor General is entitled access by law."

I am not going to take a long time this afternoon on that. There are a few points I want to make and I will just proceed from there.

In 1994 the Auditor General did a review of Memorial University accountability. At that time, she said the system of accountability for Memorial University is not adequate by any stretch of the imagination. When she reviewed the system in 1994, she said the Department of Education had no formal policies or procedures in place to ensure proper supervision, control and direction of all matters relating to the University. That was happening in 1994. Some of the points that she brought up at the time were serious and I do not think they have ever been addressed, because she went on in 1997 again to review it and she had some concerns there.

Back in 1994 she said the University was required to submit an annual report to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for certain years, and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council did not receive those reports. That was a problem in itself. She said in the past there was no reconciliation between the annual grant and actual expenditure, nor was there a requirement to reimburse grant payments in excess of expenditures. Again, to me, I think the University needs to be reviewed and also the system of accountability.

Also at that time she said the Department of Education did not perform any audits or inspections on the University, and also that the report should be coming to the House of Assembly and, of course, we are not getting up to date information on that.

In 1997 she confirmed again and she reviewed again. She said that the matter that she had brought up during the 1994 review had not changed. As a matter of fact, she said that section 17 of the Auditor General Act says: The Auditor General is to be given access to all books, accounts, financial reports and records necessary to the performance of the duties of the Auditor General.

The minutes of the Board of Regions, the management committee and the audit committee have been refused her - she has requested them in the past - other consultants' reports have been refused her, so in actual fact she really cannot do the job that she is supposed to do when she goes into MUN. If in fact an entity is to be reviewed and an audit is to be done and the people to be audited can withhold certain information, then how can she do a proper and full legislative audit? That is a concern of hers, and it is certainly a concern of mine, and it should be a concern of this House.

With respect to the role of the University in relation to the committees of the House, a point needs to be made here. If matters pertaining to the University are referred to a committee of the House, section 38(2) of the Memorial University Act requires the committee to conduct its examination through the Minister of Education. The problem we have here, again, is that the Chancellor of the University, the President, the chairperson of the board, the vice-presidents and other officers and employees of the University are not compelled to appear before the committee of the House. The Premier, ministers of the House, can be called before a committee of the House, yet these individuals cannot be called. In actual fact, how can we do a proper audit? How can the Auditor General be expected to do a proper audit if she cannot interview the people that are responsible to run and control the University, and if she do not have full access to all reports, documents, financial reports, or whatever?

The University hires private chartered accountants as their auditors. Now there is some concern here - and I think the University has stated it in the past, that the audit being done by these private auditors hired by MUN - the Auditor General has access to their financial statements, but that is a completely different role altogether than what I think what the Auditor General can or cannot do. Of course, private auditors audit the financial statements of the University for the sole purpose of expressing an opinion on those financial statements. The Auditor General carries out legislative audits which are an entirely different type of audit, as I just said. The Auditor General would audit management systems and practices such as their budget process, their travel policies, their compensation practices, their fleet of vehicles, and their compliance with legislation such as the Public Tender Act.

A private auditor would not do that. All they would look at is basically the budget and the expenditures to see that they comply, but they would not do a full legislative audit with respect to the Public Tender Act and making sure the University is following the Public Tender Act and all the other processes that would be in the system.

There is distinction between the role of the private sector auditors and the role of the Auditor General. For example, when the Auditor General went into the Western Memorial Hospital they did a full legislative audit, and these people have their auditors too. When the Western Memorial Hospital had their financial auditors do their audit they gave them a clean bill of health, but when the Auditor General went in there were many problems that she picked up on with respect to numerous financial and other problems.

Of course, when the University has their private auditors do their audit, they report to the University. When the Auditor General does hers she can report directly to the House of Assembly. Members of this House then can see for themselves if in fact the financial running of Memorial University is done in accordance with the Public Tender Act and all laws, rules, procedures and what have you.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going to keep bringing it here, I say to the Government House Leader, until we get action. The last time we did it, Mr. Speaker, we got full support on that side of the House, and I think they are going to support it today, but we did not get any action. When you hear the government talk - talk is cheap, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I just have that feeling.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer to Judge Noel and his 1993 decision. In it he says: The Auditor General has a right to audit Memorial University. The University submitted that upon appointment of an independent auditor the powers and duties of the Auditor General with respect to the University were restricted by provisions of section 14. Okay? Section 14 imposed duties upon the independent auditor. It permits the Auditor General to accept the independent auditor's information, explanation and documents, but it reserves the right of the Auditor General to exercise the powers and duties imposed by the act. Justice Noel -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is the problem. See, you do not understand what is going on.

Justice Noel continued on, stating: The Auditor General has attempted to exercise her powers and duties under the act but the defendant has refused to cooperate. Section 17 of the act imposes an obligation upon the University which is not being fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, what the University is saying is: Yes, you have access to the financial records - which they give them - and the audit done by the private auditor. Yet they are withholding reports and minutes of meetings of the Board of Regents and what have you that the Auditor General can look at just to make sure that the financial operations of MUN are running in a proper fashion and meeting the Public Tender Act and what have you.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can, but no need. You can read it tomorrow in Hansard, I say to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, the University have always seemed to have a concern of the value for money audit. They figure that the Auditor General will go into the University and say: Listen, you should not be teaching this course, you should not be teaching that course. That is completely irrelevant. The Auditor General does not have the expertise in her office to do that. She has not done it when she has gone into the health care boards or the different school boards or what have you. It is moot, anyway. Even if they could, they wouldn't, but they do not have the expertise to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who doesn't?

MR. J. BYRNE: Value for money auditing, I say to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who doesn't?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Auditor General. The University has stated in the past that their concern is if the Auditor General goes in and does a full legislative audit, she would come back and say: Listen, you should not be teaching this course, you should not teaching that course. What we are saying here is that the Auditor General would not do that anyway. She do not have the expertise in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is saying?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are saying?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is she saying (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: I think she has been on record in the past as saying that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I've been on record. I believe the Auditor General has been on record in the past as saying that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You believe. Are you sure?

MR. J. BYRNE: Ninety-nine per cent.

MR. TULK: Are you 100 per cent?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I'm never 100 per cent, I say to the Government House Leader. I am never 100 per cent.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) sure means you are 100 per cent.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ninety-nine per cent, I say to the Government House Leader, that the Auditor General does not have the expertise in her office to do a value for money audit. For example, I have had experience with the Auditor General from the PAC. She has done audits at the school boards. She has done audits of the health care boards. She has not come back and said: You should not be given this service, with the health care boards; and she has not said in the past: You should not be teaching certain courses. Therefore -

MR. TULK: Read the last four or five words of your resolution and (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying -

MR. TULK: Read it out loud.

MR. J. BYRNE: Which part do you want me to start?

MR. TULK: The last two lines, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: They read: "effectively gives the Auditor General full access to all books, accounts and records of the University to which the Auditor General is entitled access by law."

MR. TULK: In which she "is entitled access by law."

MR. J. BYRNE: Judge Noel in 1993 ruled that she has should have access to this, but she has not been given them. She has not received it in the past.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. TULK: Didn't the courts give her that right?

MR. J. BYRNE: She has gone and requested information in the past and has not received it, I say to the Government House Leader. She has a right -

MR. TULK: Why doesn't she ask the law to enforce (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: She has gone into MUN before and asked for information -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying that the information has not been forwarded to the minister.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: You get up and say if they are or not, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I am asking you.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying that she has not received information that was requested by her.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) by law. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

MR. TULK: What do you want us to do, (inaudible)? (Inaudible) law (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If there is a loophole there somewhere that MUN is hanging their hat on, we should change it, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: What do they hang their hat on?

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

MR. TULK: What are they hanging their hat on?

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know. She has not received the information that is required.

MR. TULK: You sound like (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, right on. Anyway, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is coming through. I am not going to be up here much longer anyway.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a concern at MUN that the Auditor General have a value for money audit done, and they have concerns about that because they feel she is going to go in and say again that you should teach certain courses or you should not. Yet, all the jurisdictions across the country, every Auditor General in Canada has authority to conduct value-for-money audits.

The Auditor General of Prince Edward Island -

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you explain this exception to (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I wouldn't go near that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go there, hey Jack?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, Sir.

Let me repeat, every Auditor General in Canada has the authority to conduct value-for-money audits and the Auditor General of Prince Edward Island has been specifically requested in the past, by their House of Assembly, to conduct a value-for-money audit of the University of Prince Edward Island. Again, as I said, that is a moot point because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) moot point.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is a moot point, because she doesn't have the expertise in her office to do it, I say, Mr. Speaker. You can confirm that. Go and ask the Auditor General herself, because I have asked and she doesn't have the expertise in her office to do it. Unless you want to give her another $500,000, I say to the Government House Leader; then she might be able to do what you are talking about. It is absolutely irrelevant, no need. It is a false fear, I say to Memorial University, and I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I expect there are other people who want to speak on this. I hope they do. I am finished. I have said what I wanted to say.

MR. TULK: Why don't you ask the government for (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I want to go on record now, in case the Auditor General decides to read Hansard and see what was discussed here today. The Government House Leader has stated here in the House, from my understanding: Why doesn't the Auditor General enforce the law, if MUN is breaking it, to have access to the records and books that she requires? Is the -

MR. TULK: No, no, you're wrong.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) ask the court to enforce the law.

MR. J. BYRNE: What the Government House Leader is saying is that the Auditor General should ask the courts to enforce the law; she should have full access to all records due her under the law.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that's right.

MR. TULK: Why doesn't the Auditor General go back to the court and say: You enforce your judgement.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader is asking a question: Why doesn't the Auditor General go back to the court and say: Enforce the law?

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, maybe that is the step the Auditor General should take.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make a few comments with respect to the private member's motion before we - I assume we will vote in favour of the motion again, just as we did a year-and-a-half ago. I believe maybe the hon. member was a little bit unsure and uncertain as to the status of this particular resolution before, because it was brought here in December of 1998.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services made a statement that is not quite accurate. I said in my opening remarks that I brought this to the House of Assembly before and it was discussed before. The minister should understand that the last session of the House prorogued. This is a new session. That is why it is before us again, because we want action taken.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Health has just said is that the hon. gentleman was unsure. Just now, in a back and throw, he indicated that he wasn't sure; that maybe what we should be asking the Auditor General to do is to see that the courts enforce what the law says. That is what the hon. gentleman is saying. He is saying that you are unsure about this whole thing, and you already said you were.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe, just for clarification, from page 1901 of the December 2, 1998 Hansard, I am pretty certain if you checked, the motion that the hon. member read into our record at that point in time is verbatim, absolutely verbatim, word for word, the resolution that we are asked to debate here again today.

Mr. Speaker, I figured rather than risk some contradiction in the statements that I made, maybe if I can take a couple of minutes I could refer to pages 1905 and 1906 of Hansard at the time and say that I would like to say the same thing again now that I said then. To make sure, maybe I should read it out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: I understand we are not really to be reading in the Legislature; we are to be making our points. We can use copious notes from time to time to assist us.

It is pretty clear that the general nature of the debate has not changed since that time. The government fully concurs with the notion that the Auditor General should have full access to examine all of the financial records of the University. We have always agreed with that position. We have always understood that there has been a disagreement between the Auditor General and the University as to how and under what circumstance the Auditor General of today would get access, and that the Auditor General would actually like for the Legislature to order the University to do some things that she thinks should be done that they don't want to do.

We have examined the issue several times. We feel there is no legislative intervention necessary. In terms of accountability, in looking at the funds that are provided from the public treasury to the University, the accounting for them through their own auditors and for any further examination that the Auditor General wants to do, is fully and completely available now.

The government does not agree, and I believe I just heard the hon. member, in putting forward his private member's motion, say that he doesn't agree either that the Auditor General should go in and cast a judgement as to whether or not there should be a music school at Memorial. That is not the role of the Auditor General, to go in and second-guess whether or not there should be a music school, or whether there should be a medical school, or whether there should be an engineering degree offered and so on.

In fact, what we have is, we have a budget, a full, open budgetary process at the University that is available for full scrutiny. We have a Board of Regents in the Senate that handles affairs for the University. There is complete, open system of financial accounting at the end.

As I understand it, the only question that the University has raised that has sometimes been cited by the Auditor General as being problematic, is that they are saying: Before you come in and look at all the stuff, can you give us some idea of what it is you have a concern about? Is there any part of our annual audited statements, is there any part of our public reports, is there any part of anything we are doing that you have reason to believe we might not be doing appropriately, so that we can assist you in getting the information? That is where they come to loggerheads from time to time, where the Auditor General says: No, I don't need to tell you that I have any concerns. I just want you to pass everything over, and I will scour it all. I don't want your assistance in looking at it.

If there was a problem - I used to do this when I was the Minister of Education, and the current Minister of Education is doing the same thing, having regular meetings with the administration of the University saying that it is in everybody's best interest in Newfoundland and Labrador to have the public assured that the monies that are voted for use in the University are used appropriately and properly.

We are quite confident that there are enough public accounting and auditing procedures today to do it, and that there is enough access to every single financial record at the University that the Auditor General by law can have today. The only thing the University has said is: If you really want it, tell us what the problem is, if you think there is a problem, and we will help you get it in more detail even than you could find yourself.

The Auditor doesn't seem to want that kind of assistance, doesn't want to even suggest that there is a problem, because apparently there have been none identified. That is where they are at loggerheads. Therefore the Auditor General, as I understand it, has actually not insisted on exercising the rights that she has under the law, but instead has reported back that she is not satisfied. Because the only resolution that she has to report back to the Legislature is, she has reported back that she is not satisfied with the level of cooperation at the University and therefore is not going to do an audit. We said: Well, that is her choice to do or not do the audit. We are not going to order, and I don't think we should be ordering, the University to change any of its procedures.

There is nothing that I know of that has been brought to the attention of anyone in the Legislature to suggest there is any misuse or misappropriation or misdirection of funds at the University, and that every publicly audited statement that is available to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, upon request through the Web site and so on, to suggest that the money is being spent appropriately for the headings for which it is voted at the University.

We are fully willing to support the intent and sentiment behind this motion again that suggests that the University should be open to a full audit by the Auditor General. I would suggest further

that we do not at this point because we have examined it repeatedly since it was brought to the House a year and a half ago in December 1998. We have examined repeatedly whether or not there needs to be a legislative change. We do not think there needs to be, but certainly I am glad to have the issue debated publicly again today as part of this private member's motion.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise to speak for a few moments on this resolution before the House. It is an important resolution because it does ask a question and give an opportunity to speak for a few moments on the importance of the University and its role in our society, and the importance of it having autonomy as an education institution -this is something that goes back for centuries - and the importance of their being, I think the phrase is, a community of scholars within our midst.

I realize that is a pretty highfalutin term for an institution that we look to train and educate our young people, not only for life but also for employment. So there is a balance there between the practical expectations of a university education and also the intellectual pursuits, the notion of academic freedom, and that we have a community of scholars which is supported by the public purse and therefore answerable to the public in terms of ensuring that they spend their money in accordance with the law.

It is an important point, and I want to recognize that the member moving the motion, the Member for Cape St. Francis, has recognized that in the last ‘whereas' which says as follows, and I want to read it into the record because I think it is most important, this:

"AND WHEREAS imposing on the University the demand that the Auditor General must have access to all of its books, accounts and records is reasonable and does not compromise the integrity or customary autonomy of the University..."

I do not know if there is a word missing here. I guess it should be: as is reasonable. I would submit there may be an error there, that it should read: access to all books, accounts and records as is reasonable and does not compromise the integrity or customary autonomy of the University.

I think it is clear. It should be clear that no motion of this House ought to compromise the integrity or customary autonomy of the University. I would certainly support any motion that fully recognizes and ensures that the integrity and customary autonomy of the University to pursue its academic freedom. You know, we have a system today of accounting and auditing that presumes to comment on the value of a particular service or the value of a particular activity. I do not think it is appropriate for the Auditor General or any auditor to determine what the value of a religious studies department is compared to a commerce program or a philosophy degree and philosophy program as compared to English or folklore studies or any other program. I suppose you could always make an argument that one program serves the interests of the Province better or less. That is not for this House to determine, and certainly not for the Auditor General to determine. She or he, whoever is in that position, does not have the proper role in our society to make those determinations under our legislation. Under the Memorial University Act, that power is given to the Board of Regents and, in the case of academic programs, to the Senate to uphold academic freedom, uphold the autonomy of the University, and I think that cannot be compromised in any way at all. It ought to be very clear that there be a recognition that the integrity and customary autonomy of the University must be protected and that there must be no compromise of that particular role of the University.

I have to say one thing, though. Under the resolution itself, it seems to suggest that the Auditor

General must have "full access to all books, accounts and records of the University to which the Auditor General is entitled access by law." I am just wondering whether the hon. member is suggesting that the University is somehow in violation of the law. Is the university now breaking the law, and that somehow this House has to enforce the law? Is that the role of this House, to enforce the law, or is that the role of the courts?

If the Auditor General is not getting access to what she is entitled to by law, is there not some other forum where the Auditor General ought to go? Whether it be the court - I think the reference was to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland ruling. I don't know. Is the member suggesting that the University is in violation of the order of the Supreme Court? I don't know whether or not that has been suggested, whether it has been suggested that the University is in violation of the current law or not. Obviously, we would have no trouble supporting a resolution that says that the University ought to pass over whatever they are legally obliged to pass over. That would be certainly in keeping with the role of this House, but the actual enforcement of these things surely should go somewhere else. I don't want it to be said that this House is taking the position that the University is somehow not in compliance with the law. I don't know if that is what is being suggested by my colleague the Member for Cape St. Francis. Perhaps in closing he will deal with that issue.

I just want to say two things. Obviously we support the University maintaining its position of integrity and customary autonomy. The importance of that has a value in our society, that the University is an independent autonomous institution that we support publicly, that we need to have in order to have a fully operating and vibrant society, one that is part of a community of scholars, a community of ideas, a community of people who we pay to do our thinking for us, in some respects. We don't have to agree with what they say or do, but we think that we have an obligation to our society to support an institution that is prepared to support the conduct of independent research, scholarly activity, not dependent on the whims of this Legislature or the political party in power -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I was on my way back into the House, I had to step outside for a minute - and this is not strictly a point of order - but I would like for the hon. gentleman to allow me to ask him to clarify something. Did he say that one could draw the assumption from this resolution that maybe the Member for Cape St. Francis believes that the University is somehow breaking the law? Is that assumption left?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, there certainly appears to be that implication, I say to the Government House Leader, because of the reference to the Supreme Court and the Auditor General Act. Obviously there is no trouble agreeing that the Auditor General get full access to whatever records whoever it is is entitled to by law. That is sort of a given. There was also a Supreme Court case. So it doesn't seem to me to be - I mean, I don't have trouble passing it. I'm not sure what the affect of it is or why it is necessary to do this, unless the University is in violation of the law, in which case I don't know if this is going to make any difference.

I would hope that the member would explain himself when he gets up. I certainly support the University abiding by the law, but I just wonder in what respect the University is violating the law and whether or not somehow or other the University's traditional and customary integrity and autonomy is somehow threatened by this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you suggesting we shouldn't vote for the motion?

MR. HARRIS: It seems to be a redundant type of motion but I would have no trouble supporting it if -

MR. TULK: Would you agree, as a lawyer, that if the courts ruled that she have access to certain things at the University (inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: It appears to me that the court has said that the only remedy the Auditor General has is to report to the House of Assembly if the University denied the Auditor General full access, and I don't see any reference in this to such a report. I don't know where we stand, other than, once again, giving an opportunity for members to decide, yes or no, whether they support the autonomy of the University: its right to have control over its programs, what programs it will offer, what programs it won't. Because that, I am afraid, has always been what the University has felt has been threatened by the kind of auditing that might take place.

Perhaps the mover of the motion can clarify these points before we are asked to vote on it because I don't want to be on record - if the member is saying that the University is in violation of the law and an affirmative vote in this House will allow him or anyone else to go out and say that the House of Assembly has declared the University is in violation of the law, I don't think we have enough information to sit as judge and jury of that fact here today. I wouldn't want to be associated with that, because that goes a lot further than the evidence presented by the member to the House today. Perhaps if he would clarify that, it would ease our conscience in supporting the resolution, provided he supports, first of all, the autonomy of the University, academic freedom, and the important role of the University in determining its own course of events; and, secondly, that what he is doing here is urging cooperation, or something like that.

MR. TULK: And that he is not asking us to declare that the University is breaking the law.

MR. HARRIS: If he is not asking us to declare the University is in breach of the law, then I can support the resolution.

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

If the hon. member speaks now, he closes debate.

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

I would like to thank the Minister of Health for his few comments in trying to twist the words of the resolution put forward. I agreed with most of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, up until he started trying to be the lawyer in the House of Assembly again.

The resolution itself is quite straightforward. They voted for a similar thing on the other side of the House once before. They are trying to be cute today in trying to change the intent of this resolution.

Obviously, I explained myself when I spoke to the resolution when I was on my feet earlier. I would advise the Members of the House of Assembly, when there are people up speaking, they should pay closer attention to what is being said. With that, I don't think there is any further explanation required on this so I will sit down.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favor of the resolution, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before you adjourn, I wonder if I could have leave to ask for first reading of some bills so I can pass them out tomorrow? I know the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would like to have some reading over the Easter break, hopefully in some sunshiny climate.

Mr. Speaker, Motions 4 and 5. Motion 3 as well, I think. No.

Motions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - I want to exempt Motion 9 because that is not quite ready - Motions 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Of course, we just voted on Motion 19, that somewhat confusing private member's resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Because you had me so confused.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could now ask for first reading on those Bills: 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Clerk have a copy of the numbers of those bills?

Is it the pleasure of the House that we deal with these bills in block order?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the hon. the ministers shall have leave to introduce Motions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the ministers shall have leave to introduce the bills?

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to introduce the following bills, carried: "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," (Bill 5) and "An Act Respecting Environmental Assessment." (Bill 12)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act," carried. (Bill 9)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce the following bills, carried: "An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Act," (Bill 10); "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999," (Bill 17); "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act," (Bill 18); and "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill19)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce the following bills, carried: "An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises," (Bill 11) and "An Act To Amend The Lands Act." (Bill15)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce the following bills, carried: "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act," (Bill 6); "An Act to Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994," (Bill 7); and "An Act to Amend The Psychologists Act." (Bill 8)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," carried. (Bill 14)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments," carried. (Bill 16)

On motion, Bills 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14,15,16,17,18,19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, one other thing before we leave. Before you put the motion to adjourn, I would like to inform hon. members that tomorrow we will be doing concurrence, and I believe the two we have left are Government Services and Resources Committees.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Social services has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, that was introduced but the other two were done in concurrence -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, and we have concluded our business, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.