The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings the Chair would like to welcome to the House of Assembly today, in the gallery, twenty students from the Canadian Issue Class from the Mount Pearl Senior High School representing the Districts of Mount Pearl and Waterford Valley. These students are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Darryl Penney.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to talk about an event that happened in my district last night, in the community of Arnold's Cove. We had a great number of people who turned out for a church service and carol sing. Five denominations were involved and all the organizations in the communities of Arnold's Cove, Sunnyside, Come By Chance, Little Harbour. The collection last night from that church service totaled $20,000 which was a fantastic amount and shows the generosity of the people involved in the area. It was just fantastic to hear and see the people working together for such a great cause. I sat there last night and was very proud to be the member for that area and show you that the people were so generous in contributing to this worthwhile cause.

I wish to inform the Members of the House of Assembly that I think we all should be proud of the contributions that Newfoundlanders make to these charitable organizations. For such a small population this was a fantastic amount of money, of $20,000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of government's continued support towards the efforts of the Canadian Sealers Association.

I would also like to recognize Ms Tina Fagan, Executive Director of the Canadian Sealers Association, in the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Sealers Association was formed in 1982 in response to the negative publicity against the sealing industry by some animal rights groups. The association represents more than 6,000 sealers and works with federal and provincial governments to jointly promote the sealing industry.

Over the years, government has provided funding to the organization to assist with various operational costs. Today, I am pleased to announce that government is continuing funding in the amount of $50,000 to the Canadian Sealers Association to help with such expenses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Government supports the important role that the Canadian Sealers Association plays and, for the past decade or more, government and the sealing industry have focused efforts on the rebuilding of our sealing industry. Our overall objective is to ensure that the seal resource is fully developed for the benefits of sealers, other industry workers and communities with a dependence on this important economic activity.

Mr. Speaker, government is obviously concerned about the impact of the growing seal population in the recovery and sustainability of cod stocks. Earlier this year, Mr. Dhaliwal, federal Fisheries Minister, established an eminent panel on seal management. The four-member expert panel, to which this government has appointed Mr. David Vardy, Chair of the Public Utilities Commission, was a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in 1999 to provide advice on a new long-term strategy for the management of seal populations.

The Province commends the federal government for acknowledging the importance of establishing an independent panel to address the seal issue. Government will be making an appropriate representation to this panel and will seek scientific advice to support government's stand on this key issue. In particular, we will seek advice on the effects of seal/cod predation and the impact it has on cod stocks. We will continue to work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that an effective management plan is put in place in a timely manner to deal with the growing seal herd that is negatively impacting the recovery of our ground fishery.

Mr. Speaker, government remains fully committed to the sealing industry in this Province and the role that the Canadian Sealers Association plays in the industry's survival. The initiative government has taken today is a reflection of that commitment to ensuring a sustainable sealing industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to recognize the excellent work that has been brought forward by the Canadian Sealers Association, and recognize Ms Tina Fagan as well for the excellent work and guidance that she has brought to this particular industry. But, I have to say what a change, what a transformation. It was only in the last sitting of the House of Assembly that the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was going to have nothing to do with the Canadian Sealers Association; cut off all funding. In fact, threaten to have the president of the Sealers Association removed from her office. What a transformation!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It is true, I say to the member.

It was decided that there would be no more funding put forward to the Canadian Sealers Association. At that time I said shame, and I repeat that here again today but say that this good news because I think there is still a big part to play by the Canadian Sealers Association in order to bring this industry to where it should be.

The Canadian Sealers Association has identified some major problems. Down in my district there are in excess of 100 people employed at certain times during the year, taking advantage of this particular industry. There are twenty or thirty people employed full time with a very viable industry, and it is certainly an excellent source of employment for an area that has been destitute from the closure of the cod moratorium.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the member say that this government will be making a presentation to the eminent panel, the panel of eminent people, because it was only a couple of weeks ago that this panel was supposed to make a submission and release its report. I am surprise to hear that this government have not already appeared before that panel and put forward their suggestions and their proposals of how to deal with the explosion of the harp seal herd off the Northeast Coast of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, support the effort of the Canadian Sealers Association, particularly as it goes to their promotion of products for the sealing industry, to help develop markets and setting standards for the hunt.

I think it is very important and critical to this Province that the seal hunt continue because of the effect it has on the rebuilding of our cod industry.

I was out last spring to a funeral in Red Cliff, and following the funeral we had an opportunity to go to a cove just outside there. That cove was filled with codfish, even to the point where they were almost coming up on the beach. Right outside the cove there were seals just bobbing up and down in the water. It was quite a sight to see, and not too many people have had the opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: At that time, I did have a camera with me and I did take some good photos of that and gave them to the Minister of Fisheries afterwards; so there is no question that the seal hunt in this Province is important to the Sealers Association, and the rebuilding of the cod stocks as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, further to comments by the Premier last week, I have assembled a committee and am announcing that a comprehensive review of the Province's Freedom of Information Act will commence early in the new year.

Government acknowledges that there have been no major changes to the Act since 1981. While the Act was considered a pioneering piece of legislation at the time, in the past twenty years there have been major changes in the way we manage information, and even the creation of new forms of communication such as e-mail and voice mail.

As the hon. Premier stated on December 4, government has no intention of hiding behind legislation. We are committed to an open, transparent process in the development and implementation of public policy, and we want to ensure our legislation remains clear and relevant in this new age of information.

We understand that there must be a balance between the public's right to know, and respect for individual privacy. It is also important to promote full and frank discussions at the executive and ministerial levels, which require appropriate recognition of the confidentiality of certain deliberations.

A committee of four individuals, each respected in their own fields, will determine the process for carrying out the review. This process may include such things as holding consultations and receiving written submissions from stakeholders.

The committee will review and make recommendations on all aspects of the Freedom of Information Act and regulations, including, but not limited to, recommendations dealing with the following: the need for a new review mechanism to examine decisions respecting the disclosure of information; the composition and powers of any recommended review mechanism; the appropriate exemptions from disclosure of the Act; amendments necessary to deal properly with new forms of information such as e-mail; and appropriate time periods for government departments and agencies to respond to requests for information.

Mr. Speaker, the members of this newly-formed committee are sitting in the Speaker's gallery today, and I would like to welcome them to the House:

Ms Joan Dawe, a former Deputy Minister of the Department of Health and Community Services, will chair the committee. She is currently chairperson of the Board of Directors for Health and Community Services, St. John's Region, and a member of the Board of Directors for the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association.

Siobhan Coady is the vice-president of Corporate Communications Limited, a national strategic marketing and communications company. She is also president of Bonaventure Fisheries, a privately-held fish harvesting company, and a past president of the St. John's Board of Trade.

Dr. Leonard Williams is a former Deputy Minister of Education who has spent the majority of his adult life as a school administrator. He is a past president of both the Newfoundland Teachers' Association and the Canadian Teachers' Federation. Members of this House will no doubt remember Dr. Williams' role as chairman of the 1992 Royal Commission on Education. Dr. Williams, incidently, will be invested as a member of the Order of Canada early in 2001.

Dennis Browne is a prominent St. John's lawyer who has, on several occasions, been appointed as a consumer advocate to protect the public interest at hearings before the Public Utilities Board.

I am grateful to each of these individuals for their interest in participating on the review committee. I have asked them to present their report to government within six months.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an extremely important issue. I genuinely hope that this is not an attempt by government at either rhetoric or posturing. It is indeed an important issue. It affects all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The people of this Province must have confidence in its government. I can say, and only say, that is best shown and best exemplified when requests are made and information is sought from members opposite and it is given freely, openly and voluntarily. When that relationship exists, I would suggest and remind members opposite, that confidence can them be implemented and hopefully, if it is not there, restored.

Mr. Speaker, what I would propose, in addition to the committee of individuals that has been put together by the minister, is perhaps one of two things: One, that a non-partisan committee, a committee of this Legislature, be assembled upon completion of the recommendations to review, analyze and assess those recommendations. As indicated, that could be formed by members of both sides of the Legislature. Secondly, that an invitation be given by this committee to all members of this House to participate in and to assemble with the committee to make recommendations of their own and, if nothing else, to bring experiences that we have experienced as a result of simply being Opposition members and not having received the information that we have requested.

I think if government were to afford the opportunity of those two options: one, to review in a non-partisan way; and, secondly, to have the ability to participate in the decision making of this committee, then this really and truly, in its reality and its entirety, can be seen as a non-partisan, open and voluntarily act by this government, which is being done in good faith.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the fact that the review of the act will take place. I am concerned that the minister's review, however, is somewhat narrow in looking at the balance between the public's right to know and the respect for individual privacy. The problem is not the respect for individual privacy that keeps government from releasing information, it is their lack of desire to do so because of political reasons.

I would have preferred, Mr. Speaker, a Select Committee of this House to deal with this, although I have no quarrel with the qualifications of the eminent people who are appointed to this panel. There ought to be more involvement of people who are a part of this particular process, and the suggestions of my colleague from St. John's East are certainly to be commended to the minister.

There ought to be more political involvement in this process because it is, essentially, a good process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: We will see that, Mr. Speaker, when we see the results of this committee.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order (inaudible) the issue that was just brought up by that speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TULK: I think, once the Minister of Justice has received the report of the committee, then it is going to be a public report anyway, or I would assume it is. Once that is the case -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) as it can be.

PREMIER TULK: It will be a public report and obviously open to debate and suggestions from members of this House. I don't know if that was the intention of the hon. gentleman or not, but certainly we would be pleased to have a discussion on that. I just want to make a point, that the report will be public once the four people who have been commissioned to do this bring back a report. It will be public and obviously made available to members to comment upon.

I don't know whether that satisfies the requirement or not, but if it doesn't we would certainly be open to having a discussion on it.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, this morning government approved the precommitment of approximately $28 million against Works, Services and Transportation's 2001/02 budget for the early tendering of eight Trans-Labrador Highway projects.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is well known in the construction industry that early tender calls save money. My department plans to call tenders for these projects early in January, thereby giving contractors more time to prepare for the work. Contractors will be able to replenish and repair their fleet earlier and not have to incur the overtime costs associated with a short preparation time.

Knowing well in advance what jobs they will be working on also gives contractors more time and flexibility in mobilizing equipment to the site, cutting down on transportation costs. Mr. Speaker, when contractors can reduce costs, this translates into savings for government.

The projects which will go to tender in January include: the construction of the St. Lewis Access Road, approximately 15 kilometers. When these final 15 kilometers are constructed, this road will be completed into St. Lewis. Honourable members know that when the second phase, the Trans-Labrador Highway was brought in first this road was not included. There will be over 30 kilometers of road into St. Lewis and this community will now be connected to the main Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Construction of the highway from Port Hope Simpson towards the Charlottetown Access Road, approximately 17.5 kilometers; construction of the highway from the Charlottetown Access Road towards Paradise River, approximately 44 kilometers; construction of approximately 47 kilometers of highway from Cartwright towards Port Hope Simpson; and the construction of concrete bridges at the following locations on the highway: Mary's Harbour River; Blackwater Brook in Port Hope Simpson; Dykes River near Cartwright; and Southeast Brook near Paradise River.

Mr. Speaker, added to the $28 million which we will spend on new projects in 2001-2002, we also have $15 million in carry over projects from last year. This puts last year's Trans-Labrador Highway expenditures, and this year's, at $43 million.

For people living in southern Labrador, the highway opens up areas previously not accessible by land travel. People in and outside of Labrador are experiencing new tourism and business opportunities and have another option for the movement of goods.

Two weeks ago my department opened the first section of Phase Two of the Trans-Labrador Highway, 78 kilometers from Red Bay to Lodge Bay, and reaction has been positive. People in the area are very excited about what the highway will mean to them personally and especially to local businesses. Mr. Speaker, we have also just entered into a three year contract for summer and winter maintenance for this road. This contract covers Pinware to Port Hope Simpson, including the branch road to St. Lewis, and is valued at $3 million.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that I went down and travelled halfway into Mary's Harbour from Red Bay, into where they were putting the last stone on, approximately 44 kilometers of road, and it is an excellent highway. I met approximately seventeen to twenty vehicles coming up from Mary's Harbour and Lodge Bay at that time, coming up towards Red Bay.

Mr. Speaker, up to and including money spent on projects this year, government has invested a total of $141 million on the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway. We remain committed to ensuring the highway in Labrador is completed. While it is not in place right now, we continue to lobby the federal government for the funding necessary for Phase Three of the highway, from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Cartwright. We are confident that this funding will come in the near future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Indeed, we are all delighted to see the potential for southern Labrador through this highway. I have travelled that area of the Province very well, know it very well, and I know the great potential that it has for tourism, and other resources, I say to the minister. We are also glad for early tendering, that the government can get the best bang for the buck. In my view, they are going to need to get the best bang for the buck because the savings needed has to be involved in this entire Province. Although, we look at Labrador as opening up with a new road system and further growth development of Labrador, it is a positive thing, there is no doubt about it.

Mr. Speaker, we also have to look at the Province as whole. The minister knows full well that when you look at $12 million to $13 million per year for provincial roads in this Province, some 900 kilometers of road still unpaved, I just hope that the word he used of confidence, that the federal government will allow the last phase to be completed. I hope that comes true. He should be sure, not confident that it will be completed.

As we look at the Province as a whole, we have to look at maintenance and further down the road of what we are going to do to address a problem, a brewing crisis, I have always said, still brewing in this Province. When you have 900 kilometers of gravel roads still left after fifty years of Confederation, of the greatest country in the world they say, and we still have hundreds of kilometers of old pavement, from twenty to twenty-five years old, like on the La Scie highway last year. That is something that has to be addressed because down the road we will be looking for maintenance for these new highways in Labrador and we have to be able to answer the question: Can we keep up with the maintenance? When you look at $12 million per year in the last several years, when the minister gets $300 million in requests, you do not need a lot of mathematics to find out that with $300 million in requests, and $12 million every year for the last two or three years by this government, it will not address the growing concern of the problems we have with roads in this Province.

Number one, the concern is that Labrador be completed, and there have been concerns raised about that. I hope that the minister is very sure that it will be, in fact, completed; but also I hope that the federal and provincial governments are going to come together in some way to address the real concern that we have for provincial roads in this Province, which is not being addressed right now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is good news for Southern Labrador, in our experience in Labrador West. I can understand and relate to how the people in Southern Labrador feel, the same way we felt a few years ago when we were able, for the first time, to drive from Labrador West to Quebec and then down through Goose Bay.

The road, there is no question, will bring a lot of economic benefit to that region, and I am sure the people there appreciate the fact now that they will not be isolated in their community, and that they do have the ability to get aboard their vehicles and visit family and friends at their convenience, the way that most people in this Province have been used to doing for a great many years.

I would say, though, that the portion from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Cartwright - I seem to recall the former Premier, when he made that release, saying that the interest from that money would be used and set aside for work to be carried out on the section of road from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Cartwright, and I wonder if the minister at some point could inform us how much has generated in that fund to date.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to report the results of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board's 2000 Call for Bids for petroleum rights in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area.

I remind you that last year's Call for Bids resulted in record work expenditure commitments of $192 million. This year, $88.6 million in bids were received for ten of fourteen parcels offered, including a $55 million bid by Petro-Canada and Norsk Hydro for one parcel in the Carson/Bonnition Basin. Petro-Canada and Norsk Hydro have been actively involved in the offshore area and I am encouraged to see them make such a substantial bid in a new, relatively unexplored basin.

PanCanadian continued its interest from last year's sale with a bid of $1.6 million for a parcel in the Carson/Bonnition Basin, and Corridor Resources was successful with a $1.2 million bid for a parcel in the offshore West Coast area of the Province. This is the second parcel acquired by Corridor offshore western Newfoundland.

Husky Oil was also active, biding on two parcels in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, and two parcels in the South Whale Basin, for a total bid of $25 million. In addition to the above, a new player, Polaris Resources, submitted bids totaling $5.6 million for three parcels in the South Whale Basin. This brings the total work expenditure bids for lands in our offshore area to approximately $776 million in the last six years.

Although the bids were lower than the record bids received over the past couple of years, they do indicate a sustained interest in the potential of our offshore, and provide encouragement that major discoveries will be made in new areas beyond the Jeanne d'Arc Basin.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the successful bidders and wish them great success in their exploratory efforts. I will also take this opportunity to welcome Polaris Resources into our offshore. This is a Calgary-based company and I am proud to say it is run by an ex-patriot Newfoundlander

Mr. Speaker, to place our petroleum industry into perspective, we have major developments ongoing at Hibernia and Terra Nova. We will see developments at White Rose and Hebron/Ben Nevis in the near future.

In the past few years we have received substantial bids for lands outside the proven area known as the Jeanne d'Arc Basin and have seen record levels of seismic acquisition, which is the precursor to drilling. Considering all of these factors, I am optimistic that our petroleum sector will continue to be a major force in the expansion of our Province's economy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, on this side of the House share in congratulating the successful bidders. It goes without saying, of course, that this is indeed a very important industry in our Province, just looking at it from the point of view of employment and technology transfer, not to mention, of course, the spinoff benefits as a result of our oil industry.

The minister mentioned White Rose. We on this side of the House look forward to the continuing debate with respect to a mode of development on the While Rose project, and I understand that hearings will be forthcoming in the very near future.

There is an opportunity, however, from time to time to remind all members in this Legislature of the great Progressive Conservative legislation, know as the Atlantic Accord, which ought to provide the basis and the foundation of our oil industry, our offshore industry in the Province. What I want to do is, just very briefly, remind all hon. members of two of these provisions which are essential. I will quote directly from the Accord, which states that: We must recognize the right of Newfoundland and Labrador to be the principle beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores, consistent with the requirement for a strong and united Canada, and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, if I may, the second provision -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - to recognize the equality of both governments in the management of the resource and to ensure that the pace and manner of the development optimize the social and economic benefits to Canada as a whole, and in particular to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we, of course, welcome the new activity in the offshore in the form of new expenditures for exploration, we too would like to put the petroleum industry into perspective, as the minister has invited us.

Eighty-eight point six million dollars sounds like a lot of money for exploration and investment, but we have to put that in the context that at current rates of production, recently elevated by the government, and current oil prices, the value of oil from Hibernia alone is over $2 billion per year. For $88 million to be spent by the oil industry as a whole in exploration, in new commitments for the next year, is in fact less than one half of 1 per cent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - which is a very, very low rate of exploration for new sources of oil.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am interested today in the statement by the Minister of Justice about a review of the Freedom of Information Act. I would suggest that, while that is important, it is symptomatic of a larger problem, and that is the lack of accountability within the structures of government today.

Yesterday's report by the Auditor General could be described as nothing less than a damnation of government's activities and its reporting mechanisms to this House. For example, on page 12 she says that, of $1.668 billion that is given to eighty-two Crown agencies directly reporting to this government, only four, totalling $175 million of $1.66 billion, have actually tabled their reports to this House.

I would like to ask the Premier today: How can you justify, in the age we live in, that when it comes to accountability - we provide these agencies with money, yet the members of this very House are being disenfranchised because information is not being tabled to them. How can you stand and justify the actions of your government on that front?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that this government takes the issue of accountability very, very seriously. We, as a government, look forward to the review conducted by the Auditor General. We take it very seriously. I think it is important at this time that I would give you some background as to what this government has done in our look at accountability framework here.

What we have done: we have taken major initiatives to implement an accountability framework through policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have taken no initiatives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: We have.

Since this issue was raised in the House last spring we have developed here, within government, two booklets. One is called A Guidebook for the Improved Accountability of Public Bodies. The other one is A Handbook for the Improved Governance of Public Bodies. These I will table today.

I want to give you the background today as to what we have done in addition to those books. A person has been engaged by the Department of Education to assist their boards with the process. A person in the Comptroller General's office is coordinating the implementation process. Meetings are being held with all six school boards and their executives, and the Department of Education is in the process of determining what it will impact with Memorial University of Newfoundland. The Department of Health and Community Services is engaging a person to assist in their boards.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the President of Treasury Board to now complete her answer.

MS THISTLE: Also, I have to tell you that the public bodies, which are now traditionally completed in the strategic planning process, will start and implement realistic time frames.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: This is the government that takes accountability seriously. Let me give you an example of how serious they are about it. Last year in this House when the Budget was released, we said, after an analysis of the Budget, that the projected deficit for this year on current account would be approximately $200 million. This government told us that we were fearmongering, that we were lying, and that we were not right. Yet, today or yesterday, in the announcement the Auditor General says clearly: The true deficit of the Province on this year's account is $221 million. This government has moved cash flows around from its own structures to cook the books. Is that accountability? Seriously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the statement made by the member opposite. The true balance of government's books last year was a $13 million deficit, not a $200 million deficit as the Auditor General referred to. What it is, is a difference in accounting procedures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: When the Auditor General combines all government agencies it would account to $200 million. Really, in effect what we have done - the amount that we are referring to is a cash basis which is in our budget. All others are contained in the public accounts.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a difference in accounting procedures. What an explanation from the President of Treasury Board. Let me ask her: How do you square this circle then? How do you square this circle when the Auditor General says: I am again recommending to government to report that government report as its deficit or surplus the results -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I am asking the question: How can she square this circle? The Auditor General has asked her to report on its deficit or surplus in the audited summary financial statements, which for 1999-2000 was a deficit of $221 million. How can you stand in the House today and tell the members of the House and the public at large that there is a difference only because of accounting procedures? The reality is, Minister, the Auditor General has caught you with your hands in your own pockets. Why don't you stand up and admit it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the deficit or surplus in the budget is an accurate reflection of the results of our financial operations. What the Auditor General is referring to is the accrual method. The accrual method is adopted in most jurisdictions in Canada, however, since 1949 we have been operating on a cash basis in our budget. That is what you vote on here in this House of Assembly. The accrual method is done through the Public Accounts Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Now it is the Official Opposition of the Province's fault. That is what the minister is saying, because we voted on it what the Auditor General is saying: It is not the government's fault, it is our fault. It is our fault that there is no accountability in the system.

Let me ask the minister this question, let me ask her to square another circle. Two years ago in this Legislature the former Minister of Finance stood up in this House, under repeated questions, under repeated Question Periods, when we talked about why the government was building condominiums at Marble Mountain. He talked about the marketing surveys that were done. He talked about the pre-sold units that were being done. He talked about how the local industries supported it. How do you square the findings of the Auditor General that indicate clearly that in Marble Mountain there were no marketing surveys done since 1994? That, in fact, there was no information that related to the construction that would say to government, you should build it for the viability of Marble Mountain?

How do you justify the expenditure of those dollars in view of the purposeful misleading statements of a member of your Cabinet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just mention to the hon. member that the should check a little bit and find out the difference cash accounting and accrual accounting before he asks foolish questions at this House. Government, unlike the hon. member opposite, does not wish to lose its Marble, as well as its marbles.

Before government embarked on a plan to construct the condominiums at Marble Mountain we looked at the local opportunity for housing. The problem with Marble Mountain is that is was unable to attract, among others, the type of skier who does not want to commute from a hotel operation somewhere else that wants to be able to stay at the base of a hill. By building the condominiums government has opened up a new opportunity for the local people of this Province who rely on winter tourism to attract people to the Province, who did not have an opportunity to do so in the past.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this member right here always does his homework. I would advise the Minister of Mines and Energy to take the advice of his colleague, and now co-contender for the top job of the Province: words are important. This is the minister who has stood up on the record of Hansard and provided information in this House that is completely in contradiction with what the Auditor General finds.

Minister, how could you get up and support it, and say the statements you have when the Auditor General tells you, in fact, that what you said in this House was wrong, was not truthful and was not forthright to the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, when the people of the Province hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about what has been said in the House and not, they have a certain degree of skepticism. I remind the hon. member, a few weeks ago, he was talking about the fact that this whole change in Churchill Falls had never been discussed, never disclosed in the House. I brought to the public the next day -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The records of the House substantiate what I have said in this House repeatedly.

To finish the point, I brought to the public statements that I made in this House on May 10 of this year which indicated that the Province was looking for other opportunities to develop the Lower Churchill and, in particular, would look at American marketers.

Secondly, I have said repeatedly in this House and given frank answers to the statements as to what was occurring at Marble Mountain. We, on this side of the House, support Marble Mountain. We will continue to do so. What we did is we looked at marketing it, selling the condominiums and we came to the conclusion that it would be better to operate it as a hotel operation still owned by the government. That is being done with the support of the local business community which is, in fact, providing some services there.

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

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

My question is for the President of Treasury Board. Last year government contravened the Financial Administration Act when it issued $70.8 million in special warrants when the House was in session and did not table the warrants within the three days required. The government should have brought the requests for additional funding to the House by way of a supplementary supply bill at that time. Why did this minister not only condone, but participate in breaking the laws of this Province passed by this Legislature? How can the people of this Province trust a minister who knowingly and purposely breaks the laws of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that the government of this Province was in complete compliance with the Financial Administration Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: They were tabled in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. The Auditor General confirmed that they were tabled as they were supposed to be.

Regarding the issue of special warrants: special warrants can cover any category of expenditures, salaries, forest firefighting, social assistance, whatever. They were filed in accordance with the Financial Administration Act and we are in complete compliance.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I suggest that the minister stop reading from the 1998 report.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report openly accuses the government of abusing special warrants to produce a surplus or deficit closer to that originally predicted in the Budget. Are you not using special warrants, just as the Auditor General charges, to mislead not only the public but the financial markets, about the state of the Province's finances? Why are you cooking the books?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary, in response to the Member for Cape St. Francis. In our Budget last spring we openly admitted that we could have a surplus of $167 million and, in fact, that was announced upfront in our Budget. We chose to make different moves, as a government, to bring stability to this government. In fact, if you were to look back, Moody's Investors Service complimented us on our handling of the administration of government which put us in a balanced position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Let me ask the minister: What would happen to a company, under the laws of this Province, that cooked the books to change its bottom line to manipulate the surplus/deficit position of that company?

In the Auditor General's report itself, it says: in my opinion the government contravened the Financial Administration Act in that they were not urgently required, and the House of Assembly was in session when the funds were distributed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: The words of the Auditor General, and you are trying to twist them to say she is saying -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you saying that the Auditor General is saying that you did what was right and proper with respect to the special warrants? What would happen to a company in Newfoundland and Labrador if they were charged with cooking the books, as you have been charged?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the criteria was met for the issuance of special warrants. The process is: a minister must indicate in writing whether urgent need exists; all documents must be tabled in the Legislature in accordance with strict time frames; a supplementary supply bill must be approved by the Legislature for all special warrants related to spending. Mr. Speaker, all conditions have been met. We are in complete compliance with the Financial Administration Act.

Thank you.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

Mr. Speaker, many Workers' Compensation recipients are concerned that government may be about to reduce Workers' Compensation benefits. I would like to ask the minister today: Are there any plans to significantly decrease Workers' Compensation benefits below the level they are right now?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some time ago, in fact about a month ago, the Workplace Health Safety & Compensation Commission was tasked with the responsibility of traveling through this Province to find new ways, I guess, to be able to administer the Workers' Compensation plan differently from what it is at this particular time.

We have an unfunded liability of about $180 million there. When I asked the Chair of the board, Mr. Trask, and Mr. Flood, Mr. Warren, Mr. Anstey and Miss Vanta to do the report - basically, there is nothing left out from our point of view. We want to do a complete overview of the board to seek ways that it can be not either/or, but look after the needs of the injured worker and at the same time be fair to the employers.

There were no restrictions or preconditions put on the task force, from my point of view. They just want to go out and see what's what, to be able to be sure of the viability, as I said, of the commission and, at the same time, protect the injured workers.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we heard - when I asked the question, the Premier said, absolutely, and I am very concerned about that.

Mr. Speaker, some believe that there is significant abuse in the Workers' Compensation system. A statutory review committee put forward by the minister two years ago said that only 1 per cent of cases in the system involved abuse and that 99 per cent of injured workers in the system have legitimate, bonafide cases.

I would like to ask the minister today: Does he agree with the statutory review committee and its findings?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that there is widespread abuse in the system, I don't know that. What I am saying to you today is the fact that I would assume that everybody who is injured, is legitimately so, and we want to work from that particular premise. What I want to say to you, as I said earlier, is the fact that there are problems at the commission, there are no two ways about that. We have more injuries, and people are on the system longer. It is the task of this group of people to hold public hearings across the Province, from one end of her to the other, and everybody who would have a concern, any stakeholder whatsoever, should appear before that particular committee. There are no restrictions, it is open to the public, and anybody who would want to present a particular position to the group, advising them, in a sense, of ways that they think the system should be better run, then by all means do so.

Also, I want to say that after this particular consultation has been done across the Province, there will be a round table here in St. John's where all of the recommendations that the groups have heard will be brought back. All of the stakeholders will once again be able to sit around the table, see what has been recommended, and hopefully, as a result of all that, be able to come forward with the best plan to ensure the financial integrity of the system, and at the same time provide benefits to the injured workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we all agree that there are problems with the commission when we have a $180 million unfunded liability. The concern in the Province today by injured workers is the fact that this unfunded liability is going to be brought back on the backs of injured workers in this Province. That is the concern that we have been raising here today.

I would like to ask the minister: Will the minister make a commitment today that Workers' Compensation benefits will not be cut below the level they are at today?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that, because what would happen is: if I were to do that, then I would hamstring the committee that would be traveling throughout the Province to hear all stakeholders. At the end, whatever recommendations will be brought forward, I would hope, would be in the best interest, as I said, of protecting the injured worker and at the same time being able to maintain integrity of the system.

I cannot say that the benefits will be cut, any more than I can say that the assessment to the employers will be higher. That is not my decision to make.

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

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it relates to the violent stabbing of a teenage girl in Labrador City which took place on September 1. To date, Minister, no charges have been laid. As part of the investigation, evidence was sent to Halifax and on to Ottawa for DNA testing. Some evidence has been received but there is more outstanding. The stress on the families, the young girl, and the community, as a result of waiting for this case to be solved is great.

I ask the minister if he is satisfied with this level of service, and in particular the long wait that must be endured by victims waiting for test results to be returned from laboratories?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I, just today had correspondence from the parent of the victim of this particular incident concerning this matter, and intend to inquire - it is an RNC matter - as to exactly why it is taking so long to have the exhibits tested. They are tested at a forensic laboratory in Halifax. There have been some results returned thus far. Again, the results of those tests that have been returned cannot be released because of investigative purposes, of course. We do not want to interfere in the police investigation. Those results, themselves, are crucial and important in that continuing investigation.

There were quite a number of other exhibits - in the range of dozens, I do believe - that were also sent, where the tests have not been returned yet. There are certain protocols to be followed at the laboratory. My indications and information to date is that the protocols and the necessary tests just have not been prepared. It is not a case of anybody being slow or tardy, but it takes time to follow the necessary protocols. It is very frustrating for the parents here and it is very frustrating for the RNC. They would love to apprehend the culprit in this particular case and lay charges, but it has to be done properly. It is an ongoing investigation and we hope that it is, in fact, concluded in due course in a timely fashion.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister if waits of this duration are normal in the Province in cases of this nature; and, if so, what has he done, as minister, probably in coordination with other Justice ministers in Atlantic Canada, to improve the situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not interfere in any investigations and would not intend to do so. Again, the length of time that it takes to get results back often depends upon the type of test to be done and what the tests are being conducted upon. There are certain protocols to follow with respect to various exhibits that have been seized. Some of them have been completed, some have not. It is not a case of anybody attempting to be tardy. The RNC would like to have the information back as soon as possible, and they have been on the laboratory to ask them to do that; but again, they just have not completed the proper protocols.

To my knowledge, the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice certainly would not interfere and try to prioritize one case over another. That is an investigative matter that is in the hands of the RNC. Again, as indicated, I will check with the RNC to see what exactly the status is and when they do expect them back, and I can inform the member accordingly.

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

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

My questions are to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The Auditor General has identified the aging ferry fleet in this Province as a serious issue. In fact, seven of the twelve vessels owned by the government are twenty-five years of age or older. As a matter of fact, the entire fleet has an average age of twenty-three years. That is very serious when we consider that the life expectancy of one of these boats is twenty-five years, so therefore the seaworthiness of these vessels is certainly unreliable. I would like to ask the minister: What plan does the government have to replace or refit these vessels?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, it did not take a review or an inspection by the Auditor General to remind us on this side that we need some work done on our ferries in the Province. We realize that every day in this office; however we do, under the circumstances, take a very serious look at all our ferries in the Province - all our equipment. including ferries - and make sure - we have to go through CSI approval, too. The member should remember that all of those vessels are not just put out to sea, or taken out from a wharf or put out on any run in this Province or anywhere else in Canada, unless they are CSI approved. They must be. We get that ticket, we get that certificate, and then they are put out.

However, to address the member's question with regard to new vessels and the Auditor General's concern with regard to new vessels, we do not have the money - with the monies that are required for education, for health and other areas in this Province - to put money into brand new vessels. Even if we did, the Auditor General's report certainly does not hold true on two of the vessels that she mentioned, and I have the figures to back it up.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, like the Auditor General, we all realize the situation with the aging of the ferry system. How you are handling it is what the question is, for the people especially who use these services in this Province. In recent years, the government's policy seems to be to purchase these derelicts and then spend millions of dollars refitting them for Canadian standards. At the end, you are still left with these old vessels that have short life expectancy. We are asking, on policy, why doesn't the government put in place a ship replacement policy that would provide modern vessels that are suitable for the needs of this Province and can provide twenty-five or more years of seaworthiness?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with what the hon. member said with regard to the so-called derelicts that the Auditor General mentioned in her report. You ask the people on Fogo Island and Change Islands about the MV Earl W. Windsor and they will tell you what (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will give you one example. She mentioned the MV Earl W. Windsor. People on Fogo Island and Change Islands love this vessel; the people in the Province who use it love the vessel. To give you an example of what should be done with regard to policy versus the accounting services in my department or any other, we bought the MV Earl W. Windsor for $300,000. We spent approximately $2.6 million on that vessel, approximately $3 million. That vessel, when we finished - it would have cost us $23 million for a new vessel to replace the vessel at the time. Today it would cost us $42 million. That vessel is out there not causing us any trouble, any harm. She is CSI inspected, she is maintained. She just came down off refit. We had her in for some minor problems, to fix some shafts and so on, and we put her through her annual refit. She is back in the water now, unless there is some maintenance, we are into another year.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, we all know that some have been started to be addressed. Yes, there are some that are in good shape and, as refits go, that will certainly help people in that particular area of the Province. But there are twelve vessels, I say to the minister, with an average age of twenty-three years old. When are you going to address those? What I am asking the minister is: Has the minister considered the value to the Province in jobs, purchase of materials, and services of replacing worn out vessels with new vessels built right here in Newfoundland, for instance, at the Marystown shipyard? Have you considered that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, with all the ferries in our fleet here - we have approximately twelve of our own and nine under contract, for a total of twenty-one vessels. With all of the cars and trucks in our fleet, with all the snow clearing equipment, with all the summer maintenance equipment, I would love to have all new equipment. Then I would not want any maintenance budget; but I know full well that the President of Treasury Board is not going to give me any money for that.

We put in x number of dollars for maintenance every year. We get those dollars and we do the best we can with them. If there is any monies for new vessels, we will look at that. We are going to look at it. Somewhere in the future we will look at the possibility of acquiring either used vessels or new vessels. If there are new vessels that have to be constructed, well naturally, we would look at the Province, but we cannot guarantee anything. We cannot guarantee what is going to happen in the future. Under the existing regulations that we have governing vessels in this Province, we have an excellent system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

The hon. member has time for one quick question.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the parliamentary assistant for Fisheries and Aquaculture. I would like to refer to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to direct a question in relationship to the statement that he read here in the House today. We all know that this eminent person's panel was put in place and were supposed to report back on the damage that was being caused to our cod stocks by the overpopulation and growing seal herd back prior to the election of November 27 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question, time is running out. A quick question.

MR. FITZGERALD: - but because of reasons we all know, that report was delayed and was supposed to be released later in November. Now I understand it is going to be later in the new year. Number one, I ask the member if he can let the House know when that report will be released? Number two, why are we still going through the process of having somebody tell us what the seal population of the Northeast Coast is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for the question. I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of Newfoundlanders that seals eat cod, and most Newfoundlanders know that. As for the committee, yes, the committee was delayed this fall because of an election and they will be meeting early in the new year. We will make representation to them and the report will be down shortly after that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During Question Period I proposed a question to the Minister of Environment and Labour concerning workers compensation benefits. The question was: Does the minister have plans to significantly decrease workers compensation benefits below the level they are already at? When I asked the question, the Premier answered across the House: Yes, absolutely, it must be done. The minister, in his response, said that there was no decision reached yet. You cannot have it both ways on that side of the House so I would like to ask who -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

There is absolutely no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

I stand today to table the annual report of the Pippy Park Commission.

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

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

As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the best Public Accounts Committee in Canada, according to the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: - I would like to present the report of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts with respect to public hearings in the Department of Education, the transfer of school board assets and liabilities, the Avalon East School Board. I would like to thank the members of the committee, the witnesses and the staff. There were some very interesting recommendations, I say to the Minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, we will not get into that now. That is for another time.

I would just like to present the report, that is all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave of the House, do you want me to say a few -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: A very busy committee, 112 pages.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table the annual report of the Office of the High Sheriff of Newfoundland for the period, April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Pursuant to section 273(3) of The Elections Act, 1991, I hereby table the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer on election finances for the period January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Order 15.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 15.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Establish Holocaust Memorial Day in the Province." (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure at this point in time to rise to introduce this Bill 33 into the Legislature. Bill 33 establishes for the Province a Holocaust Memorial Day. It is a day for us to reflect about the enduring lessons that are contained and which came about as a result of the Holocaust. Mr. Speaker, this declaration is of great significance to the Jewish community both in Newfoundland and Labrador and nationally, and I would suggest probably even internationally.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second World War many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and Canada, with its allies took part in a prolonged armed struggle, costly in human life and suffering, to defend democracy and freedom. The Holocaust was the greatest suffering that was probably ever endured by human beings in the world. It was genocide. It showed the terrible nature of mankind to man at certain periods in our history. I do not think there is anything that was more indicative of how cruel mankind can be to his fellow man than in what happened to the Jewish people, the Jewish community, in the Holocaust. It is one more way to remind us of the tragedies and violence that surround hate and racism. Even today, all of us know wars and violence are participated in because of the hatred that is engendered by racism.

As a Province we acknowledge - and I think it is an appropriate time of year for us to acknowledge this as a House - the Holocaust and to teach about the Holocaust, national unity and combating racism and hate in the provincial curriculum for the Province's kindergarten to Grade XII schools. We do that and we should do it, and we should continue to do it.

The Holocaust Memorial Day will be a day of observance on the provincial calendar determined by the Jewish lunar calendar. I want to commend my colleagues in the provincial government, the Canadian Jewish Congress and members of the Jewish community in Newfoundland and Labrador for their work to see this bill enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the presence, if I could, of the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Jewish community in Newfoundland and Labrador, in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TULK: I am sure I speak for every person in this Legislature, and every person in this Province, when I say that none of us can imagine the kind of suffering the Jewish people underwent in the Holocaust, but it stands as a reminder to all of us that hatred and racism have no place in human life. We want to recognize, too, the contribution that the Jewish community makes to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill to establish a Holocaust Memorial Day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We stand today to squarely support the initiative by government in the legislation that has been put forward. We need not be reminded so much of what the bill is about, but what it embodies and the theme of what it means. In many ways, in freely, open, democratic countries around the world, like this one in this Legislature today, we are here because of the sacrifice that was made by people who were impacted by the Holocaust.

The type of debate that is lacking, I believe, in the free world - in my view, we have not paid enough attention in recent times to it. You see the movements in Europe of (inaudible), I believe, the type of language and right wing, ultra-conservative sorts of views that have crept back into freely open political structures in debates today. This legislation is one that forever and a day, for time in memorial, will pay homage to what transpired, to the human sacrifice of the human condition, to the human sacrifice that was made on behalf of a particular part of our community. We need not look beyond our borders, beyond our own provincial jurisdiction - within our own families and friends, for example - of people who were impacted directly with grandparents, great-grandparents, and even fathers and mothers, who suffered under the hand of that totalitarian regime; people in this Province, some of whom are in the gallery today.

As a party, we stand in support of this initiative today by government. We know fully, as well, that having the Premier introduce it puts significance and importance to this piece of legislation, when the leader of the government, the Premier of the Province, introduces this legislation. We certainly are proud to stand today to support this legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to rise and join wholeheartedly in support of the recognition of Yom HaShoah as Holocaust Memorial Day in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a memorial to all of those who died in the Holocaust during the Second World War.

I welcome the representatives of the Jewish community who are here in the House today to hear the speeches and the recognition of Holocaust Memorial Day, which has been celebrated or recognized in this Province - celebrated, I guess, is not the proper word - but has been observed for over fifty years in this Province by members of the Jewish community who also remind us that it was not just members of the Jewish faith, or Jewish race, who were exterminated by the Nazi government, their collaborators and supporters, but that indeed the atrocities included people because of their race, religion, physical and mental disability, sexual orientation, political beliefs, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, communists, socialists, and anybody whom the Government of Germany did not wish to continue to live.

I think I can help us understand, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, why this is necessary by reading, with permission, from a broadcast the other day by Robin McGrath, which was broadcast on CBC Radio. Robin McGrath's father was a member of this House. I am going to quote her words because she explains very well how this affects us here in Newfoundland and Labrador. She says as follows: For over fifty years now, Jews in Newfoundland have been remembering their 6 million fellow Jews who died during the Second World War, as well as the multitude of gypsies, homosexuals, Communists and mentally and physically handicapped who were exterminated by the Nazis in an effort to create a perfect race of human beings. Thanks to the men and women who fought and worked to defeat the German allies, the Nazi plan did not succeed and we remain a society which welcomes and protects people of all faiths and abilities.

Some people have wondered why it is important that we here in Newfoundland take steps to enshrine a Holocaust Memorial Day into our legislation. For many years now there has been an annual memorial service held at the Synagogue in St. John's, a service that has always been well attended by dignitaries, war veterans, clergy and ordinary citizens from the non-Jewish community. These guests have listened to people like retired art dealer, Ernie Mauskopf, who lost his parents and his two little brothers in a concentration camp on one day in July of 1944; businessman, Philip Riteman, who spent two of his teenage years in Auschwitz and who still travels all over Newfoundland speaking to teenagers about the dangers of race hatred; and Claire Salama, a well-known teacher in St. John's, whose father lost his first wife and their two-year-old boy to the savage tactics of Hitler's extermination squads.

In recent years, as the number of people in the Jewish community has declined, the gentile community has stepped in to ensure that the service remains a spiritual and intellectual stimulant to memory. People like Mr. James Coffee, a war veteran who helped with the liberation of Auschwitz, Professor Gerhardt Bassler, who documented the Newfoundland immigration policies that prevented Jewish Newfoundlanders from bringing their relatives here to safety, and the students of Prince of Wales, who learned and performed beautiful Hebrew songs for the service, have all joined with those of the Jewish faith to educate us about those tragic and unnecessary events.

Some people have questioned why a community as small as Newfoundland, where there are so few people of the Jewish faith, needs legislation to remember the Holocaust. I was born in Newfoundland, of Irish Catholic ancestry; however, my children have a Jewish father. So, if I had been born elsewhere, I might have been safe but they could have been exterminated. My eldest brother was mentally handicapped, so he could have gone to a camp also. My mother suffered a crippling disease as she got older, so I would have lost her too. Since my mother's eldest brother was also of limited intelligence, he would have been killed and, with two mentally handicapped people in my family, we would all have been a genetic poor-bet.

Mr. Speaker, I say that I share some of those genes, so I guess I would be in that category. She goes on to say: Those of us who were of normal mental and physical capabilities, whatever normal means, would most likely have been sterilized to prevent us from passing on the bad genes. There is hardly a citizen in this Province who would not be directly or indirectly under threat if we did not have good laws to protect our rights. We need to remember the Holocaust because, while it may never happen again in quite the same way, it could happen in a different way if we let our guard down.

The Holocaust wasn't just about Jews, it was about human rights, and it was probably the most horrific lesson we will ever have in the importance of guarding those rights with vigilance. A Holocaust Memorial Day will be a welcome reminder of that lesson, and we should applaud the Legislature of this province for being open to such a bill, and thank the members of the Jewish community for seeing it through.

I cannot say anything better than was said by Robin McGrath on that broadcast. I think it is worth remembering that this Holocaust Memorial is really for all of us, for our future and for our commitment to human right in this country and around the world.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to close the debate, and I think it is appropriate that we do this. I do not believe there is any further need for debate. I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the House would agree that all of us, as we said today, recognize the lessons that we should learn from the great human tragedy of the Holocaust and the genocide that ensued.

I think that all of us should every day be reminded of what the Jewish community suffered. Through education and through bills such as this, and initiatives such as this that have been brought forward by the Jewish community in Newfoundland, all of us will well remember how important human rights are, as the Member for Quidi Vidi-Signal Hill just brought forward for us, how precious human rights are to us, and how much suffering has been in this world because other people have chosen to trample upon human rights and trample upon the right of individuals to live in dignity.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to close by congratulating the Jewish community in bringing this initiative forward to government, and I want to say again, on behalf of all Members in the House I am sure, as we have just seen indicated, that this to us too, while it will not take much debate to move this bill - well it has not taken too much debate - but to all of us is an important initiative for this place that protects and guards human rights and democracy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish Holocaust Memorial Day In The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we move on, the Chair would like to set it into the record that this bill on second reading was carried unanimously.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 12, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: In this particular instance, we know why committee is set up, we know why third reading is set up in this Legislature and I think it has very little to do with this bill, and I wonder if we could have leave to move committee and third reading on this bill and it is done?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: From our point of view, yes, Mr. Speaker, the sooner the better. In this House, with leave, we can operate in this manner. That is my understanding.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would have no hesitation in moving all three readings this afternoon. I wanted to discuss with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, including an additional word in the recitals. Perhaps you could talk about that behind the curtain before....

[A portion of this transcript is missing due to a technical difficulty]

The third recital lists the planned atrocities against people because of their race, religion, physical disability, mental disability and sexual orientation. I would have wanted to include political beliefs because that was also part of the atrocities that were committed and part of the human rights that were violated during this process. So if we were going to have a Committee stage that would be something that I would want to see included to expand the bill to recognize that as well. If there was unanimous consent to that we can certainly insert the words `political beliefs' as part of the recitals.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TULK: I certainly have no objection to inserting that into the bill and saying that we have done Committee and third reading. I think what we are talking about here is the broad base of human rights anyway.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I concur with what the Premier says, Mr. Speaker. We have no problem with adding that, as suggested by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is going to look for some clarification as to what we are doing now. We have just passed second reading. We normally go into Committee.

PREMIER TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think what we are all saying here is that we will waive Committee and third reading and declare this bill now gone through third reading. We are doing that by leave of the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: So we could have a motion then that we move it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: Moved.

All those in favour of the motion, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

I declare the motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we put it to third reading, we would just like to clarify this. Is it my understanding then that the amendments or the changes recommended by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi will be included in the Bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: So, will we consider the Bill as amended?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish Holocaust Memorial Day in the Province." read a third time, ordered passed and its title to as on the Order Paper. (Bill 33)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997." (Bill 44)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill, Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997: right now the Department of Education or the Minister of Education does not have the legislative authority to authorize the establishment of private schools outside this Province. It is great that it would follow on the heels of the bill we just passed.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment will assist government in the promotion of Newfoundland and Labrador's considerable education and training expertise. The legislative amendment will permit the Minister of Education to enter into contractual agreements to establish provincially regulated schools in foreign countries. There will be no cost to the taxpayers of the Province for this initiative. In fact, it should provide an opportunity to form partnerships between the private foreign schools and our post-secondary institutions.

Right now we have requests, for example, to operate schools in Taiwan using the Newfoundland curriculum in their schools and this will give the minister the authority to be able to use our curriculum in the foreign countries around the world. I think it is a great initiative, and there is no cost to the Province.

I move second reading of this Bill.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise, as well, to comment on Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. It appears that the Minister of Education can indeed enter into agreements that are contractual and will not cost any money. I hope that when it comes to the committee that we will have some opportunity to question, if you enter into any agreement what sort of agreement it is. Because there has been a lot of money put into the curriculum of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to say that it would be a freebie - these are the sort of things that I would like to have the Minister of Education or the Parliamentary Assistant comment on in the committee stage as we get into it.

The agreement - and again as I read it I was thinking more along the lines that it would be students of ours traveling outside the Province who would be attending these foreign schools. This is what the suggestion of it is, that if someone is moving outside the Province, let us say to attend a Prep school down in Boston somewhere; is this the intent of this amendment to allow students from Newfoundland and Labrador, who are young students, to attend these schools and to get their certification of secondary education with regard to a diploma. Again, I am hopeful that when it comes to the committee stage that it will be fully explained what the agreements are, what is the purpose of it, et cetera.

As I am speaking on secondary education as well, and I rise today to comment that the curriculum - we are talking about entering into agreements with private schools in Hong Kong or wherever it might be, but I suggest to the House today that when we are talking about curriculum, I think we have a lot of work to do at home with regard to getting our curriculum in order. There has been on the books, since the mid-nineties, a revitalized high school curriculum which looks good on the books, but when it came to implementation it is not there. The implementation of this particular curriculum; it has been asked, by the educators of this particular Province to get on with it.

My oldest daughter is attending post-secondary right now and when she was in Grade X, just entering Level I, there was a big hoopla about the new revitalized high school curriculum. She was to graduate three years hence from that point in time under these new regulations, but that curriculum, I say to you, was never implemented. There were changes in course names and changes in text, but even as I stand here today, that reorganized high school which was supposed to be implemented three years ago is still resting on the shelves somewhere.

Again, when we talk about bringing in amendments to the School Act and entering into agreements with private schools in the far east, I say to the parliamentary assistant, that we have to get our own house in order first. We cannot hope to reach out beyond our borders when within our schools, as I speak today, there are gaping holes in the curriculum of, in particular, the secondary. I would even extend that back from the K-XII itself. There have been some initiatives but it is disheartening to see that the government of the day - again, these reform promises that are never fulfilled and continue to be talked about. There was a great effort, I suppose, at restructuring.

Yesterday, when I stood in this House, I talked about that since 1996 we have over 100 schools that were closed down in this Province with the idea that these closures would bring about tremendous savings. That state of the art buildings, state of the art curriculum would be implemented to make sure that the students of Newfoundland and Labrador would be in safe, healthy environments. They would be given a curriculum that would put them on the leading edge of education in, not only this country, but certainly in this particular continent, and indeed the world. So it is disheartening.

My colleague from Windsor-Springdale visited a school last night - and I think he will probably have an opportunity a little later on today. He has a video there. He has a written report. I will not steal his thunder, but let me tell you it is alarming that there are students in this Province who are in buildings that are literally falling down around their ears. When we talk about entering into curriculum agreements with outside parties, outside this Province, again I say, we have to get our own house in order before we move outside the boundaries of this particular Province.

Again, in reference to that particular school, let me tell you when you can slide a book from the inside to the outside there is something wrong; and that is not passing it through a window. I go back to my colleague, maybe that is how the art work is disappearing in some of the places too. I do not know if it is going out the windows or whatever, but in this particular school there are things flying out through the walls. That is how desperate a state this particular school is in. There is a tendency to place blame, and parents and students are placing blame on school boards for not taking care of this particular situation. We have to go one step higher. I say higher in the sense of bureaucracy, not in esteem. I have to say that when you look at this situation we have to put the responsibility clearly where it should rest, and it rests with the Department of Education and the Minister of Education. There has to be a guarantee that within the confines of this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, our children, our students, have to have a decent place to go to school.

When we look to the school boards - and I do not have to go past the Auditor General's Report - eight of the eleven school boards in our Province today are operating at a deficit. That tells it all, that the expectations of this government, with regard to the delivery of education in this Province, is put on the shoulders of school boards. It is put on the shoulders of teachers and support staff on the front lines; but they cannot, I say to you, bear the burden unless they are given, and they have to be given, the resources which are necessary to deliver a system of education that is going to allow our students to be the best in, not only the Province certainly and not only this country, but in the world. There is a lot of reiterate, a lot of talk, but it is action that we absolutely need.

We have the Avalon East School Board right now talking about something in excess of a million dollar deficit. We saw in this board - and I refer to my colleague going to that meeting last night. I can tell you there is more than one school in the Province that is in the desperate state that you described.

I will get back to the St. John's board because the St. John's board were forced to close down St. Thomas of Villa Nova. Now, this is a school that last spring the school board put in a request for $600,000 to make sure that in September the learning environment there would be safe and healthy for the students. What did the Department of Education do? What did the Works, Services and Transportation do? They cut down that request to a little over $100,000. They sent in a few litres of paint. They sent in some people with some scrubbers and things to cover over the dirt, mould and mildew that was in that particular school. What happened? These children, close to 700 of them, were in this building for three months, and at the end of three months, the board had no choice, they had to close down that school. Then the cost of housing those students for the remainder of the school year became a very difficult problem.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the state of education, supposedly reform education, all we have seen in this decade is what I would call restructuring, because the reform has not yet taken place. It has not happened. We have closed down schools. We put more children on buses and shipped them farther around but we have not fulfilled those promises which started in the early 1990s, the duplication of services and the elimination of cross-busing. What we are finding now, in the year 2000, that it is all coming home to roost. Unless this government looks at education as a priority, which it should be, because we know - and we hear it time and time again.

If we want to go outside the borders of this Province, we see it in places like Ireland where education, as a priority, carried out as a priority, certainly made a tremendous difference with regard to social programs, the economy, and the whole general outlook. I do not have to go back too much in my experience to know that education is - excuse the cliche - the key. We need to ensure and remind the government of how important it is to concentrate on that which is most valuable to us today in this Province. It is not Voisey's Bay, it is not Churchill, but the children of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to give them what they need in order to have a good chance and a good probability of moving forward, not only in the primary, not only in the elementary, junior high, intermediate, in the secondary, but on into the post-secondary, because we know now what we did not know probably twenty or thirty years ago. That we have to be prepared to go from cradle to grave with regard to education.

We know ourselves, as adults here in this Chamber, that we continue to learn. The moment that we say: no, we know everything, then you start to get into the difficulties. So, we have to look at making sure, without any doubt, that we look to the schools to put in a curriculum that is adequate for today's needs. That curriculum can be flexible, it can be ever changing, and it must reflect what is necessary in order to prepare out children for post-secondary and, indeed, life. Like I said, it goes beyond curriculum. We have to establish the schools. I wonder what happened to those models of schools that were put before the people back in the early 1990s, these models of community centres, of neighborhood schools? What ever happened to them? What ever happened to it? We have now, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, probably 330 schools. That is not a large number. That is not a number that can get away from you, something like 330 schools. Yet, out of those 330 schools there are schools like St. Thomas of Villa Nova that are not fit to be in. We have to make sure we are prepared, that the government is prepared, to get out there and do what is required to make sure that our children are in schools that are safe and healthy.

The developments through the 1990s, with regard to our schools, have not panned out as well as they should have. Again, you have to look at the provision of resources to allow the people who are involved in education in Newfoundland and Labrador to do what they are trained to do.

As I pointed out, the air quality, the environmental factors, or the environmental concerns, are coming back to roost with regard to the lack of good, solid, maintenance throughout the 1990s. It is alright to have schools, but we cannot turn our backs on schools, and maintaining schools, with regard to the way that they should be. I am always amazed. Now that we look at these school buildings as public buildings, it is amazing still to realize that we are still only spending or allocating or giving money to school boards at a rate of about fifty cents a square foot for these public buildings which are most important, and yet we turn around and for this building that we are in right now we allocate something like $2 plus for the same square footage. We are neglecting the schools out in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I mention that, someone jumps up and says: well, we are building new schools. Well, let me tell you that even in the construction of new schools you have to maintain them. It doesn't take too long, when you have 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 or more students going through a particular building, to ensure that proper maintenance has to be done.

I wonder about the school act, because - I was very, I suppose, put out when I read through the Auditor General's report yesterday, because I know that the act specifically states that no board under the jurisdiction of the minister - that is eleven boards - no board can operate in a deficit unless the minister has clearly stated that it can be done. It gives him permission. Again, we find the Auditor General coming back and saying that the act has been contravened, that the minister has ignored the act, that the minister has allowed school boards under her jurisdiction - under his jurisdiction, I should say, the acting minister - to permit them to operate under deficits.

Again, what is the act there for? We are amending the act now to allow them to enter into contractual - to sign contracts to, I suppose, allow them the use of our curriculum. It is not going to cost us anything. If that is what the act says, fine, we will abide by it, but what do you do when you read an Auditor General's report where another section of the act is totally ignored? I do not understand it. I do not understand how ministers can turn their back on what is written and passed in this particular House. It behooves me to understand why this can happen and why school boards again are forced - and they are not doing this because they have a choice. They have a commitment that is laid out in the Schools Act, 1997. They have to do what is required under the act; and everyone, every party in the delivery of education in Newfoundland, has clearly defined in the act what they have to do.

School councils are in operation because of the act. It is clearly outlined what the responsibilities and duties of the school councils are. As well, the directors of education have specifically listed in the act their duties and responsibilities, as do teachers, as do administrators, as do school board trustees. Everything is laid out, I say to you, in the act. Let me tell you, if there was a teacher out there contravening the act, if there was an administrator out contravening the act, we know what would happen. Those people would be disciplined because clearly they have not followed the act. Yet, the Auditor General can come out and say that the minister has contravened the act and what happens? Nothing. What is the purpose of the act if indeed we can?

To get back to the deficits, and this is the crux of it all, if you are planning something, you must budget enough to make sure that plan is carried out. If the plan is to provide school buildings in this Province that are fit to be in, there has to be enough budgeted to make sure that happens.

Let me tell you, even in my own district of Avalon West, the Whitbourne school put in a request for two years running to have a roof repaired. It was only in the third year that it was actioned, that it was done. I can tell you how much damage was done within that school and how the integrity of the environment was, I suppose, compromised by the continual leakage into that building of the elements of rain and snow. It is just terrible what is happening out there.

Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts, again, another classic example where they were sick of replacing tiles. Every event that came up, they had to put new tiles up, but after a week or so they were saturated. It took two years to get that emergency taken care of, and that is the obvious stuff. It is just totally, totally unreal. The reaction time of this government in maintaining the schools is terrible. Not only that, but there has been a change, supposedly one of these reform changes, that is going to make things better with regard to maintenance. Whereas before, the school boards had some degree of control - as a matter of fact, they could put out to tenders; they could be directly involved in it - not now, because it has to go through Works, Services and Transportation. It is terrible, the waiting for tenders to take place, for inspectors to come out.

We were trying to get an inspector out to Whitbourne - it was one of those terrible months of Newfoundland weather - and we were told: well, you will have to wait until a fine day, a fine day to come out and inspect the school. It is unreal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: We did finally, I say to the parliamentary assistant, get the inspector out and moved it along, but it was a fight for something like two years before the leaks were fixed. You would not put up with it in your own home, so why are we putting up with it with regard to the schools?

I say again to the parliamentary assistant, you know little things lead to big things. It is very, very important when we talk about schools that we jump on any situation that is going to mushroom into bigger things. The education of our children is just far too important to allow us to delay in getting things done. The operating budgets of schools is yet another. I know it is easy to say that there is waste out there, that this is happening and that is happening, that teachers are using the copiers too much, and this sort of thing, but it is a real, real problem because they are caught in this Catch-22.

I know that when most of us came up through the grades we had our textbook that was given to us in September. We went through it, usually from cover to cover, passed it on or sold it at the end of the year, and someone else used it; but the curriculum is not text-based anymore. It is knowledge-based. It is an inquiry method, and students are encouraged to go beyond the boarders of their classroom, to go beyond the covers of their text. Here you have teachers trying to feed this inquiry, or these curious students, and being told by administrators that you can only take off a certain number of sheets, that copy wise you cannot basically go beyond what should be taken off.

The resources that are within our schools today are of serious concern, because any curriculum initiatives that have been put in clearly indicate that we have to have the resources behind us in order to truly action what needs to be actioned when we talk about the education of our children today.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you that Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, is, in all likelihood, a good initiative and we on this side of the House certainly would not stand in the way of any type of initiative that would enable the students of this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to, I suppose, get a more well-balanced education, to be able to action an education that would certainly enable them to be productive members of our society and, as productive members of our society, to be able to continue to learn, and enable them to continue to be enquiring, to be curious, and to continue, as we go along, to be the best they can be.

In summation, or to end off, again the initiative of Bill 44, I am very curious to hear from the parliamentary assistant, or the Acting Minister of Education, the true intent of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) over here.

MR. HEDDERSON: I do not know about acting. I would like - and I guess in Committee would probably be the place - to have some exchange, but I am very curious to know who made the request, why it has been made, and the aspect of contracts and entering into agreements. I would like to have some understanding before I would give my support behind this bill, as to where it was going; because, again it was my understanding that this would be for students who traveled outside the Province and were attending schools outside the Province. Let me tell you, that is a problem.

I know of one particular student, a good student of ours, back about four or five years ago, who traveled to a Boston prep school, for hockey purposes, on a hockey scholarship, in high school. He went through two or three years down there and came back in the last year, which was Level III. In coming back at the end of the season, which was about April, we had to, as educators - as an administrator, as I was at the time - try and piece together what that young boy had done for two-and-a-half years previous in a prep school down in Boston. Even though the education seemed to be solid, we had to, in consultation with the Department of Education, go right down through all of the courses that he had done, the exams and so on and so forth, and decide what was good and what was not applicable and then make some decisions as to the courses that he had to complete in that last year of high school. So I do know that there is a problem with our students going out into these private schools or even public schools outside Newfoundland and Labrador. I just assume that the intent of the bill is to make sure that in the transition, if they return to the Province, or even if they are still outside the Province, they could be awarded some sort of a secondary certificate, or whatever.

From what I heard the parliamentary assistant say, somehow or another it is the private schools looking to get in on our curriculum and to use our curriculum in their schools. That is interesting. As I said, in committee or in the next reading, I would just like to have some clarification on exactly what these contracts would be, what is the purpose of them, so on and so forth, and where we are going on this. Having said that, I will sit down and let the proceedings of the House continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise and have a few words to say about Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.

As my colleague has said, we are certainly not going to stand in the way of this bill, and we support this bill. We know that this is going to make things a lot easier for students, and I certainly will not speak against this bill. I support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that I do have a few words to say about an incident that I was involved in last night. I saw firsthand what our school system is like these days. I was at a school in Robert's Arm last night, Green Bay South Academy actually, and there was a good presentation made by the school council. What I saw last night, I could not believe. I hardly believed what I had seen there. I could see the things that this school has been going through in the past four or five years. For us to subject our children to such unsafe conditions, it is unbelievable that we could do this in this day and age.

Mr. Speaker, the current crisis in our school system today can be attributed to the attitude of government officials and their lack of concern for the buildings that teachers and students have to spend a great deal of their time in. It is well known that schools have become third class buildings and that much needed money for improvement and maintenance is being wasted on frivolous projects. What government does not seem to realize is that these same students, who r spend roughly eight hours a day in a filthy and unhealthy environment, will one day be the government officials and business leaders of our country. I am sure that these students will not forget the lack of concern and commitment that government exhibits today.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to some of the conditions that I have seen and that were outlined last night by the school council in the presence of the school board for that district and over 300 parents and concerned citizens in the Robert's Arm area. That is a great number, for a small community in my district, to show up on a night with concerns over, not only the education of their children, but the facilities that these children have to be in all day.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will go through some of the things that were brought out last night. In March, 1998, there was an air-quality survey done on this school. Testing was specifically performed to record the levels of carbon dioxide and bio-aerosols, the temperatures and the relative humidity. These tests found that the carbon dioxide levels at times were up to five times the recommended range, and a recommendation was made for an air exchange system to be installed in that school to alleviate that problem.

Mr. Speaker, a forty-two page report was sent to the school board after that consultation in 1998, and an assessment was done. Some of the recommendations were done, and a lot of others were not done. Mr. Speaker, the board -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many children are in that school?

MR. HUNTER: Approximately 250 children in that school.

I will give you some statistics, I say to the member opposite, on some of the things that they did in a survey on the children of that school. It is just unbelievable! As a result of the survey, forty-seven out of 153 respondents experienced health problems. Roughly 69 per cent of these children, about fifty-three of them, felt that the conditions were related to the environment of Green Bay South Academy in Robert's Arm. Of 106 respondents who reported problems, sixty reported sinus congestion problems, frequently or always; sneezing, headaches, eye irritations, fatigue, dizziness, aching joints, back pain, nausea, skin irritation. Fifteen people reported that they had asthma, thirty-eight reported continuous sinus problems, fifteen reported skin irritations, and twenty-three reported other allergies. Mr. Speaker, this clearly shows that this school is suffering from sick-school syndrome. I know that this is occurring in a lot of other schools in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few years, with the school restructuring, particularly in the Green Bay South area, a lot of money has been saved by closing up schools . We ask the question; what happened to the money? All these hundreds of thousands of dollars that were saved in closing schools and restructuring were supposed to go back into the education system, into the infrastructure and into programming for the students to make their education as good as possible and supply a facility that is as good as possible. This was not done, Mr. Speaker.

The maintenance of this school was ignored over the last number of years. Mr. Speaker, I have a video outlining and showing the problems at that school. I could not believe it when I stood up by the outside wall and could place this video on the floor and shove that video from the inside to the outside, right out onto the ground. That is not acceptable in our schools today. I was afraid to walk over the floor because it was bouncing up and down. The structure underneath was rotted so bad, you could go down and just pick it out with your fingers. You could see the deterioration in the walls. Dozens of tiles were stained with water stains. All along the walls you see mildew, below and above the windows.

Mr. Speaker, we subjected out children to these kinds of conditions over the last number of years, but last night enough was enough. The parents of Green Bay South gathered at the school gymnasium, over 300, with the school board and the school council in attendance, and myself, and they voiced their concerns. They said: we are not sending our kids back into this facility.

I must admit, Mr,. Speaker, that some of the leakage problems with the roof are being taken care of as we speak. The crews are out there today, assessing and doing what is possible to do with the roof. But this is only a short-term solution to a long-term problem. This school is about twenty-seven years old and it is in need of a lot of repairs, a lot of structural repairs. From what I saw last night, I do not know but it is better to discard the school and build a new school, because over half of this school is not fit to put a student into.

I have to congratulate the parents for showing up last night and voicing their concerns. Mr. Speaker, the kids are our future. We must be concerned about the safety of our children and the effect that school conditions have on them, not only while they are in school but for years to come. They have these problems now and a good many of them will keep these problems, will have these problems for years to come and it will affect their future. So, we cannot stand by and let a thing like money destroy our youth, destroy their health.

Mr. Speaker, that report that came out in 1998, why wasn't it presented to the people? Why wasn't it known by the parents that there was this problem in that school. Obviously, it seems like somebody made a decision, that we will do some band-aid repairs, hide the report, not let the parents know, because two years ago the same thing that happened last night would have happened then. There would have been a congregation of 300 people or more complaining about the situation in that school and having something done. Now two years later, the deterioration has enhanced, it has gotten greater. It may be beyond repair now.

So, not only do we have to make sure our children do not go back into that school like it is, but there has to be major work done as soon as possible in the short-term, but, Mr. Speaker, in the long-term we have to not only clean the mold outside the walls, we have to strip down the walls and see what deterioration is inside those walls, because that mold will reappear again within so many months. As my colleague said about the tiles, it is the same situation in that school, Green Bay South Academy. You replace the tiles one month, a couple of months later you go back and they are all stained up again. You clean the mildew now, you come back in a couple of months and the mildew is back again. Our kids have to be in that school breathing this air. It is not fair to them. So, it is not only in the short-term that we correct this problem by cleaning, but in the long-term, Mr. Speaker, we must make sure that preventative maintenance be done on a regular basis and an inspection on a regular basis. Every year that school should be inspected from one end to the other, from top to bottom.

Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it when I walked into that school last night and went into the janitor's room, with no door to the room and chemicals stored on the shelf there, with young children having access to that room, access to those chemicals, access to parts of that school where probably they should not be, but you know the way kids are today. They like experimenting with things and if they see chemicals like that, God only knows what could happen. We are lucky today that there has not been a tragic situation in Green Bay South Academy; very lucky.

I think, as I said to the school board and to the school council last night, a full assessment has to be done immediately into this situation at Green Bay South Academy. Short-term problems like doors - Mr. Speaker, I could not believe this: when I walked into one of the washrooms where some special needs students were being attended to on a regular basis, where they are being washed up, some of these students are in personal care and they have to be washed up and cleaned up in this sink. Do you know what I found? When I looked underneath -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: I could not believe it, Mr. Speaker. When I looked underneath the school, I saw water and that much sludge underneath and the deterioration of the foundation of that school. Not only that, there was a pipe from that sink and washroom draining right in underneath the school, not tied into the sewer system, not tied to outside of the building which would have been better than letting it go underneath the school. That type of situation, Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that we could allow that to happen.

When I questioned the superintendent on that, he alluded to the fact that we do not have the money to do the necessary preventative maintenance, we do not have the money to carry out the repairs, we do not have the money to do anything with that school other than put some paint on it, replace a few tiles and replace a bit of gyproc here and there.

So, Mr. Speaker, where did all the money go in our school restructuring? It had to go somewhere. So I asked the school board and the director of the school board - and I think we do have a great director, a new person by the name of Debbie Armstrong, who I have a lot of faith in. I think she will do a good job.

Mr. Speaker, I found out last night that this school board has a $375,000 deficit. By having that deficit then they have to instruct their maintenance crews and construction crews to cover up things that should be replaced and repaired. Now we have new tiles put up, new paint put on, but the problem still remains. That is why we have poor air quality, that is why we have sick kids in our schools today. Seventy-five per cent in some schools are showing some sort of sickness or illness, that is because of the air quality conditions within the school. Something has to be done with our education system for our infrastructure in this Province so that our children do not have to be subject to these kinds of conditions that certainly are unsafe. I cannot blame the people of Green Bay South for keeping their kids out of school since last Thursday. Not only that, they may be kept out a lot longer if a written commitment is not made by the school board and by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, who are responsible for carrying out some of the work. I have to give credit to them today for immediately looking into the roof problem and getting the wheels in motion to fix the roof problem, but there are still a lot of problems outside of the roof and window repair program that the minister has for the schools.

Green Bay South Academy, your officials are out there today and the contractor has been out there working on the roof system, and I thank them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: Roberts Arm, and I thank them for that, but in the long term we need a lot more work done in the structural part of the school which does not come under the roof and window program that is under the minister's department. New capital money has to be found somewhere in the Department of Education and somewhere within government, to go back into these schools, particularly this one, that I seen last night.

I say to any member who wants to see the condition of Green Bay South Academy and see what the children over there are subject to on a daily basis, I have the video right here. If anybody would like to see it I certainly would not mind you having a look at it, because it will blow your mind to see me take this video and slip it underneath a wall, from the interior to the exterior, and it will fall out on the ground. Unbelievable!

MR. SULLIVAN: Where's that?

MR. HUNTER: In Green Bay South Academy, in my district, Roberts Arm. If anybody does not believe me I certainly would let them have this video to have a look at it.

Mr. Speaker, having said that I would just like to say I am not going to do anything to uphold Bill 44. As my colleague said, we certainly support this bill to give our students a chance in other countries to enhance their education, to make the situation better for them. I certainly would support my colleague here, the critic for the Department of Education.

Having said that, I thank you for the opportunity to bring up this situation in my district and other situations that I would like to speak on, particularly when it comes to special needs in other schools in my district. That is another issue, if everybody could see what special needs children are going through, particularly in Sprucewood Academy, in Grand Falls-Windsor. Special needs children are left unattended for up to two hours in a school where there could be a lot of hazards, that they could do a lot of injury to themselves, but because of the cutbacks, because of the limited amount of resources for special needs assistants, than these children are being thrown to the wolves, as far as I am concerned. Their health and safety should be a priority in every school in this Province. I hope the minister certainly takes this into account, that it only takes one accident to bring this government to accountability. One accident where a child gets seriously hurt or killed. I certainly do not want to see that, but the possibility of it happening is great. As I read earlier in my opening remarks about the government not being responsible in taking care of the problems in our education system, they are hiding behind the school boards. They are hiding behind the fact that they do not have control over the money that the school boards have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: As my colleague here just said, no accountability on behalf of the school boards. The department should be accountable, should be responsible, should make sure that the resources and finances are available to the school boards to make sure that these facilities are sound and safe for our children.

I certainly will be speaking up again, particularly on schools in my district, particularly on Green Bay South Academy. If we do not see something done with this school within the next year, by next September, then there is going to be a lot of discontent, a lot of protests. God forbid, if someone might get hurt but when people get riled up they can certainly speak out and lash out at anybody that is there. Maybe, I hope not, but someone could get hurt if government does not pay attention and be accountable, and do something for the students in our school system.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Parliamentary Secretary speaks now, he does close debate.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, this legislation does permit students in other countries to be issued certificates from the Department of Education in Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition to that, of course, where there is a request to set up special schools in other countries, it would be a school that would be set up - in all likelihood, the teachers probably would be recruited from Newfoundland. So, we are probably thinking about jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in terms of these schools in these other countries. It is a request from these countries to use the Newfoundland curriculum. They are very impressed with what is happening in our school system in Newfoundland. They want to use our curriculum in schools in other countries.

In response to some of the things that the hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale was talking about. I find it disturbing - what he is talking about in terms of this school in Robert's Arm - when you look at the fact that the Department of Education, over the last year or two, has committed $125 million for new school construction. Of course the way the process works is that the school board sets their priorities, looks at their school system and ranks the schools within their specific area and submit their rankings to the Department of Education - on a one, two, three, four, whatever their rankings may be - for consideration in terms of the capital funding. This government has committed more money than any other government in history. One-hundred and twenty-five million dollars has been put into new school construction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three years ago (inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: What do you mean three years ago? The construction is a three-year program of $125 million. It is the largest amount of money that has ever been spent in such a short period of time in education in this Province, in capital construction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there any wonder that schools falling down around our ears?

MR. BARRETT: Well, if there are schools falling down around our ears - in addition to that, the government has allocated $12 million for special projects in this Province. In addition to that, under the air quality and maintenance special grants of $12 million, to date there have been 360 projects completed in 210 schools in this Province. There has been more money put into school maintenance and school construction in this Province in the last two or three years than has ever happened in the last fifty years since we have been involved in Confederation, and all we hear from over on that side of the House is doom and gloom. It is absolutely ridiculous that they get up here. There is $125 million in new school construction and $12 million extra. The grants to the school boards have -

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: In the hon. Member for Bellevue's deliberations, he has been telling us about all the wonderful things that have been done within the Department of Education, and all the money he has spent, maybe he would like to inform the House how he went out and attended a meeting with the school board in Clarenville and actually threatened them to go along with his recommendations because he was going to be the next Minister of Education! That was two years ago, I say to members of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The schools are built now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary for Education.

MR. BARRETT: I assume there is no point of order.

In concluding this debate, I just want to make a couple of points. Number one, the government has committed more money than any other government in history to new school capital construction, and in that $125 million there was $3.5 million allocated to the hon. the Member for Bonavista South for a new school in his district. I guess he must have lobbied government and lobbied the department and lobbied the school board to make sure that he got the adequate funding to get a school for his district.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a correction. I would like to make a correction in what the Member for Bellevue just stated. In fact, if I could take the liberty of taking something from the local paper that was printed and covers the Bonavista Peninsula, the Member for Bellevue just stood in his place and said that he expected that I lobbied government in order to get the school in my district.

When this school that the member is referring to started to be built, I was getting many calls about people wondering how many rooms were in the school, what grades were going to be able to attend the school, how many students it would take, and I just put out a little news release giving this information. Maybe if you would give me the liberty of reading what was printed in that particular paper, from the present Government House Leader -

MR. SPEAKER: Is it pertinent to your point of order?

MR. FITZGERALD: - when he took exception to me putting forward information that people in the district and in the whole area had a right to know. It says: New high school construction begins in September.

I am going to read it all to you. It is not very lengthy so if you would just bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I am about to get to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member get to his point of order, please.

MR. FITZGERALD: This was written by the present Government House Leader, the Member for Terra Nova, who took exception to me putting forward information. I will just read the last couple of paragraphs.

MR. SPEAKER: Couple of sentences.

MR. FITZGERALD: However, at least one person is not happy with Mr. Fitzgerald's announcement - and it was not my announcement because this announcement was made years in advance of me putting forward the information - Terra Nova MHA Tom Lush said Mr. Fitzgerald overstepped himself by making the school announcement before the government. Just imagine!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: Listen to this, now. Mr. Lush said that the department has not officially awarded the contract, although they are expected to do so shortly, which is exactly what I had said in my little news release. Listen to this. Normally - I can hear him saying it now - normally, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation or officials from the school board would make such an announcement after a contract has been awarded. For Mr. Fitzgerald to announce the low bidder before the contract has been finalized is a breach of professional ethics. Now, it is a breech of professional ethics for me, as a member, who serves the constituency of Bonavista South to let them know information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: Listen now. He says: Although his comments are correct, they could have been problematic. I can hear him saying that word, problematic. Such tactics damage the whole tendering process, Mr. Lush said. He also pointed out that Mr. Fitzgerald has no influence on government decisions and policy - but, listen to this one - and is misleading his constituents. Misleading his constituents by putting forward information, which is supposed to be a hallmark of this government, putting forward information that would tell the people in the District of Bonavista South, in the District of Bellevue, in the District of Terra Nova -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Could I ask the member to get to his point of order?

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is: exactly what the Member for Bellevue was saying flies in the face of what the Government House Leader put forward in a report to the media some couple of months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is clearly no point of order, and I would ask the member if he would, in future, limit his comments on points of order.

The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is about the longest point of order I have heard in this House. The hon. member just wanted to engage in the debate.

Without further debate, I move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 44)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 13, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 13, Bill 31.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992." (Bill 31)

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

MR. PARSONS: The RNCA have been, for quite some years, attempting to secure a dispute resolution mechanism in their collective bargaining process. Albeit there was a process before, it was not binding. Any arbitration that was concluded was not binding upon government. The intention of these amendments is to provide for binding arbitration in the event that the parties are unable to resolve any issues between them. The matter would go to an arbitrator and, under the new section 48, the decision of the arbitrator would be binding upon both parties, both the RNCA and government, which is quite a substantial advancement from the RNCA perspective. I have been personally involved in negotiating this issue with them since January of this year. Once we crossed the threshold of deciding that we would, in fact, have a binding arbitration mechanism, the issue of what form of binding arbitration was also discussed. Should it be a traditional format, where each party would pick an arbitrator with a third being chosen by them, or would it be some other process? Either was acceptable and is acceptable to the RNCA, and the ultimate form of the arbitration, according to section 49, will be decided by regulation.

The purpose of the amendments at this time is the RNCA are entering into new negotiations early in the new year of 2001 and they wanted to have this provision of binding arbitration available to them so they would know, ultimately, before their contract expires on June 30 of this year, there will be a dispute resolution mechanism available to them.

That is the sum and substance of the intention of this piece of legislation.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We welcome this legislation. In fact, I commend the minister for introducing such legislation at this time. This is certainly the type of remedy that the members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary have been seeking. Of course, as all members are aware, it was certainly a bone of contention in the past year or so when members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary found themselves on the outside looking in, and found themselves dealing with a government and trying to negotiate with a government that at that time appeared to be very insensitive and unwilling to meet the demands and concerns of the members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it appears that this legislation attempts to resolve that issue and attempts to offer at least a remedy in dispute resolutions that would be in the best interest of all parties concerned.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly are not going to prolong this particular issue. We welcome the legislation and we see it as beneficial to the members of a very proud police force and a police force that is supported wholeheartedly by the citizens of this Province. I understand that the leadership and the administration of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association itself, have strongly come out in support of this legislation. On this side of the House, we also do likewise and support the minister in bringing this forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister does now speak, he concludes debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his support of this piece of legislation and would concur that it is certainly welcomed by the RNCA, and they are indeed a very honourable police force. This most contentious issue will no doubt be resolved with these amendments to the RNC Act.

I therefore move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 31)

MR. LUSH: Order 14, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 14, Bill 46, An Act To Amend the Liquor Control Act.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Liquor Act.

This bill would amend the Liquor Control Act to provide municipal councils in the Northern Labrador area of the Province with the authority to control the transportation, purchase, sale and consumption of alcohol within their municipalities.

This bill would also provide for the election of alcohol committees in municipalities that would have the authority to place restrictions on a person's access to alcohol. These committees would also be authorized to establish counselling services and education programs with respect to alcohol consumption.

Mr. Speaker, in the past twelve months there have been a series of tragedies in Nain and other communities in the electoral district of Torngat Mountains, including more than a dozen suicides. A listening and healing process was set up in the community of Nain to help residents cope and to try to find ways of dealing with the crisis. One thing that emerged repeatedly was the need to give communities the ability to take control of their own destiny.

The amendments in this Bill will obligate the Province to heed the wishes of the residents of the communities as expressed by a decision of the town or community council on the matter. The town or community councils will be responsible for undertaking appropriate consultations with Aboriginal organizations and other local interests.

Under the amendments, the Liquor Licencing Board will not issue a licence to sell liquor in a community in the electoral district of Torngat Mountains when the town or community has requested that the licence be denied. Similarly, the Liquor Licencing Board will cancel a licence whereby a town or community council request such a cancellation.

The amendments will ensure that communities who wish to be alcohol free will have access to the tools necessary to ban alcohol. The Liquor Licencing Board will remain responsible for the issuance and cancellation of licences and enforcement of liquor laws. However, it will take direction from the community on these matters. Through the town or community councils, communities will be able to direct restriction of hours of sale, quantity of sales per person, and the issuing, refusal, or cancellation of licences and permits.

Government remains committed to consulting with the Aboriginal people of this Province and responding, where possible, with policies and programs which meet their needs. This is a very important bill, one that was instituted and asked really, by the community of Nain. I would invite discussion on this bill.

Thank you.

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

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

I stand to have a few comments on Bill 46, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. It is very clear where this legislation has come from. It is very clear why government is bringing this forward, and it is also very clear that we support this particular piece of legislation.

We have all seen the visual images that have been portrayed throughout the Province and indeed, throughout the country related to the situation in Sheshatshiu, Davis Inlet, Nain and other communities. Government has been asked - if my understanding is correct, and I believe the minister alluded to it in her opening comments - on a number of fronts, to help to alleviate the crisis that exist, to use whatever legislative tools it sees fit at its disposal, to assist communities in dealing with families - and ultimately that is what we are talking about - in crisis to such a significant proportion that the community itself is now in crisis. This is one measure by which the leadership of the communities in question have responded and have asked government to fix the problem; but I wanted to note in my comments that this is only a tool. This is not ultimately a solution to the problems that have been thoroughly debated publicly, that ministers - certainly the currant Minister of Health - have talked about publicly as well, that this is only a tool. It is not a solution unto itself.

My colleague from Torngat is all too familiar with why this legislation is being brought forward. He has seen, on a daily basis, and in his own visits to his district, the type of situations that families are finding themselves in.

I have a daughter who is seven years old. She is in Grade 2, French Immersion. I was in Gander recently, coming back from Grand Fall. It was about the middle of November. The weather was such that I ended up staying in Gander overnight. I watched the news that night and saw a six-and-a-half year old sniffing gasoline in frigid weather; six-and-a-half years old. I was sitting in a hotel room that night and I wondered - it was shocking. It was so disturbing to me as a parent - if it was not for the type of environment she was born into. As parents, we try to provide a nurturing environment, an environment where learning can take place. An environment where she knows that her self-esteem will be protected, encouraged and enhanced; and where essentially she is loved and told everyday that she is loved. That could have been her, and in a sense it is. When you see someone six-and-a-half years old altering the reality that they themselves as a six-and-a-half year old find their own lives in, something is drastically wrong.

I have watched interview after interview with medical professionals. I have watched the leadership within the community plead for assistance. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this legislation is one of the avenues by which consensus has been achieved in discussing how government, and ultimately this Legislature, deals with that problem as it now exists. We support that from that perspective. We support the initiative, that when the leadership of these communities request and ask for this law and the contents of this bill to be empowered and to be enacted, giving them the ability to make a decision of eliminating a legal substance but yet a very toxic one if taken in unusual or extraordinary amounts, of what that says about the community.

I am not going to go on too much further, but I do want to say this. The situation that this bill attempts to correct, and I know this is not a catch-all or a be-all, I know that is not what the intention of this particular and important piece of legislation is about, but it is meant to give government yet another tool by which they can help alleviate the situation.

In my view, I see that this legislation, while empowering, is also crisis intervention, because that is what it is. If we, or if the leadership within the communities that this is meant to impact, whether it is next week, next month, next year, or two years from now, are in a position where they have to enact what is contained in this bill which we will pass before this Legislature sits down on Thursday, then that is a community in crisis, and that is a piece of legislation that serves ultimately to provide to the leadership within a community to address a crisis. I would hope, and I would pray as well, that this legislation would never have to be enacted, that such a crisis would not exist, but that is not the way things are right now.

I want to say to the minister that we support this legislation. I want to be clear on that. We understand the impetus for it. We understand why it is being brought forward. We clearly understand the mechanism by which government is proposing to deal with one aspect of a situation of a community, and in some ways, in my view, an Aboriginal nation in crisis; however, we also want to go on record as saying, even further, that anybody who has been involved in any form of addictions, addiction counseling, has been involved in that sort of environment that has gained an understanding of it, crisis intervention is extremely important because it provides a stop-gap measure. It provides a break. It provides an opportunity to alleviate the immediate crisis within a community, and that is what we are talking about here. It provides that opportunity, because we intervene into the crisis.

I am looking forward to the ongoing developments and the role that we can play in this House as legislators in addressing the fundamental problems that have caused a six-and-a-half year old little girl to walk on the streets with a bag of gas to her nose and her mouth, to inhale it; fundamentally addressing those concerns that have caused - and that picture will never be out of my mind as long as I am alive - a six-and-a-half year old little girl, a child, to walk the streets with a bag of gas because the reality that she wants to put herself into is better than the reality that she is facing at home. That is the fundamental problem that we need to address.

I am not suggesting that we all march up and down and adopt a do-good or we-know-best attitude; but, you know, in some ways, if we do not address it then we enable it to happen. We enable it to continue. That is a striking statement. In some ways, if we turn our attention otherwise and pretend it does not exist, or that it is not there, and we allow a six-and-a-half year old and other children to continue along the path they are, then we have enabled that to happen. Anybody in this Province, anywhere in this Province, can point their finger at us in this Legislature and tell us that we have enabled it to happen.

I say to the minister that I am not going to speak any more on the legislation. It is self-explanatory. We all know why it is coming in. We support it on this side of the House. I hope and pray that this act never have to implemented, but I know that the reality could be quite different, and that when the leadership within a community deems - the correct word is deems - it necessary to enact the powers under this act and call upon the minister responsible for the governance of this act and its associated regulations, and body of regulations, that we would be able to respond very, very quickly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak on the bill very briefly. I guess the bill speaks for itself; but, being a person from the North Coast, who represents the North Coast, I guess we all know the tragedy that the North Coast has faced over the years. I guess there is no denying that alcohol seems to follow the Aboriginal people, not just in Labrador but across the country. Certainly, one of the greatest diseases that the Aboriginals face is alcohol.

I believe that the Labrador Inuit Association has taken the right step when they have asked government to pass a bill that will give them control over the amount of alcohol, and access to alcohol in their riding.

I am sure we are all familiar with the television appearances of young children. Many people have come up to me and said that it is very difficult to look at. Many people have said to me: We know what you are going through; but, Mr. Speaker, the actual fact is that they don't. You can watch these children on television, and you can see by looking into a television some of the fears, but you have to have to be there face to face with these children. When you look into their eyes, face to face, and you see the fear and the despair, then and only then can one understand.

I had a chance to sit down with certain ministers from both the federal and provincial governments and talk with some of the Aboriginal people. As the child welfare officer told some horror stories, later on some of the people said: I had to leave the room.

Well, if they thought that hearing from a social worker was difficult, imagine when you sit down across from a sixteen or seventeen year old and they tell you themselves about the problems of alcohol. Then, and only then, will people fully understand what alcohol has done to some people.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: We have approved the licence of alcohol; we have approved beer licences in these communities. Many times there are people who have said, well, the people have finally asked for help; but, let me say this: Government also has a responsibility. Government took the people away from a way of life they had and threw them into a white society. Some people may not like this, but when the problem started, rather than the governments of the day dealing with the problem, they began throwing money. Rather than deal with the problem, they started throwing money. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind government, too, that they have a responsibility and they, too, have to shoulder some of the burden, a big part, as to what happened to these people.

I applaud the Labrador Inuit Association. I am a member, and I am proud to be a member, to know that these people have called upon government to give them the tool to control the flow of alcohol into their communities.

I guess it goes without saying that I support the bill. I think it is a good bill, and certainly these are the first steps. There is one point I want to make very clear. That is, the people within the Labrador Inuit Association who have recognized that in order for them to make a better community and a better way of life for the young people and for themselves, they want to control alcohol. Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who asked for it.

I fully support the bill and I hope every member in this House will do likewise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on Bill 46 at second reading, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. I listened carefully to the two previous speakers and while I do not doubt their sincere concerns for the issues involved, neither one of them addressed the principal issue here, as to whether or not the request of the LIA was recognized by the government. What happened in recent days - and we can talk about the long-standing problem with alcohol in northern communities and gasoline sniffing, and I think we all share the same horror and concern about it. I can go into some of my views on that subject at length if I want to, but what I want to focus on is: here we have a direct request from the Labrador Inuit Association to ask the Province to implement legislation or to allow them to conduct a plebiscite in their communities on the issue of alcohol, and to honour the results.

The first response of the Premier of this Province was to issue a press release saying that he objected to the statement of the LIA, that they had failed to go along with the consultation process that had taken place over the last number of months, and had chosen instead to accept the recommendations of a committee which had been set up to consult the people on the issue. The Premier, in his release, said that he expected the LIA should go along with trying to solve the problem under the existing Liquor Control Act and regulations. Now that was the first response.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you say the former Premier or the current Premier?

MR. HARRIS: The current Premier. This is in the last two weeks. I issued a release the same day, after talking to the Inuit leaders as to why they were requesting what they were requesting and why they wanted it. I issued a release and supported their position and said that we should have legislation and we should have it soon to comply with the request. So we got legislation, we got it soon, but does it comply with the request? No.

In today's paper, a statement by the LIA complaining about and criticizing the amendments that are being proposed by the government and asking questions as to why the government didn't listen to them, and no one has answered that.

I quote from today's paper: "The amendments, submitted by the community leaders in Nain, including the LIA, were based on the Nunavut Liquor Control Act and on a report from Nain...

"That report proposed the act be amended to provide communities with the ability to hold plebiscites and formulate regulations respecting local options for the sale and possession of alcohol

"It also provided that community residents 15 years and older be allowed to vote on all matters dealing with local options."

This is a quote from William Barbour. "The amendments give clear and strong powers to town councils to control access to alcohol within northern communities, but do not respect the Inuit proposal.

"He said the proposal deliberately avoided making a single organization or institution responsible for making such recommendations."

Now, the Inuit people themselves, who have lived with this problem for many years and are aware of how the leadership structure works in their community, how the town councils work, how different bodies get separated from the rest of the community when they get elected to town councils, they decided, in their wisdom, that the best solution to get some community consensus on this issue and to have a public debate and have something that people could support is to have a plebiscite. That is what they decided, and they ask the government to implement that proposal.

Mr. Barbour goes on to say: "Barbour said he cannot understand why the province didn't just put in place an interim measure that would allow Inuit to assume the control they would have under LIA's land claims agreement in principle.

"I cannot understand why they did not consult us about what they planned to do," said Barbour.

"The longer we remain under provincial law, subject to the views, attitudes and values of a southern white culture, we will continue to pay a high price through the constant grinding down of Inuit culture, society and our young people.

"He said that, once again, government has dismissed the Inuit way of taking responsibility."

I can only conclude from that, the Inuit way of taking responsibility, in this context, is that the community, as a whole, make the decision, so that then they will stick by it. They will have the moral, political, cultural or community ability to enforce this type of action.

What are we doing otherwise, Mr. Speaker? We are setting up the council as the guys who are enforcing the rules and the people are the ones who have to obey them. That is what they have said, that they deliberately wanted to avoid it. So what are we doing? Once again, ignoring their wishes, ignoring helping them to find a solution that they think will work and providing for a solution that they are opposed to. That is what this government is doing.

Doesn't anyone over there read the paper? Did anyone listen to CBC today lunchtime to hear them talking about it? This is a very serious problem, there is no question about that. It goes back many, many years and it is part of what has happened to the Inuit culture and the other context with the Innu culture.

I remember going to Davis Inlet back in 1976, and at that time the boat did not go ashore because there was no wharf. We had to go ashore in a small boat. I spent a couple of days there. The centre of the community was a community hall run by the Oblate Mission. On a rainy day activity, I remember going to see what was going on in the community centre and they showed a movie. The movie was some kind of a film version of a story that had been on TV back in the ‘70s called The Streets of San Francisco. I do not know if any of you remember it; two detectives on the streets of San Francisco. This is what they were showing to the nine, ten and twelve-year olds in Davis Inlet. This is a place with no streets, no cars, no detectives, a place with nothing that has anything to do whatsoever with this type of program, and this is what was part of the entertainment for the kids on a rainy day in Labrador; a total lack of understanding, apparently, of the culture that they were dealing with.

If you read a book, a very interesting book by a gentleman by the name of Georg Henriksen who wrote a book called Hunters in the Barrens, about the Labrador Innu, he talks about their culture. The book is written as part of a PhD thesis in the early 70's, 1972 I think. It talks about their way of life, their form of leadership, how they interact with one another, how they lived off the land and their nomadic existence and how it was changed and affected by the changes that have happened only in this century with the Innu people. We are seeing the results of that now.

From 1950 on, for example, neither the Innu or the Inuit were recognized under the Indian Act as a distinct people entitled to the services being received by the rest of the aboriginals across the country. The money that was supposed to go, or that would have otherwise gone to look after the special needs of the Innu and Inuit, in fact went into the provincial government coffers and was used by the provincial government as general revenues to provided services in Labrador, services provided by the government, not through the working of band councils and self-government.

We have seen a totally different type of development of the cultural and leadership roles in Labrador than we have seen in other parts of the country. We are perhaps going through now some of the things that happened thirty, forty, fifty or sixty years ago in other parts of Canada. I think we have to learn from what has happened in other places. We have to learn, first and foremost, to respect the leadership and the cultural understanding of the people who have lived with that problem and who understand that problem better than we do. What they are saying is: Don't do what you are doing now. Don't do this. Don't force town councils to make these decisions. They want to have a broad based plebiscite in their community in order to get community support for the kind of thing they want to do.

This government is saying: No, we are going to ignore you. We are going to talk in here in the House of Assembly as if what you proposed does not even exist. We are going to pretend that we are carrying out your wishes. We are going to get up in this House and say: We are doing this at the request of the LIA. Well, they are not. They are not doing it at the request of the LIA. You are doing exactly what they don't want you to do. I do not know how you can justify it, and no-one has tried to yet here today. So far, the request of the LIA has been ignored in this debate today, and I frankly do not understand why. Is there a problem here? Don't you respect their point of view? Tell us what is wrong with their proposal. If their proposal came out of their own understanding of their problems, tell us what is wrong with their understanding of their problems.

What they are saying to you, as a government, is that you have not listened to us. You are not listening to what we are saying. You are imposing solutions on us that we do not want. Well, isn't that what has been happening to the Aboriginal people ever since the Europeans came to this part of the world, imposing solutions on the Aboriginal people, whether they be residential schools, whether they be assimilation policies, whether they be laws, whether they be rules, whether they be Indian acts, whether they be forcing them off their land, or setting up of reserves. Anything that the European culture wanted to impose on the Aboriginal people, they went ahead and did.

This here today is just another example of it. Here we are sitting in this House of Assembly, hundreds and hundreds of miles away from where this problem is going on, and being asked by the local people to implement something that will help them solve the problem, and we are saying: We have a better idea. We will get the town councils to do this. Town councils do this sort of stuff everywhere else, let them do it here. They are saying: We do not want that. That is not the solution for us. What they are saying, I think, is that it won't work in their community, because the people who happen to sit on the town councils, or the way the leadership works in their culture, is a little different than that; and that before such drastic measures might be introduced, as shutting down all liquor licences, they will want to have a plebiscite.

It did not seem to me that this kind of elaborate amendment to the legislation would be required to do that. The Lieutenant-Governor in power - the Cabinet could be given the power to do what it is being asked to do here, based on a plebiscite. Let the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, at the end of the day finally say aye or nay, they would follow a plebiscite, or allow a plebiscite in a particular community. It does not have to be terribly elaborate. If what we want to do is accept the recommendation of the people of Nain, in particular, and follow those recommendations, you do not need all the elaborate changes here. You do not need all of that. In fact, I suppose some simple amendments to this legislation could give the Lieutenant-Governor the power, in addition to the town council. Maybe some people over there are listening. Maybe if you would include that as an option as well.

Clause 129 of the bill says, "The board shall cancel all licences to sell liquor in a municipality where the council passes a resolution in favour of cancelling the licences or where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council declares the municipality a prohibited area."

The next section says: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, by order, make declarations upon a resolution being passed by the town council. Surely that can be broadened. I notice the Minister of Government Services and Lands is listening. Surely that can be broadened to allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make such orders if a plebiscite calling for such a ban is passed by the local community as a separate and distinct way of doing the same thing. Why would that be left out?

Why would the government be disinclined to respect the wishes of the people of Nain, of the Labrador Inuit Association? Why not accept their wishes? If the town council wants to make a resolution and take that responsibility, that is very well and good. What the LIA is saying is that they do not think that is a good idea, they do not think it would be good for their community to have a town council be forced to make that decision as a single institution because, presumably, of reasons of local politics, because, presumably, of reasons of how they think leadership works in their community, because, presumably, they think that the community should be behind it by a plebiscite before such significant action can be taken to take liquor out of the community altogether.

They do not want just to control the sale of alcohol, they want to control alcohol that comes into their community by other ways. That can be done through this legislation, but again, let's face it, the town council, Mr. Speaker, is not an institution of the Labrador Inuit Association and is not an institution of the Inuit people. A town council is an institution of our form of government, of our government, of our culture, it is not an institution of their culture.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is going to continue (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It may well continue. I do not have any problem with it continuing. But what they are suggesting is that this type of decision -

AN HON. MEMBER: The LIA is only an association (inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: The LIA is only an association. Well, that is great. I recognize that it is only an association in law. In fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I hear what the member is saying. The legislation gives the LIA the ability to convince the council to make it (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I say to the minister, it doesn't make any difference. I am not suggesting, and the LIA is not suggesting, that the LIA should make the decision. They are not suggesting that they should make the decision. That was not their proposal. The proposal was to allow a plebiscite, to allow the people to make the decision in a plebiscite, and ask the government to follow the wishes of a plebiscite. That is what they have asked for. What the legislation has done is say: No, no. We will make the town council be the one. The town council is an institution of the Municipalities Act of this Province. They are saying that a single institution, whether it be, presumably, the town council, the LIA or anybody else, should not take that responsibility and that this government should recognize and respect their wishes and provide for a plebiscite being the decision making authority.

The town council is elected under the Municipalities Act for very specific purposes. What this legislation does is give them an authority that they were never elected to perform. It would be like giving the City Council of St. John's the right to rewrite the liquor act. They do not have the right to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The City Council of St. John's. They do not have the right to do that. They are not elected to do that. The Town Council of Nain is not elected to do that either. They were never elected to do that. They were elected to carry out their responsibility under the Municipalities Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Have the authority to carry out a plebiscite. That is fine, they may be able to do that. Again, I suppose any municipality could carry out a plebiscite if they wanted to, but the issue is not whether they can carry it out through a plebiscite or not, the issue still is that the town council itself has to take responsibility for the decision. What the suggestion was and the urging was, of this committee that went and did the study, was that the people be behind them in a plebiscite and that government respect it's wishes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: This is the difficulty. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Why don't we give the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the authority to recognize a plebiscite or give the government the general authority to carry out these measures once a problem has been recognized and a local plebiscite has determined the wishes of the majority.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Once again, government members opposite can say what they like, I am just reading what the leadership of the Inuit say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Not this Mr. Barbour, not today. I have spoken to Mr. Barbour, another Mr. Barbour, about their wishes and what they asked this government to do when the Premier of this Province was saying that they should follow the current liquor act. That was within the last two weeks. What we are talking about here is whether or not government is prepared to recognize the requests and the wishes of the people of Nain, the people who are affected by this, instead of imposing their own solutions. I think we should listen to the people who have asked for this and not rely on whatever it is, the liquor control board or liquor license board, wants to have imposed upon this problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board. If she speaks now she will close the debate.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the speakers, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Member for Torngat Mountains on their support of this bill.

I would like to move second reading of Bill 46.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 46)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 16, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 16.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act No. 2." (Bill 47)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, this second act, To Amend The Liquor Control Act No. 2, Bill 47. The bill to amend the liquor control act will provide authority for the Board of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation to make regulations prescribing the minimum price for which alcoholic beverages are sold on licensed premises. Concern respecting minimum pricing has been expressed by the Brewers Association of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador have also indicated similar concerns.

Mr. Speaker, these groups strongly support the introduction of controls on minimum pricing to avoid the maraud of problems it causes including excessive drinking, rowdiness, assaults, damage to property, disturbing the peace and impaired driving.

Most beer sales, 75 per cent to 80 per cent, occur through the home market. This means most people are consuming alcohol at home so competition for customers in licensed establishments has become very aggressive. Alcoholic beverages are given away free of charge or sold at prices well below cost. Promotions to attract clientele very often include activities which are not sociably acceptable.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Atlantic Canada without minimum price controls. A survey of other jurisdictions indicates that Newfoundland is one of only four provinces that have not imposed minimum price controls. The others being, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec. In jurisdictions with minimum price controls, these restrictions are seen to be necessary to prevent overcrowding, over consumption, binge drinking, rowdyism and criminal activity such as assaults and impaired driving.

I move second reading of this bill.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly agree with some of the points the Government House Leader indicated. We certainly want to see the elimination of rowdyism or the ill effects that might come from the consumption of alcohol. We certainly can see that point.

Overall, there is a concern I have with this particular bill. We only received the bill yesterday. We did not have a chance to look at implications or ramifications it may have. We could very well be completely supportive of that, certainly the intentions of the bill. I am not so sure that a bill coming in one day should be run through the House the next day because we would like to know the response, the feedback out there in the public forum on this particular bill. Because smoking is bad for your health - should we restrict and put minimum pricing on smoking because it is bad for your health? Other products on the market, because they are dangerous, should we put minimum prices on those particular ones? I know alcohol is one that certainly can cause a lot of problems.

I am not going to belabour the point today. I just want to say that we would have a better comfort level had we had an opportunity to hear from people affected by this and very well - I say to the minister - might be a very strong supporter of this. I do not see, on the surface, any distinct disadvantages but there are certain things or infringement things that I think we should at least hear from the stakeholders involved to weigh both arguments there.

I would like to move that a motion be amended by deleting the words after the word ‘that' and substituting the following, ‘therefore.'

Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act No. 2, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Government Services legislative review committee.

The purpose of making that motion, I might add, has nothing to do with whether we are against the bill. In fact, I think I might be on safe ground to say we all may be very supportive of the bill but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. We would like to hear and weigh arguments because, as prudent legislators here, we should have a right to make sure that what we put through is properly tested. We should make a prudent decision and move quickly on this because it is not one that has been out in the public forum, like Bill 46. We have heard a lot on that. We have heard from people concerned and we weigh our options. This is one that came on very quickly and got circulated. We want it all made law in this Province now without hearing of rights; and there are certain fundamental rights.

I say again, smoking is bad for your health. The smoking bills here we fully endorse. Should we set minimum prices because it is injurious to health? Should we disallow bulk sales of cigarettes in stores, so many packs for a certain price? Anything that is injurious to our health on the market, should we set minimum levels? Maybe we should. Maybe we should do it on alcohol in bars and so on. I can see many positive effects in setting minimum prices and maybe there are some arguments to the contrary. Until such time, I feel we should have an opportunity to weigh the pros and cons and vote in a prudent manner. Then very well, if we had that opportunity we might be the first jumping up and saying: Let's pass it now. Let's do something about it; not something that is sprung on you on a Monday and you want it passed on a Tuesday type of thing. That is not the case. That is the point of contention we have with this particular bill. It is not based on the contents of the bill. It is based on the expeditious nature in which government wants to get the bill through without hearing from all sides on the issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair just had an opportunity to look at the amendment put forward by the hon. the Opposition House Leader, and this amendment is one of the few standard amendments that is acceptable in second reading. The amendment is in order. So we are debating the amendment.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to the amendment. I, too, was taken a bit by surprise by the legislation being put forward. I had the understanding - and it is my fault for not asking for the details, but when it was mentioned to me by the Government House Leader that there was another amendment, I assumed that it was an amendment to Bill 46 that he was talking about, that they were going to change it slightly because it was not exactly what the doctor ordered in terms of a proper amendment to the Liquor Control Act to look after the problem in Labrador, so I had no difficulty in saying yes, bring it on and we will have a debate about it; but this is a whole new topic that has not really been, aside from the comments of some bar owners on George Street, even in the media. I have had some personal discussions with other bar owners who do not share that view, who do not, in fact, think that the differing prices is anything other than an aspect of marketing and competition, and feel that the move by the other bar owners is an anti-competitive move. All of this needs to be analyzed. I do not know what the rights are or are not. I know that my conservative friends over here would be very concerned about restrictions on competition, and that sort of thing, and there are other implications.

I am saying this from my own personal experience, in discussing this with bar owners and operators as to how these low prices operate. There is a school of thought, and again my knowledge of this is somewhat restricted, but I do know that here in the City of St. John's, for example, when people talk about going downtown for a drink, when they go downtown, they do not go downtown in many cases until 10:30, 11:00 or 11:30 at night. The reason they do not go downtown earlier is because they do their drinking at home or somewhere else and then go downtown, after they have had a few drinks, because they do not want to spend their money at the high bar prices downtown but they want to be down there amongst the crowd.

There may be people who are offering lower prices earlier in the night to bring people down to their bars earlier, so that they will spend their money in their bars. This may be the reason for low bar prices. It may have nothing to do with the other concerns that have been raised, that if you have low prices then people will drink more or drink quicker or get drunk and drive, and all of this. All of these things have to be looked into. I do not think that we should have a quick reaction to this request. I understand the request comes from the Liquor Licencing Board or the Liquor Corporation, one or the other. I think that this should have some sober consideration, if I may say. This is not something we should respond quickly to. We should consider the implications, consider the views not only of the bar owners who have requested this particular amendment but also those who are opposed to it, so we can understand how the bar business operates, how the liquor business operates, before we start deciding that there ought to be regulations permitted of this nature.

I think there are implications for competition, there are implications for rule-making in general, there are implications for the other aspects that have been raised by the Mothers Against Drunk Driving group and by the various policing forces, but I think that these concerns and suggestions have to be evaluated, considered, and they have to be given a certain amount of thought before we very quickly pass legislation that has never been on the public agenda before today.

We are in a very short session, before Christmas. There is no indication that this is a matter of such great urgency that it has to be dealt with immediately. I think that it would be very wise for us to wait, to allow for some public discussion, perhaps to allow a committee of this House to consider it and hear from the various groups. Let the RNC come in and make their arguments. Let the bar owners come forward and say why it is they think this is a good thing or a bad thing, as the case may be. I do not think, by any means, there is unanimity on this particular position. We want to be sure, before we make rules that forever put off the debate, that we go down this particular road.

I do not know what happens in other jurisdictions in this country, whether this is something that is unique to here, whether there is something that is solving a particular competitive problem for certain bar owners in downtown -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). We are the only ones in Atlantic Canada without it.

MR. HARRIS: We may be the only ones in Atlantic Canada without it, but my concern here is whether this is a response to the competitive concerns of a number of bar owners. We have to see what goes on in other jurisdictions. If there are other Atlantic Provinces with this, let's find out what their experience has been. Has it been a good experience? Has it been a bad experience? I don't disbelieve the hon. member. Even if he were telling lies, I wouldn't disbelieve him.

The point, I think, is well taken. The Opposition House Leader has provided a motion that will allow for some sober consideration of this particular proposal. I think that is in order, and we support the motion.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we on this side do not believe there is any necessity for delay of this bill at this particular time. We are ready to put the motion before the House.

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

All those in favour of the amendment, ‘aye'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I know it is getting late and hon. members have an opportunity to further make their objections to this bill, so at this particular point I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend the Liquor Control Act No 2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 47)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (M. Hodder):Order, please!

Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am assuming we are Bill 38, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

There are just a few brief points I want to make on Bill 38. We have had an opportunity in second reading to touch on a few of the points. With reference to a smoke-free environment, I must say we are certainly supportive of this bill, particularly in food establishments, because anywhere youth have exposure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I don't, and I don't agree with smoking. I would like to see everybody give it up. There are costs associated with it - costs to your health and to other people - and anywhere there is smoking where there are youth, I do not think we should subject youth to smoking. If you go into a restaurant and want to sit in a smoking or non-smoking section, and you sit down next to a smoking section, you get the smell of smoke, the taste of smoke, and you can almost digest it with your food. We should not have that, and we should not subject any youth to that - or anybody, not just youth - because this is not confined just to them. This also benefits people other than youth.

I might add that we do agree with it. The clauses here in the bill basically prohibit it in food establishments, and we are very supportive of that. Owners and employees enforce it, and that is very important. I mentioned in second reading that it is necessary to ensure that there is proper inspection, proper follow-up initially when it comes into effect on January 1, 2002, so that the trend can be set early that we are not going to tolerate any particular offences under that, and it becomes a ticketing under the Provincial Offences Act. It is a positive step because it expedites this process there and saves a lot of drawn-out time and money in the long term.

I must say, I will not belabor it. We made our points earlier, we are supportive of this bill, and we certainly will expedite the moving of this bill through the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, too, agree with this bill, but I don't think that the bill goes far enough. Clause 1 of the bill, "...to prohibit smoking in food establishments and in public places that are frequented by children. These places may be further clarified by regulation."

I do not know why we limit it to places that are frequented by children, and I am particularly thinking of the workplace and bars. I know that a lot of the bars would be against us bringing in legislation - it would have a financial effect on them - but I am thinking of the workplace safety of the people who work in the bars, many of whom are women.

If there were a group of people who were working in an environment where they were exposed to carcinogens and toxins, and they came in and presented their case to the Minister of Environment and Labor, that would be well looked at; but we have a group of people who are working in places such as bars - I know some bar owners, when the employees complained, have said: Well, if you don't like it, get a job someplace else.

That is easy enough to say, but there aren't that many jobs available out there, and when we are exposing people to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace, the carcinogens and the toxins, it has been shown - there is a result of a study here: involuntary smoking causes breast cancer too. This directly affects women. Women who are exposed to cigarette smoke for one hour per day, for twelve consecutive months, nearly triple their risk of contracting this deadly disease.

By not expanding this bill, not just for the people who patronize these places but for the workers who work there, then we are continuing to endanger our people by exposing them to these toxins and carcinogens.

Obviously, one of the most important changes in women's lives has been the tremendous increase in smoking. Another has been the widespread exposure of non-smoking women to tobacco smoke, as more and more people smoke and as women far more frequently work outside the home in workplaces where smoking was permitted.

I will be supporting this bill, but I am asking that this bill go further. It is not just for the people who will be patronizing the places, such as the bars, but for the people who work there. Many of them are single mothers and they have to depend on these jobs to keep money coming into the home to support their children, and we are exposing them to these dangers.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act." (Bill 38)

On motion, clauses 1 though 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I just want to make one brief point. I agree with everything that is in the bill. There is one particular thing that is not there, basically, but is a concern. I made it in second reading and I will make it again. It is illegal to sell alcohol to someone under nineteen. It is illegal for somebody under nineteen to have it. It is illegal to sell cigarettes to someone under nineteen, but it is not illegal to smoke cigarettes. So it is illegal to sell both to someone underage. It is legal for one to drink alcohol, but it is not illegal to have cigarettes.

One of the things, I think a former minister indicated at the time was, that we do not want to make criminals out of young people, and we do not. Alcohol will make them criminals. If they have alcohol when they are seventeen or eighteen they get charges pressed, and they can do it on cigarettes. Both have been identified as an illegal substance for youth and both are treated differently under the law.

I am not reconciled with that point, I might add. I would like to put it on the record that there is a concern there and there is not a consistency in the application of the law.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act". (Bill 39)

On motion, clauses 1 through 8 carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 6, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, Bill 20.

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 20)

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 26)

On motion, clauses 1 through 11 carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 8, Bill 40.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act." (Bill 40).

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 9, Bill 37.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Trustee Act." (Bill 37).

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Order 10, Bill 43.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act." (Bill 43)

On motion, clauses 1 through 11 carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 11, Bill 45.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act." (Bill 45)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

MR. LUSH: Madam Chairperson, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report Bills 38, 39, 20, 26, 40, 37, 43 and 45 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to it referred and has directed her to report progress and that Bills 38, 39, 20, 26, 40, 37, 43 and 45 were carried without amendment and the Committee asks leave to sit again.

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, again I thank the members for their cooperation and, for their diligence. I think there may be some activities going on as soon as the House closes.

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