The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

I would just like to remind all members of the House that we are working on the backup microphone system today, and the earplugs do not work. We are told that the sound will resonate through the new microphones and you will not need the earplugs.

With that in mind, admit strangers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For many years the Canadian Rangers has been a household name all across Canada, and nowhere is the Rangers more appreciated than in small communities of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the young people in the communities of Postville and Hopedale, which have formed a Junior Rangers Association. These young people are taught mapping, compassing, the use of GPS, and survival on the land.

I think the initiative taken by these young people in these communities ensures that the tradition of the Canadian Rangers will be around for a long time to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to ask the members of this House to join with me to extend congratulations to Mike and Mary Norman of Brigus on the occasion of their Golden Wedding Anniversary. This couple were married fifty years ago, on December 1, 1951, at St. Patrick's Church, Brigus, by Rev. Father Dr. E. J. Jones.

They took up residence at Brigus at that time and raised a family of five. The family has since extended into ten grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Both these people were from what I call the old school, very hardworking, determined individuals with strong Christian values.

It was only eight years ago that Mike gave up full-time employment, and had worked up until the age of seventy-two. Both he and Mary are very active members of their church and community, devoting countless hours of volunteer service throughout the years.

On Saturday, relatives and friends dropped by their home to celebrate with this wonderful couple and their family.

I am sure I join with all members in wishing Mike and Mary a happy Golden Anniversary and many more years of health and prosperity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre recently received a $20,000 donation from the Ronald McDonald Children's Charities of Canada.

The donation will be used to establish a new Family Care Room at the Health Centre. This new room will allow family members, especially children, to spend time with family during hospitalization.

The Burin Peninsula Health Care Foundation submitted a grant application to the Ronald McDonald Children's Charities of Canada, with the help of Chris and Debbie Squires, the owners and operators of the McDonald's restaurant in Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, I would like all members to join with me in expressing appreciation to Chris and Debbie Squires, along with the Ronald McDonald Children's Charities of Canada, for this contribution to health care in the district that I represent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues in the House of Assembly to join me today in recognizing the invaluable work that the Conservation Corps of Newfoundland and Labrador are doing throughout the Province.

The Conservation Corps is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to providing youth with training and employment in environmental and cultural heritage conservation. The Conservation Corps has established a highly visible and successful track recording in delivering environment and cultural heritage conservation projects that bring youth together with provincial, national, international government and corporate community partners.

I would also like to recognize the dedication of the volunteer board of directors who come from a varying background across the Province. It is also appropriate at this time, Mr. Speaker, to thank the corporate community who are responsible for approximately 40 per cent of the cost of operating the Conservation Corps. The Conservation Corps has established successful projects, such as the Green Team project, the Climate Change Action group, Environmental Leadership Program, Alumni and Volunteer Program, and Internship Program, along with numerous other public educational programs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it is groups such as the Conservation Corps and others throughout the Province that are very much responsible for the positive environmental work and legislative changes that are taking place throughout the Province today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the two Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer medal winners for the District of Bay of Islands: Minnie Vallis of Meadows and Arthur Vincent Sr. of York Harbour.

Minnie Vallis has been a volunteer for over thirty years. She is involved with arts, music and church groups, and with the local seniors' club. She has also been active in youth organizations such as 4-H and Girl Guides. She was involved in municipal politics for fourteen years and was mayor of her town. She has served on the executive of provincial and national organizations for people with disabilities, such as COD, which she currently still serves. She is a very strong advocate for people with disabilities, in the Newfoundland region. She is also an honourary member of the Corner Brook Status of Women for her outstanding work for the women's issues in this Province.

Arthur Vincent Sr. has been volunteering locally and regionally for more than thirty years. He is active in church and community organizations and has undertaken leadership roles in the Lions Club and the 4-H Club. He has served on the local harbour authority and the Outer Bay of Islands Round Table. He is Deputy Chief of the Beniots Cove Indian Band Council, and is the former mayor of his town where he served on the council for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in recognizing the contribution these two volunteers have made to this Province and in particular to the Bay of Islands. I am sure their contribution is not finished because both are still very active. They have certainly made a difference in their towns, which are much better places because of their involvement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Statements by Ministers, the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery the Combined Councils of Labrador representatives: President, Mr. Graham Letto; Mr. Ford Rumbolt; Mr. Nathan Moores, and Trina Whalen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide the Members of the House of Assembly with an update on the status of the feasability review with Alcoa regarding the Lower Churchill Hydro Project and the possible establishment of an aluminum processing facility in the Province.

When government entered into this arrangement, we agreed we would not participate in negotiations with any of Alcoa's competitors while the feasibility study was being completed. However, we did continue to move forward with our own work plan to investigate all options to develop the Lower Churchill Hydro Project.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that on Friday, November 30, Alcoa provided us with the results its feasibility review. We are in the process of reviewing this information and identifying any issues which may require further clarification with Alcoa.

Mr. Speaker, the challenge of arriving at a favourable development option for the Lower Churchill has been before this and preceding governments for almost twenty-five years now. Any project that leads to the development of the Lower Churchill must provide maximum benefits to the people of the Province.

Once we have completed the review of the feasibility study, Cabinet will then evaluate the results in context with other possible options for the development of this resource. Government will subsequently report to this House and the people of the Province on the outcome and whether we intend to proceed further with this company on the development of these potential projects.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a curious statement and I am somewhat bewildered by what it does not say. Yes, it is true the feasibility study is complete. It would be certainly in the interest of the people of this Province, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would like to know exactly what the thrust of this agreement is. What direction are we going in as it relates to the development of this very important project?

I would like to make another point, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The minister mentions in his statement that the government continued to move forward with work plans to investigate all options. Well, I ask the minister, what does that mean? We recall, in March of 1998, when there was this great launch with respect to discussions with Hydro Quebec at the cost to taxpayers of almost a $500,000. I ask the minister: Where are we with respect to these discussions with Hydro Quebec? Is Hydro Quebec now off the table? Will he, in due course, let the people of the Province know exactly where we are on this very important project with respect to any ongoing discussions with Hydro Quebec?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly are hopeful that progress will be made, that there will be an aluminum processing facility in Labrador, and that the Lower Churchill will be developed.

The statement says that the development must provide maximum benefits for the people of the Province. I would like to go one step further and say to the minister that it must provide maximum benefits for the people of Labrador and people who live in close proximity to these developments; not the way that things are today where many young people in Labrador have to leave, or remain unemployed in the area, while workers from all around the Province and the rest of this country are coming in and taking jobs that they are quite qualified to do but are unable to get them. I say to the minister, provisions should be made to ensure that the people of Labrador get first crack at any employment opportunities arising from developments within Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to tell the House that last week I attended a Federal Provincial Territorial Housing Ministers conference held in Quebec City.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the outcome of these discussions. In some urban areas of this Province there is a need to construct additional low rental accommodations; however, we must also protect existing investment in housing, some of which is in need of extensive repair. The original concept of this program addressed only new construction, but we were successful in arguing that there is no point in investing in a new supply of housing if we are not going to protect the current supply.

The framework that was agreed to by all jurisdictions on Friday provides considerable flexibility. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation will commence bilateral negotiations with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the near future with the aim of defining a group of programs that will address differing housing needs throughout the Province.

The overall funding will be matched on a 50/50 basis by the Province and CMHC.

Mr. Speaker, these programs will assist Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to access safe, suitable and affordable housing. I feel strongly that this investment in housing for the more needy segment of our population will enhance the effectiveness of programs and services provided by my colleagues in Health and Community Services and in Education. In more ways than one, suitable housing provides a firm foundation for a healthy society.

In closing, I must state that this framework agreement is good news for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I can assure this House that we will work tirelessly to maximize the benefits attainable under our bilateral discussions with the federal government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement just before the House opened today.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we applaud and appreciate anything that is going to be done in the way of housing for this Province. Certainly, with the point the minister made, there is no point in investing in a new supply of housing if we are not going to protect the current supply. We also agree with that, I say to the minister, but we also know, people on both sides of this House get calls on a constant basis from our districts - as late as this morning - and we do know that the need is greater than ever, Mr. Speaker.

We also know that when we call these offices in our areas, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with applications since 1998 and maybe even back as far as 1997, so there is a big backlog. The minister knows that, he knows that the need is greater than ever, and he also knows that in rural Newfoundland and Labrador the situation with prosperity grows dimmer every day, especially in some of the smaller communities. We have to address this problem and we will certainly applaud any initiatives and any programs, Mr. Speaker, that the minister can define in addressing a very serious need in this Province.

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.

This is certainly welcome news, that there will be an opportunity for special housing programs for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is one of the issues in my own constituency, and I know members get numerous calls from people who are desperate for affordable housing, in some cases accessible housing for those who are disabled, seniors, and single parent families. There is a very, very large series of problems, not only with accessible and affordable housing, but also with some of our existing units.

I am glad that the minister has been able to achieve some flexibility in this program. By my calculations, if we get our share per capita, there should be about $12 million from the federal government. If the minister is going to match that, we can have a substantial program.

I hope it is also the beginning of a national housing program which is so badly needed in this country, and we cut it out in the last five years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize today if I have a bit of a flu. I think the hon. the Premier has a cold as well. So if we sound a little raspy or a little nasally, don't adjust your sets.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: A little bit. I played a little bit of hockey there.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier.

Premier, is it acceptable behavior for a minister of your government, in particular the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to say on one day that government is in negotiation with the federal government for a takeover of the wharves for $400 million, and to say on the following day that in fact there are no negotiations, when he knew the difference?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For anyone who is interested in the information, the minister has made it perfectly clear what has occurred. The history of it, so everyone should know what the facts are, is that this is an initiative of the Government of Canada, and always has been. The Government of Canada were interested from 1996 to now in divesting of airports, ports and harbors and other services. They have successfully divested of some airports across Canada, some in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they came to the provincial government and also initiated a discussion with respect to ports and harbors, which never successfully concluded because we were interested only if the price was right. The price to this date still is not right, in our view.

The discussions are still ongoing but really not very active, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question that I asked the hon. the Premier was if he felt that was appropriate behavior in saying one thing one day and another thing the next. As well, he also reversed his position by stating that the federal government had initiated the negotiations, and on the following day he said the provincial government had initiated the negotiations. Is that appropriate behavior as well, Mr. Premier? He has reversed his position twice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand what is in the best interest of everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador and all of us in this Legislature is to make sure we know the facts of the matter and the actual basis of what is being discussed. The facts are perfectly clearly in the public, and they have been made perfectly clear, that there is no dispute. The Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting - and I am sure he is not because he knows the difference - that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador initiated these discussions, because we did not. It is a federal initiative. As a matter of fact, in my last visit to Ottawa I was asking the Government of Canada if they were still interested because they have not been very active in this discussion lately, ever since there has been a disagreement on the price.

Again, it is not an initiative that was ever put forward and promoted by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an initiative of the Government of Canada that they are trying to proceed with all across the country. They have been successful with almost all of the airports that the Government of Canada were interested in divesting of; they have done that. They are still discussing some in other provinces, not in Newfoundland and Labrador. With ports and harbours, they haven't really been back to us lately because we disagreed with them, not on the concept but the amount that they were willing to offer. There has not really been much of an active discussion or negotiation in the last little while.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, isn't it in fact true that your minister reversed his position when he was confronted by a reporter who said that the federal government had confirmed that negotiations had been off for six months? Isn't that why he reversed his position?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador has an interest in this because there are several communities, municipalities - the City of Corner Brook, the Town of Botwood in my own district - that are interested in this particular initiative because they would like to see some additional work done on the ports and harbours, and the wharves within the ports and harbours, in the communities in which they live. They continually ask the provincial government as to whether or not this divestiture is proceeding. The answer is: It is not, because the Government of Canada initiated the response but they have not been very aggressive lately and they have come nowhere close to discussing a price range that we would ever contemplate on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, all of us, just as the Leader of the Opposition does, answer and respond to questions from the media every day because we are in the business of trying to give information. We do that quite gladly, quite openly, and we will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, not only did your minister indicate that he was in negotiations on Thursday, he had the money spent on Thursday.

Do you think, Premier, that it is appropriate for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to be making public statements on bond ratings, interest rates as high as 15 per cent, and allocation of monies towards the deficit? Do you think it is appropriate that that minister should be speaking?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to that should be very self-evident. The minister is sitting in his seat as the minister. He has made the comments publicly. I think, in fact, we have a better understanding of the issues in Newfoundland and Labrador today than we did on Friday of last week.

Mr. Speaker, the issues are ones that are valuable to be spoken about. I would suggest, if the Leader of the Opposition were to ever become the head of a government in fifteen or twenty years time, he will have to judge himself as to what his ministers - if he ever gets to name any - are allowed or not allowed to do. I understand, in a group headed by the Leader of the Opposition, that you are not allowed to speak in public unless it is cleared by the Leader of the Opposition. The ministers here are free to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, my concern is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Who do the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe? Do they believe you, when you are in conflict with the Prime Minister over equalization? Do they believe you, when you are in conflict with the Deputy Premier over a debate on Voisey's Bay? Do they believe you or your Minister of Finance when she says September 11 is a problem, or do they believe the minister when he is in conflict with himself? Who do they believe? Tell us, we just want to know. Who do we listen to, on what day of the week? That is all we want to know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, he does not have any serious questions today. The information with respect to ports and harbours is in the public domain. The full information is now available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what is important to this government, Mr. Speaker, dealing with issues and not trying to grandstand and make political hay out of circumstances, which is the only interest that has been shown here, now the third week, by the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask some serious questions. Premier, have you ever done a cost analysis? Have you ever done a cost analysis of the break-even point on wharves? At what point should this government sell out the future of the Province and take over the wharves? Tell us what the numbers are! That's a serious question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was some work that was done. It obviously did not reach a successful conclusion. Mr. Speaker, there is no sell out of anything in Newfoundland and Labrador by this particular government, and will not be. That is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can be assured of in every single decision that this group takes. There will be no sell out, and that is a guaranteed fact, Mr. Speaker. You can count on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there are no current, active day-to-day negotiations with respect to ports and harbours. If there are serious negotiations, again, like in discharging any of the responsibilities that we have, we will give a full accounting of any decision that is taken with respect to ports and harbours to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to this Legislature. There is nothing to give an accounting for at this point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, there is nothing to give an accounting for. You were negotiating a possible sale of the wharves of this Province to the federal government, but there was no accounting done. Just like bulk water, you never bothered to do any economic viability. Is that the case, Premier? Is that what it is all about?

Let's get down to the nub of this. Why are negotiations falling down on clawback and equalization on the sale of wharves? Why are you having a problem with the federal government? Does it have anything to do with the fact that your two senior ministers, the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Finance, are co-cheerleaders for Brian Tobin against Paul Martin in his campaign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think everybody can sense from the question how concerned the Leader of the Opposition is about issues of importance in Newfoundland and Labrador today. There is no federal leadership race going on for anyone to be involved in, Mr. Speaker, and we all understand that.

The point that the Leader of the Opposition makes about negotiations; maybe he is suggesting that actual business negotiations, whether they are between government and government, or government and a private enterprise - the details of it and the actual discussions should be held in the public every day. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, he might believe that the detailed negotiations that went on, for example, with respect to the Mount Cashel settlement, when he was working with his law firm, that maybe those discussions should have happened in the public before the final deal was made. Mr. Speaker, we chose to make an arrangement. The discussions needed to be private for a period of time. There was a good outcome that, I am sure, he would agree with. Maybe we should have had day-to-day discussions about the land arrangement for the Southlands golf course, but instead of that, we did a good arrangement. We had the meetings in private and we announced to the public exactly what was happening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, all those kind of things, the negotiations themselves, the Leader of the Opposition understands, need to held privately. It is the public disclosure of the full details that we always commit to, and will continue to commit to, because people need to know what you did; not what you are saying every single day, but what you did and what you committed to on behalf of the people of the Province, and that is the standard we will gladly live to any day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Just for the Premier's information, there has already been a (inaudible) South Coast ferry system, the Labrador ferry system in Term 29.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that a Minister of the Crown be fully aware and knowledgeable of the affairs of his or her department. There have been a few instances in the past couple of weeks where the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation did not have a proper handle on issues in his department; namely, the hiring and freeze, the changes to the Public Tender Act, and now his major contradiction regarding the downloading of the federal wharves and marine sites.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, through you, why did he change his story from one day to the next, and why did he mislead the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to get an opportunity to answer the question. It is interesting to know that the great issue of the Opposition Party in the Province today is the work being performed by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I guess if you are not active and not out there working on behalf of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I guess you are not being criticized. So I am very, very proud to be the center of attention, to know that this department is very, very active -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: - and out there trying to provide services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is no confusion about the issue in terms of the ports and harbours. It was very, very clear to the public that the federal government came to the provincial government to take over the ports and harbours. What wasn't clear, in the previous article in The Telegram, was that the reporter did not present that information. There was a proposal that the provincial government go back to the federal government. That is the proposal I was talking about. So there is no confusion about what is happening with the ports and harbours in Newfoundland and Labrador. The only confusion is in the member's head.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I say, Mr. Speaker, according to all the criticism, the minister must be working twenty-four hours a day.

Mr. Speaker, why is it that on Thursday the minister stated that the Province approached Transport Canada to download these sites because of pleas from the communities involved, and on Friday stated the complete reverse to be true, in that Transport Canada approached the Province? Really, Mr. Speaker, which is it, which is the truth, and when did you know that the negotiations were off?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what was reported in the paper on Thursday was the result of the proposal that the Newfoundland Government sent to the federal government after the federal government had requested a proposal from the provincial government.

I don't know how much clearer I can say it. The Premier, in his responses, was very, very clear in terms of where we stand on this particular issue. I don't know why there is any confusion, because there is no confusion over here.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister did not answer the question: When he knew the negotiations were off.

Mr. Speaker, why is it that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation knew about the ending of these negotiations and, for some strange reason, decided to mislead the people of the Province? Minister, why did you mislead the people of the Province and, again, when did you know the negotiations were off? A simple question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was no misleading of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This minister knew that the proposal that went to Ottawa was too high a price, and if they got back to us tomorrow we probably would have to consider what the response would be.

For the hon. Leader of the Opposition: This minister has been working twenty-four hours a day, and I have had great discussions with the Corner Brook Port Authority in terms of working with them, and I don't think the hon. Leader of the Opposition has taken the time to even meet with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier about a story in The Telegram which quotes the Premier as saying that he will reveal a Voisey's Bay deal to the people of the Province after it is signed, sealed and delivered. In other words, I say to the Premier, you are going to present the people with a fait accompli.

My question is, and I ask the Premier: Isn't that exactly what was done with the infamous Upper Churchill contract exactly forty years ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. I think all of us are probably aware of some of the history lesson. The Upper Churchill deal some forty years ago was debated in this Legislature, because, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of provisions that required the approval of the Legislature, and the pieces that needed approval of the Legislature, the establishing of a legislative framework, special acts and so on, were all voted on in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, just so we don't forget history, it was unanimous. There was no dissenting voice in the Legislature from any party with respect to the Upper Churchill contract some forty years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: What the Premier is proposing, in other words that a debate take place after a deal is signed, sealed and delivered, is totally ridiculous, I say to the Premier. It is almost like a team in the National Hockey League tonight practicing for last year's Stanley Cup Finals. That is what it is like.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask the Premier: Why are you afraid to let the people decide if your deal with Voisey's Bay lives up to the mandate that you received and your party received, Mr. Premier, in both 1996 and in 1999?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am assuming that the Opposition critic for Mines and Energy understands the mandate that we received in 1996 and 1999 to get full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am assuming that if we reach that mandate there will be no dissent in this House, that everybody here will agree that is what we should have done; that is what we got elected to do. I am hoping that is what we can do, that we can actually have a deal that will meet the mandate that we were given in 1996 and in 1999. I look forward to all the members in the Legislature indicating their support for it because, Mr. Speaker, I think the biggest fear of the Opposition, quite clearly, is that we might actually be able to arrange for a Voisey's Bay deal, and it causes them sleepless nights. It is the biggest issue on their minds in terms of the fact that we might be able to successfully do, in the next several months, what a couple of previous attempts have failed to do: to secure a finished nickel product leaving Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the mandate from 1996 and renewed again in 1999.

I understand that they have said that is their mandate. I have even heard the phrase used by the Opposition saying: We will be just as tough as the Liberals said they were going to be.

That is their position, I understand. We are tough enough to get the right deal for Newfoundland and Labrador, maximum benefits and a finished nickel product leaving this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: One quick question: Why is it not possible, Mr. Premier, that if there is an agreement, a contract, an agreement in principle - we can call it what we wish - that there be a condition that it be subject to, or on the condition of, full and open and disclosed debate in this House of Assembly by all members present, which is representative of all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why is that not possible?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a nice political ploy to use, but the Opposition understands this as well as anybody: If we have a debate in this Legislature, and if the government has already commited to the deal, which has twenty-eight seats, and if we bring it here and vote for it, regardless of how the Opposition votes, it will pass in this Legislature. That is the practicality of how this Legislature operates.

If the Cabinet, the government and this caucus, enter into an arrangement, whether we bring it here and have a vote of forty-eight people, knowing that at least twenty-eight will support it because they know it is the right thing to do, then, Mr. Speaker, the debate in itself, which is going to happen everywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador - it is not going to be restricted just to this Legislature - in every single community all over Newfoundland and Labrador, everybody will know the full details, and except for an Opposition that is politically motivated to be against it, fair-minded Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will obviously see it to be a good arrangement, maximum benefits, because otherwise we are not bringing it forward as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and it concerns the lack of regular inspections of food establishments in the Province, that was disclosed by the Auditor General and reported today, that still over one-third of food establishments, restaurants and others, are not being inspected.

The Minister of Government Services and Lands said today that this was an issue of limited resources and that the government has to make certain compromises. What I want to know from the Premier is: What kind of compromises is his government prepared to make with the public safety issues involved in health inspections of food establishments in this Province? How far is this government prepared to compromise the public safety of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We do not believe that we are comprising the health interests of our citizens at all with what we are doing. The comprises we are making are between how we use the resources that we have.

We have a concern about anything that might pose a threat to the health of our citizens. We do not feel that is the case in this present circumstance. We would like to have more inspectors and do a more complete job. As it is, we ensure that every establishment is inspected at least once in each fiscal year. There has been some misunderstanding about that.

We endeavored to hire an additional twelve inspectors this year. We have so far gotten funding for five; we have been able to hire four. We still have not been able to hire the fifth one because these people are in very short supply in the country. I understand there are 100 vacancies across Canada that cannot be filled today.

We are endeavoring to get the funding for an additional seven in the near future, hopefully in the next budget, Mr. Speaker. If we do that, we will be able to do a more complete job of inspecting. As it stands now, we feel that there is no immediate public health issue. This issue has not arisen because people have been made ill as a result of going to restaurants or eating at food establishments. It is just something that has come out of the 1998 Report of the Auditor General. We are endeavoring to do what we can to beef up our resources, and we hope to do so in the near future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do not need to wait until something happens. We know that in Walkerton, Ontario, it was limited resources and comprises that had serious implications for those people, including loss of lives and a mounting price tag which has been estimated at over $60 million.

The facts that have been disclosed today indicate that the department is not, in fact, inspecting once a year as his policy described. Isn't this minister leaving the public safety at risk until someone does, in fact, get sick or perhaps poisoned by this, and not only cause harm to people's lives but perhaps potentially destroy a tourism industry, a trade or a business -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: - and leave this government open to attacks from legal sources for not following its own policies in this regard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is doing the public a disservice in indicating that there is some real problem here. Naturally we would like to be doing a better job of inspecting than is being done at present, but presently all of the operations are inspected at least once in each fiscal year. Sometimes that might be a fifteen month period. It may not be within a twelve month period because you do one earlier and you do it later in the following period.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, there is no indication of any great problem in this. The people who are operating these kinds of businesses in our Province are doing a great job. If there is any problem that is brought to our attention, we will inspect it immediately.

Naturally, in some food establishments you are going to have problems from time to time: a fly in a drink, or something like that. That is going to happen even if you inspect every establishment once a month. You cannot have a zero infraction situation.

I think that the job we are doing is a great job for the Province and I do not think that the public has any reason for concern, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just have one question. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation did not answer my colleague from Cape St. Francis when he asked him twice: When did he know negotiations were off? When was he informed that negotiations were off on the $400 million deal on wharves? So, I will ask him: When were you informed, as minister, that the federal government was not interested in pursuing this at a price tag of $400 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: The answer to the question is that we have never been notified by the federal government that negotiations are off.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday past, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture tabled in this House a report of the Special Panel on Corporate Concentration in the Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery. Throughout the report there are repeated references to issues and concerns that we, as an Opposition, have been raising over the past year. There are numerous references to how an inconsistent, uncoordinated approach to fisheries management has jeopardized the industry's performance and continues to jeopardize harvesting and processing operations. The report makes reference to the ad hoc manner in which licences have been issued, reissued and transferred.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister, now that he has this report, do what we have been asking of him for some time: to table, in the near future, his plan for the fishing industry, including clearly defined objectives for the processing sector that will bring an end to the inconsistent and chaotic manner by which this fishing industry has been managed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, if he read the report very carefully, he would realize that the members of the panel reviewed the fishery since the 1950s, and they talked about inconsistences in plans of previous governments, Mr. Speaker. Let me just give you an example: In 1974, there were ninety-five fish processing facilities in this Province. In 1974. Pay attention to the date, because we need to know who was in government in the day. That was a Tory government in 1974. There were ninety-five fish processing plants in the Province. In 1989, when they left, there were 251 fish processing facilities in the Province.

If you are talking about inconsistencies, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows more about it than I do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

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

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

I wish to table before this hon. House the Annual Report of the C.A. Pippy Park Commission, which includes the audited financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2001, together with the Commission's Annual Report as required under Section 20 of the Pippy Park Commission Act.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to give notice of the following private members' motion:

WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada commits the Parliament and Government of Canada to make equalization payments to provinces to ensure Canadians have access to reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation; and

WHEREAS the current equalization program does not meet this constitutional requirement, and there is evidence that we are moving further away from satisfying this commitment; and

WHEREAS the treatment of non-renewable resource revenues in the present equalization system is unfair;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the federal government to enhance the current equalization formula with a fairer system that re-establishes the fundamental principles on which this program is based; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House go on record of supporting the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Premier of Nova Scotia in campaigning for fairness as it relates to offshore resource royalties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Connaigre Peninsula and supporters:

WHEREAS current big game laws require non-residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to pay a fee that is approximately eight times that of residents for moose, and fifteen times as much for caribou in the inland part of the Province, and a licensed guide is required, but the present laws permit non-residents small game hunting rights equivalent to those of the residents at no extra cost;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to impose equivalent regulations concerning the hunting of small game by non-residents;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in this Province today believe that our small game wildlife resource is a valuable resource and can create many jobs in the rural parts of our Province. We need a mechanism put in place so that the non-resident hunting people can be controlled. We need a study in the effect of non-resident hunting on the pressures of our small game.

This petition, by the undersigned, urges the government to put some mechanism in place where this study of our small game resource is done so that we know the exact affect of predation and hunting pressure; particularly on rabbit and ptarmigan, which we know as the partridge. This petition from the Connaigre Peninsula is a petition by a lot of avid, small game hunters. They see - every time they go hunting in our pristine wilderness - the pressure that is on our small game.

We need a mechanism and policy in place where we can get the maximum financial benefit from our small game resource so that we can create jobs in rural Newfoundland and in places like Hermitage, Harbour Breton, and those places. In England and Scotland the small game industry creates thousands of jobs and millions of dollars, particularly on private land where the owners have a policy in place to charge the non-residents of their country who come in to hunt small game. They supply the services that are necessary for them to come and make a great deal of money in doing that. Why can't we do that too, in areas of rural Newfoundland where jobs are not so plentiful?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HUNTER: Can I have leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: Just for a couple of minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore this valuable resource. We cannot ignore the small game in this Province. It can bring in a lot of money for the government to do the necessary studies to find out what the effects of all the predation and hunting pressure are; find out what the effects are so that we can have this valuable resource there for many years to come for our future residents.

I thank the people for sending in this petition, and there are more petitions coming. I will speak on it again in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

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

I have a petition to present today on the bulk export of water from this Province. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province. Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of the benefits going outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and fair share. With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff from secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I support this petition and the people who have signed and presented this petition to me. This is a very important issue as it is a resource that we have full control over. It is a resource under provincial jurisdiction. It is a resource that has the potential to provide maximum benefits to the people of this Province in terms of jobs, in terms of spinoff royalties from the processing of bottles, packaging, transportation, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I support this petition - and the Premier looks at me and laughs as I present this petition. That is quite alright, Mr. Speaker, because this petition is a very serious petition and the people of this Province are very serious about this issue. The people of this Province want maximum benefits from this issue. They do not want a job shoved down their throat by a government who are not prepared to listen to the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are prepared to listen. We have thousands of names on petitions such as this, asking that this Province listen to the people of the Province - the people who own the resource - and ask that this resource give maximum benefits to the people of the Province. That is all they are asking. It is all that we are asking on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker, we want this resource protected for the benefit of the people of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Order 15, Mr. Speaker, second reading of An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 22.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act." (Bill 22)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a number of minor amendments to the Forestry Act. I say minor but, nonetheless, very important.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Forestry Act will provide the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods with the authority to issue a Certificate of Managed Land to harvesters. This applies to persons with forest land of 120 hectares or greater who must apply for CML prior to timber harvesting. A Certificate of Managed Land is issued upon the submission of an acceptable, annual operating plan, as well as a report detailing the operators activity during the previous year. It contains a series of guidelines which address environmental protection, harvesting parameters, specific operating conditions and amendment procedures.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment we are bringing forward today will speed up the process of issuing a CML to harvesters, especially the pulp and paper companies. The current process is often a lengthy process and requires Cabinet approval and an Order from the Lieutenant Governor in Council which is issued on the basis of the minister's recommendation. This is a straightforward amendment which will ensure a more efficient CML process. The amendment is only to provide the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods with the authority to issue the certificate, making the process more efficient and less time consuming. It will ensure a CML is issued to harvesters in a timely fashion. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment is being brought forward in that there is a court case in which a judgement has been rendered which references the fact that, because of delay in issuing the CML, it does present some problems for harvesters, and for that reason we just want to speed up the process.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing to amend the act so that it will provide for a new load-slip system in our Province. This new system is being introduced to allow a more accurate tracking of commercially harvested wood around the Province and help reduce the problem of unreported harvesting and processing of timber. This new initiative is another example of government being proactive in its overall prudent and sustainable management of the forest resource. The load-slip system will ensure a more accurate accounting process to measure wood flow from the Province and provide us with more complete information concerning the use of our forest resources. This new system will help reduce the flow of illegal timber and provide more certainty as to the drain on our forest resources, thereby enhancing the accuracy of Annual Allowable Cut calculations which govern for sustainability. Unreported harvesting has been a concern for us for some time, Mr. Speaker, and as a result, my department has been looking at ways to strengthen our process for tracking timber harvest. We are confident that this new system will greatly benefit our sustainable forest management. The new load-slip system will be implemented in the spring of 2002. Forestry officials will closely monitor the system and anyone failing to comply with the new regulations will be subject to strict penalties pursuant to the Forestry Act. The load-slip initiative, indeed, demonstrates government's commitment to sustainable forest management and I am proud to introduce this new initiative in the House.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Forestry Act that I am introducing today also includes granting the minister the authority to enter into routine timber sales agreements without requiring approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Timber sale agreements help create long-term stability for the forest industry by defining timber supply for the companies involved in the agreement. Providing the minister the authority to enter into timber sales agreements without the authority of the Cabinet will better streamline the process. These agreements demonstrate government's commitment to working with the sawmill industry to ensure stability and sustainability in this important sector of our overall forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments which are being brought forward today will serve to protect the forest resource of the Province. They will also serve to facilitate and streamline the process pursued by harvesters and those who work within the industry. I certainly commend these proposed amendments to the hon. members of the House and I look for speedy passage of these amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and have a few comments on Bill 22. This is a bill that we have been hoping to have for a long time. I am sure it is going to be welcomed by the forest industry, particularly with the independent operators who need some changes made in the Forestry Act to give them access to some of the timber and wood that is counted now as non-accessible and not even counted in the inventories of the Province.

There are some things within the act that I am not quite sure about. It is not clearly spelled out here, the things that I have been looking for, but if this act does include hardwoods and all other underutilized species, then it would be a very good act for the forest industry. Even though this act could be implemented, do we have the resources and the capabilities to enforce this act, and other acts, within forestry? It seems we do not have the necessary capabilities to monitor and enforce the existing legislation, particularly when it comes to the management of our forests within the Province. We can see, when we travel around the Province, in areas where people depend on the forestry to make a living - I seen examples, particularly near the South Coast and in the Bay d'Espoir area, where some of the smaller operators down there are not fulfilling the commitment that they should be fulfilling when it comes to harvesting timber down in that area. I have made several complaints to the department about it. If we do not have the proper enforcement and manpower to do the job that is necessary then we are going to have a lot of mismanagement in our forestry. This amendment tightens up some of the act. It gives the minister more power to decide what areas would be managed or taken out of the managed area so that some of these unmanaged areas - even though they are described as being managed under the Forestry Act, as it stands now, because a harvester must submit a harvesting plan before they start harvesting.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why this act does not include less than 120 hectares because there could be a lot of resource included in less than 120 hectares, particularly in areas where there are small patches of wood that the department feels will not be counted because it is not accessible or not feasible to harvest. These areas of wood supplies are left out of the overall picture for totaling the AACs because the the AACs are based on supply that is accessible and feasible, and designated by the paper companies and by small contractors and sawmill operators who feel that they can be successful in going in and harvesting just wood, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder is this legislation comparable to the other provinces? Is this legislation similar to what we do in other provinces? I do not know if the department has done any research and compared this new legislation and existing legislation to other provinces. It seems like other provinces take reforestation and silviculture work a lot more seriously than we do. They put a lot more money into their forestry programs and they have a lot more manpower to enforce, manage and monitor the cutting practices of the people who avail of our forest industry.

I think we need to look at that a lot more in detail than we have been doing over the last few years, because if a conservation officer is tied up doing some of the things that he is expected to do with respect to enforcing the Wildlife Act, then how can he do his job properly when it comes to enforcing the laws and legislation on the Forestry Act, particularly in areas like I was saying, in Bay d'Espoir, around St. Joseph's Cove, where a lot of locals do harvest the timber in that area for personal use? You can go in there and see the effect of unmanaged areas because of lack of enforcement officers. You can see the effect of bad cutting practices where a lot of wood is left on the ground. A lot of wood is left there to rot, wood that can be used, if not for sawlog purposes, it can be used for firewood purposes. Mr. Speaker, we do have a lot of underutilized species throughout the Province, and a lot of this underutilized species are being cut down, ran over and left on the ground to rot when we could be using it for other things. Even if it is firewood, it does save the other resource for other things such as paper making and sawlogs.

We have to recognize that this resource is scarce in the Province today, Mr. Speaker. We do have a shortage of timber supply. We do have a shortage of facts and studies, and a program for our hardwood species in this Province today. We are not sure exactly where our hardwood species are going right now, and we should have a policy in place where we know exactly what we have when it comes to the availability of hardwoods and softwoods, and also what we are going to do with it when we harvest it. We cannot afford to cut any timber, regardless of what species it is, and leave it on the ground to rot, particularly in rural Newfoundland where we need jobs. The forest industry creates thousands of jobs in my district. We have a paper mill in my district that does have a struggle and a hard time in finding enough of a resource to keep all the paper machines going.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to mismanage our industry anymore, and if anybody thinks that the department is not mismanaging it, then I have proof that we are. When I can show the minister tapes and pictures that I have of mismanaged areas in this Province, because the department does not have enough workforce to go out and enforce the laws and regulations, then that is mismanagement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: We cannot afford that today.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment in the legislation, I do agree that it is time that we do things to make sure that some of these managed areas are broken up and taken out so that we can harvest the mixed species within that managed area, because over the years contractors went in and when there were underutilized species in the way, they just cut them down, ran over them and left them on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation today is going to give the minister the power to take out that area, areas and sections that contain underutilized species. This species can be harvested by other contractors, and even the contractor who is in there if he chooses to do that, but particularly in areas where a smaller contractor and probably a non-union contractor can go in on these large company lots, and Crown lots, and take this underutilized species, whether it be birch or aspen or whatever, and harvest that to create jobs, because some of these small operators create thirty, forty or fifty jobs in small communities. They do not need the thousands and thousands of metres of wood to survive. They just need a chance to get in and harvest these patches of wood that are being left behind by the larger contractors.

With respect to the tracking of wood, the acting minister did allude to the fact that it was wood that would be tracked and counted, that it would be from the Province. I hope, Mr. Speaker, this does not just mean that is wood that is going to be taken from the Province. I hope the act, according to the acting minister, will include all wood cut and harvested that would be counted and scaled and recorded; not only the wood that is been extracted from the cutting areas, but what about the wood that is being left on the ground.

I have done a lot of flying in the Province over a number of years and I have noted a lot of areas, and I have some on tape, where piles of wood are left on the ground long after an operator has moved out of the area. We cannot allow that to happen any more. If we are going to track wood, and if we are going to count the wood and record the wood, then we are going to have to also look at the wood that is being left behind, and make sure that any contractor or harvester does go back and clean up that wood; and, if it is not feasible for him to do that for pulp wood or sawlogs, then he is going to have to find a way to get that wood out for firewood. We cannot afford to cut good wood and leave it on the ground when people have to go out and get permits to cut green wood or hardwoods for firewood when we are leaving too much on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this legislation includes all wood that is being cut, not only extracted but cut, and if it is left there then the legislation will force the operators to go in and clean up what is around the cutting site.

Sometimes these contractors look at the wood supply and say: Well, I will leave that wood there because it is too hard to get out. In the next while, someone goes in there, sees that wood on the ground, and says: I think I will take that wood for firewood because it is never going to come out. Then they get in trouble for taking wood that has been cut by a licensed operator. I have seen cases of that in the Bay d'Espoir area.

We must make sure that the forestry technicians, the forestry conservation officers, visit the sites on a regular basis, make a count of all of the people who have permits and all the people who harvest in these areas, so that when they go back to do their inspection they can make whoever it is accountable for not abiding by the legislation, by the policy. What is the good of having policies - and these are good policies. I am not arguing that these policies are not a step in the right direction. They certainly are. I would just like to see them expanded a little further. The minister certainly needs the power to control and manage the resources in the forestry, Mr. Speaker, and to decide what is going to be certified to manage and what is going to be taken out of a block. Sometimes the minister has to make that decision in a short order because contractors cannot wait for a long period of time to have wood lying in a country, standing in a country, when they have men off work waiting for a decision by Cabinet to give him permission to go in and cut it, particularly when it come to fire damaged wood.

We saw in the last few years a lot of damaged areas, and these are fairly large areas, that are damaged to the point where it is no good for pulp and paper and no good for sawlogs, but it does make a great firewood supply.

By the time Cabinet gets through allowing the contractors to go in there, having their Cabinet meetings, and going through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, then it could be a year or two years down the road. I think the department and the minister need the ability to make that decision, whether this wood can be harvested in a timely manner, especially when it comes to some of the species within that block that is not damaged and can be used for pulpwood or sawlogs. We cannot just leave that wood unattended and ignore that wood for any length of time, Mr. Speaker. We have to harvest it as soon as possible.

The former minister was involved in some of the fires over the last couple of years when he worked very hard, and I have talked to him many times on the issue of harvesting this damaged wood. Mr. Speaker, I have to commend him for working very hard to get these areas cleaned up. Today, we have been very lucky that the past year has not been a very bad year for forest fires; but the year before there were a lot and we need to clean up these areas now and do some silviculture work, replanting, and make sure this area is groomed for a new generation of forests for our next generation of cutters and workers in the forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is certainly good legislation to give the minister and the department some freedom, some ability, to go in and do what is necessary in areas where it needs to be done in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, there are not enough guidelines within the Forestry Act to give public consultation and public say to the way the land should be managed; because if the act says this land is a managed land and now we want to take it out and call it a certified managed area, then was it managed in the beginning? Was it always managed? In some areas we can see that even though it was classified as managed it certainly was not managed when we abuse and misuse our forest resources the way that we have been doing it for a number of years. Even the present minister said, about a month ago, that the problem went back fifteen to twenty years ago, blaming it on the former government back then.

I would say that is incorrect. The problem in our forestry in this Province started within the last ten to twelve years, when we started cutting back on programs, when we started cutting back on silviculture, cutting back on the workforce within forestry, when we used to have probably five or six forestry technicians and conservation officers managing the forest in a particular district, and now we are down to one. Mr. Speaker, one person cannot do the work of five and six. It is impossible for a conservation officer to get in there and do the job that he wants to do and that he should be doing, because they are very confused, they are very frustrated because of the lack of resources for them, the lack of help when they know they have to enforce wildlife regulations and forestry regulations, and they know that certain sectors of wildlife have been unattended and there are a lot of violations with respect to the Wildlife Act, particularly in areas where there is a lack of patrols and a lack of officers.

I get many calls from people who are concerned about this. I get many calls from conservation officers who are concerned about it and say that too much money is being spent at the top and not enough money is being spent on conservation officers. Too much money is going to the directors and top management people who use government vehicles at their own discretion and then, when it comes to having the proper number of conservation officers, they are not there to enforce the regulation and policies of the department.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, some of them are in his district. Some of them are in the Bay d'Espoir area. They are all over the Province, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. He should be just as much concerned about it as anybody on this side.

I am certainly concerned about it because, Mr. Speaker, our wildlife resource is important and our forestry resource is important. Both of them must exist together, and we have to protect them. Even though we do have a shared enforcement policy and shared enforcement officers with wildlife and forestry officers, it is not enough. We do not have enough people within the department to do the necessary studies, to do the studies on the impact of not availing of the hardwoods and underutilized species: what we should be doing with them, where we should be harvesting them, at what stage should we harvest these species, then what should we do after they are harvested? Should we replant with softwood species? Should we let natural generation? Mr. Speaker, we have to put more money back into this resource. There are ways that we can do that, through the co-operation of our paper mills and large sawmill operators.

I have to commend our paper mills. They do a fairly good job in managing their own limits, and they do a good job in doing the necessary services with respect to firefighting and forest management and silvaculture, but we need more. We need more input from the paper mills, Mr. Speaker, the large operators. We need more input from the federal government. We need more input from the provincial government.

We cannot have a good sustainable provincial forestry program, Mr. Speaker, without the co-operation of the federal government. The minister needs to have regular consultation and meetings with the federal forestry department to make sure that the federal forestry, the federal government, buys in on the way that we take care of our forests. Without those federal dollars, we are not going to be able to do it in a sustainable manner. Mr. Speaker, it takes millions and millions of dollars every year to make sure that, when we cut a tree, another one will grow back in its place and there will be another tree to cut some day down the road for our future generations.

That is what it is all about, protecting our resources so that all stakeholders could have an input, all stakeholders would be protected, whether it be sightseeing, eco-tourism, wildlife, even the fish, the loggers; everybody has a stake in our forest industry today, Mr. Speaker. The quicker we realize that, and the quicker we get the federal government on side to put the necessary resources and money into our silvaculture programs and our forest protection programs, the quicker we will have a new forest for our future generations. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford to let nature take its course and regenerate the areas that we have been misusing and mismanaging for years.

I say to the acting minister - I know the minister is off sick, and I hope for a speedy recovery for him - it is a tough area to be acting minister in, when it is the third largest resource industry in this Province. It takes a lot of time and commitment to manage this area. It is tough for anybody who would be acting in that portfolio to make sure that the necessary things are done and to listen to the people who know: the people who are working in that industry, the people who are in the woods, the people who are involved in every aspect of forestry, every aspect of wildlife. They know the situation, and they know what needs to be done.

Not all of the time does it have to be money, Mr. Speaker. Lots of times we have the policies, we have the legislation, but we do not have the manpower, in a lot of cases, to do the things that need to be done. Mr. Speaker, if we had the proper manpower, if we had the proper number of conservation officers, then we would not have wasted resources - wood left on the ground. We would not have wildlife being abused and being taken advantage of and poached. A lot of that is going on in the Province today, Mr. Speaker, because the people know that there is a limited number, a small number, of enforcement officers. We have almost as many management positions as we have conservation officers in the field. There is no trouble to find, somewhere in the Province, management who are dealing with management issues. Equally as important, we need the officers out in the field, out in the country, making sure that when somebody uses our forest resource, if somebody uses our wildlife resource, that they are doing it in the proper manner and they are doing it in a responsible manner, and not breaking the law when they go out and do that.

Mr. Speaker, the only way we could do that is to increase the number of conservation officers, increase the number of technicians to visit the areas, to make sure that species are grown in a proper manner, and have them visited regularly to make sure there is nothing impeding the growth of our forests. I know that the officers and the technicians that we do have are working hard to do their job, but when there is not enough of them then something has to suffer. The industry has to suffer for it, because when you visit an area once a year, it is not good enough. It is not good enough to visit an area once a year to find out if everybody is abiding by the policies, rules and laws of the department. The only way we could do that is to have more people within the department to keep an eye on these things.

Mr. Speaker, I support this change in the legislation. It will do some of the things that I have been arguing to do the past couple of years. It will give the department, the minister, the ability to do that. I welcome this amendment to the Forestry Act and I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation seeks to make some changes to the regime for the certification of land, forest land, as managed land. This has enormous implications for public policy in the Province because I think it is important to look back as to: What is this all about? What is the meaning of managed land?

It takes us back to about twenty-five years ago when we first instituted legislation concerning the management of lands, based on an attempt by government to exercise some control over the forest companies and over land that was alienated by the Crown as early as 1905, but where most of our land, or much of our forested land, was in fact in private hands, subject to ninety-nine years leases or outright fee simple grants. The government of the day had very few, or little or no mechanisms to force forest companies to actually renew their land, to institute forest management practices, to institute silviculture practices, to ensure that they were, in fact, harvesting their land properly, to ensure that they were restocking the land, to ensure that there was, in fact, some form of sustainable management.

The minister said today, and the Opposition critic, they all talked about sustainable management. That is a great phrase, Mr. Speaker, but it is not what is taking place in our forestry sector today; and because it is not taking place, the forestry sector is, in fact, in a crisis.

The acting minister recognizes, but the minister who the minister is now acting for issued a statement in September saying that the Annual Allowable Cut would likely have to be reduced by as much as 10 per cent to 25 per cent because the forest was not being sufficiently restocked, that the regeneration of our forest was not taking place in the manner that it should, and that was going to affect the total Annual Allowable Cut. That, itself, was going to make it obviously more difficult for any companies in business to manage, result in a loss of employment in our forest industry and have other drastic, ripple effects on communities simply because the forest was not being managed properly.

The system of issuing certifications of managed land is one where a company comes forward with a management plan to the minister, and the government, and it is either approved or not. If it is not approved or if it is not managed land, there is a forest management land tax applied to it. This is kind of like a carrot-and-stick approach where, if the land is unmanaged, it is subject to a hefty tax, even if it is privately owned, and if that company submits a plan to the minister that is approved then that tax is waived, there is no tax. So it is a carrot-and-stick approach, by which instrument the government seeks to ensure that the forest lands in the Province are maintained.

Now the reality is that we haven't, in this Province, been insisting or making companies reforest. Silviculture is done, I would submit, haphazardly. We do it from grants that are given, in some cases, like road grants. You know, every summer you see the member for such-and-such a place announcing that they have a silviculture project for his or her district, employing eighteen people for so many weeks. They are treated that way by this government as make-work projects, in some cases, rather than a serious effort to restock our forests.

The previous speaker talked about: What are we doing here that is different from other provinces? Well, if you look at any study of forestry in Canada, and look at the amount of land or the percentage of forest land in various provinces that is not actually available for harvesting, you will see the letters NSR, which means not sufficiently restocked. So, actual forest land that is subject to having been harvested once and has not been sufficiently restocked is no longer considered to be available for harvesting, because the owner of the land or the company or the government hasn't insisted that that land be properly restocked.

We have probably one of the highest percentages in the country of land that is not sufficiently restocked that is within the definition of available land for forestry, but cannot be counted because it has not been sufficiently restocked, having been harvested.

We have a system in this Province that, I believe, needs a serious overhaul. We have to examine some of the assumptions that are associated with the management approaches that are taken by the government and by the companies. We have to examine the relationship between the modern notions of ecological sustainability and the forest management practices that have been operating here for a long time. We have a serious crisis. We call it a wood supply shortage in some places. I think it is a crisis in management. The wood supply has been predicted as being insufficient to handle the expectations that are made on it. We have three mills operating on this Island, and anybody who knows anything about the forest industry of this Province, whether they be logging in the woods, whether they be working in the mills, or whether they be living in one of the towns that are affected by this, knows that we have more demand on our wood supply than the wood supply can meet. So we have created a situation where there is constant pressure on the wood supply, constant pressure on the companies that operate the mills to extract every bit of fiber, as they call it - they don't like to call it trees - that they can from our forests in order to keep the mills going; and not only to keep them going but, in fact, to increase production. We have seen production increases in the last number of years. So the more production increases that take place, the more pressure there is on our forests.

We really do have to examine all of what is going on here. In fact, I think we are in a situation where what is really required is a complete review of the forestry industry, because while we may have a crisis at this point, there are also opportunities in the forestry industry that we have been missing.

There have been some studies done. The member asked whether or not there have been any studies done. The most comprehensive study of forest practices in Canada, that I have seen, Mr. Speaker, were done, believe it or not, by the Senate of Canada. The Senate of Canada produced a report in June of 2000. Everybody seems to think that the senators do not do anything, and I am not a big fan of the Senate - in fact, our party has a policy for many years of abolishing the unelected Senate - but the senators did have time and found the time from their, no doubt, busy schedules to do an important study on forestry in Canada. It is called the Boreal Forest at Risk. It talks about the competing values and competing interests in forest lands in Canada.

They came up with some very remarkable recommendations, Mr. Speaker. I think anybody involved in the forest industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly if their jobs and livelihood depend on it, would do well to look at this study. It compares forest management practices across Canada. It is not totally accurate. They seem to think, for example, that clear-cutting practices do not happen on areas greater than 40 hectares to 60 hectares, when in Newfoundland and Labrador we have seen clear-cuts as much as 5,500 hectares of land in newly cut areas. They seem to have some misunderstandings about what actually happens in this Province. It really is worth studying because they looked at forest management practices, they looked at harvesting practices, they looked at intensive management practices, and one of their conclusions was that if we adopted, in Canada, some of the intensive forest management practices that are in place in other parts of the world - including places like Norway, Scandinavia - that we, in fact, could increase, by as much as 100 per cent, the yield that we get from an intensively managed piece of land. They have recommended, in fact, a system which would meet some of the competing realities that we have. A system that would, in fact, have greater harvest ability on intensively managed property; a mixed use area set aside for the multiple uses of forest land including harvesting for pulpwood, harvesting for sawmills, harvesting for firewood, but also other recreational uses of the same forest land; the setting aside of 20 per cent of the land for intensive management along these Norwegian models; about 60 per cent for multiple uses; and, interestingly enough, up to 20 per cent - is a figure they used - to maintain in a pristine state for future generations to have - because of biodiversity issues and all of that.

They have also shown that the harvesting practices have changed substantially over time. We, in this Province, have yet to bring our own forest practices into the twenty-first Century. We have seen some changes. We have seen that forest companies can respond to public pressure and change. Even in the most recent months we have seen Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, for example, in forest management district 16 come in with a totally different harvesting plan which they said they could not do without a year ago. The one they said they could not do without a year ago is no longer even operative. They now have a totally different plan using selective cutting methods and different types of forestry cutting methods than they proposed a year ago and said they could not live without.

This is an indication, Mr. Speaker, that there is plenty of room for change in our forest management practices. Not only that, I think it is time that we opened up the whole thing to a public review, perhaps by way of something as intensive as a Royal Commission. We have timber leases, for example, or large ninety-nine year leases expiring in the next couple of years. These are supposedly being renegotiated. I know the acting minister spoke about it the other day and said there was going to be a full public consultation on the renegotiation of these leases.

Mr. Speaker, I seen - and I do not know where it came from but sometimes these things show up in your office from various places - a draft proposal for the renewing of a ninety-nine year lease, which is another ninety-nine year lease. I hope we are not going to get into the same kind of thing we were in before, a lease that was entered into in 1905 or 1904, forms the basis of an agreement that we are going to enter into in the year 2002 or 2003 that is going to last another ninety-nine years. We have to get away from these kinds of commitments that were being made on behalf of the people of Newfoundland, binding future generations in a set of circumstances that may be changed in five, ten or fifteen years time.

I think we should take a lesson from the Province of Alberta, who only got their oil resources in 1930 through the generosity of the Government of Canada, who transferred all the subsoil rights to the Province of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan in 1930. They did not do the same thing for Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, they went to court and insisted that we go to court to fight over the offshore resources that we brought into Confederation, but the Government Canada gave to the people of Alberta all the subsoil rights in 1930.

When the people of Alberta enter into leases, royalty regimes and royalty agreements with oil companies, there is a very special qualifier, and that qualifier is subject to change based on the Government of Alberta's decisions as to what should be contained in these leases. The Government of Alberta always retains the right to amend those oil leases because they are the owner of the resource. That is a very important consideration. That does not mean you cannot make commitments and create expectations with a company. But, at the end of the day, it is the people of the province who should have the right to insist that the rules be changed if they are not meeting the needs of the people of the province.

We do have a viable forestry industry in this Province. We have an important forestry industry in this Province. I think we can have a much better forestry industry if we modernize our approach and practices, and, in fact, modernize our regime so that the people of the Province have more say and influence. One of the affects, in fact, of the regime we have now is where the company does a management plan; they go to the government for approval. Now this legislation is going to say the minister can approve it. Without the Cabinet, the minister can approve it. What happens if they do not follow the plan? What happens if something goes wrong? Can the minister revoke the licence? No, that is not what this bill says. This bill says that the minister can grant the licence. The minister can say: go ahead, this is managed land; but the minister will not be given the power to revoke it. The minister will not be given the power to change the status of land that has been certified as being managed. Why is that? Why are we making it harder to force companies to comply with their management agreements than we are to give them a certificate of managed lands? That is a question that I think this government has to answer because we are, in fact, saying to these companies - that are charged with the responsibility of managing forest lands - you must submit your proposal. You must show how you are going to manage this land in order to get a certificate, which gives you a break from having to pay taxes.

That is the system that we are using. If you do not follow your plan and the government wants to do something about it, the minister cannot act. The minister's hands are tied unless he can get the Cabinet to approve a change in status. The minister just finished saying how difficult it was, how cumbersome it was, to have the Cabinet approve a plan of this nature. If it is a cumbersome, difficult matter to have a plan approved, surely it is even more cumbersome and even more difficult to have the whole Cabinet take action as drastic as revoking a licence or certificate of managed land that has the effect of imposing attacks on land that is not sufficiently managed. We have a situation where a very important industry in this Province is not being managed properly, and I do not think that anybody can convince me to state otherwise.

When the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods can say, in this Province, less than two months ago, that we may have to cut back on the total Annual Allowable Cut by 10 per cent to 25 per cent because we have not been reforesting our lands properly then that means there is bad management. When the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper insists that it needs to cut a 7,000 year old forest that has never been touched by harvesting, that it has to be cut down because they want the fiber - and they have been operating in this Province in excess of seventy-five years. If they have to go into virgin forest that has never been touched, and yet they say they are having a sustainable management, then something is wrong with our forestry industry. We have a serious problem on our hands. We have a lot of decisions to make. Some of them may be tough decisions but we believe that if a proper study is done, if a proper application of the principles of sustainability is done, if we bring our forestry practices into the twenty-first Century we can, in fact, improve the land we have. We can create more jobs and more wealth, not only for the people directly involved in the forestry industry - whether they are harvesters in the woods, loggers, and people who are cutting timber or the businesses that are associated with it - but the paper mills, the sawmills and the further finishing that is done with the forest product. We have a crisis -

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have a minute to clue up.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: There is a crisis in our forestry. We are not managing the forestry properly. I think the questions are so complex in some cases. We are dealing with confrontations on a one-time basis. Every time an issue comes up we have to deal with it as if it is a crisis, as if it is a conflict between jobs and the environment, or a conflict between jobs on the one hand and trees on the other. This is not an issue which ought to be the subject of individual conflicts. It is something that I think can be done properly. I believe that we really do have to do a full scale study, and I would ask the minister and his officials to consider a full scale study of the forestry industry through something in the nature of a royal commission to look at many of these issues, particularly the forest practice issues, particularly the leases that are coming up for renewal and also in particular, the kind of opportunities that exist for reforestation in the Province.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am going to attempt, during my brief comments, to bring some relevance back to the actual amendments that are being put forward. Although I fully respect the hon. member's wishes to cover not just the amendment at hand but also some far reaching issues that pertain to the forest industry, I do take exception at the same time though, to the fact that if we were to listen to some of the speakers this afternoon we would have a great fear that our forest industry is not only about to collapse but indeed those who participate - the harvesters, the pulp and paper companies who are out there creating tens of thousands of jobs in this Province - in actual fact, that the vast majority of them are not doing a good job. I do not share in that thought, Madam Speaker. I believe, for the most part, that the harvesters who are working in the forestry industry today are doing the very best job they can and the vast majority of them are doing it right. When you are dealing with some 10,000 employees and the number of harvesters that we have in Newfoundland, without a doubt, there are some things that will go wrong but I have faith in what they are trying to do in this industry. I have great faith in what they have been able to accomplish over the years in trying to maintain a sustainable industry in this Province.

Madam Speaker, the amendment to the Forestry Act will provide the Minister of Forest Resources with the authority to issue a Certificate of Managed Land. It allows the minister to move quickly, if need be, or indeed he himself, or she, will study the plan that comes forward from any harvester. They will have an opportunity, with their officials, to review the plan in great detail and, as opposed to having to go through the process of then preparing a lengthy Cabinet document, preparing a proposal to go before Cabinet, which could take yet a number of weeks or longer, the minister is only going to go to Cabinet promoting, reporting, and asking for permission to move forward with something that has already been accepted and approved by his department.

It will cut through the red tape and allow the people who operate in the industry the opportunity to move quickly, to react to given situations and, for the most part, ensure that we maintain the high standards and the high levels of employment that we have in the industry.

Again, I say, some 10,000 individuals are employed in the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and we want to ensure that, not simply because of the red tape, of having to go through a lengthy process, the minister is able to react and meet the needs quickly.

The amendment specifically also speaks in terms of the requirement for 120 hectares, or greater, in order to qualify for the CML, or the Certificate of Managed Land. The emphasis there, of course, is that when you reach the 120 hectares plus, you are into a parcel of land that is manageable, hopefully, for many years to come. You are dealing with a piece of land, or a section of land, that a harvester can work on for many generations to come; but, let's not just think in terms of the fact that the harvester will go in without a plan. In order to receive a Certificate of Managed Land, there has to be an acceptable operating plan as well as a detailed report of the operator's activities for the year before. The operator is either doing the job that was required the year before, and the detailed plan which is reviewed by the department will say so; if not, the following year's plan will either have to be up to par or the minister has the right not to issue a new licence. That reporting mechanism is there to ensure that the property and the land in question is being used in a wise sense to enhance the needs not only of the industry but from the employment factor.

There are a number of other issues that are being dealt with in this amendment as well. In particular, the plan and the guidelines put forward have to address, must address and will address, the environmental protection of the land. It will also include the harvesting parameters. It will also deal with the specific conditions that will be required in order to harvest the section of land in question properly to the maximum needs not only of the harvester but of the environment as well.

The amendment the minister is bringing forward today will speed up the process. I think, Madam Speaker, that is something that will be very important to all harvesters and indeed to the pulp and paper industry in this Province.

We cannot continue with a situation where the process is lengthy, we cannot continue with a situation where decisions need to be made quickly because of extenuating circumstance, that we drag the process longer, and indeed the process could be dragged on long enough that harvesters could be sent home.

This government is in the business of creating employment and streamlining issues that departments have to deal with, streamlining them to the point that we can guarantee that harvesters and individuals who work in the industry can move quickly to adapt to their needs.

Madam Speaker, what we are looking to do, really, is to simply provide the minister with the authority to cut through the time that would be required to carry out the needs and the work that needs to be done. The amendment will provide the minister with the authority to move quickly and to move more efficiently and in a time-saving manner.

The additional item that the minister referred to was the Load Slip System. The Load Slip System, Madam Speaker, is in effect in many other Provinces. What this new system being introduced by the minister today will allow, is that it will allow a more accurate tracking of commercially harvested wood. It will allow that in areas all over the Province. In doing so, it will help reduce the unreported harvesting and processing of timber. This initiative, Madam Speaker, is yet another example of government being pro-active in its overall prudent and sustainable management of our forest resource. The Load Slip System will ensure a more accurate accounting process to measure the wood flow around the Province and provide government with more complete information concerning the use of our forest resources. The Load Slip System, Madam Speaker, will ensure that we are not just standing back and waiting, we are being pro-active in the sense that it would allow us to catch those who are illegally taking our forest industry or taking timber from the forest. It will allow us to ensure that, because of the Load Slip System and the monitoring that will take place, we will have an opportunity to stop the drain on our forest resources, thereby enhancing an Annual Allowable Cut calculation which governs forest sustainability. Sustainability is what the minister and the department are looking to achieve.

Unreported harvesting has been a concern of this government for some time. As a result, the department has been looking at ways to strengthen the process for tracking the timber harvest. Government, through the minister, is confident that this new system will greatly benefit our sustainable forest management. The new system that will come into effect in the spring of 2002 will, in itself, give the department and give government a greater opportunity to monitor what is happening. The Load Slip System indeed demonstrates government's commitment to a sustainable forest management.

Mr. Speaker, I, with the minister and all of my colleagues here, are proud to introduce this new initiative into the House of Assembly. These are the pertinent facts that we are looking to deal with, with respect to the amendments coming forward today, and I am more than pleased and proud to support the minister's initiatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I stand today to take part in the debate of Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

Madam Speaker, I might sway a little bit away from the act. It is a forestry issue and some of the issues concern my district, with forestry being one of the biggest employers in my district, I say to members opposite, with two major sawmills, integrated sawmills, and with dozens and dozens of private sawmills in the area there. At one time the forestry industry was probably the biggest - it was the biggest - employer in the District of Bonavista South at one particular time. It was always a situation, I say to the acting minister, where if somebody did not have an income, they could take their knapsack on their back in the fall of the year and jump on the train and go to work. There was no such thing as going to look for a job; it was just a matter of showing up and going to work. Obviously, things have changed, Madam Speaker. There are a lot less commercial sawmill operations in Bonavista South, on the Bonavista Peninsula, right now, and there are certainly a lot less people working in the logging industry.

I would like to make a couple of comments. I would like to make a comment about the way that the Annual Allowable Cut for the individual quotas is allocated. Normally, in the spring of the year, in the early spring of the year and in the winter, government makes a decision on what the Annual Allowable Cut is going to be for that particular year. Last year, the Annual Allowable Cut wasn't brought forward and all the small sawmill operators, the logging operators, I should say, were told, when they went to pick up their permits, that they were given the authority to cut 50 per cent of their allowable cut. The comment was: Go out and cut 50 per cent and come back and then we will tell you how much you are allowed to cut, because we are not certain if we are going to be able to sustain the numbers that we provided last year.

Just imagine, Madam Speaker. How can you run a business by not knowing what you are allowed to produce, I say to government members here. What would happen if you told the farmer to go ahead and plant his fields, and at the end of the year there might be markets for 50 per cent or 80 per cent of his crop? I compared it to the minister, and I went to the minister and complained. I said: Minister, you, being a former dairy farmer, how could you run your dairy business knowing how many animals you had, and the Milk Marketing Board told you that you might only be allowed to sell 50 per cent of the milk you produced? That is how absurd this is, I say to the minister. They were given 50 per cent of the quota that they were allowed to cut. They went back, after they had their 50 per cent quota cut, expecting to get the other 50 per cent, and they were told: We are still not sure. This is up in June month now, I say to the acting minister. They were told: We are still not sure what we are going to allow you to cut, so we are going to issue you another 20 per cent. We are only going to give you 20 per cent more and come back again. That is not the way to run a logging operation. That is not the way to run a business, because that is what logging operations are; they are businesses.

I say to the minister, this year your mind should be made up. You should know what the Annual Allowable Cut is, and when the logger comes to your office, to your district office, looking for his permit for the quota that he is allowed to be able to cut, he should be told up front, not to be told: Go out and cut 50 per cent and come back and we will give you another 20 per cent or we will decide somewhere along the line what quota you are allowed to cut.

One particular individual, because of the type of wood that he is cutting, called me and said: I have a harvester here that I am renting. I have a harvester here that had to travel all the way from Grand Falls. I had to pay for the travel time. I have had to pay for it on an hourly rate, and I do not know what I am allowed to cut. I got 70 per cent, but I do not know if I am going to get the other 30 per cent or not. Finally, after many discussions and after some phone calls, the minister said: No, you are right. That is not the way that it should be. He said: Tell them to go ahead; cut the same quota that they had last year and we will take it from there.

I say to the acting minister, I hope he keeps that kind of thing in mind when he allows the quotas to be issued this year, because those people are running a business. That is what it is; it is a business. They employ dozens of people, some of them. They should know up front exactly what their quota is going to be so they can plan and they can organize and they can make preparation in order to carry out that particular business.

Another situation - and I think this might be taking things a little bit too far - when we saw the rules and regulations brought in a few years ago, where you are allowed now to go and access and get a domestic cutting permit, you are allowed to go and get a domestic cutting permit and you are allowed to name a helper, one helper, on that particular cutting permit. That is the only person who is allowed to be in the woods with you cutting your firewood while you are using that permit. I say to the acting minister, does he realize that the person out there today with that domestic cutting permit is not allowed to even take his wife with him on a skidoo when he is pulling his firewood from the woods out to the place that he stacks it?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

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

The only person who is allowed to take part in cutting that wood and transporting it to an area where it can be accessed by a truck or another vehicle is that helper named on that permit, I say to the member. That is the only person who is allowed to take part in that wood. If I had a domestic cutting permit and I decided some great afternoon, some sunny afternoon, that I was going to take my wife with me on my skidoo or on my trike and go into the woods and start piling on the wood to bring it out to a road area where I want to stack the wood to haul it the rest of the way in my pickup truck, if I am caught I can be fined $75. I can be fined, I can be taken to court, because she is not named on that permit. Check it out and see if I am not correct.

Madam Speaker, another situation - and I am going to raise those issues because I believe, as a Member of the House of Assembly, that I should stand here and bring forward concerns as expressed to me by the people that I serve. A couple of years ago, Madam Speaker, I had a call from a constituent of mine who was up by the side of the road cutting, what I call, withe sticks. I guess they are white spruce about the size of your little finger. He was up by the side of the road cutting those sticks in order to bring them home and rind them to make the rings for his lobster pots. He was up by the side of the road and he came out and he was allowed - I think he was making fifty pots that year and he had an armful of what I call withe sticks. The Member for Bonavista North knows what I am talking about, Madam Speaker.

As he was coming to put them in the box of his truck, he was approached by one of the conservation officers who said: Could I see your permit, please? He said: I do not have my permit with me. He said: Well, can we go back to your house where I can see if you have a cutting permit to be allowed to cut those sticks right here? He was outside of his cutting area, cutting this armful of scrub brush along by the side of the road - an armful- and got fined $75. He got fined $75 for cutting an armful of withe sticks in order to make the rings in his lobster pots.

I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, he was fined. He was issued a $75 ticket.

Another example - and I am going to bring this kind of thing up here because this can tell you the kind of things that are happening out there today. I always refer to the art of boat building. The art of wooden boat building is an art that is fastly disappearing. One time you saw a boat going up the bay and you could tell where the boat was built and who built the boat. It is an art that is disappearing very fast, I say to people opposite.

Madam Speaker, I had a call from a constituent of mine one day who went out and was cutting - he was not cutting because if anybody knows about the timber for boats, you do not cut them, you dig them out of the ground. You dig them out of the ground, a stick that is after falling down or a root that forms the right shape of a boat. He called me and he said: I just wanted to let you know that I got a $75 ticket. I said: What, were you speeding? No, he said, let me tell you. He said: I was stopped by the side of the road and I had the tailgate taken off my truck and I had a piece of timber that I dug out of an area, a piece of boat timber that I dug out in the woods. A wildlife officer came by -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, hang on until I finish the story. A wildlife officer came by and said; Sir, I see you have a stick in the box of your truck. Can you show me your cutting permit? He said: I don't have one. I went in, I dug that out of the ground, a stick that had fallen down. I am building a boat. He was issued a $75 ticket. Is this what we are expecting our conservation officers to do? I am not sure if they have received direction from the Minister of Forestry and Agrifoods to go and do those things. It was two different people.

MR. SMITH: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. Two different conservation officers, I say to the minister.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development is aware of a couple of those instances because I raised them with him when he was the Minister of Forestry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes I did.

AN HON. MEMBER: No you never.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes I did. I raised it with him when he was Minister of Forestry, Madam Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no you did not.

MS S. OSBORNE: He is calling you a liar, Roger.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, Madam Speaker, we have problems with not having enough trees, not having enough fiber, to supply everybody who wants a cutting permit. We have problems with not having the Annual Allowable Cut that should be put out there in order for people to be able to maintain the cut that they had the year before and the year before. Maybe it is time, I say to the minister, that the government look at taking back some permits. Maybe it is time the government start compensating loggers the same as they have compensated fishermen, if they want to take some pressure off the forestry. Maybe that is the way that we should be going, because I am not so certain that we are reaching out and really tending to the problem by cutting back 10 and 15 per cent every year. What happens then is another operator will buy out the existing operator, which is unfortunate, because that particular operator shouldn't be expected to have a layout of money every year in order to maintain the quota that he always had.

We are still not taking the pressure off what is happening within our forest industry. Maybe it is time that we might look at an approach such as that. If we want to reduce the pressure on cutting activity within the forest industry, maybe it is time the government might look at buying back permits, taking them out of the system altogether, and allowing the people with their permits who create employment the opportunity to maintain their levels of quota, so they might be able to carry on a business.

It is an important piece of legislation, and I understand this piece of legislation is going in the right direction, but I just wanted to make hon. members aware of some of the things that are happening in this particular industry, and maybe the acting minister can make his colleague aware of some of those issues and move in a way to correct them, and not use our conservation officers in a way that they are used to their fullest value, and sometimes bring a little bit of common sense when we are dealing with people who might be doing some little infraction on the side of the law.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, and Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thank the hon. members for their participation in this debate. If I could just make a few observations with regard to some of the comments that came forward in the debate.

First of all, just a reminder to all hon. members: the amendments as they are coming forward today pertain to commercial activities. There was some question from the hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale with regard to the size of the operation, the less than 120 hectares. I guess for anyone who travels in the forests of the Province it is not difficult to find situations where, certainly, the forest management practices are less than desirable. This minister will not stand in the House and try to suggest to these hon. members or the people of the Province that, in fact, everything is well in terms of what is happening out there. As a matter of fact, I had a personal situation a few years ago where I own a remote cabin where there was some logging done. As a matter of fact, I built the cabin in an area which I thought was fairly remote, very little in the way of wood resource, and, certainly in my lifetime, I did not expect to see any activity there. I was surprised to go back one spring to find that, in fact, the area had been cut over. There was no question that in my trip to the area I was deeply, deeply concerned by what I saw there.

One of the things that I did was to bring it to the attention of the officials, and I would assume the hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale did reference the fact and he did, I think, point in his remarks to a tape that he has. I would hope that he has shared that with the officials. Aside from the fact that we have conservation officers who are out there charged with the enforcement of the legislation that we have, I think it is incumbent upon all of the citizens of this Province to assume a responsibility for the resource. The resource does not belong to this minister, it does not belong to this department, it belongs to all the people of the Province. So all of us have a responsibility, especially those of us who travel in the forests and the outdoors, if we see things happening that we think are not acceptable to certainly bring that to the attention of the authorities. Regardless of the number of enforcement officials that we have working for us in the Province to make sure that the regulations are being observed and adhered to, we can never absolutely guarantee that there will not be an infraction happening somewhere in this Province. You would have to have is someone stationed, physically, in every area of the Province to absolutely guarantee that nothing of this sort will ever happen. The real key is, anybody who travels and anybody who sees anything out of the way, to take the time to bring it to the attention of our officials.

I certainly must say that, from my own prospective at the time, when I brought it to the attention of the local officials, their response was immediate. They were on the scene within a couple of days and they did get back to me. My understanding was that there was some action taken that was subsequent to that.

Related to that, the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi made reference to the management end of it, of the lands and the certificate. I think in a way the hon. member was confusing - or it appeared to me - the leasing and the actual land management. The ninety-nine year lease, which has been in the media for the last couple of days - we have had the media take some interest in the fact that some of the ninety-nine year leases that companies hold in this Province are due to expire. As a matter of fact, the first of these will be expiring shortly, and a number of them over the next few weeks and years ahead. Under these leases, of course, the companies were given the timber rights on these holdings. I guess the debate that has taken place in the last few days is with regard to the royalties that accrue to the Province from this resource that is held for the people.

I saw a transcript of an entry which the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale did, and it was pretty obviously from his remarks that he certainly has an appreciation for the sensitivity of what we are talking about here. We are talking about trying to protect an industry that is of utmost importance to the people of this Province.

In terms of the hon. Member from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and what he has referencing, I do not know what report or study he has seen on his desk in the last little while but, for the life of me, no one has come to me or suggested to me - and I would suggest to him that there is certainly no appetite on this side of the House for us to ever again to look at an arrangement looking ninety-nine years out. I mean that is just not on. Surely we have gone beyond that point and recognize that we have difficulty in getting companies to submit five-year plans, let alone saying to us they are going to give us a ninety-nine year lease, and we can accept that and assume that they will be able to cooperate and function for that extended period of time.

Madam Speaker, when we move forward in a management of this resource, as we do with all resources in the Province, there is a challenge to all of us to try to make sure that we are aware of all the interests that are out there, all the competing interests. There is certainly a concern for the environment. We want to protect our environment. We all take great pride in the pristine environment that we have, the tremendous potential that it has for us in tourism and also the fact that most Newfoundlanders generally, as a people, love and enjoy the outdoors. This is something that we want to preserve for future generations.

Madam Speaker, we cannot lose site of the fact that the forest industry in this Province is of tremendous importance. Right now, it is providing between 8,000 to 10,000 real jobs to the people of the Province, in terms of salaries, it is $150 million, and in terms of additional expenditures, $500 million on an annual basis. Madam Speaker, this is generating wealth. This is creating wealth for all of the people of the Province. It is a tremendous industry, one that we have to support, definitively, and one that we have to sustain.

Make no doubt about it, there are communities in this Province, if we were not able to provide the fibre that they need to maintain their mills, then these communities would have a difficult time in surviving. That is always what we have to be aware of. We are talking about communities, we are talking about real people, we are talking about their lives and those of their families, and these are all issues that we have to keep in mind.

Reference has been made to mismanagement. I mentioned it earlier and there is no question, but we have to keep in mind that the system that we have in place, the Certificate of Managed Land, when a company submits an annual operating plan, they tell us in that plan what they propose to do in any given area. The officials go back in, once they have started the work in that area, and they do a determination as to whether, in fact, the company that is operating there is in compliance with the plan as they outlined it to the department. Madam Speaker, if we find, upon investigation, that in fact the conditions that were laid out in the operating plan are not being adhered to, are not being observed, then the area can be determined as non-managed, or unmanaged, or it can be partially managed, which means that the company in concern is automatically liable to a higher tax rate. That, to me, is incentive to the companies that are there to make sure that they are in compliance. We have to acknowledge, although we can accept the fact that we would assume that companies who are so dependent on this resource for their industry would, by their very nature, and the very nature of that, want to make sure that they preserve the resource. That is not always the case. We do recognize and acknowledge that we do have a role in terms of compliance and making sure that the regulations, as they are set out by the department, are adhered to.

Madam Speaker, the mismanaged areas, while there are situations that do exist right now under the plan as it is set out, as I said, the companies in there will pay a price if they are not adhering to the regulations. They can assume they will pay a price.

The hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale, in his comments, referenced the fact that in his opinion the problems started in this Province within the last ten or twelve years. Well, you know, I think that is a rather naive view with regard to forest management in this Province. As a matter of fact, the problems in this Province started the first day that we had a company here that came in to set up a mill in this Province because there was no effort way back then, people saw the resource as being unlimited, and we dealt with that for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Exactly, there was nothing done.

I remember the earliest company that came here. The hon. Member for Bonavista South referenced the fact that they could go into the woods. Well, I have older brothers who did actually do that. They walked for seventy or eighty miles to get a job in the woods. The thing is, back then there was no management. The resource was seen as unlimited. Unfortunately, we have gotten to the point in this Province where we recognize that now the resource is strained. We are, year over year, seeing a shortfall on the fibre side and we have to make sure that we do a better job of management. I submit to this hon. House that indeed we are doing that.

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi referenced the fact as well that, in terms of the renewal of the leases, I indicated in a recent media interview that in fact we would be allowing for some broad-based public input. Indeed, we are going to do that. We are going to make sure that as we move forward to developing the new lease of the future, that there will be an opportunity for all of the stakeholders to have input into the process, and we will ensure as well that the general public will have that opportunity, again keeping in mind that we acknowledge, as a government, that we are administering a resource on behalf of the people of the Province. This resource is owned by the people of the Province, so it is only fair that they should have an opportunity to have some input as to how this resource can best be used.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will conclude and move second reading of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 22)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 21, Madam Speaker, second reading of Bill 49.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection of Privacy." (Bill 49)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Madam Speaker, on June 16, 1981, Newfoundland and Labrador's first Freedom of Information Act became law. Both government and Opposition members of the House noted at the time that this legislation created an important right for the people of this Province. It established a statutory regime for citizens to access information in the records of government, in government departments, and in scheduled agencies, subject to limited exceptions. Through this act, citizens of the Province gained an opportunity for informed participation in the democratic process, and the assurance of greater accountability on the part of government.

The act also provided the right to appeal decisions to the provincial Ombudsman or to the Trial Division of the Province's Supreme Court. In 1991, the position of the Ombudsman was abolished, leaving only one avenue for appeals, that being the Trial Division of the Supreme Court. Madam Speaker, at the time that the Newfoundland and Labrador Freedom of Information Act was passed, many other jurisdictions were contemplating extending the right of access to information held by public institutions to their citizens, but few had done so up to that point. In Canada, only two other provinces - Nova Scotia in 1977 and New Brunswick in 1978 - had adopted similar legislation by the time Newfoundland and Labrador enacted its law. It was not until this current year that all provinces had enacted freedom of information legislation.

The present Newfoundland and Labrador Freedom of Information Act has remained virtually unchanged for two decades. During that time, Madam Speaker, there have been many changes in technology and society which have not been addressed in that legislation. It has become clear that, in several important aspects, the pioneering Newfoundland and Labrador Freedom of Information Act does not provide rights that have now become norm in this country.

Madam Speaker, in response to the current act, and the fact that it needed in-depth changes, on December 12, 2000, this government established the Freedom of Information Review Committee, giving it the broad mandate to review and make recommendations on all aspects of the Freedom of Information Act. This was the first review of the Province's freedom of information legislation since it had been enacted in 1981. In carrying out its mandate, Madam Speaker, the committee undertook a comprehensive review of relevant literature, examined freedom of information legislation from the other provinces and the federal government, and conducted a series of consultations across the Province and with representatives of other Canadian jurisdictions. As a result of the committee's recommendations and work, and also by work done within the Department of Justice, a new Access to Information bill was drafted. The proposed act addresses the committee's legislative recommendations while retaining current classifications and adopting specific lists of exemptions from provisions common in other jurisdictions. Madam Speaker, I would like to give a brief overview of some of the more significant changes that the proposed act introduces.

First, in Canada today, most freedom of information laws are closely associated with privacy legislation. In most jurisdictions the two are integrated within a single act. The privacy provisions typically serve to protect recorded information about an identifiable individual. In general, privacy legislation reflects a set of basic principles known as fair information practices, which sets guidelines for the collection, the use and the release of personal information. This act introduces, for the first time in Newfoundland and Labrador, a personal privacy regime to regulate the collection, use and retention of personal information held by government or any of its agencies.

Secondly, the new act will introduce the concept of a public interest override. Section 30 of the act is drafted to require disclosure of information without a request where there is a significant harm to the environment or the health or safety of the public.

Thirdly, at present, the only option under the Freedom of Information Act for a person who wishes to have a decision reviewed is to launch an appeal of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Indeed, this is one of the concerns most frequently voiced with respect to the current act. Costs of a court appeal are high and very often prohibitive. As well, by the time the court hears and decides on an appeal, the information may no longer be of use because of the time that has elapsed.

In general, the existing appeal process precludes any opportunity for the parties to reach an understanding or achieve a mutually acceptable resolution. Madam Speaker, to address this deficiency, the new act introduces an independent review officer to investigate and mediate complaints, and make recommendations to government and agencies. The model chosen is similar to that witnessed in Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and the federal government. A Citizens' Representative will exercise all the powers of a review officer under the new act.

Fourthly, there will be mandatory monitoring of and annual reporting on the administration of the act to this Legislature, and also by both government and the Citizens' Representative. It is believed that monitoring and reporting will help ensure that the spirit and intent of the new act is achieved and maintained.

Fifthly, the new act will have expanded coverage. Municipalities and school boards will be the subject of this legislation.

Sixthly, Madam Speaker, the new act will limit the protection granted for Cabinet materials. A twenty-year time limit is established for releasing documents protected by Cabinet confidence. This is in line with similar provisions in several other Canadian jurisdictions.

In closing, the new act provides enhanced privacy rights and greater access to information for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is in keeping with this government's commitment to an open, transparent process in the development and implementation of public policy. As well, it ensures that access to information remains clear and relevant in this new age of information.

Madam Speaker, I would also comment that during the past several days in Question Period, and in the media and various media sources, there have been several issues raised, principally by the Leader of the Opposition, with regard to alleged deficiencies in this bill. Some of them concern: the order powers of this bill; others, it is conflicting nature, so alleged, with other pieces of legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act; secret council meetings; non-disclosure of government negotiations; increased time limits; fee sections being extended; MHAs having access to information; and the fact that this act will prevail for a two-year period over some other pieces of legislation.

I listened with interest and I reviewed the comments that had been made. Let me say at this point, I found each and every one of these to be factually inaccurate, and in all cases to be taken out of context. The intent of this legislation is good. The provisions of this legislation are good, and I look forward to the debate on the specifics which the Leader of the Opposition has raised, when we get to Committee stage. As I say, it is one thing to throw out the baby with the bath water, but here, I would suggest, the comments that I have heard about this piece of legislation thus far, the Opposition are not even agreeable to us conceiving the baby, let alone throwing it out with the bath water. I look forward to the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is only 4:00 p.m., I am delighted to be on my feet. I know they cannot maneuver me out of the speech this afternoon. Unfortunately, hon. members opposite the last time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: The last time when I wanted to get up and speak about the private member's resolution - and we had an understanding. I thought I was going to get an opportunity to express my views, but what did they do? They shut me down, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: But this afternoon, it is only 4:00 p.m. and I have lots of time.

MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: On a Point of order, Madam Speaker.

I just want to clarify on the time to which the Leader of the Opposition refers, that there was no attempt to keep the Leader of the Opposition from speaking. He had all afternoon and the only time he was prepared to speak was on the extension of time; but up to the time, the Leader of the Opposition was given every opportunity to speak. As a matter of fact, he did not rise. I want to make it straight, Madam Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition only wanted to speak on the basis of extension of time.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will not be zipped up and I will not have my mouth closed in this House, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Take half an hour now and just listen to me. Just relax and we can have a good chat here this afternoon.

The reason I am on my feet this afternoon is to try to offer some constructive criticism of the bill. My learned friend, of course, has a background in the legal profession, and so does my learned friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party as well. We hope that we can add something to this bill; that is our intention here. We certainly feel that the bill is a good initiative. We would not take anything away from the bill at all. I am here to give some constructive criticism, some comment, something that might improve this bill so that it in fact will be a better bill for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I find that is in the best interest (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: What I would like to do, first of all, is share with some of the hon. members opposite. Now I do not know if any of them were in the room at the time, but last December 5, when I announced my intention for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party - I am not sure if any hon. members opposite were there on that day when I announced it. In case you were not, I am going to tell you what I said. The reason it is important is because the Minister of Justice indicated that on December 12, 2000, a review committee was set up to look at the Freedom of Information Act. Well, a week before that I made a statement - and you must have reacted to it because I quoted Abraham Lincoln, he said: "Let the people know the truth and the country is safe. We will keep the people of this Province fully informed; there will be no secret documents, there will be no hidden agenda. If you and I know the facts then we will collectively decide the best course for our future.." of this Province. That is what I said at that time, and a week later the committee was struck to review the Freedom of Information Act. I am glad that you took that initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it is important that you know - that anniversary, actually, is in two days time. We will have a cake if you would like to have a cake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: My anniversary is on Wednesday, December 5.

That is what my platform is all about; no hidden documents, no hidden agenda. That is why our position is so clear on Voisey's Bay. No secret negotiations, no secret documents. If the people know the country will be safe, and they have a right to know. They need to know the details on major negotiations of a $50 billion resource. They have a right to know. Why should it be kept secret? That is why I said it.

Let's go to our policy on Freedom of Information, which is contained in our Blue Book in the 1999 election. "A PC Government will establish a new Freedom of Information Act to reduce the cost of accessing information...". First point, reduce the cost of accessing information. Secondly, "...to reduce the wait for information, and to ensure that Ministers actually provide the information requested where that information belongs in the public domain...". Three pretty sound, reasonable principles.

Now, the comment from the Minister of Justice. In the paper he talked about a change of attitude. If I may, I have to take off my glasses because I am nearsighted. That change will not come overnight, he said, there is a mindset that has to be changed. It is no good to have a progressive piece of legislation if we do not change the mindset and understand that it is the public's right to access the information. I agree with the Minister of Justice. The mindset of members opposite should be changed, I agree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Because the mindset was wrong for twelve years; hidden agendas, secrecy. Open it up, give them the information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: I agree with you totally, to my learned friend.

What I would like to do now is go through the act and give you the benefit of my comments, or insight, or wrongness, whatever it may be. Let's get the benefit and let members opposite decide whether in fact those are constructive comments.

First of all, we have a piece of legislative that comprises some forty-eight pages and some seventy-six sections. A comprehensive, detailed piece of legislation. In that legislation there are five major sections. I am going to deal with an overview. I am not going to drill down to the details, because as my learned friend, the Minister of Justice, has said, we will deal with that in committee.

There are five sections. The first section is Interpretation. The second section deals with the Right of Access. The third section deals with Exceptions, and the fourth deals with Reviews and Complaints.

Now in the section on Interpretation; there is a definition in that section, and it is very important. There are several important definitions, but the one I want to refer to is one which I dealt with during Question Period last week, and that is the definition of personal information. I am going to come back to that because that is subsequently dealt with in a further part of this particular act.

That definition of personal information; not only does it include the name, the address, the telephone number, and the age of individuals but it also deals with their religious beliefs - very important, very personal; their political beliefs, which are very important, ours are a bit obvious but some people like to keep it private; their sexual orientation, a lot of people like to keep that private; their fingerprints; their blood type; their medical status, or their history including their physical and mental disabilities - very, very personal information. I ask members opposite, is that the kind of information that they would like to have disclosed about them if they owed a $100 traffic fine? Important information. The financial, the educational, the criminal, or the employment status of an individual.

Here are two wide open clauses: the individual's personal views or opinions. If, at some time, a government body has gotten your personal views or your personal opinions on a file, under certain circumstances that can be disclosed. That is wrong. As well, other persons views or opinions about the individual. So if someone has a personal view or opinion about me - and I am sure there are lots of people who have lots of personal views about me - I am not so sure I would like to have that disclosed publicly because they might be wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: That is a dangerous definition. Then we have to look at sections of the act to see when that can be disclosed.

In Part I, under the Interpretation section, there is a reference in section 5 of that particular section which talks about the overriding power of section 72, "...that provision shall prevail over this Act or a regulation made under it."

Section 72 is a section which provides power to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council which is, in fact, the Cabinet to make regulations. It is an overriding power that overrides the other seventy-one sections before it, and the three section after it. So forty-eight pages of a document is taken care of, and one page under section 72, because the Cabinet, outside of this Legislature, can make regulations to prescribe procedures to be followed. That is really what this is all about, procedures. This is all about procedures. That is what this act is all about, permitting categories of applicants and also setting standards, including time limits. I am going to go through the time limits, but the Cabinet can change them, and change them any time they want to. When you go to the end of that section, they can do it retroactively. So if I am in the middle of an application and the time limits are set out, the Cabinet can meet and change the time limits retroactively. Then I would either have to start all over again or go on much longer than I had intended to in the first place. That is the kind of power.

Under section 72.(1)(s), there is a general power, "generally to give effect to this Act." Do what you want. Under that kind of section the Cabinet can basically do what it wants. That is just not satisfactory. I would suggest to hon. members opposite that they look at that, and think about how wide-ranging and how far-reaching that power is. Because all you have to do is just tear up this act and give the power to Cabinet. That is the bottom line.

Now under the second section, which is Right of Access -

PREMIER GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to do it because I am listening with interest, but I believe this is such a serious point, that the misrepresentation now being made needs to be clarified.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that every single legislator in this House, including the Opposition, understand that bills, acts of law - which this hopefully will become - lay out a fundamental framework for how you are to operate. That is the law. The regulatory provision given to the Cabinet can never, ever - you cannot, under a law, make a regulation that frustrates or changes or reverses any part of the act. Regulations are only the authority to regulate, and the lawyer from St. John's Centre knows that. The lawyer from Lewisporte knows that. The others who have some experience know that. The regulations cannot - as he is now describing being used to gut the bill - take out the effect of the legislation. It can only facilitate and make sure that those things that are the law are implemented appropriately and reasonably. It facilitates the implementation of the act. He is trying to suggest that you can undo everything in the act to a regulation. That, Mr. Speaker, is against the law; and he knows it. He has argued that case in the courts many times. You cannot do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

What the Premier has raised is really a point of clarification. It is really not a point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest as well to the Premier, that he also read his own legislation. The section that I referred to, Section 5.(2), specifically says, Premier: "...regulations made under section 72, that provision shall prevail over this Act or a regulation made under it." They are inconsistent, ambiguous, and needs to be straightened out, Premier. That is the purpose of this exercise. That is why I am on my feet. That is what debate is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: When I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, hon. Members in the House who had a legal background, I forgot to mention the Member for St. John's East, my colleague, Mr. Ottenheimer, and I apologize to him for having omitted him from the group.

Mr. Speaker, to move on to the second part of this particular bill. Under Section 6.(1), "A person who makes a request under section 7 has a right of access to a record..." A very, very important section. Subsection (3), "The right of access to a record is subject to the payment of a fee required under section 67." In the proposed Bill 49, that fee scope is, in fact, enlarged. Now, I acknowledge there is a discretion to waive a fee, but that is a discretion. It does not have to be done, but that is enlarged. It now includes search, preparation, copying and delivery services, and that is an issue. It is a very important issue. When I go through the timetable here you will realize just how important an issue it is, because last year, if I remember correctly, there was an incident where a member of the Opposition made an application for some information under Freedom of Information and a bill of $10,000 was proposed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. A $10,000 bill was put forward to try and block the information. A lot of money. This, in fact, enlarges that scope.

Now, let's deal with time periods because I think it is important to track what the ordinary individual is going to have to go through in order to get information from this government or public body or any of the people under the definitions. The former act said it took thirty days. In thirty days the information had to be provided. The new act says, reasonable efforts within thirty days. Now, Mr. Speaker, my submission is: Who decides what reasonable efforts are? So, if you can't do it in thirty days with a reasonable effort, what is a reasonable effort: 365 days, 720 days, 31 days? Who defines that? Completely subjective. So a reasonable effort can be whatever it wants to be.

Let's assume that it is thirty or forty days. Now we have a thirty-day time period. The next thing that can happen: If there is a lot of information requested, there can be an extension for another thirty days. So now we are up to sixty days. The person making the request now has to wait sixty days providing reasonable effort is met. The next thing that can happen: If, on day fifty-nine, the government decides that this is going to be published or publicly disclosed, then we move into another time frame, and that is ninety days. Now, if on day eighty-nine they decide that they are going to publish it, then the poor person who has made the request for information in the first place has to go back to square one and start over again. So now we get back to the sixty-day period again.

So we have eighty-nine days, plus the thirty days, plus an extension, and now we are up to 149 days, before that person can get information. That is the way it stacks up. If all those things fall in place, that is how government could start to roadblock information. That is why I am concerned about time periods. So now we are up to 149 days. He or she gets the decision that the information is not going to be provided. What do they do then? They go to the Citizens' Representative, the Citizens' Representative gets involved, and then he or she has a thirty-day time period to review. Now we are up to 179 days. So they have thirty days to review. Then after that thirty-day review period, they have sixty days to file a report. Now we are up to 239 days. That is two-thirds of the year gone.

Then the Citizens' Representative comes down with a report, the report has no teeth, nothing can be done. The person gives the report, no power to order, no power to implement. So then what does the poor person do, who has made the request for information? They have now waited nearly 250 days to get an answer. The head of the department who rejected it has another fifteen days now to figure out what he or she is going to do, whether they are going to provide it.

If the minister of that department decides, after fifteen days - we are now up to 264 days - that they are going to reject it, then what is my option? My option then is to go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. First of all, I have to pay for the expense of all this, because this is obviously costing somebody money. I don't know what my fees are going to be, but I have to pay the expense. Then I have to go to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. How long is that going to take? I have to hire a lawyer, I have to retain a lawyer, I have to get an application done, I have to get it before the court and I have to get a decision. A long time.

It is not inconceivable that it could be over a year before you finally realize that you are either going to get the information or you do not get the information. That is the new and improved act. What is the good of that? We stand for quick access to information. This act does not provide it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: In fact, procedures have been put in here as a shield to protect the government. Even though we have broadened the veil of access to information, it is no good if you can't get at it. What is the point? Sure it is listed in the definitions and there is a broad scope and everything else, but you can't get at it. By the time you get the information it is so stale it doesn't make any difference, and if you don't get the information you have to wait fifteen or twenty years before it is disclosed in the first place.

Why don't the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the right to get information earlier than fifteen or twenty years? It is their Province, it is their government, it is their resources, it is their information. Give it to them in a reasonable period of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Now we move to Part III which deals with the exceptions. There is an extended list of exceptions, and some of them are very, very good exceptions. You know, there is good stuff in this act. Don't get me wrong here. What I am trying to point out is the problems, how access can be denied. There is lots of good stuff in this act and there are exceptions here where people cannot get access to the information. Some of those are Cabinet confidences. I question the time period, how long, but there are certain confidences of Cabinet that cannot be disclosed to the public. Legal advice, legal opinions that are timely, should not be disclosed. Disclosure harmful to law enforcement; it is interesting there, under that particular section, there is also an exception for prosecutorial discretion, and that is a big one, especially in the case of people who are wrongfully convicted. If you cannot get at the information, people like Greg Parsons or Dalton or the other gentleman, Druken, these three people are allegedly wrongfully convicted. They cannot get at the prosecution information. They cannot find out how the decision was made under this act, and that is wrong.

On the flip side, if the prosecution decides not to prosecute, and we have a rape victim, she cannot get at the information either, and that is specifically in the B.C. act. So there are two sides there where that information is not being disclosed and it should be disclosed. Even though under certain law enforcement situations I acknowledge that it should be accepted, prosecutorial discretion should not be denied.

The other interesting sections here, as well, are confidences or deliberations by educational bodies and health care bodies and municipalities in the absence of the public. Of course, that was the subject of a question last week: in fact whether what I termed secret meetings, if someone took exception to that, let's call them private meetings, called the meetings in the absence of the public, the public is excluded, that is the bottom line on it. Those are accepted. As well under this section, plans that relate to the management or the administration of a public body that have not yet been implemented or made public, those as well cannot be disclosed. Those should be disclosed. Then comes the important one as well, one that is equally important: information about negotiations carried on by or for a public body for the government of this Province. That is the Voisey's Bay clause. That is the Lower Churchill clause. That is the one that this government can use to prevent disclosure of negotiations. Their answer to that is: Well, you cannot disclose the negotiations. If negotiations are going on in private, it is not right to get out and disclose those negotiations. You cannot do that.

Well I submit, Mr. Speaker, we should do that. The people of this Province have a right to know what is going on. It should not be done behind closed doors. It should not be a fait accompli. It should not be signed, sealed and delivered and then rammed down their throats after it is all over. That is too late.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: That is wrong. It is these kinds of clauses that are dangerous to the public. Access to information is extremely important, but denial of the right to know what is going on in those negotiations affects our future and affects the future of the children of this Province. If those resources are given away, forever and a day, when hon. members opposite are long gone, who pays the price? It will not be any of us in this House. It will be our children and it will be our grandchildren. They are the ones who are going to pay the price when it is all over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I can move now to Part IV, which is the section which deals with protection of privacy, when I commenced, I indicated that I had some serious concern with this definition. There are several sections in the act that deal with the use of this particular information. Again, I will go down the list one more time: religious beliefs, political beliefs, sexual orientation, fingerprints, medical history, financial history, criminal history, employment history, personal views or opinions, my views or opinions or the other person's views or opinions.

Under section 38 of the act, there are certain situations when that information can be disclosed. Under section 39 of the act, that information can be disclosed when there is a reasonable and direct connection to that purpose. What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, are the instances when that information can be disclosed. There are several here which are quite legitimate and quite proper; however, there are some that are not, in my opinion.

A public body may disclose the list of personal information, or some of it, which I indicated previously, under section 38.(f): to an officer of the public body or to a minister, where the information is necessary for the performance of the duties.

So, I go in and apply for a job with the Minister of Justice. That minister is performing his duties. In the course of performance of his duties, he can ask for - from the public body that may have this information, somewhere in the Province - disclosure of that personal information. You could ask what my sexual orientation is, what my political beliefs are, what my religious beliefs are, and then you could factor that into a decision to reject my application for employment. There is something wrong with that.

Another situation, section 38.(g): to the Attorney General for use in civil proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely no reflection on the hon. gentleman opposite, the Minister of Justice, a very hon. gentleman, but that information will go to the Attorney General, whether it be that gentleman or some other person in his absence. That is a civil proceeding. So, if I am driving down the highway, the roads are slippery, and the reason the roads are slippery is because of the negligence of the provincial government, I go off the road and I am involved in an accident, I have a right to sue the provincial government. That is what is called a civil proceeding, it is a civil action. Under this section, you can go and get my complete medical history - whether I have a physical impairment, whether I have a mental impairment - my employment history, my criminal history, and if you can show any link whatsoever, reasonable or direct, then you can get that information. Not only could the Attorney General get it, but it goes into his office and the people in his office have that information. Where is it going from there? Who has access to it? The prosecutor, or the person from the Justice Department who handles that case would have access to that information. The people who research would have access to that information. Where does it stop? Dangerous, dangerous legislation, dangerous disclosure of information. Certainly not what the hon. gentleman opposite must have intended. If that can be plugged, it should be plugged.

Section 38.(h), "for the purpose of enforcing a legal right the government of the province or a public body has against a person;" - any legal right under any statute in this Province. How many statutes, how many laws, how many legal rights are in this Province? Thousands, tens of thousands. They are out there all over the place. For the purpose of enforcing a legal right - any legal right - under the Wildlife Act, under the Fisheries Act, under the Highway Traffic Act, anything at all. Too broad, too far-reaching, not necessary, pull it back.

This one slays me, this one really slays me, 38.(i)(i): for the purpose of collecting a debt or fine owing to the government.

If I have a $20 stop sign ticket - I don't know what they are these days, I haven't gone through one in a while - what are stop sign tickets? They must be $25 or $50.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: If that debt is owing, and say it has been outstanding for some time, then I can go, if I can show a connection, I can go to that personal information and I can access it. I could use any of that information. There has to be a reasonable direct connection, but I can use any of that information for identification purposes. If I did not know that the person who I was going after for the money was who I thought she was, then I could use this information to pin it down. I would get her fingerprints. I would get her blood type. I would get her age, her employment status. I would do enough to narrow it down so I can justify a connection here to get access to that personal information. That is wrong.

The other one which is worthy of notice is 38.(k): to a Member of the House of Assembly...

One of us here, one of the forty-eight of us, has the right, if somebody comes into our office to get a problem resolved - you know the numerous problems people have, we get them all the time, someone comes in, in good faith, to get a problem resolved - under this section, I would have the right as a member, or any of the other members of this House would have the right, to get access to that information because you may conclude that that person who was laying a complaint has a problem because they have a political preference. If somebody comes in to me, because they might have a political preference against the government, then I can conclude that that is a good reason to go get that information, and I can go get it. That is wrong.

Those are my concerns. I don't think in this particular section there is anything underhanded by hon. members opposite. That is not what this is all about. This is about getting a good, tidy piece of legislation that is in the best interest of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Basically, just from an overview perspective, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is just sort of recap the concerns. It goes back to what was contained in our Blue Book in 1999: Quick access, no prohibitive fees and the disclosure of information that should be disclosed.

Time periods: Very, very important. I would suggest to the Attorney General that he go back and look at all of those time periods and go through the exercise that I went through. Perhaps there is one step in that that is wrong, but look at it and if it goes beyond 250 days, or it can go beyond a year, then I would suggest that is not quick access.

As well, fees: If the fees go through the roof, if the fees, under the old act, could be $10,000, well, the sky is the limit under this one. They have expanded it. If the fees are prohibitive the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian, or a member of the media, or a member of the Opposition cannot afford to go get the information. That is wrong! It needs to be changed.

The Citizens' Representative: Give the Citizens' Representative the teeth to implement. Give that person the power to order or authorize that the information be produced. Otherwise, that person is gone a fool's errand and then has to go to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court in Newfoundland, end up in a court, have to pay the related fees - actually there is another step which I forgot the last time. If the Trial Division rules against them then there is probably a Right of Appeal there as well. I haven't even looked at it. So they could end up in a Court of Appeal. It can go on forever. That should be reined in, that should be brought under control.

With regard to negotiations, it is the position of this Opposition that there should not be negotiations in secret, especially on major matters, especially on Voisey's Bay. I would suggest to hon. members opposite that this is the Voisey's Bay clause. We know why it was there and it is wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, the personal information which I just went through, that has to be dealt with. There is a lot of very, very private and confidential information there that is under no control, that can run rampant through government offices, that should not be disclosed in that particular manner. I, personally, would be very concerned, and I am sure the hon. the Premier would be very concerned, if that type of information was put out. I would ask that they be considered.

Mr. Speaker, when we get down to Committee we want to go through these sections individually. I will not bore the members of the House with it right now. We will deal with those individually. If I can do anything to help make this a better act, then I certainly will.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the new Freedom of Information legislation currently before the House. It is a piece of legislation that has been long overdue. As the minister has indicated it has not been reviewed for many, many years. It has been a source of concern by many people. It has been drawn to public attention by members of the media seeking access to information from this government and previous governments. The Opposition members have criticized the availability of information from the government, the costs of obtaining information, the delays, the excuses, the refusals of information from government.

I think the government, to be fair, went about it the right way by asking a committee to review this legislation and compare it to others. What we have is not bad. It is pretty comprehensive, but in looking at all the details that we have before us, I think there are some problems. Some of them have been identified by the Leader of the Opposition. There are problems with time limits, there are problems with exceptions, there are problems with the powers that have been given to the Citizen's Representative, and these are problems that need to be addressed. I think they need to be fixed if we are going to have strong, proper and appropriate Freedom of Information legislation.

I know the Premier, when he ran for the leadership of his party and automatic Premiership as a result, talked about openness and transparency. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that one of the issue that has been a pretty live issue since the Premier became the Premier- this current Premier- has been the issue of bulk water. In fact, it was not before that. The issue was a closed case, said the Premier, closed case. It is behind us. He said that in the House of Assembly when we were passing legislation to ban the export of bulk water. Shortly after this Premier took office he started saying: Oh, we are going to reconsider that. We are going to have another look.. We are going to reopen the question.

This was not under the Freedom of Information legislation, but a question was put on the Order Paper in this House, which all members of this House have the right - the current Opposition has probably set the record for the last ten years since I have been here, in terms of the number of questions on the Order Paper, up in the seventies now, I think, eighties or whatever with questions on the Order Paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Still waiting for answers.

MR. HARRIS: Still waiting for answers, yes. Well, that is what I am about to talk about.

This is a time-honoured method, a parliamentary way for questions to be asked in this House, some detailed questions, ones that are not quite suitable for the Question Period. They are written questions put on the Order Paper and submitted to government for answers. In the pursuit of my duties as a Member of this House, I put questions in my name on the Order Paper last spring looking for copies of legal opinions that the government may have received in the recent past, concerning the export of bulk water, because the Premier was making comments about his views and his understanding of the law and the effect of various treaties, the NAFTA agreement, et cetera. I ask for those opinions. I did not get them. The House closed. No legal opinions were forthcoming.

Then over the summer, just around the middle of the summer, July sometime, there was a story in The Telegram whereby a reporter was quoting from the legal opinions that the government had received on the issue. The three legal opinions had been released to the newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act. I was rather alarmed, so I wrote a letter to the Premier saying: This question was put on the Order Paper last spring, but the information was not made available to me, and yet the information was released to the public through The Telegram based on a reporter's request. So, in due course, and I have to say not very much later, perhaps three weeks later, I got a letter from the Minister of Justice including copies of the three legal opinions that I had requested last spring. Now, under the new Freedom of Information Act, if I made such a request, or The Telegram made such a request, you wouldn't get them. You wouldn't get them under the Freedom of Information Act. You wouldn't get them, perhaps, from a question in the House because legal opinions are one of the exceptions.

So we have had a committee studying this issue, going about the countryside - I think they made some trips - taking written representation, and we now have an act that is going to restrict the availability of matters that the Premier made available to The Telegram last summer, and the Minister of Justice made available to me in October month. So what are we doing here? Are we supposed to be moving forward into an era where we are going to have more open, more access, more information, or do we have a strong list of exceptions here as spelled out under the bill that, in fact, is creating a more restrictive approach to information than we have had in the past?

So I have to ask that question: Why are we listing such a long category of exceptions than in fact end up being more restrictive than the kind of exceptions we had in the past?

One of the exceptions contained has to do with information, the so-called substance of deliberations by Cabinet. It is recognized, I think, in most parliamentary jurisdictions, that the Cabinet has to be free to have deliberations internally, people have to be free to express their views to one another in Cabinet. The B.C. government, I think, is an exception; they are televising their Cabinet meetings. I wonder what happens at the real Cabinet meetings. They may be televising their Cabinet meetings, but before their Cabinet meetings take place, I am sure there are other meetings they are not televising. I am not sure who they are trying to fool there, but I guess this is an example of where televison creates public relations exercises rather than reality.

I think anybody with any sense will recognize that if you are going to have a government, that government has to make certain decisions in private that people of strong mind have to have an opportunity to influence their colleagues who are sitting in the government, or influence the Premier, because our Cabinet system has a very grave danger. There is a very grave danger in our Cabinet system. Our Cabinet system in the parliamentary democracies gives a tremendous amount of power to the leader of the Cabinet, the Premier or the Prime Minister, because that person creates Cabinet ministers and also can fire them at will by asking for their resignation.

Quite often, depending on the nature of the leadership carried out by the Premier, the Premier quite often only hears views in Cabinet and then makes the decision. Cabinet ministers have to be free in that circumstance to be able to express their views frankly. So, if the Minister of Environment has a strong view on something which may be totally ridiculous, it may be absolutely ridiculous, it may be so ridiculous that, in fact, it should not see the light of day, but he has to be able to make that view inside of Cabinet; otherwise, it may be something that Cabinet should listen to and decide upon. We do have to have some degree of privacy of Cabinet documents, but not everything. If there is a series of briefing notes made to Cabinet which contain factual information or background information that the government has collected at public expense, the fact that it happens to be contained or attached to a Cabinet briefing or a Cabinet document should not mean that the public should not have access to it. We do not really have provision for that here, even though the committee called Striking the Balance has said that should be made available, that it should be made available to the public as part of a release of information by the Cabinet.

The recommendation that they have is, "Recommendation: 11. That factual information, background material and documentation that does not disclose the substance of Cabinet deliberations be made available to the public once the relevant decision has been implemented, or five years from the date of submission if no decision has been made public by that time."

There ought to be very clear distinctions between what is actually the substance of a deliberation, a policy disagreement between government members that exists in Cabinet. That is something that is not available for disclosure, although there are exceptions to that. We have seen them in lawsuits against the government where Cabinet documents have been subpoenaed, minutes of Cabinet have been subpoenaed, legal advice given to Cabinet has been subpoenaed, or where a government is acting in contravention to legal advice and in fact takes away the rights of citizens under the Public Tender Act or other matters. We have seen situations where Cabinet deliberations and Cabinet documents have been made available to the court. They have been treated in a special way but they have been, in fact, made available.

We have to make sure that we are not too restrictive when it comes to the Cabinet secrecy agreement, that while we have to recognize that Cabinets must be able to operate in a certain degree of confidence, that not need to extend to everything that could be disclosed that would not interfere with the rule of Cabinet secrecy.

There is another very curious section there that I do not see the justification for, because not only does it apply to Cabinet but it can also apply to other public bodies or to municipalities, and that is the drafting of resolutions - drafts of legislation or drafts of matters that are before public bodies. These are also designated to be kept secret. Mr. Speaker, the rationale for that is totally beyond me. If there is draft legislation or draft recommendations for consideration, that people who may be affected by that - I can see some reason for exceptions, if there are investment decisions that might be made and are not made based on it, but if there is a need for public debate about legislation or about proposals, we see legislation in this House every year and we have never seen a draft of it. We have never seen a version of it. We have never seen any public discussion about it. The legislation comes into the House and we have to debate it and deal with it.

There may be exceptions to that, and we have a committee system in this House to deal with legislation and review legislation, whether it be in draft form or whether it be approved by Cabinet. Usually what happens is that the legislation is not available until Cabinet has approved it. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't seem to be a good rationale for that. If legislation is under consideration, if there is a draft available, then there should be, subject to certain limitations, public access to that so that people can have some input into it before it is passed, perhaps before it is even proposed by Cabinet, because they may be able to influence a Cabinet decision prior to it being made, especially if we do not have a proper procedure in the House of Assembly for public input because of the short time frame that we have sometimes.

There are exceptions. The Minister of the Environment wanted to point out that there are exceptions; and, yes, there are. We have seen draft legislation made available. Would the minister properly call that draft legislation or would that be legislation that has already been approved by Cabinet?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: So approved by Cabinet, in that case. In some cases it is approved by Cabinet, in some cases it is not. What is wrong with having a draft bill available for public deliberation before the Cabinet has approved it? Yet, in this particular Freedom of Information Act there is a prohibition and a protection against draft legislation being available to the public. I do not see the rationale behind that and I do not see the purpose for that. We should have availability of draft legislation subject to the normal kind of concerns that there might be if there are investment decisions that might depend on it, or that sort of thing.

The time limits have been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. I think we do have a serious problem with time limits. We have a serious problem with time limits because, under the old act, the head of the public body or the minister concerned had a restricted amount of time to respond to a request. It is possible, and I think it was recognized, that there are certain cases where it might take more than thirty days to actually come up with a record. There may be reasons why a certain record cannot be found within thirty days, or produced within thirty days. So, what do we do about that? Do we have a very loose type of requirement that the minister or the head of the public body must make reasonable efforts, or should we have a situation where the minister or head must apply to the Citizens' Representative for an extension? That would be a more appropriate mechanism, I would submit, for dealing with extensions of time. If there is a need for an extension of time beyond thirty days, well let the minister, let the head of the department, go to the Citizens' Representative and make the case for an extension of time. There may be good and valid reasons for a time to be extended, but to say, to every request, that all the head of the body has to do is make reasonable effort is to leave it open to abuse, to leave it open to delays.

I hope the Premier is listening to this because he is the one whose reputation is at stake here, he is the one who has claimed that his government is interested in transparency and openness. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I say that the Citizen's Representative may be able to deal with it in a very quick way. If a request is made and the minister is unable to comply or the head is unable to comply, write a letter to the Citizen's Representative explaining the circumstances and seek an extension. That seems to me to be a better way to deal with extensions of time rather than have a looser type of arrangement. I think that is one recommendation that I would want to see included in this Act.

The second one has to do with costs. The costs in some cases may well be prohibitive, if we are talking about excessive amounts of time to copy records or deal with records. There should, perhaps, be other provisions instead of having to provide copies of everything where access might take the form of physical access, where an individual has the right to review material in an office of government where you can come and have a look at it and read these documents. You do not have to pay so much per copy to get them, if all you want to do is see what is there. We will give you access to it. We will put a copy in a room and let you look at it for a period of time without having to pay the cost. There are ways to minimize the difficulties with respect to costs that may be incurred in certain circumstances. There are lots of ways to make access easier rather than to make it harder.

I have just been advised that my time is running short on this bill. I have a couple of minutes remaining. The third, I want to talk about the appeal process. Why, in this Province, are we going to have no appeal, except to the courts, from a decision by a minister or a head of a department? In Nova Scotia, the Citizen's Representative or equivalent of the Citizen's Representative named in this Act, The Freedom of Information Commissioner, has the power to make a ruling if a request is refused. In fact, the information commissioner in Nova Scotia happens to be a Newfoundlander who has lived in Nova Scotia for many years and has made many important decisions insisting that government departments, who were unwilling to make information available, would be required to do so without having to incur the expense of going to court and having a specialized expertise by his or her special knowledge of how government operates and special knowledge of the Act. Why do we need to go to the court when we can empower the commissioner to issue orders? These orders may well be appealed themselves through the court, but that is another matter. That is an extra step. If you really want to give access and you really want to have open government, you should make it easy for an appeal to be launched and an appeal to be heard without the necessity of having to engage legal counsel and pay the expenses involved.

These are some of the fundamental problems that I see with this legislation. We are going to have a chance at the committee stage to debate this clause-by-clause, and we will have an opportunity of dealing with each of these concerns in turn, as well as some of the concerns raised by the Leader of the Opposition, who kindly referred to me as my learned friend, and the Minister of Justice, his learned friend, this being a polite legal thing when lawyers in court refer to one another. I say to members opposite, if you want to earn the reputation that your Premier claims for you, of having an open and transparent government, than there have to be some substantial and fundamental changes in this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. LUSH: I would just like to remind hon. members that we are working under a motion to extend the hours. I just want to remind hon. members about that, that we will be recessing at 5:30 p.m. and resuming at 6:45 p.m., to give hon. members the opportunity to debate the intensive and extensive agenda this government has put before the House.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today in support of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, in speaking to Bill 49, An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, much of the criticism leveled against the current Freedom of Information regime has not been directed towards the legislation itself, rather it reflects citizens' concerns about the consistency of practice by various government departments and agencies, and the failure of these public bodies to act within prescribed time limits.

We recognize that the value of information provided to a citizen may be diminished if it is not provided in a timely manner, and that there needs to be a consistent response given to all citizens of our Province with respect to their access to information requests.

Mr. Speaker, the approach we have adopted in this new act to address these administrative issues is twofold. Firstly, the legislation contains clear time limits and rules for extensions of time which are available only in limited circumstances. As well, there is immediate recourse to appeal procedures where time limits are not met.

Mr. Speaker, secondly, on the administrative side, the act sees one minister responsible for administering the act throughout all government departments and agencies. This means that compliance by all public bodies will be monitored and reported to the House of Assembly each year through one office.

As well, the mechanics as to how the regime will work in each department or agency is also made more clear. The new act will require that each department designate a person on staff to do the following: one, receive and process requests made; two, coordinate responses to requests; three, educate staff about the applicable provisions of the act; four, track requests and their outcome; and, lastly, prepare statistical reports upon request.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that proper education and training is essential to creating an environment more conducive to access. To complement the new internal processes, the Citizens' Representative is responsible, under the act, for informing the public about the act and taking general comments from citizens, not just complaints about individual cases.

These initiatives, Mr Speaker, show government's commitment to a comprehensive approach to access to information. Government has put in place, with this new act, the following: one, appropriate legislation; two, a independent review office; three, the appropriate internal structure; for example, one department responsible for the act and a person in each department designated to take care of access to information; and, lastly, a role for the Citizens' Representative to educate the public and give the public a forum to voice any concerns.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we believe the new Access to Information Act is an appropriate model that will ensure its success and create an atmosphere where the citizens of our Province are confident that they may exercise their legal rights and will be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a couple of comments with respect to Bill 49. The previous speakers have made comments about the access to information. As the minister commented on, in her introduction, there were two pieces of this. One was the access piece and the other was the privacy piece. I want to focus my comments particularly on the privacy piece, and the privacy piece alone, actually, and more particularly how it pertains to health information.

One of the things that we are entering, as the Minister of Health and Community Services will comment on as she is talking about reforming the health system, and one of the things that she will be talking about in the future, is evidence-based decision-making. She will be talking about an integrated health system. She will also be talking about the important and well-informed decisions based on good health information.

Historically, health information and health records were confined to hospitals and maybe community health offices. One of the things that we are seeing now in this legislation is bringing health boards, hospital boards and community health boards, under the auspices of this new piece of legislation. Now people can apply, under the freedom of information, to get access to health information.

Mr. Speaker, I think one thing becomes very important. It is one thing to talk about health information that is held by public organizations, but one of the things that we are going to see emerging in this Province in the next little while is an integration of health information. Already the Department of Health and Community Services are talking about tying together electronically, hospitals, community health offices, physician offices, pharmacies, other people who provide health care. Now, all of a sudden, the definition of a health record is starting to become rapidly expanded and as people apply for access to information, maybe to a hospital, under this particular piece of legislation, what people need to realize is that hospital may have their health records tied in electronically with their family physician, with their pharmacy, with a physiotherapist, with an occupational therapist, with a speech language pathologist. A variety of people who are in private practice providing health services have bought into the notion that they need to become a part of a integrated system and therefore have agreed to share information. As you, as a patient, would go into your doctor's office and see your family physician, that doctor will be able to access your health record at the hospital, as will the hospital be able to access your health record in your family doctor's office, with that integration of health records and that integration of health information. We are going to start doing that in this Province and, at the same time, start introducing legislation to allow people to have access to information. We need to be, as the minister indicated in the beginning, very concerned about the privacy of that information.

Mr. Speaker, we will acknowledge that in this particular bill, in section 76.(2)(b) particularly, the minister has excluded personal health information from this legislation, with one caveat. It deals also with section 72, and here is where it becomes a problem. Under that section (r) where it says: defining "personal health information".

What we now have is, we have the ability of Cabinet to define what is personal health information. So, in one section of the bill, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision to exclude personal health information, which sounds reasonable; but, Mr. Speaker, then to include in another section of this same bill the ability for Cabinet to define what is personal health information.

For example, particularly in the area of research, someone wants to access DNA information, is that personal health information? Could that be made available under this particular bill? Could someone have access to your information on your health chart without you knowing it?

I commend the minister and I commend government for having undertaken a review and appointing a committee to look at this significant issue. As the minister indicated last year, he appointed a committee, and the theme of that committee was talking about the right to know and the right to privacy. I commend government for having incorporated in this piece of legislation, in this bill, a significant number of the recommendations of that committee. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is one recommendation that I want to note that the minister and government have not included, which is recommendation 9, that this committee has recommended "that government enact separate health information legislation to apply to all health organizations; and until that time, personal health information remain subject to the jurisdiction of the proposed Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

Mr. Speaker, the committee that the minister appointed to make recommendations to government recognize the significant destination of health information from other types of information that a government may compile over time. This committee recognized the uniqueness of health information. This committee also recognized that health information is not just stored in public organizations, but health information is stored in a variety of private offices around this Province. This committee also recognizes how rapidly we are moving towards using new technology to be able to provide access to health information much quickly. That will make a major difference and help to enhance the quality of health services being provided, all of which are great things. All of which are the kinds of things that the Minister of Health and Community Services is suggesting that we should be doing, and I concur with those recommendations that she makes. As we do that, we need to be very conscious of people's needs to have their information, particularly their health information, protected. As we bring in place legislation to ensure that people have access to information, we cannot lose sight of the need to protect their privacy, particularly that information which people hold more sensitive than any other information that may be collected on them. Their health information is very personal, very private and people are very sensitive to its disclosure.

Mr. Speaker, when we have a bill that proposes to allow a Cabinet to decide what is personal health information, while, at the same time, the Centre for Health Information of this Province has already made some firm recommendations to the committee that looked at this issue, and they are not suggesting that a Cabinet should define what personal health information is. In fact, what they are suggesting is that there be a whole legislative regime protecting the privacy of health information.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, right now in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, they have already enacted legislation dealing very specifically with the privacy of health information. I understand that there are a number of other jurisdictions, including Ontario, that have legislation ready to go on that issue. These jurisdictions have all recognized the significant and uniqueness of personal health information. But, Mr. Speaker, as suggested by the committee's recommendation to the minister, if, in fact, there is not going to be separate legislation to protect the privacy of health information, if that is not going to happen, I think it would be advisable, as recommended by the Centre for Health Information in Newfoundland and Labrador, to at least use some nationally accepted standards for judging and determining what is personal health information, and not leaving it to Cabinet. The Canadian Standards Association have developed a model code for the protection of personal information. There is another legislation that deals with Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act; that is a federal legislation.

Mr. Speaker, across the country there are jurisdictions that have recognized the uniqueness of personal health information so much so that they have brought in separate legislation to deal with it. In the absence of having such legislation, it is more than prudent, I think, to ensure that we use what has been nationally accepted standards across other jurisdictions rather than allow Cabinet to determine what is personal health information. As we debate further in committee some of the particular clauses of this legislation, I think it would be important for the minister to give some consideration to how we might protect personal health information and how the legislation might acknowledge the uniqueness of health information as being distinctly different than other information that government departments or agencies may collect on individuals over time.

Earlier we had the leader of our party comment on personal information, in how and what context it might be used. These are things that people are very sensitive about. When we get into personal health information there is even a greater sensitivity. I ask the minister to give consideration as to how we might make some changes in the legislation. Those two clauses in particular, where we exclude personal health information from underneath the bill, but how we define what becomes personal health information when, in fact, there is a decision to include it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: hear, hear!

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

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

I just want to, from our point of view, make it very clear that we are prepared to move second reading today. Obviously, conditional upon - not conditional upon anything - move second reading but to make it clear to those members, that once we get to the committee stage of the bill we will be making those amendments. Future support of that depends, I guess, upon the amendments that will be debated and either accepted or rejected in the Legislature. I just want to make that clear from everyone's point of view here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if he speaks now he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I begin by saying that we do appreciate the comments of the Opposition. The whole purpose of this debate is to find out what provisions we might have in this bill that may be inappropriate or not proper as viewed from someone else's eyes. That is the whole process.

As we are open and accountable as a government, I think, and would suggest, that we are certainly prepared to be open when it comes to considering any valid and reasonable suggestions that anybody might have to make. But, I would point out, this piece of legislation did not pop out of the sky. It did not come out of a vacuum. We have here, a compilation of extensive review from all access to information and privacy regimes from across the country. There is nothing in here that is certainly deliberately put in here that does not exist somewhere else. This committee looked at every other province.

Some of the provisions in this particular act are exactly as they are stated in British Columbia, for example, or another section may come directly from Manitoba. The question here is: Where do we strike the right balance between the access to the information and also the protection of the privacy? That, in fact, was the title of the report that was submitted by the committee.

We feel that we have submitted a balanced bill here that takes all of the recommendations that this committee made into consideration. They did not just dream them up. They put some serious thought into them. As I say, we are certainly prepared for anything that is here that might require amendment, to certainly take a serious look at it.

They say that ‘the devil is in the detail' but, ‘the proof of the pudding is also in the eating'. I think that is why this bill is specifically designed to give us something that we never ever had before, when we refer to the privacy.

It is easy to pick out any section of Part IV of this act and talk about how it could give government excessive access to somebody's personal information, what should or should not be allowed or be accessible, as alluded to by the Member for Trinity North, when it comes to health information. The purpose, the reason why the definition of personal information is so broad is because it should encompass and severely restrict how you gather and how you use information belonging to somebody. This definition does not say that personal information only includes your name and your address. The definition is intentionally broad so that it is very, very wide. For example, a person's religious beliefs or their sexual orientation, that is why it so broad, to make sure that any piece of personal information that belongs to somebody, you just cannot gather it for any reason whatsoever. That is why it is so expansive.

The other point that might be missed here is, we do not have any privacy protection right now. It is one thing to suggest that what we have here may be imperfect for some reason, but we do not have an extensive regime with the procedures and the process that are outlined and easily useable in this Province.

We also heard the comments about the notice provisions, the time limits for example. Under the old act, for example, the current one we are operating under, if someone made an application you had thirty days to respond. If a government department did not respond there was no recourse, absolutely no recourse under the current legislation.

Under this particular legislation, if government does not respond within the thirty-day period, there is a provision here whereby government is deemed to have refused to give the information. After the thirty-day period it is not a case of government anymore saying we willy-nilly do not want to give it to you. There is an automatic deemed refusal by the government department. Immediately, once the government has been deemed, the onus is on the government right away to show why they have not released the information. If the applicant wishes, they can go to the review commissioner and ask the review commissioner to immediately investigate the matter as to why the refusal took place and to make recommendations. If the review commissioner wants to, he can actually refer the matter to the Supreme Court, no cost to the applicant.

It is easy to allude here to what costs the person might incur or may incur, but this act is premised on the basis that if there is a problem there will be an independent review commissioner who will look at the circumstances, and if that review commissioner deems it feasible and advisable, he can appeal the government's decision. He can make recommendations to the government and with the applicant's consent the review commissioner can proceed to the Supreme Court Trial Division, if they wish.

The other thing here is, we talk a lot about the use that you make of information and who may or may not access certain information. There is more than section 38 in this act, and any statute must work, the sections of it must work together. We have had an emphasis here on section 38 as to what a public body may disclose, but we cannot forget section 31 which talks about what information is even collectable in the first instance. The act outlines what you are even permitted to collect. Section 32 talks about how you can only collect it directly from the individual. So it is not a case of government goes on a witch hunt and gathers all this information from somebody, stores it in a little file and then gives it to whomever they wish.

That is the purpose of having those restrictions here on the collection of it, the use of it, and the disclosure of it. So it is more than just government gathering this up and using it for any purpose that they might intend.

Another major provision here is being overlooked, and I say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is a specific section in this act which states that at the end of five years it must be reviewed. There is a mandatory review provision here. It is not a case of waiting another twenty years. There is a section in this act which says, after five years there is an automatic mandatory review of this piece of legislation. No more twenty-year waits.

It is going to take time to implement the privacy provisions, because we have never had one that was properly set up before. It is going to take some time to do that, but there is more than an Opposition to decide, or a government even to decide, what is or is not right about this act. It does strike a balance, but the biggest watchdog on what this act is intending to do, and the biggest watchdog on what this government does in terms of openness and accountability, we will not have to wait five years. You probably will not have to wait five months, because the individuals of this Province are going to access this act in short order, the media of this Province are going to access this act in short order, and that will be probably the best yardstick as to performance when it comes to government in terms of openness and accountability than anything that anyone else might like to suggest.

The public will decide if this act is working properly or not. If it is not working, if there is some procedure in here that is found not to be working, that is why the review provisions are here. Nobody is claiming to be perfect, but it is a very good piece of legislation that strikes a balance looking at the best of what exists in the rest of Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was with the understanding that members have come to an agreement that we should recess and come back at 6:45 p.m. Before we do that, I want to address the issue that the hon. the Government House Leader raised on Thursday with regard to the Anticipation Rule.

The member will recall that on March 3 of this year, the Chair ruled that questions anticipating Orders of the Day would be allowed from then on. This was a reversal, I guess, of the past practice. In making decisions, of course, in this House, we often use the House of Commons Standing Orders and Practices as a guide, as we did in that case; however, we must also look at the intent of the rules and the other rules and guidelines that are in effect governing Question Period in our own jurisdiction as well as in others.

The purpose, of course, of the rules of the Legislature, is to make the most effective use of the time available by avoiding repetition. The Oral Question Period is a proceeding, the purpose of which is to enable members to address matters where there is no other avenue available to them to do so. The Oral Question Period is not a forum for debate, as all members will know. Speaker Parent in the House of Commons, in 1997, ruled during the Oral Question Period on the anticipation legislation. He said that questions dealing with orders that were on the Order Paper should be of a general nature. His exact words are these, "...if a question is of a general nature and not hitting on the bill directly...", he would allow it. I refer members to Debates, March 4, 1997, pages 8594-5.

In reviewing Hansard for the past two weeks, the Chair has noticed a number of questions asked during Oral Question Period which deal with a specific legislative provision. We have other proceedings for dealing with such questions, namely the Committee of the Whole, the purpose of which is to conduct a clause-by-clause analysis.

I clarify the ruling by saying that questions of a general nature will therefore be permitted on legislation that is before the House, but the Chair would remind all hon. members to reserve their specific questions on legislative provisions for the Committee of the Whole, which is the practice in other jurisdictions.

The House is now recessed until 6:45 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:45 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 14, Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No 2.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to introduce a bill today to make several amendments of a housekeeping nature to the Financial Administration Act. These proposed amendments will provide efficiencies in the administration as well as improve accountability.

Mr. Speaker, this request to do these changes has been on the books for quite a period of time. In fact, some of them date back as far as 1988 when I think the Public Accounts Committee recommended these changes to the Financial Administration Act. I think that was followed up by a recommendation by the Auditor General thereafter; I think after a very quick election in 1989. It has been on the books that long.

Just to go into a little bit more detail about some of the recommendations before I get into some commentary, most specifically the amendments will provide for Interim Supply through special warrants so as to provide legislative authority for spending at the beginning of a fiscal year when the Legislature is in dissolution

It is necessary for government to have a process clearly established in the legislation, as I pointed out, as recommended by the Auditor General, for ensuring continuity of operations and the provision of essential services to the public when the House is dissolved and it is not possible to enact Interim Supply legislation.

The process followed in the past was without legislative support. It was challenged by the Auditor General. The Public Accounts Committee has also in the past recommended amending the Financial Administration Act. These amendments also provide delegated authority to the departments to approve the write-off of accounts for $1,000 or less. The Financial Administration Act currently requires write-off requests be submitted to the board for consideration. Department heads are responsible for their departmental expenditure and related revenue budgets; yet, they do not have the authority to write off even low dollar value account balances.

Greater efficiencies could be realized if Treasury Board delegated to deputy ministers of their departments the authority to write off accounts for which they will be held accountable. Two minor amendments clarify that amounts written off for accounting purposes may still be collected by government - there is no intention to deviate from that role - and also to remove an anomaly in the act regarding Treasury Board's existing authority to recommend tax remissions.

In addition, there is a provision for deemed tabling of public accounts. This provision will allow for the timely public distribution of the public accounts when they have been prepared and audited in the event the House is not in session. In this case, Mr. Speaker, the public accounts reports were submitted last week. The House was in session and it was available for the people of the Province. If that is not the case, this legislation amendment would allow for us to consider deemed tabling so we could distribute the public accounts, even if the House is not in session. It is important that the public accounts be released as early as possible, obviously, so that all interested parties have timely access to this financial information.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a comment with respect to the ability to provide special warrants as it relates to the dissolution of the House. I think it is important for the people of the Province to hear that there is no intention in any way for this government to allow for special warrants to be used in the event the House is dissolved, with any intention in mind of calling an election with this minor amendment. In fact, I was already asked earlier by the media: was the intention of this bill to allow me not to bring in a budget next year and to call an election and to run the government on special warrants.

Mr. Speaker, I said unequivocally that was not the intention of this amendment. This has been on the books for a very long time. In fact, it was on so long, I actually asked the Comptroller General why it had taken so long to come to a Minister of Finance to be brought forward for these housekeeping amendments. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that the intention is not to use special warrants in any way other than they are deemed appropriate by the Auditor General, as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee. There is no intention in any way to try to mislead this House nor the people of the Province into believing the intention for this legislative amendment, at this point in time, is to do anything other than the honourable thing, and that is to bring in a budget in the spring and to carry on with the normal business of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I would also say if, for any moment, this House of Assembly thinks that it is anything other than following the recommended advice of both the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General, we are prepared to not even allow this to go through if, for any reason at all, the members opposite or anyone else would think that we are trying to do something other than do what has been recommended to us by the Public Accounts Committee, as well as by the Auditor General, so that in the event of a dissolution of the House of Assembly we would be following our own legislation by using special warrants.

There is no other intent. There is no intent to mislead the public in any way. I will say that many of these proposed amendments have been on the books for many years, are long overdue, and I am pleased to speak to these today and answer questions about them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to the bill, I say to the minister, we do not have any special objection to the amendments to this particular bill. Some of them are not of great significance, but I think they facilitate more efficient, I guess, administration of dealing with particular accounts; in particular clause 1, an amount collectable less than $1,000. I do not think that is something that needs to be going through a lengthy channel process there. They are decisions that people whom we put in authority to entrust decisions with can make, on that amount. If it gets a bit higher than $1,000 then it would go to the President of Treasury Board, the minister there. We do not have a major problem with that at all.

Right now the legislation makes provision, with reference to clause 3, there is a provision in our Legislature now in section 28 of the Financial Administration Act already in place to deal with special warrants under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances that is not included is in the case of a dissolution of the House. This act will make that amendment and move that in there. I say to the minister that we support that on this side of the House. We do not have a problem with that at all.

The last section in particular talks about when you release the information and the Public Accounts. Normally, the legislation would say by February 1 if it is in session or as soon as possible thereafter when it is not in session, within the first week when the House is called together. That is the current legislation on that and we support having them made available to the members of this House and to the public as soon as they are available, whether the House is sitting or whether the House is not sitting. We support the amendment to clause 4 in that bill.

There are certain things we do have a major problem with, I might add, related to parameters of the Financial Administration Act that are referenced here, and they are: Is not following the laws that are now within the Financial Administration Act. That is our concern.

In the Financial Administration Act right now there are certain basic requirements laid down in that act when we can go with a special warrant. It should not be done under certain circumstances, and I might bring the minister's attention to the Auditor General for the most recent year that the Auditor General has submitted a report. We certainly await her report for the 2001 fiscal year that is normally due around this time or within the next week or two. The Auditor General did raise concerns that the Financial Administration Act that is there now is not been followed.

If we are going to move amendments to facilitate and make accountable to the people of this Province we should follow the act that is there right now, but we have not done that. The Auditor General makes particular reference in her report in 3.4. She said: "...there were 7 special warrants totaling $70.8 million issued in the 1999-2000 all of which were issued in March... these special warrants all of which, in my opinion, issued in contravention of the Financial Administration Act in that they were not urgently required and the House of Assembly was in session when the funds were distributed."

What is the point of bringing to law legislation when we are not going to follow it and we are going to violate the legislation here? That is wrong. The act means absolutely nothing, I say to the minister, if we are not going to follow it. We should concentrate on adhering to the laws of the Province that are written for us - when we can expend and when we can issue a special warrant - but it has not been done. The Auditor General has rapped their knuckles on that particular one.

I just hope the minister will take heed and make sure that this Legislature will not be pushed aside and ignored when important matters of public expenditure are needed. There are times we don't deny the need for expending funds above what is budgeted. There is a process to deal with that. There is an act and there is legislation. Now we have added in another little change. I think the Auditor General made reference back as far as 1990 on this amendment that we are seeing in clause 3. I say to the minister: What took so long? In comparison to 1989, what took so long? What took us eleven years to put something in place that should - we do not have to be told by staff within the department. The minister said she was not aware. I think the department brought it to her attention. It is there, and anybody who follows the Auditor General's Report on an annual basis will see it is there.

The Auditor General made that statement back in 1990, I believe, and subsequently has advised the government but nothing happened. So, it is welcome news that it is happening now. We welcome that, but we are concerned with some of the breaches by the Financial Administration Act that this government broke its own laws. That does not spell well for other people who are asked to carry on business in this Province and comply with laws when we break our own laws on matters totaling $70.8 million. That is major stuff, I would say, and the law is pretty clear on it. In fact, the Auditor General goes on to mention: "The issuance of special warrants along with other mechanisms provide Government with the flexibility to "adjust" the cash surplus or deficit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and produce a result closer to that originally budgeted on a cash basis."

Last year, if government had not issued those special warrants in contravention of the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General tells us, had they not done that and had they taken the hydro dividends, had they taken the sinking funds and guaranteed fees it would have shown a cash surplus last year of $167.1 million; not a deficit of $13 million in their specific budget. In other words, the Auditor General indicated that she is concerned the way government can adjust its actual revenues or expenditures to achieve whatever surplus or deficit it desires through the use of special warrants or through the use of budgeted revenues. That is not the intent for an open and accountable government. An open and accountable government should report things in an appropriate manner and should comply with their own particular laws.

I know the minister released in this House, just last Wednesday I do believe, the Public Accounts for the Province. Of course, those figures look at a total basis of accruals and really the position of our Province; where we are fiscally in our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am going to explain it to the minister now, I say to the minister. I am going to explain it to the minister, and I hope she will follow that and not ignore advice and information the Auditor General is telling us; that you move expeditiously, I say to the minister.

In fact, the real debt - this is something, too, that we put out, that the public really does not get to know of because we do have - yes, on a cash basis and we have Budget and Estimates. Beyond that year there are numerous adjustments looked at. We have to look at the assets in our Province of course, but the real debt of our Province is the total assets we have, as a government, on an accrual basis that is included in the Public Accounts subtracting the total liabilities that our Province has, out of all things, under our specific jurisdiction, or just about all things. There are a couple of minute things of major importance - minute in number - that should be reflected; but overall, we are showing a total debt right now of $8.4 billion.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, our particular Budget shows one significantly different overall, but granted, the Public Accounts is the one by the representative of this government, the Comptroller General. The Comptroller General has confirmed that is the actual debt of this Province. The Auditor General has certified that these accounts are accurate, and both of them indicate that our total debt is $8.4 billion, and I would believe that their total debt is $8.4 billion.

MR. J. BYRNE: What was it (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: My colleague is wondering what the debt was before. Well, I will give you a comparison. Let's look at the total public sector debt as reported in the Estimates each year. I have mentioned this before. Back in 1989 we had a public sector debt of $4.8 billion, not from the public accounts; we are taking it from the Budget, from the Estimates there on a cash basis, not considering the accrual basis.

I see the Deputy Premier smiling; he should be frowning. He should be disappointed as being a part of that for the past twelve years, I say to him. We have seen it growing, on that basis, to $7.035 billion, almost a 50 per cent increase in the debt of our Province since 1989. They are telling us what a great economy we have, how fantastic we are doing every year. We are going to bring everybody home. Employment is going up. We are seeing more employment than ever before. What are we doing? What are we seeing? What is the problem?

The minister made reference before; one year a previous Liberal government, back in the 1960s, a previous Liberal government overspent by 40 per cent more than they took in in revenues. Let me tell that to the minister. That million dollar debt that we inherited since 1971, we are paying interest on that ever since. Can you take a million bucks -

MR. TULK: What was it in 1971? Say it again.

MR. SULLIVAN: In 1971, about a million bucks - or a billion bucks. We are paying about a billion dollars, close to a billion dollars.

If you took a billion dollars in that time and looked at it, you can see where the major amount of this debt has gone. You can certainly see where it is going. We have to start following our own laws. It is pretty simple; we have to start following our own laws. We have to start giving people the truth and the facts of what our assets and our expenditures are, and let people judge for themselves.

When the Comptroller General and the Auditor General both tell me that we have a debt of $8.4 billion, I am very, very inclined to believe that, I say to the minister, and not the figures that are put out and swayed for political purposes.

I mentioned that it has grown since 1989. It has grown up to over $7 billion, which is a very significant increase in our debt.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Deputy Premier, across there, we have a major problem.

The minister said one day on GDP- now, our GDP growth and our real GDP growth, which is more important, and I grant, the minister said: The key thing is our real GDP growth. It does not mean anything to our Province. She talked about the price of oil. The price of oil goes up and all the rent from that, basically - all the spinoff and jobs are going outside our Province - we do not get any growth in real GDP.

If we have an industry in this Province where there are spinoffs from growth in our Province, the rents do not go out of our Province; they go to grow the economy. That is what we have to start doing with our industries, I say to the minister. We have to make sure the rent associated with these stay in our Province and build jobs. That is why the real GDP is so important. We are not getting real GDP growth from some of our offshore resources, and that has to happen. We are getting GDP growth, we are getting an increase in value if the price goes up, but what difference if it is $25 per barrel, $30 per barrel, or $22 per barrel, and all of the revenue from that, if the same number of jobs are out there? If the price goes up and there is more money going into exploration and there are more jobs created to bring on the production, if they increase the production level and it requires more jobs, more spinoffs, then we are getting the rent associated with that, some of it is staying in our Province, then we are getting an increase, and that is very important. We have not grown our economy on that basis and that is an inherent flaw we have not done. We have to start doing that, I say to the minister. We have to start making an effort to maintain that and allow it to stay here in our Province.

I am not going to belabour this, as several of my colleagues have comments on those particular bills, but I want to say to the minister that we support the Financial Administration Act as it is there right now. We support those four basic amendments that are coming to the act, and we will ask the minster and the Premier of this Province, will they please follow their own laws of this Province, and stop breaking the law with special warrants and abusing the laws and abusing the people of this Legislature by not bringing here, to the Legislature, for approval within the time frame spelled out in the Financial Administration Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 50. When I first got this legislation, and you look at the clauses that are put forward, clause 3 is the most interesting one. Now, the Minster of Finance has said tonight that - and I take her at her word. I am not trying to impute motives on the minister or anybody else, but you have to agree, I say to the minister, I say to members opposite and to the public tonight, that when you look at the suggested changes in the legislation, when you look at particularly clause 3 in the legislation that talks about dissolution of the House of Assembly, that is a word that can only mean one thing. It means that the House is dissolved and the Premier of the Province has called an election. The last time I checked, it was the Premier who decided when an election would be called, based on any set of circumstances presented to him or her at any particular time. Not the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, not the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, not the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, not the Minister of Mines and Energy, or any other minister of the Crown. So, while I accept the word presented by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I also have to ask this question. When you look at the current legislation, basically it allows for a time - so the listening public can understand what we are talking about tonight - a special warrant means that government continue to operate government; that the Cabinet can make a decision to get money without coming here - for exceptional circumstances. That is what special warrants are about, so that the process of government can continue to operate; so, if presented with an emergency situation, then a particular minister in a particular department, based upon the recommendations from officials, with the detail written down about a special warrant, goes to Cabinet, which is called the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, recommends to that Cabinet why they want the special warrant. Then a special warrant is issued to deal with the emergency that has been presented to the Cabinet so that the government, and its many operations, programs, services, et cetera, without interruption, can continue to operate.

Mr. Speaker, it is also very clear - and I believe the Minister of Finance will give me some latitude here - when, as politicians, you look at the act as it currently exists for special warrants and the continuation of government services and programming, the current act deals with it. It might not deal with it as effectively, and I understand why the bill is being brought forward - I will deal with that in a second - but it is important for us to reference what it says now, particularly dealing with clause 3. Here is what it says, "Where, when the Legislature is not in session, or when the House of Assembly has been adjourned..." - it does not say dissolved; it says adjourned - "...for more than 30 days, an expenditure not foreseen and not provided for by the Legislature in respect of a new service is urgently and immediately required for the public good, then, upon the report of the minister that there is no legislative provision and of the minister having charge of the new service in question that in his or her opinion the necessity is urgent..." can go before the Cabinet and get the money.

Now the suggested change is different, without question. Nobody could debate that it is significant in its spirit and its intent. The current change talks about in the case of dissolution, remembering, of course, that dissolution occurs under one circumstance and one circumstance only: it means the Premier has called an election. It means the people are about to decide on who will be their next government. Now this change, once it is put in place, may not affect the current Administration, given the statement made by the President of Treasury Board, but it could affect the next. Who knows? The Premier has already said on a number of occasions that if circumstances change, that would warrant the justification of a call for an election, then he would do it. He has left that door open. Publicly he has.

You cannot say on the one hand with such clarity, with such definiteness as the minister has said, that in no way would it happen, when the Premier on the other hand has said, if a situation presents itself then he has not ruled out the call of an election this year or early next year, although he has maintained that his preference is the following year, 2003.

Here is what the change allows any government, of any political stripe, to do: If an election is called - I will give you two scenarios that happened in contemporary times. If an election is called some time in March of any year, a new government is elected, that government has the absolute right, when this legislation is passed, to operate the Province for four months following the election day without coming to the Legislature, without seeking Interim Supply, which generally means a measure, a bill, that this House gives government some of its budget so the operations of government can continue until we get through the entire budget debate, the seventy-five hours that is allotted for this Legislature and for members here. This change, and the minister must acknowledge this, this new clause allows the government to operate beyond April 1 of any new year for four months, without coming to this Legislature, under very unlimited conditions. One, they must do so according to the headings that are in their old budget, so they cannot introduce any new measures so to speak. Headings under any budget give you a lot of latitude to go forward.

I want to make that point, that there is a significant change in what we are doing here. I understand why it came about. In 1989, in the election that was called in April, I believe, the then Tory government, the subsequent Auditor General's Act said very clearly that there was no legislative authority for expenditures spent beyond. A situation not unlike what happened in a very recent Auditor General's Act where the Financial Administration Act was indeed contravened. So what happened was that the operations of government continued to operate for a two-month period following the election, it is my understanding, approximately right, and, as a result of that, the Comptroller General issued money for the operations of government, because the Legislature was not open, the money was spent in contravention to the act, that they issued the money under protest, was the saying. So the minister has said that is the reason why this legislation is coming forward.

Let's bear in mind, folks, and I do not mean to be suspicious and I am not trying to be suspicious, but when you see dissolution of an Assembly, of a House, it means one thing. It means that an election is about to be called, or in the event that an election is called. It deals with a particular set of circumstances.

In 1993, what happened compared to 1989? The government of the day, under former Premier Clyde Wells, lived within the Financial Administration Act. Even though the House was dissolved, even though there was an election called, here is how they did it: He opened the Legislature from March 4 to April 2, and during that time this House does what it always does, a pre-Budget announcement. It debates Interim Supply, which essentially gave government about $1 billion to operate, or continue to operate, the departments of government, to continue to pay public servant salaries, to continue to pay nurses, to continue to pay health care providers, to continue to pay teachers, to continue to pay people at Legal Aid, to continue, essentially, the operations of government; but once Interim Supply was passed - the House passed Interim Supply that time, on March 30, 1993, for $1,016,202,000 - what happened then?

Five days later, the election was called. On April 5, the election was called, but the government already had the stamp of approval of the Legislature to continue to spend $1 billion. They did not hijack it, they did not do what happened in 1989; they did the honourable thing: came to the House, got Interim Supply. On April 5 they called the election, on May 3 it was over, and on May 21 they were back and presented a new Budget. It happened to be the same Budget that they were going to present, but it was the Budget. In doing so, in those time frames, they did not break the Financial Administration Act that we are all sworn here to uphold in terms of any law, or in particular how we deal with the people's finances.

You cannot, in looking at that, argue that they did not do it within the spirit and intent of the law and almost to the detail of it, because they did. However these new amendments, without question, provide a much greater latitude. It provides for a situation to occur which the bill, if enacted like it is, leaves government the opportunity to continue to operate government in the event - and it might not be this government, it might not be this Premier. It could be a government ten years from now, hypothetically speaking, but we have to deal with situations as they are.

Let's say, for argument sake, that an election was called on March 23, or April 23. So, on April 24 - April to May, one month; May to June, two months; June to July, three months, right until the end of August; from April to the end of July - any future government would have the opportunity to run the Province without having to come to the Legislature. The jury is out on how and if a situation like that will ever happen, but it is a situation that could possibly happen. If it does, no one knows what the future could hold.

There are some other changes that are interesting too, just on what it actually does. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but this is my reading of it. It obviously corrects a problem that has presented itself to governments before. We have acknowledged that. It seems to be the case that special warrants - I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, a former Minister of Finance, I don't know if this is true or not - but it seems to be the case that special warrants, until now - we assume that this legislation is going to pass, there is no reason to assume that it will not - had to be charged against the last budget brought down. Would that be correct?

Under the current set of rules, if you issued a special warrant on April 1, it would have to be charged against last year's budget, not the one that you have not presented yet? Is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, interesting. Very interesting, if that is the case I believe it to be.

Right now, under the new legislation, it does not have to be. An interesting change, isn't it? It has a big impact, huge impact. It does not seem like one but it would have a huge impact on the government's -

MR. J. BYRNE: To balance the budget.

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely, on the government's ability to balance the budget. You know it would. On the government's ability to borrow and at what rate. If it all had to be charged back to last year's account - you can present, certainly, a much different picture to the bond rating agencies, financial marketplace, if that were the case. It is a legitimate change that has some interesting consequences.

Again, the minister may be able to correct this when she gets up, but there was apparently no way to bring in Interim Supply (inaudible) through a special warrant; no way. You could not get Interim Supply which was the carte blanc to spend a billion dollars. Under the old act, if you wanted to do that, you would have to do it on a more case-by-case, more detailed basis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development says you still do, or government would still have to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and the minister says, again, that you could. Yes, no doubt about it. However, he must also acknowledge that under the new legislative provisions and amendments that we are making it does provide a greater degree of latitude to any current government or future government, a much more blanket sort of approach. It does not require the details that would come from every minister or every minister's department. What it would require only, according to the legislation or the proposed amendments to the new act, all it would be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It provides for less accountability but it also provides - the only thing that is required, in the legislation it says, is for the board; and what they are talking about is Treasury Board. All it means is for Treasury Board to write a note or a letter to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council requesting that, for the next four months, this is what we need to do. Now, who is Treasury Board? Treasury Board are officials. They are the watchers over the budget. They ensure that department, and its officials contained in it, that what the government brings down and what they say they are going to spend their money on, they actually watch to make sure that they do spend it on the things that they say. When it says that Treasury Board only has to write a letter to Cabinet, obviously it is under the direction of the minister and under direction of government at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make those few points. My colleague from Ferryland has dealt with the other matters in a very detailed way. I wanted to make the point in terms of what dissolution means and the impact that it could have on this government, possibly, or on any other government, and the realization that what we are doing here certainly is significant. It is not minor. It may be laid out there that it is a housekeeping detail, and it may very well be that. However, the impact and the significance of such a housekeeping detail should not be lost upon anybody.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to have a few words to say with respect to the bill that is now before the House, the bill as presented by the Minister of Finance, and to say a few things with respect to this otherwise rather routine piece of legislation.

The fact that this bill seeks to create some additional efficiencies within the departments of government, hence within government itself, generally of course, is commendable, and it is something that members on the other side of the House have applauded and said it is appropriate to do. We appreciate their support in making that point and in supporting that proposition.

The issue that is being debated however, Mr. Speaker, before the House in the context of this bill is the issue of what we are providing for on a go forward basis by way of special warrants. The fact of the matter is, that regardless of what budget year the special warrants will be charged to or have been charged to in the past, Mr. Speaker, the special warrants are required legislatively to be reported to the House within a specific period of time. There is nothing untoward and no devious intent. There is nothing that occurs when a special warrant is issued other than to execute, on government's behalf, the ability to spend or approve the expenditure of money and subsequently report that to the House.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) suggested that it was.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, and that was the point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker.

In the cut and thrust of debate across the House sometimes I believe it is possible, if not probable, that the people of the Province must get the sense that somebody at some time is trying to do something wrong or in some way circumvent the laws of the Province and the normal procedures of governance in the Province. I think that is the thing that is a little bit disturbing. I do not suggest that the members on the other side of the House are deliberately, at any time, trying to say something that is not factual or incorrect, that is not the case; but I would caution all of us that when we debate matters before the House - because people in the public look in upon us, they expect us to be honourable, they expect us to conduct business on behalf of the Province in a forthright and transparent manner - not to use language or enter into debates that suggests in anyway, or would cause the creation of a probable suggestion, that we might be trying to do something at some time that is not right.

Mr. Speaker, I believe every member in this House is, above anything else, honourable in our intents individually in performing our duties on behalf of the people of the Province. I do not believe that any of us would, at any time, want to be perceived to be alleging that government - if you are in the Opposition or the Opposition if we are in government, debating back and forth - is suggesting that anybody is doing anything wrong. I would caution members when they are debating not to try and give that illusion.

I know my good friend and colleague, the Member for Ferryland, was speaking a few moments ago and he was comparing what is presented in a budget to what is presented in the House in subsequent documents such as the Comptroller General's summation of the direct and indirect indebtedness of the Province when that report comes in. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that when the budget comes in and when the Minister of Finance presents the Budget, she presents a budget that has to do with one year of current expenditure on capital and operating accounts within the operations of government. To hear the suggestion that we are not fully disclosing our position when we bring our budget in is simply giving the illusion that we are doing something that is improper, inaccurate or is not factual. We at no time, on this side of the House - and I don't believe if these people were in government over there would either - would try in any sense to do anything that is improper or illegal or give the illusion that people would be suspicious of how we do business on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments that are brought before the House today - in the particular case of the amendments dealing with Interim Supply and special warrants - is a situation, a circumstance that is provided for, that is allowed for, that is in existence in legislation, as I understand it from the Minister of Finance, in every other province and territory in the country. So, what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is not groundbreaking. As a matter of fact, we are behind the times in making this specific provision.

I suppose, to follow on the commentary of the Opposition House Leader over there, if we were to accurately and appropriately name this amendment, we could probably call it the Rideout Amendment, because the amendment grew, I believe, and came to the attention of the Auditor General in this Province as a result of what happened when the hon. the Member for Lewisporte was the Premier and called an election without opening the House. As the result, Interim Supply was granted at that particular time without legislative support and without legislative backing. While we may be slow in getting it in, we can assure the hon. members that, assuming this is passed, that will never be the circumstance for any future government.

I would not go as far as to try, Mr. Speaker, and suggest that we rename the bill that the hon. members brought in; but, for the record, it should be clear, for what value it has, that this is an amendment that grew out of a circumstance that happened in 1989 when the other party was in government. They did not do anything wrong, Mr. Speaker, because governments have to have, through the Legislature, the ability to govern in a manner that gets the job done in the most appropriate and most efficient manner in the given circumstances in which they are operating.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say, in closing, that while comments are made with respect to pieces of legislation back and forth across the House, I hope that we always bear in mind that we never create in the minds of the public a circumstance where we are casting aspersions or casting doubt about any of our credibility, because if there is anything that any of us have brought with us into this House, and I believe we all have brought it, it is our own personal credibility, our own personal reliability, our own personal integrity, if I might, and I believe if there is anything any of us would wish to leave this House with, we would like to leave with at least what we brought with us, and that is our credibility, our integrity, our good sense and our good judgement so that we can walk out as we came in.

I know the hon. the Member for Ferryland likes to debate hard, and I know he likes to debate vociferously, and I know he likes to spend as much time on his feet as he can, but I would suggest that he not unduly try to confuse either the people of the Province or the people in this House, or confuse himself, with usage of the facts and presentation of material that otherwise might question exactly what it is we are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that he has done anything like that. I just say that in this context, that he is so good when he is on his feet, and that he makes such forceful and such loud and passionate presentations that if, per chance -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - he might once, inadvertently, say something incorrectly, I believe the people of the Province might even be willing to believe him. We would not want them to believe anything other than the actual, the factual and the real truth as presented by all of us, I believe, as by way of our intent, at least, when we stand before the people of the Province and when we stand on our feet in this House.

I would implore the members on the other side to give quick and speedy passage to this particular amendment because it is in the interests of the people of this Province that we use the time in this House efficiently and effectively so as to bring good governance in as quickly and in as timely a manner as we can.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the interest of using the time of the House efficiently, I will try not to speak as long as the Minister of Mines and Energy, but I do want to say a few things about this particular piece of legislation before the House.

The Financial Administration Act amendments do a couple of things; one of which, as the minister and others have explained, has to do with the making legal, I guess, of certain practices that may have taken place in the past. There is a distinction to be made between making something legal according to the Financial Administration Act and in fact making something an element of good government. What we have to remember here is that this legislation, as well as Interim Supply in general, authorizes an expenditure to cover up to four months of government activity. So we are talking in a budget around $4 billion a year, of authorizing an expenditure in excess of $1 billion without any detail being provided at all. In fact, the only justification ever given is a budget that may be presented some time down the road or approved later, after the fact.

What it does is, it makes the expenditures legal so we are not violating the law but it does not necessarily make those expenditures in conformity to a budget that has been passed in this House. I want to say this too: I hope the Minister of Finance has a better idea of the length of the fiscal year than the Minister of Government Services and Lands, because today he told us that the inspections being conducted by his department were conducted once each fiscal year. That is, once in a fifteen month period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: That is what he said. I hope the Minister of Finance has a better idea as to the length of the fiscal year. The length of the fiscal year is exactly the same length as the calender year. I want to tell the Minister of Government Services and Lands that the length of a fiscal year is twelve months. The length of a calendar year is twelve months. It is exactly the same length. It is just that one year ends at the end of December and the other ends at the end of March. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can have a little education session for the caucus or the Cabinet at the next Cabinet meeting so he will not be making those kinds of mistakes. The Minister of Finance, I am sure, will confirm this when she gets up in reply, that she understands the exact length of the fiscal year.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Twelve months, 365 days, equals one year. The Minister of Mines and Energy is a very clever man.

The other segment of this bill that I do want to talk about is the business of writing off the amounts of less than $1,000. They are referred to as deficits, but they are actually debts owed to the Crown. I do not have a problem with these debts being written off, or with Treasury Board giving the power to do that to deputy ministers. What I have a problem with is the next part of it. I know members opposite and members on this side of the House have come across it as well, and that is the third paragraph of clause 1. It says, "The writing off of a deficit under subsection (1) or (2) does not affect the obligation of a person from whom the deficit was due to pay it or the right of the Crown to recover it.

So here we have an amount less than $1,000 that is being written off by the government, does not form part of the deficit anymore, somehow or other it is protected from being part of the $8 billion deficit, as if $1,000 is going to make any difference, but the government wants to make sure it has the right to collect that, no matter how old it is. That is the issue that I want to talk about, because we see this government trying to collect debts by denying services to members of the public for things that are fifteen, sixteen and, in some cases, twenty years old.

We had a case within the last two weeks of an individual who supposedly had not paid a fine under the Wildlife Act that was sixteen years old. This person went to try and get their driver's licence renewed and was told they could not get their driver's licence renewed in 2001 because there was a fine that was unpaid for a wildlife offence going back to 1984. That is the kind of stuff that is going on here under this clause 3.

We have another example of a member opposite - I will not name him, I don't want to embarrass him - who was telling me about an individual who was in receipt of social assistance and was staying in a hotel with his family on a waiting list to get into Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, could not get into Newfoundland and Labrador Housing because there was a $100 or $200 debt owed from when that person was a tenant of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing six or seven or eight years before. So instead of going into Newfoundland and Labrador Housing this person was put up in a hotel by another minister along with the members of his family for a period of days and days costing probably $200 a day in expenses to the government instead of having that debt written off and putting those individuals into Newfoundland and Labrador Housing accommodations that were available to them, that they qualified for, and was there empty waiting for them to enter.

There are numerous other cases where we see the Department of Social Services or the following department collecting on monies owed to the Crown that might be ten, twelve, fourteen, sixteen, twenty years old when the government has no hope under any legislative regime of suing them because the statute of limitations would apply. We have people asking us, as individual members of this House: Isn't there any statute of limitations on this? Can they collect debts that are fifteen years old? Do they have to take $300 out of a poor person who is trying to get social assistance? Do they have to collect a couple of hundred dollars that may have been in mysterious circumstances fifteen years ago had remained unpaid or be a debt that they have to recover? Is that the kind of approach that we have toward citizens or can we - when we are writing it off for budget purposes, which the minister wants to do here now - also not write it off for humanitarian purposes? Isn't there any discretion that is going to be given here to the deputy minister to write off that debt?

I have had cabinet ministers opposite tell me that they would love to be able to do this but they do not have the discretion, they are not allowed. Their officials tell them that it does not matter what the circumstances are if the $300 was owed to the government fifteen years ago that they do not have a choice because the law and the Financial Administration Act forces them to collect that from the individual. Here we have an example, Mr. Speaker, of the government specifying in writing that even though we are going to write it off for financial purposes, for the purposes of the public debt, we cannot write it off for an individual because it specifically says here in this act that we are going to keep that as a debt and the government can still collect it from people who are applying for other totally unrelated services from the government; totally unrelated services they can collect this debt for by denying them services that they are otherwise entitled to. I think that is wrong. I think that if we think about it, most of the members in this House would think that is wrong too.

I want to ask the minister whether she is prepared to accept an amendment in committee on this bill with respect to that particular provision? Is she prepared to also allow the deputy minister to write off the debt? Not just write off the deficit from the point of view of the Financial Administration Act but actually write off the obligation as well because that is a discretion that I think should be there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The obligation of the individual who owed the money. If it was $100 or $500 or $200, that the Deputy Minister of Finance should be able to, with a bit of discretion, write off a debt that is owed to the Crown as well as get rid of it off the financial books. That is the second thing I want to say.

The third thing is about the deficit generally. We have, as the Member for Ferryland has noted, the public debt of $8.4 billion. I think, actually, the Auditor General has said that the liabilities are not $8.4 billion. In addition to the $8.4 billion, there is another $1.22 billion with the total liabilities of the Crown in the amount of $10.37 billion. So, over $10 billion of liabilities against, which she credits, $1.9 billion in assets. Now, that is sort of a book value of assets that are actually valued at $5 billion or $6 billion, but the book value based on amortization is down to $1.93 billion. I want to say too that the extra $1.2 billion - you know when we talk about the debt, sometimes opposition parties - and I know the Member for Ferryland likes to talk about how huge the debt is, and sometimes government use that when they want to say that we cannot afford to do anything, but that debt is composed of three parts.

The one part: the direct debt of the government is $5.8 billion; and $5.8 billion, given our GDP, is a heck of a lot better than it was ten years ago and a heck of a lot better than it was five years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: They know that. They just don't want to talk about it.

We have to look at the debt in relation to the GDP. You have to look at the debt in relation to government revenues. In relation to annual revenues of $3.9 billion, a direct debt of $5.8 billion is not such an astounding number given the fact that our GDP has also been rising significantly in the last number of years. So, we have to put these things in perspective.

If we are going to provide services to people that implies a proper level of financing, including an appropriate amount of public debt - I am not one of those people who says we have to stop doing everything and pay off the public debt. When we are getting sufficient royalties from our offshore resources, I say to the Deputy Premier, when we are getting a proper return on our natural resources then we can start paying off the debt but right now we have to live with the debt we have because it is appropriate and necessary.

Another portion of the debt is $3.3 billion in unfunded liability on the pension plans. The Public Service Pension Plan, about $1.5 billion; the teachers' pension plan and others, adding up to $3.3 billion. Some of these are being addressed, and the Minister of Finance, I am sure, knows that the contribution of $76 million per year that this government is making to the unfunded liability, the teachers' pension plan, some of the measures that were taken as a result of the settlement of the public service strike last spring as addressing the Public Service Pension Plan debt, these are there but are being addressed. They are not something that somebody is going to come and ask the Province for $8.4 billion next year because we have not paid our debt. These are long-term obligations - ones that did not occur in the last two years, five years or ten years - ones that have been accruing for the last thirty or forty years in the case of the unfunded liability, when government chose not to establish pension funds.

A third part of that debt, the $1.22 billion comes in the form of contingent liabilities or government guarantees in some cases. Part of which, for example, the $1.2 billion, $1.1 billion is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro owes $1.1 billion guaranteed by this government. Is that really a part of the government debt? Well, if you look at the balance sheet of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro there is a net equity of $668 million. So, the liability is there but the assets are there to make up for it. The only way to get rid of that debt is to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Is that what the Opposition wants, to reduce that debt? That is an important part of the public debt but it is a liability that goes along with assets. The $1.1 billion owed by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is offset by $2 billion worth of assets for a net equity of $668 million.

When we talk about public debt, it is no good throwing around big, huge numbers to make it sound like things are terrible; but, when you look at the elements of it, I think there is lots of room for government to provide proper quality services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, more than they are providing, in fact, better services than they are providing. We can look after our debt -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: We can look after our debt when this government, or any subsequent government, improves our position with respect to revenues on our offshore, revenues and royalties from our natural resources -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

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

The member made a statement that is basically not correct. The member should know that in the public accounts tabled in this Province, it shows $1.9 billion assets. They are factored when you arrive at the public debt of $8.4 billion, and the member should know that. He is here in the House long enough. What he said is not accurate. It is not something that we have ever said, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order.

The list of assets as contained in the summary of the Consolidated Financial Statements includes $1.5 billion in net book value of assets, of which Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is not included. The point is that our public debt is comprised of three or four different elements and I think we have to put these in perspective when we are talking about the public debt.

Those three things, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out because I think it is important that we have a proper perspective on these things when we are doing that. I think there is an issue here with allowing government - by warrant or even by Interim Supply - of allowing one-third of the budget to be spent without being approved by this House of Assembly. I think that is the reality of what this measure supports.

The second issue, and I hope the minister can respond to this: Will the minister accept, in Committee, an amendment to allow the deputy minister to actually write off the obligation of an individual less than $1,000 as well as get rid of it off the public debt. Perhaps the minister might want to comment on the public debt of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. If the hon. the minister speaks now she will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank you for the opportunity to address some of the issues that have been raised. I would concur that my definition of a calendar year is twelve months; however, our calendar year does begin April 1 and not January 1, for the record.

The other point I would like to make, I think, is very important. It is around the intention of this bill. The intention, as I said in my opening comments, clearly is of a housekeeping nature, and the intention with respect to dissolution of the House, I have made it quite clear again that the intention of the bill is not to do anything other than to bring this House of Assembly, this hon. House, in line with every other House of Assembly across the country which currently has these legislative provisions: that in the event of a dissolution of the House, in the event of an election, then a government can continue on using special warrants, and it is only that provision. It is the intent - as I said very clearly, this is not in any way to mislead this House or the public. In fact, if it were of such an urgent nature that it was of concern to the members opposite, I would be happy to put this off until after the Budget was brought down and then bring it in as a housekeeping measure, just to prove the intent of this bill is to do nothing more than to bring this part of the Financial Administration Act in line with other provinces of the country.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I noticed a number of comments about special warrants, about our budgets, and about the Auditor General's recommendations. I would have to say again that we have hidden nothing. Our full record of whether it is the cash statement or whether it relates, in this House of Assembly, to the accrual system, it is all tabled. It was tabled last week for the people of the Province, for the media to look at. There is absolutely nothing hidden.

When you compare a cash statement with an accrual statement, as I said to the Member for Waterford Valley, it is like comparing apples and oranges. We put forward in our Budget a cash statement about what we expect to receive in revenues and our expenditures each year, and then in December when our own bureaucrats or the Comptroller General looks at the full audited statement, he will submit it to the Public Accounts Committee for all to see. We all know that part of that deficit includes our unfunded liability interest payments of $225 million.

I also have to say, in response to the Member of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who concurs that the sky is not falling and that there is room to provide services, and that we currently will continue to do that, he also acknowledged the issue around our unfunded pension liabilities.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, I think it is important for the people of the Province to realize that to date this government has paid down $644 million to support both the Teachers' Pension Plan as well as the Public Service Pension Plan in special payments, a significant amount of money which has addressed major problems within the unfunded liability and, in fact, moved the Teachers' Pension Plan from being 17 per cent funded to in excess of 30 per cent funded. More importantly, in terms of percentage, is the Public Service Pension Plan; it has improved from 36 per cent in 1994 to over 50 per cent funded today, a significant contribution and a commitment to the people of the Province, in the Public Service Pension Plan as well as the Teachers' Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will have a lot more opportunity to talk about special warrants and other issues as it relates to government operations. As I would like to say again, our GDP for this Province does show a strong economy. It does show the sky is not falling. It does show, and give the people of the Province, confidence in our own economy and how we have grown it. We have already acknowledged and recognized that real GDP is very much based on volume - we have acknowledged that publicly - and if Terra Nova is on stream, our GDP will lead the country next year. We are proud of that. We are very proud of that, and I think that instills confidence in the people of our Province.

There is obviously nothing wrong and no political motivation for this particular amendment to the Financial Administration Act, except of a housekeeping nature, and I would urge hon. members to support this. I respectfully move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No 2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 50)

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 5, Bill 27, a motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

To the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 2001. By way of Supplementary Supply and in accordance with the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: ____________________________

A.M. House, Lieutenant-Governor

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

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

I move that the message, together with the amount, be referred to a Committee of Supply.

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

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation for an amount of $4.8 million. This was for the provision of additional funds for increased gasoline and fuel costs associated with building heating fuels, to maintain our buildings, ferry vessels, gas, diesels and oils, and also for vehicles and equipment, including gas, diesels and oils. Mr. Chairman, as well, an allocation for the Department of Health and Community Services for a total of $56,720,000.

Mr. Chairman, these special warrants, I think, are very important to the people of the Province and certainly would be of interest, and I would like to take the opportunity to go through some of these for the interests of both the House and the people. Twenty three million was allocated for the reclassification of nurses, licensed practical nurses, social worker classifications and selected classes associated with the Association of Allied Health Professionals.

In addition to the $23 million allocated for additional funds for reclassification, a special warrant of $8.8 million was for the provision of additional funds for health care facilities, equipment acquisitions, and this represents the Province's share of the federal government's contribution towards the purchase of modern medical diagnostic and treatment equipment. Some of this included, as well, renovations to our health care facilities, including upgrading at St. Clare's, removing asbestos as we had committed, and also replacing the air handling units and doing other work in the ICU and the dialysis units of St. Clare's.

At the Carbonear General, it included emergency repairs to boilers, renovations to obstetrics and gynecological floors, emergency department redevelopment, and repairing oxygen systems at the Carbonear General. It included roof repairs at Harbour Lodge. At the Peninsulas, the GB Cross in Clarenville, it included air quality improvements. In Burin there were laboratory and ambulatory care renovations which were committed. In Bonavista there were roof repairs, and in Blue Crest there was a ventilation upgrade in the kitchen. In Lakeside Homes in Gander there were renovations to the phase three commitment of Lakeside Homes, and in Bonavista North there were roofing repairs made to the Bonnews Lodge.

In Central West Health Care Corporation there were roof repairs and also, Mr. Chairman, a commitment to expand the dialysis unit, and also structural repairs to windows. In Green Bay there was a roof replacement. In Western Memorial there were space utilization studies done and also boiler upgrades as well for Western Memorial. In Curtis Memorial, St. Anthony, renovations to the health filing system, community clinics that had fuel storage tanks replaced. In Labrador South Health Centre, an extension to the facility and also finishing up of some of the internal work. At the Paddon Memorial Hospital there were roof repairs, upgrading their HVAC system and window replacements. In Black Tickle, a very important renovation or necessary piece of an artesian well. In the St. John's Nursing Home Board, Masonic Park, there were roof repairs; Hoyles- Escasoni, fire and life safety improvements, elevator upgrades; in St. Patrick's and Agnes Pratt Homes there were fire and life safety improvements. In the Pentecostal Home there was a furnace replacement; in Health and Community Services in Eastern, renovations to the Mount Carmel clinic and a lease hold improvement to Clarenville Community Dialysis Unit.

Mr. Chairman, you can see that these are some of the renovations. In terms of the capital equipment, also very important to the people of the Province, the Health Care Corporation of St. John's included cardiac Cath Lab renovations, I am sure members opposite will be pleased, as well as new patient care equipment to the tune of $8.7 million.

The St. John's Nursing Home Board had resident care equipment like lifts, bathers and new beds for the residents; Health and Community Services, St. John's, Special Assistance Program; Provincial Breast Screening Program, a mammography unit and new equipment. In the genetics department, provincial genetics, laboratory equipment was made available. Under the Avalon Health Care Institutions Board, resident care equipment, Information Technology and electric beds were provided; Carbonear General, a CAT scanner, mammography renovations, a mammography unit and a defibrillator monitor. At AA Wilkinson, a defibrillator monitor; Whitbourne, X-ray renovations; the Pentecostal Seniors' Home, residential care equipment.

Mr. Chairman, the list goes on but it is very important, as I am sure people in the Province would like to know why we decided to spend this much money on a special warrant to match money from the federal government.

GB Cross in Clarenville, a CAT scanner, digital fluoroscopy, ambulatory care equipment; also, the Burin Peninsula, patient care equipment; Grand Bank Community Centre, patient care equipment. It is the same in St. Lawrence and in Bonavista. In James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander, a CAT scanner, year three of a third-year fund-raiser, a paediatric ventilator, general X-ray machine; Notre Dame Bay Hospital, X-ray processor; and, in Fogo, a haematology or blood analyzer.

AN HON. MEMBER: All of that?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: There is more. There is actually more.

In Central West, a CAT scanner, CAT scanner renovations, echocardiography 50 per cent funded, a urology table and also a blood analyzer; ultrasound cost-shared at Baie Verte Peninsula; in Green Bay, Springdale, an EKG monitor; in Lewisporte, cost-shared cardiac monitor/defibrillator; Dr. Hugh Twomey in Botwood, a bather and lifter for the residents; a nurse call system in Botwood; in Grand Falls, an ultrasonic washer; in Western Memorial, all kinds of Information Technology, automated dosage packaging for their pharmacy, and all kinds of renovations there as well.

Mr. Chairman, the list goes on in terms of new equipment. In Western Memorial, a CAT scanner again, which is the first year of a three-year program, digital mammography; in St. Anthony, an orthopaedic OR, an ICU stretcher, radiography; and on it goes, including very important life-safety issues around fire alarm systems and all sorts of CAT scanners cost-shared.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to this, which totals up $15 million, there was another special warrant issued of $3.7 million, which speaks again to our commitment to providing additional funds for drug subsidization for both our seniors as well as those in income support in our Province, and a special warrant of $5.5 million to provide additional funds for a very serious issue in the detoxification treatment of our Innu children. These expenditures represent a 90-10 federal-provincial cost-sharing ratio.

Mr. Chairman, these special warrants total $61,520,000 and again include both the Departments of Works, Services and Transportation as well as Health and Community Services, and includes a wide variety of very necessary and important measures undertaken on behalf of this government, particularly, as is pointed out, with $56 million of it going to Health and Community Services in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hope we get the same detail in the $1.4 billion Budget that comes down in the spring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am afraid we will be here forever. If the minister could, I am sure she would not mind giving me a copy and tabling a copy of this breakdown. I would love to have a copy for the record, and I am sure my colleagues would as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: She did not read them all, I say to my colleague. There are still some she did not read, so I would like to see a complete breakdown.

First of all, while I am on my feet, I do want to clarify just two things. One, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said - and everybody who has been in this House knows full well our stand on Hydro from day one. We fought from day one. We used every mechanism to delay bills here in this House in terms of Hydro. We agree with keeping Hydro. It is such a valuable asset, we said. It is such a great asset, we should never let it get out of our hands. It is a cash cow. Do you know what the government took this year in your budget? It was $75.9 million in deferred revenues that were now plugged into this year's budget from Hydro. And we want to get rid of it! Thank God that the people in this Province, the Opposition and all others, polarized around the issue and did not give away a valuable asset, because it would be owned today by people in eastern townships and on Bay Street and other areas who would be the owners of one of the greatest resources in our Province, next to our people.

It is a tremendous resource that puts $800 million a year into the coffers of Hydro-Quebec, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had the audacity even to think for a moment, on Hydro, that we would even entertain anything other than having that as such a prized possession. But there is a point on what government is doing, though. We are delighted to have Hydro. We are delighted that it is in a good position. We do take a fee, granted. We do take a fee on that issue because we guaranteed the debt there, around 1 per cent we get, which is fine, but Hydro does not always have the cash flow to pay the bills, and they will have to borrow, too, when we take money out of it and reduce equity, basically, in a company, and that affects the final position there with that. I will not belabour that point but I wanted to make the point.

The Minister of Mines and Energy did made a statement. For a while I thought he was inferring that I indicated the figure we gave in the budget, and the public accounts, that they were giving a misinformed figure. That is not what I said. He did retract a bit from it, but I want to make it absolutely clear, I have indicated where the budget was wrong, where we got the wrong figure, is that they manipulate and move pots of money around to give them the desired deficit they want, and the Auditor General stated that of our Province. It is in black and white here for anyone who wants to read it. That is the point I made by not getting the true picture, not the difference between our accrual method and our public accounts and the budget amount. I have already made reference to that earlier.

On this particular bill, with special warrants to expenditures over and above what is approved in the Budget that we approved, basically, in the House in the previous year, there are considerable amounts of money expended in the health care sector. That tells us certain things: that money allocated in health care was not sufficient to do the job initially, or we are not getting maximum use for the dollars put in the system.

While we are on that topic, here is another issue on which I take the minister to task. When you look at the debt of our Province, the minister is telling us that this year we are going to have a debt of about $80 million, as of now, but it could change. When asked by a CBC Morning Show host about the question that: Loyola Sullivan indicated we could have $400 million next year, she said: Certainly. That was her response. So, she agreed. I would like to get it on the record that she did agree, but the minister is not including in that deficit amount, the total debt of hospital boards. The minister knows full well just the current debt in this year, for example, just to give an indication of this year, the current debt was projected to be $18 million. In other words, hospital boards in this Province are going to spend $18 million more than they are getting this year. The Minister of Health and Community Services came back and said: Oh, no, they got $50 million more. But that $50 million, she forgot to say, was to pay for services that the people got last year. That is what they needed to give us the quality and the level of service we got last year, not considering inflation. That, to me, is not painting the proper picture, I say to the minister.

Hospital boards have accumulated debts, over the past few years, of about $80 million, not counting $80 million this year, and they have been asked to find the savings. Now they have brought in a company, I think, from the mainland, a swat team I think it was, to go through the Health Care Corporation and see where they can slice another $6 million out of there, basically. If they do not find that $18 million overall, or the extra $6 million, even if they find some of that, we would still have a shortfall. Community health care board's projection is $6 million to $7 million. For months now they have been telling people you cannot get the supplies that you need for home care in the personal care homes. They have been tightening the reins and going through - I think for the last number of months, I might add. We have a deficit accumulated now in health care close to the $100 million mark, just in the last few years alone. In other words, that much less money was put in the system than we could afford to be able to use.

What do you when you keep running debts if the money is not coming in to pay it? Well, you carry the debt and pay interest on it and try to pay it down. Those overruns on deficits do not get dealt with. They become debts and they build up. An accumulation of deficits is a debt, basically. That is what happens. So we have problem.

What they are starting to do now - and I understand they are being told in certain cases - is convert that into long-term debt. You take the deficit and put it into long-term debt. What does that mean? We already have a fair amount of long-term debt with hospital boards because the health care corporation had permission to borrow for the renovation of St. Clare's, the Janeway, and the new structures there. I think they are currently in debt of about $130 million; I think that is the figure now roughly there in that.

If we are going to start taking debt and piling it on, increasing the debt, we have to pay the piper. You have to pay down on the debt, and that costs money in interest. We have to pay down our principal over a period of time. Where is the money coming from to pay the interest on the debt? It is not in new money we are getting from government. It is coming out of operation. What do you do? You have to cut down in services to be able to meet this debt out of the money you are getting or over expend and then government has to step in. Now this money that is put in - some areas here are very important. I am glad the minister made reference to some because I stood in this House before and said that we need to have services close to the people.

We talked about uprooting people in St. Anthony. A man in his eighties came into St. John's and had to go into a basement apartment, and die heartbroken here in St. John's to get dialysis. We have had incidents in the past down in the Bonavista region. A gentleman came here in the gallery, and I said: We need to get dialysis around this Province. The minister said: It is more than plugging in a machine. We said: Yes, we know it is, but it should be done. Now today, through continuous effort of the Opposition and the public who need this service, we have seen a dialysis unit come to Central Newfoundland. We have seen it in Stephenville, Corner Brook - which had one - and St. Anthony now has the service of it. We have one in Clarenville, I say to my colleague for Bonavista South. A gentleman in his district came here and tried to lobby. I went to visit that gentleman at the hospital. He came in his pickup truck with a little refrigerator, went in the hostel Sunday evenings and went home on Fridays. He had to get out, but he could not leave his things there over the weekend. He had to truck it all back home again and come back in again the next week. That went on and on for - I am not sure how long - a year or two years.

Their whole lifestyle is uprooted. Having dialysis for patients in strategic locations around the Province is important. Just imagine the trauma on a family or an individual who has to leave three times a week and probably go from St. Anthony to Corner Brook - it is impossible to drive back and forth. The person is exhausted or wiped out by the time they get there. So you have to move into the area. If you don't have relatives there extra costs are incurred. You have to sell your house or vacate it and try to get an apartment here, which people have had to do.

I must admit, we have seen some progress in the area of trying to make services closer to the people with reference to dialysis, and that's needed. There was a wall put up before, as if it was the wrong thing to ask. It is important. We need to keep people as much as we can out in rural Newfoundland today. We do not want to have two big facilities and everybody have to come to those facilities. We have to maintain rural Newfoundland. St. Anthony, the Northern Peninsula, Stephenville, Clarenville and those areas, need to be maintained and have reasonable services. Now we don't expect astronomical costs. When you get to a certain point it is sometimes cheaper to move the people than to put the service there but this was a service that could be done. We said it could. We did proper research on this, I say to the minister. We talked to people who know what is involved there. That is why we suggested it and that is why we felt it was good. Over the past few years we have seen it happen, eventually, where people avail of some of these services.

There are major expenditures. It has been said before that $1.4 billion - I think they made reference - or 40-something per cent of our budget goes into dealing with health overall. That is the whole umbrella of health. Even though there has been a significant increase - I don't doubt that - we have to put it in perspective too because the Department of Health didn't always have some of the programs and services that are there now. The old department of social services - which became Human Resources and Employment - had some of these programs before. Divisions like child protection is now under the health budget, it wasn't before. We have youth corrections and a few other areas that were not there. Family and Rehabilitative Services is another one which shifted, that I can think of. These figures are up in the tens, and not over $100 million or more in the cost of these. I think Human Resources and Employment retained the employment assistance aspect of it there for families who have that need.

We have to look at it in perspective when we talk about that. There have been certain expenditures in health care that have been essential. There are still some inequities out there today in the system and we have to try to solve them. The minister made reference to a cardiac catheter lab, and we all know how vitally important it is to be able to facilitate people through the system because there is an increasing number of people today who are having heart attacks and serious conditions - on the verge of heart attacks basically with blockages and so on, and to be able to facilitate people is important; and, of course, cardiac surgery.

There are numerous other areas out there too which are important that we don't get to hear about. They are not subjects, I guess, that the public tune into as much, but there is a tremendous shortage of mental health services in the Province; and in particular, for children too. There are lineups in the hundreds of people. You almost have to be suicidal in order to get admitted into a hospital. I have dealt with constituents and people around this Province in the past. These are areas that are vital, very important, and is one that probably doesn't get as much attention as a person who is fighting for his life in a hospital and trying to get a bypass operation.

There are inequities, and one very much so that I am aware of, is somebody in my district who has to have a kidney transplant - I made some reference to this earlier - went out and had fundraisers and raised money to go to Toronto - raised money to send the parents and the person who is getting the kidney. The donor was covered I think under a government program but the recipient was not. Canada 3000 bought the tickets, and what happened? They lost the tickets and had to try to get to Toronto - get the money on their own for some (inaudible) to get up and get the operation done. That is a service - a kidney transplant. For the life of me, I don't know why somebody who needs a kidney has to pay their own way to Toronto to get that kidney - when we don't provide the service here in our Province.

We talk about equal access. The principles of the Canada Health Act, I can tell you, are being stretched to the limit and quite possibly well broken. There is not equal access to health care service in this country. When we don't provide a service in this Province, and we don't pay, and we don't enable that person to get to Toronto to get a kidney, there is something wrong with the system. Medical transportation or medical assistance say: pay the first $500 yourself and we will pay 50 per cent thereafter. I mean some people just cannot simply afford to do it. If a family were completely on social services they probably would get it covered under that program to get there. So there are inequities when we cannot provide a program. When a person needs a kidney and that person has to get their own money - a teenager by the way - to try to get to Toronto to get the kidney, I think there is something amiss. There are inconsistencies.

If you were living in Toronto, Halifax, or some other areas of this country you could have access. Access to health care is not universal in this country. Different regions have better access to it. No wonder you hear Alberta pushing this issue out there. I think the biggest stumbling block to getting equal access and maintaining the principles of the Canada Health Act is Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister of this country. He has driven it. They have driven the envelope so far on that, that they cannot provide sufficient funding. I know the Premier is paying attention because he was up fighting for this issue too, I am sure. We have seen it in the media in the past, that we are not getting our fair share under the Canada Health and Social Transfer. We need more federal dollars. We are getting tens of millions of dollars less than we used to get.

We are getting almost what? Some $90 million less than we used to get back seven or eight years ago. That is why we cannot do some of the things. That is why we are stretched to the limit. In fact, I think the federal government has abdicated its responsibility in caring and providing equal access to service across this country, at a time, I might add, when we have been running up unheard of surpluses in this country over the past two to three years. What would they do to us if we did not have a surplus in this country? Can you just imagine what would happen?

We are too small. We were 2 per cent, and now we are1.8 per cent, so we are going down fast. We were 583,000 people in 1989 when your government came to power, and now we are 533,000 and they are even telling us we are going to be down to 400,000 some time down the road. We have lost 50,000 people, and Canada Health and Social Transfer should never be allowed to go to a per capita basis. We have shifted from a need basis, and areas like ours that have a geography that is so diverse - imagine the size of Labrador alone, trying to provide medical services in Torngat Mountains, even southern Labrador which is getting a little easier with road structure. Other parts of this Province, all over, look at the South Coast and other parts of this Province and try to provide a service here. Look at the geography; look at the cost per capita of delivery.

I am saying there has to be a formula in this country whereby we have to look at the cost per capita of delivering certain basic service.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Chairman, to finish up.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There has to be some method to allow a basic per capita based upon the geography first. First of all, the geography of a Province has to be considered. The cost of delivery of services has to be equalized, the playing field level, and then we can look at a per capita basis beyond that point. Until that happens, we will get poorer and poorer from the federal perspective. Our population dwindles, our revenues from the federal government go down, and we have a major problem here. We have a ballooning health care budget. We have needs, we have an aging population, and we need to deal with these. We need, obviously, to get into prevention, education and issues in health care which are important.

I will just close with this: We have heard Mr. Peddle with the health care boards, speaking on their behalf, a CEO, an executive director, talking about where we need to go in the future. He has made some very startling comments there, but he said we need to do things before we lose it all, and if we do not do something, basically, we are going to compromise a lot in the future. There is a great element of caution in his statements there, but we have to start taking heed and we have to look at doing something about it.

We have been strong advocates of health care here, the needs are identified here by the minister. I hope she will give me a copy of all these. I will be looking forward in the Budget to seeing the breakdown on the $1.4 million next year, where every cent of that is gone, because we have to draw, almost like hens' teeth, trying to get information in Estimates on breakdowns of how the health care budget is spent. We used to have a book called the Estimates that did breakdowns in much more detail, and now it all gets lumped together. We do not get the breakdowns we used to get.

I am delighted the minister stood here tonight and told us how that $56 million-plus in health care, over and above what was budgeted and approved last year, got spent. I say to the minister, we will be waiting to see how the $1.4 billion gets broken down and where that gets spent, because we would like to have an idea, basically, where are all the expenditures are going in the system, and I am sure the minister will be forthcoming, and at least start today by giving us a copy of her information she has on the breakdown today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to make a few comments on Bill 27, the short title, the Supplementary Supply Act, 2000-2001. It has to do with two departments of government: Works, Service and Transportation, and Health and Community Services, that not only affect the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, but indeed have a great deal to do with every district in the Province.

I listened to the minister as she went down through the special warrants. I listened with interest to some of her comments, and I hope to make a few comments on some of the issues that she raised in a moment. Dealing with the people's finances is everybody business. Indeed, I guess, the responsibility that we have here in the House is to ensure that the people's finances are spent properly, that they are recorded properly, and I guess that is why we have special warrants: because every now and again there are issues that arise after the Budget is brought down, during the year, special circumstances that arise, for which we need to have the opportunity to have special warrants.

In this bill here, we have a situation where we have over $61 million in special warrants. Some of the issues that the minister raised while she was bringing forward her concerns, certainly in the health care, are some very legitimate concerns that need to be addressed throughout the Province. She went through a list, Mr. Chairman, of different things in the Province that had to be addressed over the year, and certainly some very legitimate concerns; but, at the same time, we are very concerned about some of the health costs in the Province, and I will get to that in a moment.

I just want to touch, if I could, briefly, on the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and the fact that we have to have special warrants of $4.8 million to address some of the concerns there and, according to the minister, have to do fairly with gasoline and fuel costs, the increase, the fluctuation in the cost during the year, and some vehicles and equipment.

I listened with interest concerning the vehicles and equipment, Mr. Chairman, because this past summer, as an example, in my district, a rather small community called Mall Bay down in St. Mary's Bay, has a gravel road up to the community of Riverhead. We are looking for the services of a grader. I am sure the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - they were looking for the services of a grader for several weeks, and when they went looking for the grader they found out she was up in the White Hills and they couldn't afford to repair her. That is what they were told, that they couldn't afford to have the grader repaired. I am wondering, would it be possible, if we run into the same problem next year, that we could get a special warrant for the grader for St. Mary's Bay, I say to the minister, because it is an important issue for the people down there, waiting several months. It is a gravel road with some steep hills and, leading into September with the start of school buses and school transportation, it was a very legitimate concern that I raised with the people within the minister's department, and to find out that the reason why the grader was not back on the road was that they were waiting for some funding for the winter season in order to get the grader up and running. I think that is a very important concern that we could be looking at, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Premier, stay calm. There are some issues here that I need to bring forward. I know that the Premier has many issues of his own that he would like to bring forward, and he will have the opportunity to stand on his feet and do so too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: We talk about Works, Services and Transportation. There is certainly a need for many issues in my district on Work, Services and Transportation, in regard to road work that needs to be done throughout my district.

I was down this morning to a news conference that the Premier and the Minister of Tourism and my friend from Bonavista South attended, concerning a 2002 car rally that is coming to Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly going to create some great tourism potential here in the Province, but they are going to be traveling over some horrendous roads. From listening to the speakers there this morning, they talked about challenging roads. They said they had been around the world in these cars rallies. I say to them, they have not seen anything yet until they get to this Province to see some of the challenging roads, and I am not talking about the turns and the twists. I am talking about the condition of the asphalt that is on those roads, and the condition that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is responsible for and has left in disarray in many parts of the Province.

I hope that by the time September 13 rolls around next year, and these 200 cars come to visit our Province and hopefully create this new tourism industry, that we can get some work done on the roads in the Province and indeed on the roads in Placentia and St. Mary's. I use the opportunity tonight, and I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that I look forward to tomorrow. I am waiting on tomorrow, so I will leave that for now.

There are some important concerns, but the one that concerns me the most is Health and Community Services, and special warrants of $56.7 million. The minister again went through all the different issues and concerns throughout the Province, and some legitimate concerns. We have some very serious situations in health in this Province. I will give you an example that really concerns me. It has to do with home care.

I had a call last week from a gentleman who is legally blind, has diabetes, and has several other health ailments. He and his wife are both senior citizens. His wife has several health problems also. They were assessed and were told that they needed at least one-and-a-half hours of home care per day. We are talking about two senior citizens, as I said. The gentleman is legally blind, with some major health problems, and they were assessed - and the Department of Health officials came to the conclusion that these people needed one-and-a-half hours per day of home care. Because we have a home care freeze on now, these people are going to have to continue on with all the concerns that they have and all the problems that they have because of one-and-a-half hours of home care.

On the other side of that, Mr. Chair, we have tremendous waste in many aspects of health care in the Province and because of that the government has instituted a freeze on home care. It certainly has created some major problems for me as a member in the House of Assembly in regards to people having delivery of home care. There is no doubt about it, I talked to health professionals who have told me that the new phenomenon of home care has certainly taxed the budget to a great extent. We have many people in our Province, Mr. Chairman, who have availed of home care in the past couple of years - seniors citizens, people who are physically challenged in many ways - and there certainly needs to be a serious look taken at home care. The fact that having a person in their own home, being able to provide a small amount of care to that person and keeping them out of a facility here in the Province - whether it be a senior citizens' home, a hospital, or whatever the case many be - the fact that we can keep these people in their own homes will save dollars, in the overall picture of health care in the Province. I think that is something that we need to look at.

Home care in most cases has to do with seniors. I have been in this House, Mr. Chairman, for many years now and it seems like the concerns of seniors in this Province are not addressed to the extent that I would like to see them addressed. They are not addressed with regard to the cost of drugs. They are not addressed in regard to home care. They are not addressed in regard to the waiting lists that are in the Province. There are a lot of concerns with seniors here. There are a lot of concerns that I have seen over the past number of years as a member of the House.

We are talking about a child advocate here in the House this session. A very, very important piece of legislation, the child advocate. We certainly feel that there are issues that need to be addressed in relation to children here in the Province. We are hoping to at least start the ball rolling on that through the child advocate legislation.

Indeed, there are some major issues here in the Province with regard to seniors. At the top of the list in my district at the present time, Mr. Chairman, is home care. I think that we need to have a major look at that here in the Province, and certainly here in the House of Assembly, because it is something that we are going to have to deal with. This is the first year, in Newfoundland and Labrador, that more people will die in this Province than will be born. I think that is a very important thing.

As my hon. friend from Ferryland just noted in relation to the Canada Health and Social Transfers, that it should never be put on a per capita basis. I think we should remember that at the present time, this year, and in the year coming, 2002, that there will be more people pass away in this Province than will be born. I think that we are going to have to deal with health care in a whole different way, especially for our seniors. Our seniors need to have a situation where - I don't want to call it a study, but certainly some way of determining health care for seniors in the foreseeable future because it is an issue that we are going to have to deal with as Members of the House of Assembly. It is an issue that we are going to have to deal with as people.

My own two parents are in their seventies now, and as people here in the House, as human beings, we are going to have to deal with the senior population in the Province and the health care concerns -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - that are going to come with that, Mr. Chair.

I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on Bill 27.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to rise and say a few words on this as well. I say to the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, if he thinks that the people who are coming here next year with the cars haven't seen anything yet then I would suggest that a lot of people in this Province haven't seen anything yet either if they had to travel over the Labrador highway, particularly the section between Churchill Falls and Labrador West; a road that is used extensively, and more often now than a few years ago. This summer - I think I mentioned earlier in this House - the road was in such a terrible condition that travellers and tourists to that region of our Province even had trailer hitches broken off their vehicles that they were towing, and their speed limits were down to probably between 30 kilometers and 35 kilometers an hour trying to get through all of the potholes and the washboard that they encountered along the way.

So, it is important, Mr. Chairman, that monies be made available. I have a request to the minister for monies, under capital works, for next year. I say to the minister that this work has to be done. If not, the tourism industry in Labrador, in particular, will certainly be crippled as a result of people spreading the word that this is not a road they should travel on with their families and with their vehicles towing trailers. That would be devastating for the tourism industry which is making great strides, I might add, in Labrador in spite of all the obstacles that they face from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, talking on the road again. The section between the Quebec border and Labrador West. Driving in from Quebec most of the highway system that you travel on is in that province. When you hit the border coming into our Province, you can tell the difference. You know which province you are in. You do not have to look at the sign, I say to the minister. All you have to do is feel the road conditions underneath your tires and you know that you are in Labrador and not in Quebec. That road desperately needs something done with it. It has not been paved for many, many years now. Not only is there a high volume of traffic but the traffic loads are very heavy as well coming into a major industrial centre, as you can imagine.

On the health care part, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say that Labrador West, the area which I represent, has an aging population. The average age probably twenty-five or thirty years ago would have been between twenty and twenty-three years. Now, twenty-five years later, most of the people who were there then are still there today. We have an aging population. With an aging population, obviously, comes more medical problems and more medical things that you have to take care of. In order to do that - and at the same time that people are aging and these medical problems are becoming more predominant we have less services that can be offered to the people in Labrador West. When it comes to medical most people have to travel to St. John's or Halifax, and that costs a great deal of money. Somehow or other the Labrador medical subsidy that is in place now is certainly not adequate to cover anywhere near the costs that families incur when they have to travel from Labrador either here to St. John's or to Halifax at times, or other centres across Canada for that matter.

Mr. Chairman, it is important that this subsidy be reviewed because not everybody have insurance packages that take care of their travel needs. Even those who do, accommodations and the cost of living while you are out here is certainly not covered under most of those programs. The cost now for flying on medical is certainly extreme. If you have a family with a small child where both parents have to come out here, the cost can be enormous. I can tell you that it does not take too many trips like that to wipe somebody out financially.

Mr. Chairman, the need is there. Money is required to offset the costs that are incurred as a result of medical travel. In particular, accommodations when a person is wherever they have to go to get that medical treatment and, of course, the cost that you have to absorb as a way of living, meals, and other things that you run into.

So, there are monies needed in the health care system. In particular, for areas like Labrador West that are isolated, to a large degree, from the mainstream. Certainly, our (inaudible) programs need a lot of capital influx in order to bring them up to a standard that would be acceptable anywhere else in this Province or in this country.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have a few comments.

It is one thing to listen to the other side and hear what is wrong with the world but there are some things going right with the world in this Province. A lot is going right in this Province at this point. When you listen to the other side you have to listen to it with - what are the words - I suppose you have to take it all in stride. You have to balance off what their role is when it comes to the Opposition.

MR. H. HODDER: You have to be just a little bit doubtful.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, a little bit doubtful.

The Minister of Finance of this Province is doing the best job, as far as I am concerned, than any Minister of Finance in Canada. There is no doubt about it in our minds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Ninety percent of the money that we are talking about is going into health care. Here we are - they are over there and they are not sure whether or not - I don't know whether or not it is good, bad or indifferent. Well, I know one thing, it is good, and it has been good for a lot of our districts. The money that she was talking about this evening is going into a lot of our districts all over the Province, improving health care, Mr. Chairman.

This Supplementary Supply bill really is an accountability of our government about where we are putting these funds. We are putting, as our first priority, money into health care. We have been doing it for the last four or five years. Under this Administration we are going to continue to do it because they are needed. We need to put money into health care but we also have to do it in a responsible manner. We have to do it with an organized plan. We also respect the will of health care boards, Mr. Chairman, and we are working with the health care boards, as the Minister of Health has been doing, holding forums so that if we approve funding it goes in the right places for the right reasons. That is called good government and we have been providing that.

Mr. Chairman, if you go back and look at the history, pre-1989, when we inherited the government from the Opposition, the formal Opposition that we have here today, the capital account in the Budget - the debt load was not even counted. They did not even count it as part of the deficit. When we inherited the government one of the first things that we did in 1989 was include the capital account and the current account as the deficit. We started counting the real deficit. So, here we are - they are over there telling us about the deficit and talking about how we count the money. We had to get it right the first time we took over the government, and we continued to get it right ever since.

I was listening to the Minister of Finance talking earlier about the amount of money we put down into the pension plans, which were an absolute mess for a number of years when we took over. They were going bankrupt. We formed a government back in 1989, over the last decade. The Liberal Administration did a review of the pension plans of the Province and made public that review. We looked at: What are the ways that we could fix up the pension plans? I heard this evening the surprising figure in the hundreds of millions of dollars; $644 million put back into the pension plans of the Province to get them back in good shape. I mean that is outstanding. Anywhere else in Canada people would say that is pretty good to do in a Province that is so fiscally challenged, as we are, to provide services all over rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a major, major improvement. I am amazed that we have been able to do that, on that one issue alone, put hundreds of millions of dollars into the pension plans.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we would not have had to do that if the other side had taken care of it when they were managing the government at the time, but obviously that was not on either. Over the years we have had to make tough decisions to try to get the books of the government in half-decent shape. When we hear the other side talk about how bad the debt is and where it is going and everything else, we should balance off where it was to where it is today. Also, the fact is that we have put policies in place to promote the economy and create new jobs in the economy, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Industry that we have is doing some job, let me tell you. He is out there and working hard for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: He is out there, Mr. Chairman, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The rural expo that we had out there - his office inspired to get the people into Gander when the largest - it had to be one of the largest come togethers in rural Newfoundland and Labrador of business people, entrepreneurs, and young entrepreneurs. I tell you, they were very excited that weekend. There were highlights of young people getting into business in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It was an excellent weekend. It went over very well, but it is one of many events going on around this Province on a regular basis to really move this economy ahead. It is a challenge because it is a large geography to develop but that does not mean that this government will shy away from that. We have not shyed away from it. We continue to work very hard with good economic policy that we are bringing forward.

Again, we had an announcement this morning, Mr. Chairman - the Premier was there - of a new car rally that is coming to the East Coast; an international car rally. A new tourism generator that is going to be coming to the Province. The Juno Awards are coming to the Province again because this government is investing in getting new opportunities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, the list goes on. Now it is hard to take if you want to preach that we are in a depression, I suppose, but we are not you see. We are working hard -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, Newfoundland and Labrador. Three provinces - that's right - have seen new employment. We are at the highest level of employment that we have been at for probably fifteen years; over 211,000 or 212,000. There is more retail investment going on in rural Newfoundland and Labrador than I have ever seen. There is new investment going on in the major centres.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: October month; 216,000.

So, yes, Mr. Chairman, there are problems but we have to look at the reality of the situation. There are some major improvements that have been going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Where is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where our Tory members (inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Where our Tory members (inaudible). Okay.

The bottom line is that there are a whole list of positive initiatives that have happened and that are occurring. The good financial management of this government is setting up the opportunities, as far as I am concerned, and it is very evident. We are taking care of the pension plans. We are trying to give good increases to our employees now that we are in a better financial position. We are also working on getting a better deal from the federal government. We want to see a better deal from the federal government and we are going to get a better deal from the federal one of these days. We are working on it and we need to see a better deal. We have put it forward. Our Minister of Finance is putting it forward, and our Premier is putting it forward, Mr. Chairman.

When you look at the overall situation, again, what this bill does tonight is it identifies the fact that we have put new money into health care. Mr. Chairman, out in the Stephenville area we have a new dialysis service which just opened up a few months ago. The hon. Minister for Human Resources and Employment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: A new dialysis service. They put their case together, Mr. Chairman, and this government listened. A new service is in place thanks to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance, and we very much appreciate it.

We need a mammography service out there, and we are working on it now. We are working on it because this government listens to the people; we listen.

The list goes on. We have a new hospital going up in Stephenville. A fifty-five year old building that is being replaced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I want to thank the Premier for that because it was a commitment that he made when he was Minister of Health, to seeing that facility built. Now, as Premier, he is continuing to see it built. That facility is going to help us keep doctors in the area. It is going to help attract medical staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: The list goes on; oil and gas on the west coast. We have a new well getting drilled now by Canadian Imperial Venture Corporation, an oil industry that is starting up on the west coast. Again, a mines and energy policy that our government developed to help attract some investment on the west coast is starting to pay off.

There are some very decent opportunities. In Grand Falls-Windsor, a new IT centre over there. Four Hundred and fifty jobs in Grand Falls-Windsor that were not there, how long ago?

AN HON. MEMBER: A year ago.

MR. K. AYLWARD: A year ago; 450 jobs.

Mr. Chairman, that policy, again, was through the industry department out looking for new business to the Province. There is a list: a new call centre in Carbonear, a new call centre in Corner Brook, a new call centre in Gander. It is amazing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I was up in Labrador West on Friday evening. The member opposite for Labrador West was there. The tourism -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, we have to stop having these night sessions. We have to start having this House end at 5 o'clock because I am scared that I might become affected like the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I am afraid that I may be inflected like the minister who just got up and spoke. If he is living in this wonderful world where everything is bright and wonderful I suggest that he come up and answer my phone tomorrow morning for about three hours. I suggest he make a phone call to the person on social services who cannot buy a pair of boots for the winter, Mr. Chairman. I suggest he make a phone call over to the hostel - I will gladly give him the phone number - where there are two seniors living and one senior has not reached sixty-five and is carrying around a prescription in her wallet that cannot get filled.

I suggest the minister talk to the gentleman who is receiving dialysis over at the hostel where those two people have to pay $33 a night coming from their senior's allowance and have spent four months now eating off the bureau in their bedroom; have spent four months washing their dishes in the sink in the bathroom. I suggest the minister come down to reality and deal with the things that are happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. He is living in a dream world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I suggest the minister call a senior. I am sure it is not unique to my district, but probably in his own as well, where they are waiting for some funding to access home care to be able to live in their own homes. These are the kinds of things that are happening. As long as this government takes the approach of that minister it will never get any better. If you have problems the first thing you have to admit is that you have a problem in order to reach out and try to solve it, because we are not living in the bright, wonderful, colorful world that the minister just portrayed here a few minutes ago. That is not the way it is, I say to people opposite.

Mr. Chairman, when I heard the Minister of Finance introduce Bill 27 and seen $4,800,000 for Works, Services and Transportation I thought maybe we were getting some extra money so as the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation could live up to some of the commitments that he made down in my district to complete the four kilometers of road from Birchy Cove to Bonavista, where there has been four attempts made already in order to upgrade four kilometers of road. When I heard the minister talk about the $4,800,000, I though there might have been some money there to allow the highways depots to be able to have some fill to do the shoulders of the road where children might be able to walk in safety to the school buses.

When I heard of the $56,720,000 going into the Department of Health I thought I might have heard that we were going to open the ten hospital beds at the Golden Heights Manor down in Bonavista where the minister, a few months ago, agreed to open two beds. One bed is open and they tell me that they had to wait now for two months because they don't have a bed or furnishings to go into a bedroom at the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista; having to wait over two months in order to get a hospital bed. I ask the minister if that is procrastination? I ask the minister: Is that an answer to a senior who calls and asks why they cannot be admitted to the Golden Heights Manor in Bonavista, where there is a room identified, where funding has been identified? They tell me that they have waited for over two months in order to get a hospital bed.

Mr. Chairman, Bill 27 is a financial bill and a financial bill allows you to talk about anything, within reason, that is happening in your district. I am going to talk about the biggest problem in Bonavista South. While I talk about roads and I talk about health care - all very, very important - the biggest problem in Bonavista South is much the same, I would suggest, as the problems in most rural areas, and that is the problem of chronic unemployment. If there is anything that affects me more and if there is anything that bothers me more, it is the phone call that you get where some sincere person is looking for a job.

I have one community in my district where 160 people live, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and eight people get up in the morning and go to work. Eight out of 160 people in the community who are fortunate enough to be able to get up in the morning and go to work. The other fifty-two people there are not working. People who have worked - good people, honest people - and have bills to pay. They have taken back their cars; have taken back their bikes; have taken back their trikes. They didn't wait for somebody to come and take them. They carried them back and said: I can't afford to pay for it. You're going to have to take it.

That is the real world that we are living in in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today. When I go to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development asking for extra funding in order to attend to some of the needs that are in my district those are the things that I refer to, those are the people that I would like to be able to help.

While make-work projects are not the answer for long-term development and are not the answer to our problems in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is the answer to the immediate problem. It is the answer that will allow a man to be able to stay home and live with his family this winter. People who have taken part in the TAGS program, the Fisheries Diversification Program, and the Mobility Program have all taken part in that now. The people that we have in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today are people who have decided that they are going to stay in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development knows this one very well - the Member for Baie Verte and the Member for Ferryland were also there - when we made a pilgrimage to Ottawa looking for extra funding after the fisheries program was over with. We went and put forward our plea, everyone of us, on both sides of the House. I will never forget this MP for Ontario who got up and his comment was - he directed it to me because I think I was the last person who spoke - Mr. Fitzgerald, if you have such high unemployment numbers down in your district then I suggest you tell them to come up to Ontario. I suggest you tell them to come up here because we have 10,000 jobs. Just imagine! Now that is all he thought about it: pack up, come on up, move up to Toronto. How do you tell somebody sixty-two or sixty-three years old, without an education, who has probably never been any further than St. John's in their life, that there is a job for them up in Toronto? You might just as well take a gun and play Russian Roulette because that is what it means to them. That is not the answer.

Unfortunately, Madam Chair, this is the mindset that kind of rules what happens with federal programs and direction for federal money when it comes to this Province. Unfortunately, that is the mindset because the Province of Ontario controls what happens. There was never an answer to that any more than when you seen the changes come out when they re-jigged the EI program just a couple of months ago, a short time ago, when they decided they were going to do away with the intensity rule - which is good, and it should have been done away with. Why should somebody be penalized because they happen to be on EI for two or three years? But then they raised the cap. That was a big thing as well. They wanted to raise the cap from $39,000 to $49,000 before they claw back the amount of money that you receive while you are drawing EI.

The calls that I get, I say to people opposite, are not from people who are concerned about the clawback, it is not from people who are concerned that they made $49,000. The calls that I get, Madam Chair, are calls from people just struggling to try to find a job to qualify for EI. I submit to people here that if anybody else, as an employer, were doing what the federal government is doing today with job creation programs they would be thrown in jail. They would be thrown in jail because they are not allowed to do it, but the federal government can get away with it because they are the people who make the laws of the land.

I remember going around during the last federal election knocking on some doors. The present Minister of Industry and Trade was going ahead, he was probably there the day before. We went to a couple of places where people were fortunate enough to have had a job, on a job creation or a top-up program. When I went there, there were five or six of them in the Member for Terra Nova's district, in Port Blandford, who said: Finally, there is going to be an end to the way those projects are going to be administered. I said: What do you mean? They said the former Premier was here yesterday and he said he was going to straighten that up. From now on when we go to work it is going to be insurable earnings. I say to people opposite, they are still waiting.

We do not have all the answers over here, I say to people opposite, but what we have to start doing is listening to the people out in those rural areas. We do not have to identify wonderful things that never happened before, we can build on what we already have. I think of our forest industry, I think of our fishery, and I think of our agricultural industry.

Farmers: we seen a good thing happen out in Lethbridge - the minister was there, the Member for Terra Nova - a few weeks ago.

MADAM CHAIR (Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up, if I could?

MADAM CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chair, I wanted to raise the topic of problems in my district. I want to record that leave has been taken away, to deny me the opportunity to present them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It was really interesting to sit here and listen to the Minister of Tourism. It did not strike me really strange that it is his department which funds the movie industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. I will suggest to the minister that he certainly is taking lessons.

I thought when the Minister of Finance got up tonight and talked about work services that he was going to say: Bob, the light that I told you, three weeks ago, we were going to put at the end of the Foxtrap Access Road, we are going to do that. But, he didn't, even though he told me that it was signed off. He had written a letter, but when I asked for a copy of the letter that could not be done. All of a sudden, overnight, that one went out the window.

I also thought, when the minister got up tonight, we would talk about special assistants to the community care and the personal care homes; twenty-seven of which are in or surround my district. I thought when she got up tonight we might talk about the injured workers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Chairperson, I would like to relate to you tonight two stories which are true. Several days ago I had a call from a gentleman who, through no fault of his own, broke his back on a job that he was on. Over the years he has been told by medical experts that he cannot go back to work. Yet, the company that he worked for said that he could. They appealed the decision once to Workers' Compensation. Workers' Compensation had their own medical staff examine this man and they ruled in favour of the injured worker. They said: No, we are going to stay with our decision. You can still receive benefits. Some time after that they went back to the commission again and asked that the man's benefits be cancelled. Again, the man went in and again the man was examined, and Workers' Compensation said: Absolutely not, we are going to uphold our own decision which we made several months ago - or however long it was - we are going to continue this man's benefits.

This man was examined by two medical people who work for the Workers' Compensation Commission but the company did not give up. They appealed it again and asked to have their appeal heard in front of the Chief Review Commissioner, which they did. They went out and made some video tapes of this man doing things. The Chief Review Commissioner took the advice of two medical people who have never examined this man, who have never so much as given this gentleman a needle, but they showed video tapes. There is a doctor who said that while this man can do some work around his own house, in his own driveway, or in his own yard, he should do it because there is a day coming in this man's life when he won't be able to do anything.

As I said, when I phoned this gentleman several days ago, he said: Bob, I can't hire a lawyer. I don't have any money. There is no lawyer who will take me because I don't have any money. I can't guarantee payment at the end of the day. He said: Bob, I have absolutely no equity built up in my home because I am lucky today if I own the screen door. That is a man whom we have driven to deaths door, who is now suffering and suffering greatly because he stands a very real chance of actually losing his home because he can no longer afford to make the mortgage payments.

A short while ago, probably back in late October or early November, I represented a lady, not from my district but at another hearing. The Chief Review Commissioner in this Province upheld a decision. We presented our case. We presented medical evidence which said that this lady is still injured. She waited and waited and waited. There was no money forthcoming. I sent some correspondence down and inquired: Why hasn't this lady been given some money? Anyway, a week ago they sent her a cheque for $6,000. They had already deducted $1,000 which this lady owes to social assistance. Of course she had no problem with that, but the cheque went out to her for $6,000. When the cheque went to her bank she did not have a bank account so the cheque got sent back to Workers' Compensation. Her worker, who did not know that this lady - they were going to stop the benefits because they now want this case reviewed again by the Chief Review Commissioner to see if the decision he made was right or wrong.

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot have the Chief Review Commissioner, that we pay $500 a shot for to review these cases, rule one way and some lawyer who knows absolutely nothing about injured workers or who has no injury and knows nothing about somebody who is injured and trying to survive - this lady has now lost her apartment and she has lost her car. I guess the one thing that saved her from being further in debt was that she got the heave-ho out of her apartment. Within a very short time the lady was going to actually lose her electricity because she could not afford to pay her bill to Newfoundland Power.

Here is what we have done with this lady. We presented medical evidence and the Chief Review Commissioner has ruled in her favour. Yet, some lawyer somewhere down life's road could look at this and say: No, we should have this reviewed again. We now have this lady earning $251 a month. She earns $251 a month on social assistance. If that lady could go to work tonight - and I tell every member in this House, on both sides of this House: If that lady could go to work tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock, let me tell you all something, she would be there. But, she cannot work. She does not have the physical capabilities to do the work that she used to do.

She received a letter from her employer which said: If you cannot come back and work for me at 100 per cent then I don't want you. You can't do the job that I need you to do so we don't want you. Now, we have driven this lady to social assistance. A lady who is probably in her late forties or early fifties, this is what we have said to this lady: To heck with you missus, you're finished. We will put you on the ground, we will thread on you, we will stamp on you and then we will walk away and all laugh at you; because that's exactly what they have done with this person.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not right.

MR. FRENCH: That's the truth! It might be terrible to you but it is the truth to me.

Madam Chairperson, what I say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and I realize I am not in a court of law. Some of these people over there may think it is terrible, and it is terrible. It is terrible that this lady has to suffer the way she suffers. It is terrible that this lady had Christmas gifts on layaway for Christmas and had to call the department store and tell them she had no money to buy them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who laughed at her?

MR. FRENCH: Somebody laughed at her.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. FRENCH: I don't know.

Madam Chairperson, all of a sudden they are all interested. I never heard one of them make a comment yet that this is not right for this lady. This lady should be given some dignity. There is nobody in this Province, Madam Chairperson, who deserves to be treated like that. This crowd can beat their gums all they like but I know what happened to this lady. I know what I have done for this lady and I know what I have done for this gentleman, and these are facts.

It is great for the Member for Carbonear to say what he wants to say but someday maybe he will have a constituent who goes through these things, and at the end of the day they will know exactly what happened.

Her own worker, a new case worker which was assigned to her at Workers' Compensation, did not know that this lady's cheque had a stop-payment put on it. Imagine, a case worker who works -

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I know it is late but I am trying to listen to the Member for Conception Bay South. If the Deputy Premier wants to discuss a matter with the Member for Bonavista South on a matter raised earlier, do so in your time. It is now the Member for Conception Bay South's time and I would like to listen to him. None of us can hear. All of us cannot participate in debate at exactly the same time. We will never get anywhere with it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: He is right. I sat here and listened this evening and I sat this afternoon and listened to the Member for Bonavista come in here and talk about conservation officers in this Province doing things that he considers childish and inadequate. I asked him to give me the names of the officers and we would see what we could do with them.

I just heard the hon. gentleman on the other side of the House come in here and throw slanders at people, slurs at people, about laughing at poor women - which they should not do, nobody will disagree with them - but if you are going to come in here and make those kinds of statements then you should stand up and name the people you are talking about so they can be dealt with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order in either case and I ask the hon. member to continue.

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chair, to that point of order.

I say to the minister I will share those names with him anytime at all. In fact, I will give him the names of the people who were affected as well. This member does not stand here and make accusations if he cannot back them up. You will be provided with the names. The question is: Will you act on it? That will be the question!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: I will ask the member to continue with the debate that is in progress.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I will be cluing up in probably about a minute. I just want to say that nobody deserves to be treated the way that this gentleman has been treated. If it is the fault of the system then we have to change this system because this system is not working.

Since becoming the labour critic I get calls from all over this Province from injured workers who have a problem. Some of them are now dealing with the Premier's office. I know some of them who called me are now dealing with the Deputy Premier's office to try and get this matter resolved. I say, on behalf of this lady, when she called in I said: You must be really going through a rough time are you? When this person, who was on the other end of the phone, cries because there is no money for her to buy anything for her family for Christmas then I think this is -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2001, the sum of $61,520,000."

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2001 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 27)

On motion, clause 1 and 2, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Motion 6, Bill 37.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased this evening to introduce an amendment to the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957. This amendment ratifies government's loan guarantees that have enabled municipalities to arrange short-term borrowings for the capital works projects.

Essentially, this is a housekeeping item, as members in this House know, that is tabled on a regular basis. It gives a listing, as is outlined in the bill, of all of the communities, all of the municipalities that have received guarantees to secure interim financing for capital works, mostly water and sewer, paving, and recreation. These guarantees remain in place until such time as the projects are completed and long-term financing is put in place either through the Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation or through private financial institutions, mainly banks and credit unions. Once these guarantees are ratified all guarantees that may have to be honoured as a result of default become statutory payments. Although, I have to say, no defaults under these municipal guarantees have ever occurred to date. These municipalities have served their communities very well.

A draft bill was prepared for the spring covering guarantees issued from March 2, 2001, but was not tabled. The bill is now modified to include the guarantees right up until 2001, as per the legislation. All members can see, I certainly will not go through these, but there are about thirty pages which consists of all of the various amounts of money and financing for the period of time that are included to allow these towns to do very important water and sewer projects.

Madam Chair, as well this year, members will know that for the first time the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs put in place a new program which allowed many municipalities to avail of monies to do their water and sewer and other projects which they previously were not able to do because of the new - what we would call - equalization program as part of the $50 million infrastructure fund.

We are very pleased to ask the House to seriously consider these amendments and to support these amendments as they are outlined in this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I was sort of expecting the minister to list all these.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No problem, I can list them for you.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not disappointed now. I am not really disappointed, I say to the minister. I can live with it because I have a copy that I can read. I can read each of these.

With health care over the expenditure, as she mentioned there previously - I must say, she read almost all of them and I am still waiting for my copy. I would love to have a copy. No, I will not read them all but it's great to know that in the communities out there that government has not had to move on those guarantees. That speaks positive for the communities that are out there. Of course, I imagine one of the conditions too, in approving these guarantees, is that the communities would have a certain ability to be able to pay, or at least borrow and be in a certain standing. Granted, communities in our Province have gone through a very difficult time.

Rural Newfoundland; anybody who represents a rural district - I represent a rural district, as rural as any part of this Province, I might add, even though a part of it is close to St. John's. When you talk about Trepassey, Biscay Bay and Portugal Cove South, all of these communities, all the way along the Southern Shore, right down to Petty Harbour and Maddox Cove, I can tell you they are very much rural. It is the same way of life that you would find whether it's on the Northern Peninsula, on the South Coast, or in other parts, they are very rural. It is the same basic type of livelihood that is structured around the fishery, almost exclusively. Granted, today by proximity to St. John's and changes in the fishery, communities a bit closer in the Goulds area, Bay Bulls, Witless Bay and Tors Cove are not as dependent on the fishery but they do employ a significant number of fish harvesters, plant workers and so on. But, thank God, they have a little more flexibility and proximity to work elsewhere to be able to at least experience a degree of prosperity.

The towns in my district - there are very few mentioned here - are functioning quite well. In four particular towns they had some debt relief under the government program where they were left with a burden of debt that they could not manage. They have been paying that back and doing fairly well. Some towns are debt free. One town had it lifted just recently, I think this year, and retired its debt. They paid off the last $300,000-plus in the last two or three years.

They are doing fairly well in that regard but there are communities which are experiencing a lot of hardships. One particular area of my district which is more so than the others - I just want to make some reference - it is in the Trepassey area. In fact, that area has probably experienced an out-migration of people as much as anywhere else in the Province. They have gone from the census in 1991 of 1,480 people and today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, in 1991 Trepassey had 1,480 people listed in the census. Today, it is more like 800-plus people. A lot of families have moved out, almost by half, but they have not given up. I can tell you the people in that area have fought to diversify.

This year we had the best year on record. Weather Shore Windows Inc. produced a top quality window that they sell around the Province and outside, wherever they can sell it. They had their most successful year. Mariteam Lighting area has had a very busy year after a slow year last year. Even for a period, the water bottling operation there, Discovery Springs, had a period of fair growth but it has been a little slow most of the year. They are working on another venture, I must say, in cooperation with the federal and provincial departments to be able to get something else moving there that could, hopefully, turn things around and get some sustainable employment in the area. They have made a very strong effort.

Where we are finding difficulties with communities and we are talking about guarantees - in fact, I do not think I seen Trepassey here on this list at all. When a community shrinks, its tax base shrinks and you try to meet expenses. You try to cut expenses because of declining revenues. There has been a fair amount of hardship in the area. People had to give up their homes. It is kind of difficult when you look at rural Newfoundland. There are people in the Trepassey area who had to give up their homes and move out of the Province. They could not really afford to pay rent in Alberta and pay the taxes back home. Homes have sold in Trepassey for $100, $200 or $300, several hundred dollars. Homes that cost tens of thousands to build have gone for $6,000 and $8,000. Some were bought up by the Americans; people coming and buying them cheap.

When I went around campaigning first, when it became part of my district - it was a part of St. Mary's-The Capes before the restructuring - I think there were something like fifty-eight or sixty houses closed up with nobody living in them at all. I would assume it is even higher today. There are a tremendous number, but the spirit is there and they are getting some sustainable jobs. Hopefully, with some new ventures coming on stream we will see it get back up again, but we are never going to see the day where 650 people worked in a fish plant with two shifts year round. The economy was as prosperous as you would ever see in this Province. People came from all over the Province to live in Trepassey and take up roots there, and found jobs in an area that depended, primarily, on groundfish. Flounder was the area with FPI structure that processed groundfish in that area; or flat fish, in particular, was processed there. It basically was a flounder plant. We have seen such a downturn over a period of time in that area.

Municipalities, more so than anyone else, get volunteer people in those communities to come forward to volunteer for committees and volunteer for town councils. They go out to the people and have to justify a tax increase when the value of property has gone down several fold and try to get revenues to be able to meet their expenditures. Without lifting the debt burden to a degree - and left with roughly a $350,000 debt. At least it gives them an opportunity to have hope there. We have had full slates of people on the towns there and they are working hard to turn things around. I have seen a tremendous effort, because it has been hit a lot harder than others.

I know other towns in the Province are no different. There are other areas that have been hit extremely hard. I know the Northen Peninsula, to name one area, has had devastation in communities. I have seen programs on TV of people going off to the mainland. No area is unaffected by it but there are certain things that can be done in rural Newfoundland to help municipalities. That is, try to develop an economic basis, in certain regions, where people around that region can come to work, maintain their homes, and be able to commute short distances to find employment in rural Newfoundland. Every single community in Newfoundland is not going to end up with a business that is going to make it prosper and grow. I think we are realistic on that.

There is a movement of people across this country. There is an urban shift. You can never turn back time. There is an urban shift all over the country and in this Province too. In Manitoba nearly 60 per cent live in Winnipeg. We have seen in other provinces, in two or three large centres, half the population of other provinces. People want to get into bigger centres. They want their kids to have access to more facilities, whether it is into swimming, figure skating, you name it, people want to get in - rural enough on the outskirts of cities but to get close enough. A lot of people have moved. I know people who have moved from my district so their kids can enroll in hockey programs in St. John's; they can enroll in swimming and have access to other - whether it is music and other areas that are not available. They are moving of their own volition, to give their kids an opportunity for things that are not available.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is happening, yes. There is a certain amount of that happening all over, granted. We have to look, though, at a plan in rural Newfoundland, and we have to see it to be able to sustain communities.

When people move into the larger fishing boats, once they move from the little inshore boats to larger boats, it does not matter where you live. If you are fishing on Tobins Point or out anywhere in 3N + 3O, wherever you are out fishing, and you have a larger boat, whether you come into St. John's or come into Fermeuse or Catalina, it is not as relevant where they live so they are more likely to be mobile.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) live in St. John's.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. The Deputy Premier said they are starting to live in St. John's, and I know a lot of people do, but we have to look at having bases of employment, whether it is a plan - and my colleague has talked about a plan for the fishery. We need to see a plan for processing in this Province, taking into consideration adjacency, taking in regionalization and so on, as my colleague has said on several occasions, to be able to sustain rural Newfoundland and have these communities being able to function. What is going to happen if we do not do that is, a community that will have a debt load of $350,000 lifted is going to be back in a few years trying to get that debt load lifted - another $200,000 - and we are going to find that it is still a cost to the taxpayers. If we invest up front and look at a rational plan that is going to be able to do this, it is going to save money in the back door too, by investing a little up front. Those are the types of things we have to see in rural Newfoundland.

We have a lot of communities all along my district, and municipalities. Some mentioned here have debt restructured and they are doing really well. They are meeting their payments and they are going on with new capital structures, looking for more money in fact. One community I see here has looked for more money and they had the ability to borrow. The bank said: Look, you are making your payments, you are doing well and you have the ability to borrow; but the money was not available this year, like road construction, because most of it this year went into water and sewer areas. We need to have investments like this in infrastructure because the municipalities are paying a significant share, and the taxpayers in those municipalities.

Some areas have not had such a hard time because there has been a little shift and some have had greater chances. In Ferryland, for example, it has not been as difficult. There is hardly a house in Ferryland now that nobody lives in. In fact they are almost all occupied, just about. Even finding a place sometimes is difficult. We are seeing numerous endeavors in Ferryland, from a Folk Arts Council being active, the Colony of Avalon. We have seen bed and breakfasts, and we have seen numerous businesses springing up there. It all adds to and helps sustain communities there, and that is important. We hope, when the minister tables it the next time, we will be able to say that there were no guarantees that had to be paid by government. It is great to see communities get their finances under control, because when they do that they reduce their debt, they have more money from their taxes to be able to put into other services, they will be in a better position. It would be better. Wouldn't it be great to be able to say that municipalities do not have to come to government for a guarantee. We can go out and get the money. We do not have to worry about them at all. That should be the goal of all of us, to be able to see that happen, because some are getting there but others that are in areas that are more adversely affected need that assistance from government. They need that guarantee there. Even though they have never had to pay our a cent, it is still there to ensure the lending institution is there when they want money to give infrastructure to their people.

Just drive around some of the rural areas of this Province that have experienced hardships and you can see the roads; they cannot afford to do the roads. For instance, in Trepassey there is not enough money in what they take in, in meeting expenses, and they cannot afford to do the roads there. They just do not have the money. They cannot afford it. The roads are in bad need of repairs in many of these communities. They are just taking all their time to pay their bills, to be able to keep garbage, lighting, keep the water system running and so on, to be able to pay their debt, and they have no free money. Unless we get these industries developing jobs, paying jobs, and properties getting increased in value and so on, all of these are part of the process that will help rural Newfoundland improve.

I know some of my colleagues have some comments on this. I am not going to belabor the particular point here. I say to the minister that we support this legislation. I know it is a standard, routine procedure, but still it has the support of the Opposition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will just take a few minutes today to make a few comments on this particular bill. I agree with the minister that indeed a lot of these municipalities did make good use of this money. Of course, the priority in spending this year was towards water and sewer and helping improve water systems throughout the Province.

A lot of municipalities in this Province did avail of this and did spend the money wisely. At the same time, it was interesting this year when I attended the municipalities conference here in St. John's. I think there was a record number of delegates. I think the minister said this year a record number of people came to this particular conference. What this does is, it really gives you an opportunity - I spent quite a bit of time there, speaking to the different mayors, town clerks and councillors, to get their perspective on how they think their communities are doing.

Earlier here tonight we had banter back and forth about the negatives and positives. It is true on both sides. The truth is, there are positives. We have acknowledged positives within my own district, throughout many rural parts of Newfoundland, but there are certainly negatives also. Many times we like to stand in our own districts to applaud especially young entrepreneurs who have taken on trying to live in these particular communities and trying to make a life for themselves.

The first people I would recognize are the councillors and the mayors. I have had a situation - I am definitely in a rural district when you look at thirty-three communities in my district spread out over some eight hours of driving. I know there are members in this House who talk about the rural districts - the Member for Labrador - and how tough it is to get around their districts and so on, but when you get out there and sit down with councillors, across the table, they tell you exactly how it is.

This past week, I addressed with the minister the Community of La Scie, through a lot of different circumstances over the last number of months. From the job situation at the plant to the untimely death of the mayor in the community and so on, they have had some pretty tough times. Just a couple of days ago I dealt with the minister on this particular issue, and we are addressing that, but there have to be some short-term solutions to that particular situation. We have addressed them. Hopefully, we are going to get a full council in La Scie, but right now we have three councillors. The truth is, we cannot find more councillors because they do not want to take on the jobs at this point; because they look at the finances of the town, and they look at 120 jobs disappearing from a community of 1,000 people. That is hard hitting. You go out and ask a volunteer to come in and look at the books, and sit down and say we are going to help out here, it is not an easy thing to do. So I commend all those councillors for stepping up to the plate, but there are still many rural Newfoundland communities - I heard the Minister of Tourism talk earlier tonight. Yes, Stephenville looks good. I was out there a little while ago. Thank God there is some possible oil production on the West Coast; good for that. We talked about St. John's. A lot of people mentioned this, Madam Chair. I am glad the capital city is doing well. We all are. We all should be, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but we cannot forget the people who are not doing so well. That is the point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: When I look through thirty-three communities, I know in each and every one there are going to be positives and negatives. Yes, we stand in this House many times and we are negative. There are other times we stand and we are positive, as we have seen in the last two weeks here. We stood and commended the government for initiatives and policies that are put forward to make sure each and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian has a decent place to live; but these stories are not something we have made up or dramatized over time.

I sat with a woman last week, who is fifty-four years old, who went to P.E.I. this year to get her stamps in a lobster plan in P.E.I. Those are the people we are talking about. They are the people with three or four children who are still home while they are taking a boat across to Nova Scotia to pick apples or to work in a lobster plant. Those are the people we should focus in on.

I listened to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology talk about some positive things and the Rural Expo. Yes, I have had people there from my district at Rural Expo, who told me some positive things. We congratulated them. We hope it moves on. We hope that it spreads, but we cannot lose sight of the people who are falling through the cracks of the system, whether it is workers compensation, whether it is social services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Each and every one of us in this House stand representing people right across the Province. That is what we have to remember. That is what I remember every day.

I know what the Member for Bonavista South is talking about, because we have the same type of district, and there are members on the other side with the same type of district. I go up every day and there are forty, fifty, sixty calls a day from people wondering if they are going to get on this job creation. I have to make a comment on that tonight, Madam Chair.

I said it fifty times publicly and I will say it again: Do I think job creation and make-work projects are the way to go? No, they are not. I hope there is a day in this House when I can stand and say: This year we do not need any. We do not need any job creation. We are going to have some long-term benefits.

In order to do that, we have to have a long-term plan. We cannot come up every year here, put pressure on the government through open lines or people calling in to say: Oh, another job creation this year. We do not want that. I can tell you, as a member in this House standing tonight, I do not want to be dealing with this list that my colleagues have been looking over today when we are putting out $2,000, $3,000 and $4,000 for a community so we can put three or four people to work. That is what I did with thirty-three communities. That is the amount of money that was there. I appreciated the money we got, but it was not the answer. We are still going to come back next spring and move on. We have to move on and see where we are going to go with these communities.

To compound the whole problem, by the way, something we have all been not even suggesting lately, is: Remember, last year there was still money from post-motorium. We had the FRAM-ED and we had all of this money flowing out. This year, while we have not mentioned it, we have more people who need it and less money to address it. It just does not make sense.

The truth is, Madam Chair, the situation is still there this year. We have municipalities that have debt problems. We certainly have to address the problem with MOGs and the grants going to municipal governments in this Province. These are the things we have to address at the grass roots so the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador can feel proud of where they live.

When the Member for Bonavista South, or anybody else, talks about gravel roads, driving over gravel roads, and how there are still problems with chlorination units, those are basic necessities. We are not looking for four-lane highways; we are looking for a bit of common decency. That is what people in rural Newfoundland are talking about. That is what we asked for on a daily basis and that is what we are going to continue to ask for on a daily basis until it is done because they are basic necessities that everybody in this Province deserves and should get.

Madam Chair, when I look at this long list of money that was sent to different communities in this Province this year, it was on necessity. That is what you have to remember, but rural renewal and rural development is a long way from a long-term plan in this Province. That is what we need and that is what we should be addressing.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to have a few moments to speak on this bill and also make some general comments. I have been in this House since 1989 and have listened to different people speak. Everybody, I guess, has a motive, are honest and have integrity or else they would not be here to represent. Sometimes I get the impression that people on this side of the House don't have integrity and don't have that passion for people, to represent the people in the area that they represent. That might not be the motive, but it certainly appears to be. I stay in the House and I listen to people. I am not one who banters a lot back and forth across the House. I do it once in awhile, but normally I do not.

Madam Chair, let me say to the people who are in the House and people in this Province as a whole: there are some good things happening in the Province. There are some good things happening in my own area. I think of the Town of Harbour Breton which has been fortunate enough, through FPI, to have approximately thirty weeks of work in that particular town this year in groundfish.

I think of the isolated community of Gaultois; many people thought that it would never operate again but because of the tenacity of the people involved - and people like Max Taylor who lived in my district - have helped the people form a cooperative. Today, as we speak, there are probably 100 people working in that particular area. All of them have enough hours to be able to access the EI program.

I think about the Hermitage situation; not everybody in the community is working but there are seventy or eighty people working in that small plant who have worked 600, 800 or even 1,000 hours this summer. Not ideal, but it is a good beginning. I think of the aquaculture industry in Bay d'Espoir -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: The aquaculture industry in Bay d'Espoir is going through some very tough times, primarily because of the world situation where Chilean products have been dumped on the market. We have to sell, in a sense, probably even below cost in order to be able to compete with the people in the market. It is very unfortunate. However, there are some up sides to this where the Dobbin group of people have bought out the S.C.B. group and are looking at doing some extra work into cod farming. They have in plans, probably over the next number of months and years, to do as many as four or six cod hatcheries. Hopefully some along my coast, but also put one into the Bay Roberts area as well. These are some of the things that happen.

Ramea; I must speak about Ramea. Many communities would have given up the ghost a long time ago. A few years ago, or even the year before last when the floor fell in on the plant, everybody wanted the plant before it collapsed, nobody wanted it afterwards. But, because of tenacity of the council and the people who are there, they worked. Today, I believe, they will have a resolution to it. Hopefully, within the foreseeable future, they can put a plan in place whereby we can activate that and make it work. These are some of the isolated areas: from Rencontre East up to MacCallum, into François and Grey River. It is more difficult to stimulate the economic activity within these communities because of where they live. Nevertheless, they do eke out a good living in many of the situations because of the fishing that is there.

On a broader sense, the municipalities, as my critic the Member for Baie Verte said, a couple of weeks ago we did have people in here from all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to the federation conference. I spent the whole weekend with these people. I understand because I come from a small rural community. I spent some thirteen years on a council in Point Leamington and some five years with the Federation of Municipalities; a very small municipality. When I was there, as one of the councillors, we were able to attract a glove factory to the community that is still working today and able to provide employment for a number of people in that area. What I see, on a more positive sense, Madam Chair, is the fact that many of the people out there are beginning to operate collectively and do things together. There is a collective wealth to be able to make things happen.

In the Eastport area I had a gentleman who came to see me and said: Look, minister, we share waste management, we share water, we even share the dogcatcher, why can't we share administration among the different towns? They are working towards making that happen.

I have a gentleman from the Northern Peninsula who comes to see me. He said: I believe if you give us the flexibility we can put two incorporated communities, nine unincorporated communities, under one administrative unit. I said that's the type of thing that we want to do. These are the types of things that we are working at.

My critic also talked about the MOGs, the Municipal Operating Grants. I can tell you what I told the people at the convention this fall, that when I became the minister one of the things I asked the department to do was to look at it. I did not do it unilaterally. I did it in concert with the Federation of Municipalities. I did it with NLAMA, and as we speak, there is a group of these people, their representatives, along with some people from my own department, who are looking at the ways that we might be able to restructure or do something with the Municipal Operating Grants.

When we look at the communities in this Province, Madam Chair, it is like a pyramid. The majority of them are at the base and you have a smaller number of people at the top. With the Municipal Operating Grants it is the reverse. You have it this way, the majority and the large portion of the grants go to the larger areas and the smaller communities get less. So we want to have a look at that. I talked to the former and current president of the Federation and they are in agreement that we should look at these things. It is the overall attitude that we need to be able to project and change.

One of the things that we did - and I know it myself, as a young person from a small community on the south west coast. Most of us went to university, whether we became nurses, doctors, teachers or whatever the case might be. It trained us to leave the communities where we grew up. This is what happened to us. This is what happened in rural Newfoundland. There were not enough jobs for people who became university bound people. Today we are beginning to recognize that we need to change that.

I can say to you that one of the towns in my area, the Town of Harbour Breton working in conjunction with the Marine Institute, is setting up Harbour Breton as a base of operation whereby they can do courses from the Marine Institute at the high school level in Harbour Breton. They are hoping - and through technology there is no reason why they cannot - that Harbour Breton can become the base of operation for the whole Province. Through the Marine Institute - through the offshore oil industry and also the offshore traffic - we have at least a dozen people in Harbour Breton who work three weeks on, three weeks off, on the offshore supply boats or whatever. When their term is finished, where do they go? They go back to Harbour Breton for these three weeks where their families are, where they have their homes, where they can have their all-terrain vehicles and they can have a way of life that they want. These are the things that we need to do. Also I believe that the challenge from the municipalities is there for us to meet up to that particular challenge.

I have said to people in my own area, and I will say it again, there is no way that Oliver Langdon can develop a plan that can suit every particular community in the district that I represent. I think of the Mayor of Harbour Breton, Mr. Rogers, who, in his own town, has been taking the initiative, along with the Mayor of Hermitage and the Mayor of Gaultois and all the others, Mayor Rossiter in Ramea - they want to work with us. They are going to develop the plans which says to us: Where is the economic help that you can give us? Where is the expertise that you can give us to help to develop the plans that we put in place? That is a stark change, and I believe that to mode well for us in rural Newfoundland. There is no doubt about it that there are changes, and continue to be.

In Grand Falls-Windsor this year; there are a thousand more people living in Grand Falls-Windsor this year than last. So that augurs well. You have the Gander and Clarenville areas. You have the Stephenville, Corner Brook, (inaudible), but there are some good things happening as well. We are hoping that within my own district - the Member for The Straits & White Bay North was talking about a regional facility. We believe, on the where we are with mussel production - because of where we live on the South Coast, it is so far removed from the market - that we will have a secondary processing plant of mussels in the Harbour Breton area so that when the product is finished it will be ready for the microwave. How did that happen? When the Irish trade mission came to Newfoundland some of the local people made contact with them and, as a result of that, they were able to forge a relationship; and Bantry Bay Mussels is a company that is working with the local group to make it happen.

Just let me give you one more example of how the world has really become a global community. If you go to Costco and buy mussels, guess where the mussels come from? Not Newfoundland; from Bantry Bay in Ireland. That is where it comes from. So we have become a global village. They said to us: We will do the mussels. We will market it for you. I had an opportunity to visit their plant in Ireland some time ago. It is first-class. It cost millions of dollars, and there are more than 100 people working there. We want to be able to duplicate that in Newfoundland, and we can.

I want to say to my hon. colleague, the Deputy Premier here - and he said one thing about aquaculture on the South Coast. He said: If you are going to do aquaculture let's do it where it is climatically acceptable to get the greatest possible use of it. All along the South Coast, right from Cape St. Mary's all the way up through the Port aux Basque area, there are areas that we have not tapped, areas that we have not touched, but we do have a challenge. There are challenges that we have to face to meet it but I think we are up to it.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that his time is up.

MR. LANGDON: I look forward, Madam Chair, to be able to work with the municipalities in the Province so that we can forge ahead and do some good things in the future. We have problems, obviously we have, but let's extenuate the positive and think of the good things that are happening rather than the negative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be able to make a couple of comments about Bill 37. I do want to take the advice of the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs because I do want to talk about some very positive things. I want to talk about some very positive things happening in Trinity North, but more particularly some positive things about some of the people in Trinity North.

Madam Chair, when I look at the list of guarantees, one of the things that is noticeably absent is the number of small municipalities that are listed here, and the other thing that is noticeably absent is the number of local service districts that are listed here. One of the things that we are really challenged by is when we have a large group of volunteer people in rural Newfoundland who want to make a contribution to their communities but are somewhat frustrated.

I just want to take one particular group of people and talk a little bit about them. In Trinity North, we have ten volunteer fire departments. There is something like forty-three communities in Trinity North, and every single one of them have a volunteer fire department that services them. Madam Chair, one of the things that each and every one of them are telling me is: We want to stay in rural Newfoundland. We want to make our communities a safe and vibrant place in which to work.

Let's use that as an example. There are 240 volunteer firemen and women in Trinity North. Some of them are driving around in unsafe fire trucks. We have one fire department in Trinity North where there are only two people, of an eighteen-person fire department, who are prepared to drive the fire truck. The rest have said: It is not safe. We are not prepared to drive it. We need a new fire truck.

That community has been told that the minimum amount you can buy a fire truck for is $150,000 and their portion is $75,000. Of those ten fire departments in Trinity North, there are only three of them who will ever have the ability to be able to fund their $75,000 share. Madam Chair, what we are telling the rest of those fire departments is that, when that fire truck gets in a dilapidated state, you will no longer have a fire department.

When we start talking about sustaining rural Newfoundland, we need to have a vibrant economy. We need to have communities that are safe, and in which people are comfortable living.

One of the key focuses of the Strategic Social Plan is to maintain vibrant, self-reliant, healthy communities in this Province. One of the components of that is to have communities where people feel safe, and those people who are involved in our fire departments are making those communities safe. They are protecting property; they are protecting lives.

This year, 2001, is the International Year of the Volunteer. I think, when we look at a network of volunteers in this Province, I don't know if there is another group of people in this Province who make such a contribution to maintaining small, rural communities. There are some 240 fire departments in this Province, all of them volunteer. There are some 6,000 volunteer men and women who are taking care of our fire departments in this Province. If you canvassed this Province, Madam Chair, and asked those individuals: do they feel safe driving the fire trucks; do they feel safe going into a burning house with the equipment they are wearing; do they feel comfortable as they go to their meetings? One night every single week they volunteer their time, they commit to their community to make it a better, safer place in which to live.

Within this document - I acknowledge and I understand that the priority this year was water and sewer systems, and I understand there was only so much money to be considered. One of the things we need to ask ourselves, if we are genuinely committed - and last week in Gander I heard the Minister of Health and Community Services say that we are committed to the Province's Strategic Social Plan, and the cornerstone of that Strategic Social Plan is to maintain vibrant, safe, healthy communities. If we are going to do that, Madam Chair, one of the significant components of that is respecting the people who are volunteering to stay in those communities. Just think for a moment. We talk about people moving out of rural Newfoundland, and we talk about an aging population, but when you consider the profile of a volunteer fire department, most of these people are men and women somewhere between the ages of nineteen and thirty-five to forty years. They are the people who have said: I am prepared to stay in rural Newfoundland. I am prepared to live in small communities. I am prepared to make a commitment to make it vibrant, and I am prepared to make a commitment to make it safe. All I am asking for is a little bit of support to be able to provide fire departments that are vibrant in those communities.

As I look at Trinity North, Madam Chair, I look at ten local service districts and three incorporated communities. One of those incorporated communities is about to go bankrupt. That same incorporated community is the same community that has only two of their fire people who are prepared to drive the fire truck. What are we going to tell those people? Are they going to give up their community? Are they going to give up their fire department? What is going to make them feel safe?

As we look at the ten local service districts, only two of them will ever be able to buy a new fire truck. The others, in the next two or three years, will have fire trucks that the minister's own staff will not allow them to drive. So, we are going to tell those people in those ten local service districts that it is no longer safe for you to live in your community. We are going to tell the insurance companies that they no longer have fire protection. What they are going end up finding themselves is having to move out of those communities because it is not going to be safe for them to be there. Is that the kind of message that we are going to give to prove a point?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Madam Chair, as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs just said, there are some positive things happening in rural Newfoundland. I agree 100 per cent, but the positive thing is that we have a group of people who are committed to staying in rural Newfoundland, and we have a group of people who are committed to making their community safe, but - the but is - they need the support of this government to make sure that they have safe, vibrant communities in which to live.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Madam Chair, as I look at this document - and I commend government for having made such a bold initiative this year to add new money to the minister's budget. I commend government for having made the commitment to put such an extensive network of water and sewer programs in incorporated communities, but when we look at the number of communities out there, and I look at those ten local service districts, they too need water systems. When we look at this list, and we have eight local service districts in here, this year the minister changed the mechanism for funding. In those small local services districts are no longer any grants. These people have to go out and borrow money on a 70-30 split. They don't have the ability to do it. If we continue to put pressure on those small communities, we are going to continue to drive people out of those communities.

MR. LANGDON: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, we made some changes, but I want to say to the Member for Trinity North that I went down with you to one your districts, to one of the local service districts, and we did the 70-30 split, but the 30 per cent they had was in kind, where the people could have worked it out and gone through an arrangement. They worked it out. It is already done and, as far as I know, approved and operating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I want to correct the minister. He did visit my district and he did make a commitment to do it on the 70-30 split, but it is not done. There is no cheque written. It was not $30,000 in kind; it was $6,000 in kind. His officials have still not processed that amount. We still do not have (inaudible) and those people do not have drinking water today. There still are fifteen families who have been carrying water in buckets for five years. Half of them are over the age of sixty-five. That is what you committed to do in June. This is November and it is still not done!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

That is the first time I heard of it. I can honestly say that the member has not contacted me and said it has not been done - never been over to the office!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MADAM CHAIR: No leave granted.

MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

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

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, the time is up. I wonder if we can stop the clock and proceed with finishing up the resolution in Committee, doing the voting.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Chair, we have agreed on a certain order today, on a certain number of bills. We are nearing conclusion. I believe the Member for Trinity North is about to conclude his remarks.

Madam Chair, I believe the Member for Trinity North is up on a point of order. When he concludes that, then I guess we will move to the minister to conclude debate. Fair enough?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I assume from the minister's comment, then, that this will in fact be corrected some time in the next couple of weeks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Shall the resolution carry?

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 37)

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the guarantee of the repayment of loans made to, and the advance of loans to certain local authorities."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted Resolutions 5 and 6 as they appear on the Order Paper, and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2001 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill 27)

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2001, the sum of $61,520,000."

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that Supply Bill 27 be now read a first time.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money for Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2001 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," carried. (Bill 27)

On motion, Bill 27 read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have passed two bills without amendment.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 37)

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the guarantee of the repayment of loans made to, and the advance of loans to certain local authorities."

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their work and effort this evening, and I move that the House do now adjourn.

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