The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to read a statement that stands in the name of the hon. the Premier.

Sir Robert Bond stood in the Colonial Building to announce the construction of the Newfoundland Museum in 1905. It was in 1955 that the hon. Joey Smallwood stood in our former House of Assembly to announce the creation of the Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was in 1961 that he stood in the same House of Assembly to announce the creation of the Art Gallery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is mindful of these historic precedents that I am proud to stand in this House today to announce that, a full ninety-four years after the first announcement and thirty-eight years after the last, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will construct a new facility to house our three heritage institutions: the Newfoundland Museum, the Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Art Gallery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: This new building will be constructed at a cost of $40 million and will be financed by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be a state-of-the-art facility which will draw upon the latest technology, while its architecture will be rooted in our vernacular. We have decided to call the building The Rooms in order to reflect the tradition of building our fishing structures close to the water, close to the resources which has sustained Newfoundland and Labrador for centuries.

Mr. Speaker, the existing buildings which house our three institutions are no longer adequate to store and exhibit our heritage treasures. Many of these structures were built prior to the development of modern museum standards and others were never built to serve as heritage institutions. This is placing our natural specimens, our material artifacts, our archival documents, our films and photographs and our work of art in danger of deterioration and loss. This is cheating the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. They deserve to have these treasures preserved for their children and their grandchildren. They deserve to be better able to enjoy these treasures today.

That is why we have taken this bold step to consolidate all these three heritage institutions into one building. This building will be constructed at Fort Townsend in St. John's on the site of the former military fort. I will draw your attention to one outstanding feature, among many others, and that is the building will have an archaeological dig taking place inside, even after the building is constructed, making it a rare and unique museum in North America for this type of archaeological program.

I would like to offer a special thank you to the Advisory Committee on Cultural Infrastructure, co-chairs Mary Pratt and Robert Jenkins and their dedicated team including Wayne Trask, Dr. Phil Warren, Art May, Robert Thompson, Clyde Granter, and Aileen O'Rafferty. This group consulted widely with the cultural community of this Province and developed the proposal we are announcing today.

This is indeed an historic occasion, and I am certain that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will rejoice at this announcement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

This initiative by government today has been some time coming. It was debated when the member who I am looking at right now was the Minister of Tourism and Culture, when the Minister of Mines and Energy was the Minister of Tourism and Culture, and it is something that was committed to and promised to the people of the Province some seven to eight years ago.

I want to congratulate government in this context. There is no question that any society that does not put emphasis on not only its cultural heritage in terms of the past, its present but also its future, is doomed to be lost. The initiative today hopefully will go a long way in putting the infrastructure in place to capitalize on the growing cultural industry and what it will mean in economic terms, job spinoffs, et cetera for the Province.

We have to do more than build buildings. Within our education institutions themselves, we have to begin to start teaching about our culture within the classroom, I say, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - something that we are sadly lacking in today. We have bought into, as a Province, and government has bought into, as a government, the notion of an Atlantic Canadian curriculum, and to some extent that is very, ery important - within the sciences, math, biology, chemistry, et cetera - but there is no culture in Canada as old as ours, as unique as ours, or has the ability to promote itself better than ours. Unless we recognize that in our everyday living within our institutions - so that when the minister truly says that we can face the world very confident, yes we can. We can face it confidently, but also very knowledgeable of who we are, where we came from, where we are, and where we want to be as a people.

Mr. Speaker, it would also be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to thank the committee as well. I see Dr. Phil Warren, former Minister of Education, sitting in the House, and acknowledge his presence and thank him for his involvement in this today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure that I rise in support of this announcement made today by the Premier. It is a very important cultural initiative for the future of our Province and a statement about our confidence in our own history, in our own culture, and in our own future. I think it is an idea which has been around for a long time, certainly, but one that must be done now because of the state of our archival material and the need for a new building to house it.

I also want to congratulate the work of the committee co-chaired by Mary Pratt and Bob Jenkins, and with the services of Dr. Warren and others on the committee. I think they have done a marvelous job of conceptualizing this cultural centre.

I think we also want to express the hope at this time that what goes on inside the centre, I hope, will also be modern, forward-looking, and have all of the availability of involving people in our culture, in our past, in our history and in our art. It is a legacy for generations to come, a very important announcement, and one that I support wholeheartedly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I rise today to provide my hon. colleagues with an overview of our fishing industry's performance so far this year, and I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, the news about our fishery just keeps getting better.

As our fishery is drawing to a close for the final year of this century, our preliminary data to the end of November, 1999, demonstrates exceptional growth in production value, landed value, landings and employment. This is indeed another record-breaking year for us.

This year the fishing industry directly employed 25,000 people, and another 7,000 indirectly. Average monthly employment in fish processing from January to November increased 32 per cent to 8,200. On average, an additional 2,000 people per month were employed in fish processing in 1999 over last year. Not only are more people employed in the fishery, but they are working for longer period than in previous years. I am happy to report that processing employment is at its highest level since 1991.

The harvesting sector experienced a 16 per cent decline in employment, from an average of 10,700 last year compared to 9,000 so far in 1999. This is the result of license buy-backs, retirements, retraining, and other post-TAGS initiatives, and is consistent with government's capacity realignment policy.

Mr. Speaker, I am exited to inform my hon. colleagues that our production value to date is more than $950 million and expected to reach $1 billion this year - by the end of the year- another record, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: This record number, which is just short of $1 billion, is due to the high value of shellfish and higher landings of cod in a stronger market environment.

Groundfish and shellfish landings have increased by 31 per cent and 51 per cent, respectively, during the first eleven months of 1999. This is a result of increased quotas. Cod quotas increased to 30,000 tonnes in 3Ps and there was a 9,000 tonne allocation in 2J+3KL, the first time since 1992. Crab and shrimp quotas each rose by over 12,000 tonnes this year. Concerns have been raised about the 3Ps cod stock where 1988 and 1989 year classes make up the large portion of the stock. The Province will continue to respond to every prudent measure for the management of this stock, as well as for other species such as crab which are now so important to the fishery and our economy.

Pelagic landings are down slightly due to lower capelin landings and lower herring quotas. The capelin quota was not fully taken this year as strong fisheries in Norway and Iceland satisfied a substantial portion of the market before the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery commenced.

Overall, markets in 1999 have been positive as a result of our hard work through our Quality Assurance Program. Snow crab markets are strong due to solid consumer demand and lower world supplies. Resource problems in Alaska, our biggest competitor, have reduced the supply of snow crab. This should provide us with the opportunity for another robust year in 2000, especially with our continued emphasis on quality and our commitment to build on the strides we have made for producing top quality products.

All major fisheries started on time and in an orderly fashion this year due to a government-industry pilot project established in 1998 for negotiating fish prices. This two-year pilot project has been extended until June 2000, at which time it will be legislated into the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. This new model of collective bargaining will play a major role in maintaining stability in the industry and creating a more viable fishery for the future.

Our aquaculture sector continues to grow, with mussels, steelhead and salmon being the major aquaculture species, representing 95 per cent of production. Mussel production at the end of November reached 1,350 tonnes, and we are expecting production to double last year's 950 tonnes by the end of the year. Our aquaculture export value is expected to exceed $16 million in 1999, compared to $13 million in 1998.

Mr. Speaker, we should all be proud of how far our fishery has come since the collapse of our traditional groundfish industry in 1992. We have developed a new, diversified fishery that is professional, stable, and more viable. Challenges remain, but with prudent management measures I have every confidence that we can build on this success for the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, in the Opposition, are certainly pleased to see a new species being harvested here and creating jobs here in our Province. The aquaculture industry, while still in the embryonic stage, is starting to get some returns, and I am sure there is continuous growth we expect to see in the future.

I might add that we have entered a whole new fishery for many parts of our Province here, in shrimp, and that has certainly contributed immensely to the high export value we have. We have to keep in perspective also that crab this year, in price, is up a minimum of 50 per cent over last year. Even right now it is up even higher this fall than earlier in the year by about thirty to forty cents a pound.

We also have to keep in mind that in the past it has been as high as $2.50 per pound, from generally $1.50 starting this year. It has been as low as sixty cents a pound, and there can be immense fluctuations out there in the market and in the export value of crab. Even shrimp seems to have been certainly more stable from last year to this year; very similar in comparison, but in particular we have to keep in mind that the groundfish industry in this Province has not come back. The number of people who were employed in the industry, in groundfish, was considerably higher than numbers employed in the fishery today. While granted there is a higher export value, and there are higher prices to harvesters - they are doing fairly well overall - many areas of this Province are still devastated from the downturn in groundfish, cod and flounder in particular.

We have to be cognizant of that, because rural Newfoundland today is still affected immensely in employment rates, and they are reflected in statistics that have been openly discussed for this past week, in particular, in rural Newfoundland. An editorial, I think, addresses one of those real things. Rural Newfoundland has not come back to life. It is still reeling and suffering. The more we can do to put investment opportunities in rural Newfoundland, the better it will be, and the longer, more prosperous rural Newfoundland we will have, built on a fishery and hopefully it can be maintained on a fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly encouraging to hear good news about the fishery of our Province which most often suffers from bad management and bad news, so we do see some significant improvement in the ability of our fishing industry to support our communities. I would however say there is a need for more stability in the industry and the knowledge that quotas that are available for a species are available to a community. I hope the government will support the community quota system that seems to be resisted by Ottawa to date.

In the Province's own jurisdiction, we also see a new old feature of our fishery where boat owners are dependent upon merchants in a way that they were not when they could go to the fisheries loan board and get loans. Now they have to be beholden to a particular merchant in order to finance their vessels. That is something that ought to be changed by a revitalized fisheries loan board.

We would also like to see the government play a more significant role in the development of marketing research and development for new products and new markets for our products, and ensure that we do have the technology, the information and the new research and development that will improve the products coming out of our fishery and increase its value.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Education. Last February, government announced - and I have here the press release, where the Premier said himself - that within the Avalon East School Board, if a community consensus could not be reached, that the benefits of education reform would not be lost, that it was one of the most important decisions or actions that this government has taken: namely, solid programming, neighborhood schooling.

I would like to ask the minister this today. In view of the fact that in the Avalon East Board, particularly in the St. John's West area, community consensus has not been reached, that there is a division within the community, are you prepared today to sit down with the Avalon East School Board and people who have legitimate and real concerns about the education of their children in St. John's West to discuss with them those concerns, to work with them to find a viable and long-term solution?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I support the Avalon East School Board in its most recent decision. In fact, I supported the Avalon East School Board when it came out in favor of K to IX neighborhood school system.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, those numbers have been refuted. The fact of the matter is that when government says it has reached a community consensus it has not. Many people within the entire Avalon East region said: Next year, if system is not maintained, we will be on your doorstep saying: How come my child was displaced from school A? How come my child was displaced from this school here?

Minister, I asked you and I will ask you again: Will you sit down and meet with the Avalon East School Board, with people in the region who have legitimate and real concerns about the quality of education, about the type of commitments that your government made? Will you do that, sit down with them to reach a viable and long-lasting solution? Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[There was applause from the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind the visitors to the gallery that they are not to take part in any way in this debate, to show approval or disapproval in any way. That has been a long standing parliamentary tradition and I ask you to respect it.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

The issue for the government is not whether or not there is a K to XII system in the West End of St. John's, but whether or not we have the funding to put in place for it to build a new school in the West End of St. John's, whether that is a K to VI or VII to XII school. The point here is that we do not have the revenue to put in to building yet another new school in the St. John's part of the district when, in fact, we have perfectly good structures that will be empty in a number of years from now if we were to look at the declining student enrolment. The point is that we do have a significant declining student enrolment in this Province, let alone in St. John's East. Again, when you talk about 1,500 empty spaces - yes, maybe they have been refuted, but I can tell you that those are the numbers we are getting from the school board. It is the school board that has the authority to determine which schools will be restructured, redeveloped and what new schools will be built. Based on the numbers they have available to them, as well as the funding we have available to us in terms of building new buildings, we do not have the luxury of being able to look at an additional $10 million, $11 million or $12 million to put into a new school in the West End of St. John's when we have committed $125 million as it is for around the entire Province.

I now have on my desk requests for $45 million of work from other parts of this Province, not for new buildings but for new windows, new roofs, new doors, all of the things that are needed in rural Newfoundland as well as in other urban centres, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister she take the time to meet with the board and parents. If she did she would find out it is not going to cost $10 million, $11 million, $12 million or $15 million to put a new structure in place; it is more like $6 million or $7 million.

Minister, you have said that you met with the board on any number of occasions. Isn't it a fact that the only time that you have met with the school board was last spring, and that you haven't taken the opportunity as the Minister of Education to sit down with the entire board to discuss this situation, as it exists right now, to find a viable solution.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if the viable solution means an additional $6 million to build a new school, it is not available. I do not know how many times I have to say it or how much clearer I can make it. The requests we have now for $45 million - an additional $45 million - to $125 million that we already have committed is not there. There is no need to build another building when we have a severely declining student enrolment. We have a bus transportation system in this Province, in this city, that will enable the high school students in the West End, many of whom travel to the centre of the city now for school, many of whom go to Bishops College, many of whom go to I.J. Sampson Junior High, and many of whom go to Booth Memorial High School.

The other issue here is that if we are to build a new high school in the West End of St. John's and you take some of the students that are now going to Bishops College or to Booth Memorial High School to go to the new high school in the West End of St. John's, then clearly one of the structures that now exists will have to close. Which one, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is clearly showing her lack of knowledge because she has not taken the time to do the homework on it. Let me ask her this. Is she aware that there are $4 million already allocated for renovations to a perfectly good existing high school, and also part of that renovation money to renovate a perfectly good junior high school into a primary-elementary, and that it would not take $6 million to construct a new facility? That in fact what the area needs is a brand new primary-elementary school? That is what the area needs, not a new high school. It already has one, minister.

My question is this. Will you meet with the entire school board to discuss with them the problems they have with your government in not providing them the same per capita amount of funding that you have provided to other school boards so they can complete the reform process that promised neighbourhood schooling, equality of programing, to the people of this Province? Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have no difficulty meeting with either school board in this Province, discussing with them what their needs and wishes are, but I will make it very clear to them that as long as we have a declining student enrolment, as long as we have needs in rural Newfoundland as well for money for windows, doors, roofs and you name it, then I am certainly going to consider that as much as I would consider building a new school in an area of this Province where we also have a significantly declining student enrolment, and where there is a perfectly good structure that already exists that can accommodate the students in the West End.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to say to the minister that the school board will be happy to hear today that you will meet with the entire board, not the Chairman at certain conventions or here or there, but that you will meet with the entire board, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I spoke to school board members today before I came here who said that the minister has not met with the school board since the spring, and that a committee of the board went in to meet with minister. She did not come to the meeting. She sent her officials to it. So I can take it from you, minister, is this the case?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I have never had a request from the school board to meet with the entire school board since the request came in last spring when I met with them. I have met with the Chair of the board. I had a request to meet with one trustee from the school board which I refused to do without the presence of the Chair there. So yes, if the board requests a meeting with me to meet with the entire board, of course I will meet with them.

Mr. Speaker, if the viable solution is an additional $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, or $6 million, I don't have it to build a new school in the West End of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last November, Mr. Jim Thistle, the Province's chief negotiator on the Churchill River Development, told the CBC that agreements reached in negotiations with Quebec or Quebec Hydro, up to that time, were all subject to getting the transmission line. The words he used were, and I quote: Certainly contemplating having to have the transmission line. End of quote.

Is that still the position of government? I ask the minister: Will there be a deal with the Province of Quebec if there is no transmission line to the Island?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for a poor voice today. I have a little bit sore throat. I will probably keep my answers a little briefer as well.

The issue in the Labrador Hydro project discussions of a potential in-feed to the Island has never ever been a concern of the Government of Quebec and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue that has been dealt with between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada. There are still ongoing joint assessments being done by officials from the Government of Canada and our own government, looking at particular models to see whether or not it is going to be viable or feasible to construct an in-feed at this point in time for a cost of some $2.1 billion or $2.2 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the understanding from the very beginning is that the project itself would not pay for itself unless we can come up with some kind of a significant contribution from the Government of Canada. That is where the issue still lies, between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the rest of the deal is finished with the Province of Quebec.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the great embarrassments for this Province with the Upper Churchill contract was that the contract was made subject to Quebec law and the Quebec courts. In terms of the law, we surrendered sovereignty over our own resource.

You promised at the beginning of the current negotiations that all agreements and contracts would be subject only to the law, to our law, and to our courts. Is that still your position, I ask the Minister? Will any part of the agreements being negotiated with Quebec and Quebec Hydro be subject to Quebec law and/or the Quebec courts?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That remains the position of the government in these discussions. Any particular arrangement, such as the guaranteed winter availability contract or the recall of the 130 megawatts of power which has already occurred and already benefitted the Province some $60 million in cash over the last couple of years and over the life of the existing power purchase contract, will benefit the Province an additional $1 billion above and beyond what was contemplated in the 1960s contracts.

When there are adjustments to the existing power purchase agreement, they continue to be judged by the current prevailing law, which is the laws of Quebec. For any new arrangements, the understanding is fully that for any new arrangements the law applying will be the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Has Quebec or Quebec Hydro requested that the Province exempt the Lower Churchill power agreement and/or the utilities that provide power from the Churchill River system from any of the laws of this Province, especially laws dealing with the allocation and reallocation of electrical power?

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

MR. GRIMES: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly check into it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why, Minister, aren't there some written guidelines to use in determining what constitutes a Code 4? That is an emergency call that would allow the fire department to be able to be dispatched.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, all of the emergency services with respect to ambulance and the operation of emergency services comes under the community health board, the Community Health Corporation, I believe, and they have the protocols in place to handle the particular system of response. I am not aware of any specific case that the hon. member brings to my attention at this time. It is only something that I can bring to the attention of the minister and onwards to the board itself, but I do understand that there are existing protocols that are currently and continuously under review to ensure that they provide the best level of service possible. Further than that, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly just have to take the matter under advisement.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a copy of the protocol for dispatching the St. John's Region Fire Department. The director has admitted and accepted that it should have been coded a four. In fact, there are no written guidelines for what constitutes a Code 4, none whatsoever in the department. I spoke with the director and she indicated that there are none.

In this particular instance, the ambulance attendants had to rely on unprofessional help in getting the man on a stretcher. The man even had to assist himself, as he lay there, in trying to get on a stretcher. There was no request for backup assistance when trained paramedics were nearby.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Does she think it would also be prudent to dispatch the closest paramedic help?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, if what the hon. member is suggesting is that there is a weakness in the existing protocol - and I can only say at this point that it is his suggestion - if that is the case, it is certainly something that I can only pass on to the minister and to the Health Care Corporation at this time for their review.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have already passed it on. There is no intention of a review because it is considered not necessary, I have been told.

The fire department has equipment to deal with industrial accidents - that is correct - but they do not always get called. They were not called when a man was recently electrocuted at MUN.

The fire department responds to a vehicle/traffic accident, but they are not dispatched if a vehicle hits a pedestrian. A minute can be critical in certain instances. I want to ask the minister: Why is this so? Shouldn't the quickest response be utilized, because you can never predict the precise seriousness of an injury?

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

MS BETTNEY: Again, Mr, Speaker, I am not the best person to try and prejudge the emergency response, nor the appropriateness of the emergency response. We do have professionals within the Health Care Corporation who manage the emergency response system.

As I have said before, if there is a particular weakness in that system, then I would suggest to you that it is best passed back to the Health Care Corporation for their review so that they can respond accordingly.

I, as one person here, am not in a position to really comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of the protocol.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour and it concerns offshore safety. The federal Minister of Natural Resources has indicated his intention to open up the Atlantic Accord with respect to Nova Scotia to transfer additional responsibilities of offshore safety from the Nova Scotia government to the Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. According to the minister, similar changes to the Newfoundland legislation will take place.

Can the minister advise whether he is involved with these negotiations/discussions, and why he would contemplate transferring additional regulations to the C-NOPB when they do not have enforcement regulations now?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue that the hon. member raises has been one that has been a matter of discussion between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government for a considerable period of time now.

The federal Minister of Natural Resources has indicated to both governments in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that the requests that had come from both governments to give more certainty to the fact that the petroleum boards were actually administering the safety regulations would be forthcoming, and they are going to proceed with that in the federal Parliament on a timely basis.

We will also be asked to pass companion documents here to amend the Accord Act so that we can, in fact, guarantee without any doubt - there is very little doubt at the moment. No one should think that there is anyone that is not doing everything for the safety of the workers in the offshore because that is not the case. It is one of the safest workplaces around. Every regulation of both the federal and provincial governments is being enforced by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.

To give greater certainty, in case there is ever a challenge of their authority to enforce the regulations, the two governments in the next short while will bring forward amendments in both Parliaments to make sure that there cannot be any legal challenges as to the authority to implement the regulations.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My supplementary to the Minister of Environment and Labour is dealing with the fact that we have before the House today occupational health and safety amendments to increase the fines and punishments for violation of our Occupational Health and Safety Act. If the Minister of Environment and Labour feels it is important that we increase these fines and have an enforceable regime -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: - for safety in every other aspect of industry in the Province, why is an unenforceable set of draft regulations satisfactory in our offshore?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me try again to make sure that nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador would ever believe that the regulations are unenforceable in the offshore. That is not the case. They are totally enforceable. It is just a matter that if somebody - every single incident and every single workplace situation that has been covered and addressed in the offshore, if there has ever been an order or a directive given under Canadian law or Newfoundland law, it has been adhered to and followed in the offshore. Safety has been paramount with the operators, so I would not want anyone to be left with the impression that the regulations are not enforceable.

What I did say outside the Legislature, in answer to this question a week or ten days ago, is that if one of the operators for some reason decided that they did not want to comply with the an order given by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, they could find a legal loophole which we are now going to close between the two governments; but there has never, ever, been an instance or an incident whereby they have not complied completely and have not even tried to challenge the fact that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board enforces the safety regulations on behalf of both governments.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Last week the minister stood on a Ministerial Statement, frustrated with the lack of information coming from his federal counterpart with respect to the Gulf ferry service; but, of course, lo and behold, out of the deeps again the minister, our representative in Ottawa, Mr. Baker, comes with public knowledge again last night and again this morning.

My first question to the minister is: Have you yet been formally notified by your federal counterpart, Mr. Collenette, of whether Ottawa is ready to purchase or lease a new vessel for this particular run?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, there has been no news from Ottawa and no communication from the federal minister, absolutely none whatsoever since last week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Education: Mr. Baker is worried. Mr. Baker is concerned that the 200 jobs at the ferry may not be ready in this Province. I would like to ask the minister: Are you worried about the 200 jobs, and has your department been preparing so that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can indeed have those 200 jobs so it does not overheat the economy in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is - as one of my hon. members said - if Mr. Baker and Mr. Collenette deliver a boat, we will deliver the jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, according to Mr. Baker, it is not la-la land the minister in. Nobody seems to be communicating on this. As a matter of fact, Mr. Baker suggested this morning again that he should talk to the Premier because the Premier knows more than he does about what is going on in Ottawa. So, maybe my first question is that the minister ask the Premier what is going on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, a suggestion for the minister in this Province is that he, who has been frustrated, Mr. Collenette, who has said nothing, and Mr. Baker, who is confused, should get together and put some facts forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: The question is, Mr. Speaker: Are the ministers planning to get together soon - because, as you said, timing is important for the tourism industry and so on - or do we have to wait for Nightline for another update from the minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have kept corresponding with Ottawa. We have kept corresponding with the federal minister and other MPs as well. There is nothing more we can do except for trying to keep the heat on Ottawa and Marine Atlantic to make sure that there is something put in place, despite what some other officials might have said about Marine Atlantic.

I reiterate my concern here again this evening; as far as I am concerned, it is getting late. We need an announcement on that ferry before Christmas and no later than Christmas, as far as I am concerned, for something to be put in place for next summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

My questions are also for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and they are following up from questions I asked on Friday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no truth whatsoever in what the hon. member is saying. It is something similar to what he said on Friday - no substance whatsoever.

I have had inspectors on the boat ever since Friday in Jackson's Arm - Saturday - two inspectors there today dealing with different aspects of life safety and concerns, and mechanical and so on. In fact, as we speak, the vessel is on sea trials now by those two inspectors on board. I have an air service put in place for the people of Harbour Deep this evening. If the vessel passes all inspections this evening, that vessel will be back on the run tomorrow morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I ask the minister: Will he commit today - given the different versions that exist in the public forums - to make the report of the Canadian Safety Inspectors a public document, and will he personally go to Harbour Deep and share that complete report with the residents of Harbour Deep, to give them the comfort that they need before they are asked again to use this ferry?

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

Not only that, the people of Harbour Deep have designated one individual from Harbour Deep to come up with the vessel from Harbour Deep to Jackson's Arm. He stayed with the vessel all weekend, and he is with the inspectors today -

MR. TULK: Send Harvey down.

MR. WOODFORD: Probably we should send the member down next week on it.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley. There is time for a quick supplementary.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I had absolutely no requests whatsoever for any air service on Saturday. I had no requests whatsoever for any air services yesterday. I did have a request today, at lunchtime, for a request for air service this evening; that is put in place. I did not know anything about what happened on Saturday. If the request was put in on Saturday, I would have provided it; but the only request I had for air service into Harbour Deep was just before I came to the House and I instructed my officials to do so.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to table the report of the Select Committee on Standing Orders on behalf of the Chair, the Member for Terra Nova.

I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to comment on a few general aspects of the report.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Standing Orders have been amended on several occasions since 1949; in 1951, 1974, 1979, 1993 and 1995. The present changes that we see are among the most comprehensive and they fall into three basic categories: substantive amendments, technical amendments, and practice notes. I would just like to add that practice notes are added to provide the members with guidelines for convenience but they are not considered matters - they are considered matters that are best left flexible and not to be included in the main body of Standing Orders.

I would like to touch on just a couple of the major, particular areas that we dealt with under this Select Committee. Parliamentary Groupings agreed on a criteria for recognition of members as a parliamentary group. The definition of parliamentary groups is included in our notes. Basically, a parliamentary group would be two-thirds - must have contested two-thirds of the seats in the House of Assembly, elected three members, and be a registered party in accordance with the Elections Act, 1991.

Times of daily sittings have been altered in the proposal put forth by the Committee and subject, of course, to the House. It would be four days per week. The three hours that would be lost on Friday would be added on to Monday, Tuesday and Thursday of each week to allow a sitting from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and the regular 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. sitting on Wednesday, which is Private Members' Day.

It is agreed that there should be a time limit on emergency debates, because the nature of an emergency should have a certain amount of finality or conclusion to it, and notice be given to the Speaker before the sitting resumes, basically, of that particular motion for emergency debate.

Also, because of the procedures that have adopted from Great Britain on the business of Supply, Ways and Means in the budget, they are arcane and anachronistic. It is decided to make some changes to reduce the repetitiveness and so on in certain stages moving in and out of committee, to streamline that process there so we can expedite matters a little more.

Right across this country we are the only jurisdiction basically where, in Petitions, you have someone move it, a second person could speak on it, and someone from the opposite side of the House to speak on it. To bring it in line with the nature, really, as it is intended, if you look at Beauchesne and any of the particular references there, it should be restricted to presenting a particular petition. It now would be presented by one individual with no other speakers, and it is three minutes opposed to five, to bring it more in line with the nature of how it should be done, and in line with all other jurisdictions, I might add, across the country.

The parliamentary calendar is another issue of concern. Right now there is no specific legislative time, or in our Standing Orders, in which we agree that the House should sit at any particular time. Basically, it is on the call of the Speaker and the Government House Leader to get business transacted. There are certain changes being proposed here regarding minimum times. Right now there are none in order to do business. The Committee is certainly recommending that in the spring it would open on the second Monday of March and it would close one week prior to the May 24 weekend, with a period off at Easter time from Holy Thursday to two weeks following that. There would be a two-week break from early March to the week prior to the May 24 weekend.

Right now, there is also no specific requirement for a fall session, so this would also propose that there would be a minimum period set down in which the House shall sit. We have one in the spring now, if this is accepted. The one in the fall will be a minimum of four weeks, to adjourn not later than one week prior to Christmas. Basically it sets in place at least a certain order. At least people can plan when the Legislature is going to sit, they can make plans if it is going to close, and it looks at the interests of members too from all different parts of the Province, not eliminating a day without putting in added extra time for debating. That was important. It allows members reasonable access to their districts, especially people living in remote parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, in concluding, to just mention that the Committee has been meeting for the past six months. There have been numerous meetings. I would certainly like, on behalf of the Chair, the Member for Terra Nova, and all the other members of the Committee, thank them for their time and effort in putting this together. These are some of the most comprehensive changes we have ever had since 1949 in our Standing Orders.

Thank you.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the Vice-Chairman, the hon. the Member for Ferryland, has just tabled the report in the House of the Select Committee that was put together last spring by the Legislature to look at the rules of the House and to see that the changes were made.

I am about to move a motion which is some thirteen pages long, and I do not intend to read that motion into the Order Paper. I just want to say that the motion covers the topics that the hon. gentleman has put forward and that I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that motion, that we adopt the practices that have been put forward by him.

Let me say, if I could, for just a few minutes, that I would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee who is unavoidably absent today. The Member for Terra Nova is of course the dean of this House when it comes to parliamentary procedure. When it comes to understanding the rules of this House, I would have to say to you that I do not believe there is anybody that I know of who knows the rules of this House or has a better feeling for parliament than the Member for Terra Nova.

I have been in this House since 1979, and I believe it was in 1980 that there were some major changes that were made by the then Government House Leader, Mr. William Marshall, and the Opposition House Leader at the time, Edward Roberts, to the Standing Orders. Since that time there have been numerous attempts, and people have spent a lot of time, trying to get those rules changed to make them more efficient and more effective for all of us. I want to thank this committee. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi served on that committee representing his party. The Members for Topsail and the Member for Trinity North served on that Committee. Who am I missing? At times, the Member for Humber East served on the Committee.

This is indeed a day, I believe, that all of us, all three parties in the House, have come together to do some of the things that it is necessary to do..

I would also say, in addition to what the vice-chair of the Committee has just said, that we have asked the Clerk of the House and his staff - that before we come back we hope to have those rules in place for when we call the House back together. I would think it would probably be around the second week in March, because that is what those rules say. Before the House comes back from the Christmas break we have asked the Clerk and his staff to see that if the rules pass the Legislature, if we get them done before this present session is over, that the rules we have proposed and the practices that we have asked to be included are put in a far better order than they are now in our present Standing Orders, the green book. Because if you go to look for something in that green book it is like getting in a jungle. So we have asked the Clerk that once we get this done to see that indeed the Standing Orders are put in a fashion where somebody can open up to an index and see exactly what they want to see.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a motion to bring the rules of the hon. gentlemen into effect. They will be on the Table for anybody who cares to take a look at them.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 200 students of Beaconsfield High School. I will read the prayer of the petition:

We, the students of Beaconsfield High Schools, wish to petition the House of Assembly to maintain a K to XII school system in the West End of St. John's. While, democratically, we were not permitted to vote in the education reform referendum, we, our parents, as well as the general public, were led to believe that education reform would bring with it neighbourhood schools. Government is not fulfilling their obligation as promised.

I am proud to stand here today and not only present the petition on behalf of the students of Beaconsfield High School, but to support them in their petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I stand today, and it is my pleasure to support the petition on behalf of the students in St. John's West and as well on behalf of the parents who, when they were asked to vote for reform, they were promised neighbourhood schools, optimum programming and a lower pupil-teacher ratio.

None of this has happened in St. John's West. It cannot happen without the commitment of government. I noticed that the Premier very conveniently on February 8, 1999 said: That is a commitment I give today without hesitation. That commitment was there then, but the Premier misled the people of the Province and the people of St. John's West when he gave that commitment then, and the commitment -

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. TULK: On a point of order.

I know the hon. lady does not mean to say that, but she cannot say the Premier misled -

MS S. OSBORNE: I do.

MR. TULK: You do?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. TULK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady cannot say what she just said, that the Premier misled the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will have to review what the hon. member has said and rule on it later. The Chair will have to see the context in which the hon. member has used the word “misled” and we will have to rule on it later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: The Minister of Education got up and spoke of treating all the pupils in the Avalon East School Board equally. How about treating all the children in the Province equally, when 12 per cent of $125 million goes to Avalon East School Board when, in fact, they have one-third of the pupils in the Province? Where is the fairness there?

They need a primary school to accommodate everybody, and I totally support the students who have signed the petition, and the parents who have voted in favor of reform, to retain their neighbourhood schools and not to take the high school which they already have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just rise to make a few comments with respect to the petition presented. Certainly everybody understands when students and parents would always like to have the best possible education available for their children as close as possible to home. The difficulty that we always have is, again, on a theme that I used last week and the week before with respect to the significance of words and people deciding to choose certain phrases and to use them for their own purposes.

It is very convenient to suggest that there was a debate promising neighbourhood schools, because there was in the context that the school board for every group of students in every age group would determine the closest available school and would send every child to the same school regardless of their religious denominational affiliation. That was what the whole of the reform issue was about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I understand, and if I was in the position myself I would use the argument to my own best advantage, but we should not, in this particular Legislature, for political reasons try to suggest that there was an outright promise made -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the minister to stand in this House and talk about this side of the House using (inaudible) political reasons when two days before an election the Premier makes a statement to save his own political butt in a region and does not live up the commitment made to the people in this House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: We are not going to take any lectures from this minister about political (inaudible)! That I can tell him today!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reaction we just got proves exactly the point. The only real interest opposite is to try and play politics with the issue instead of acknowledging that they fully support it. Because everybody in this Legislature fully supported the whole notion of not having denominationally based schools but having neighbourhood schools for every grade, and that the school board, duly elected for the first time in history, would determine which is the school closest to your neighbourhood available for you in your age group and your class group. That that would not be decided here in this Legislature but would be decided by the duly elected school boards.

Just to make one other point along the same lines, the Opposition parties - they know the difference - for political purposes try to suggest that the money that was saved in education reform has not been reinvested in education. Any dispassionate look at the budgets in education before reform and after reform shows that the budget for education in K to XII is bigger today than it was before reform. Not only were the savings reinvested in education, but more money was actually added. The Opposition members, knowing the difference because they can read and they can add up numbers on a piece of paper - they know that the budget might have been $300 million three years ago and that it is $320 million or $330 million today - will still, when it is convenient, make a speech to suggest that the money that was saved was not reinvested in education.

It is unfortunate that we can be selective at times. I can certainly understand the concerns of the parents and the students, Mr. Speaker. Their school board will come to the best possible resolution on their behalf, I am sure, here in St. John's with the Avalon East School Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 26.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I have just a few brief moments left with respect to this particular bill. I do not intend to use the time today. I think the points that I wanted to make were made on Friday morning in the debate and the discussion. I know there are other members who would like to speak to this very important piece of legislation.

Just again, to make sure that we remember the proper context, all of us in this Legislature voted for a bill in which we put in language about conflict of interest for school board members. The courts themselves have ruled on both different sides of the same issue. They have ruled that a school board member who has a relative in a school that is being considered for closure or realignment is in conflict. The courts, with a different judge, seeing the same evidence, have ruled that a school board member who is ruling on a school that is slated for realignment or closure with a relative in it is not in conflict. Because there is confusion, even in the courts, and because of the fact that we do not want to have the school boards, parents and other groups of school councils continue on to another level of the court to see which one of the first judges was right or wrong, we are proposing here language we certainly hope will clarify the issue. Because there was no intent whatsoever to have a duly elected school board member declared to be in conflict regardless of which particular school arrangement they were debating as a duly elected school board member at the time.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have participated in debate. I am sure the minister and others will look forward to the rest of the debate on this important amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, to clarify the issue of conflict of interest. It is disappointing that for so long the confusion about the actual interpretation of this section was allowed to fester and, in fact, affect decisions that were made to close particular schools. It came as a great shock to individuals who had campaigned for election or were elected to school boards representing the people of their community to find that when the decision affecting the future of the school in their own community came to the table they were not allowed to cast a vote to protect and save the very school they had campaigned to join the school board in order to save.

It was used as a part of unfortunate community politics to disallow votes that they thought would make a difference. In fact, many of the votes that were influenced or affected by this type of decision and challenge for issues of conflict of interest were very close votes; a matter of one vote in many cases - one or two votes - determining whether or not a particular school was to close.

I know the minister and the government from time to time have talked about the costs to the school boards in defending litigation. What about the cost to the parents? What about the cost to the communities; that you have to hire lawyers to take matters before the Supreme Court out of their own personal funds in order to try and right the wrongs that were in this legislation by virtue of the legislation before the House?

What happened, of course, as everyone knows, was that people were ruled out of order to vote when they had a child in a school that was affected by a decision. That was deemed to be a conflict of interest by legal opinions given to the school boards, in some cases. It certainly was ruled by one court to agree that it was a conflict of interest, and by another court not. The confusion was allowed to fester. Instead of clarifying the issue as soon as it arose, the minister waited until now to bring it before the House. However, it does need to be clarified and I am glad that the legislation is here and certainly support it.

While we are on the topic of schools, the whole issue of what the referendum was all about now appears to be distorted by government, by the Minister of Mines and Energy who just spoke, rewriting history as it were, to suggest that what people voted for was not neighborhood schools, and the concept of neighborhood schools, and certainly once again shocked by the government's response to the interpretation of the Schools Act are the people of the West End of St. John's. The people of the West End of St. John's are shocked by the minister's interpretation of what the referendum was all about. Certainly those students who go to Beaconsfield High School, who had a neighborhood school, a high school in their neighborhood, feel very betrayed by this government when they are being told that their school will be closed to make way for an elementary school and they will be required to be bused - at their expense, I might add. That was not part of the early debate, that those students who will now be forced to travel to other parts of St. John's to go to school...

The minister talked today in Question Period about the great bus system we have in St. John's. Well, that great bus system costs money to go on; and these students or their parents are going to have to pay that money because they live in St. John's, for no other reason. If they lived in Mount Pearl of if they lived in Labrador City, or if they lived anywhere else in the Province, they would not have to pay for buses but they are going to have to pay out of their own pockets, or their parents are going to have to pay for them, to be bused to other parts of town. That is grossly unfair. It is discrimination, in fact, against students by virtue of their place of residence in the capital city, and I think that is grossly unfair. It has been going on far too long and, in fact, is a disgrace to democracy to treat students in St. John's differently than students in every other part of Newfoundland and Labrador, to require them to pay to go on buses to get to school when that is not done anywhere else.

The minister talked about Booth being closed possibly as a result of keeping Beaconsfield High School opened and rearranging other students. That may be. I understand Booth was on the list for closure because of the very poor quality of its building. For some reason, that was decided to stay open and to change Beaconsfield High School instead.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has responsibility for students throughout the Province, and that includes the area of St. John's and in particular St. John's West. Yet, the minister has been steadfast in her refusal to recognize the validity of the request for the people of St. John's West to have a school in their neighbourhood, as they have had for the last twenty-five years.

With that, Mr .Speaker, I conclude my remarks and say that I support the amendment to the Schools Act because it is necessary to clarify the issue of confusion that waned for far too long.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): If the minister speaks now, she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I talked about what the purpose of the amendment was and I think it is pretty clear what the intent of the amendment is, so I would like to close debate.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow. (Bill 43)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before calling the next order of business, I would move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed?

Motion carried.

MR. TULK: Has that motion been put?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

We are so pleased to have the Minister of Justice introduce this momentous and important piece of legislation.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society of Newfoundland”. (Bill 41)

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

MR. H. HODDER: Introduce yourself now, Paul. (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Harvey Hodder.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon member opposite, that is probably the reason the House is closing so early, because we were not here to entertain each other.

Mr. Speaker, the Law Society Act is the act that governs the practice of law in the Province. The premise of it is that there has to be a level of public protection. If you think about it, we have registered nurses acts, medical acts and so on, because the public have, I suppose, a right to an assurance that a person who holds himself or herself out as a member of the Law Society has certain qualifications to provide the services that are necessary and that one has the professional background to do so. The other thing that carries with that is that the public often expects that if there is a problem with the services provided, be they medical, legal or otherwise, that the governing society - in this case the Law Society - has standards such as insurances and disciplinary bodies that would ensure that the practitioners themselves do it in a skillful manner.

What this act essentially does is set up the operations of the Law Society, and also sets standards that barristers and solicitors are to meet. There are two different groups of people, essentially, certainly in England, less (inaudible) so in Newfoundland, but the people who go to court are called barristers and those who do the documentary work and so on are called solicitors. Because of that distinction, the act sets up two areas of practice. One is what a solicitor's practice would be, and who may do that; and, secondly, what a barrister's work would be.

The manner in which it does so is that it sets up prohibitions and says that nobody except a solicitor may do a certain number of listed items, and nobody but a barrister may do a certain number of actions which basically consist of matters such as appearing before court and before federal tribunals and so on.

Those are fairly directly set forth in different parts of the act. I might refer you, first of all - the authority to practice law is in section 76 of the act and sets forth who an individual shall be, and other parts of the act set forth the restrictions on what a person who is not a lawyer may not do.

Earlier in the act, in the definition section, it sets forth what the solicitor's practice will be and what may do it. For example, in section 2.(2) it sets up what the practice of law is, including the practices of barrister or solicitor, appearing as counsel or advocate, and it goes on to establish what exactly those duties consist of, and talks about the sort of documents and so on that lawyers draft and prepare. It also says what it does not include, because that is important.

The reason I mention this is that there is some area of practice related to the law, close to the law, which is considered and called a paralegal practice. That can be carried on by individuals who are not members of the Bar, and is generally carried on by those individuals under the supervision of a lawyer and/or a law firm. We do not have a separate act governing what are called paralegals, but neither does any other Province in the country.. There is some concern, and we may wish to address that at another time, as to whether or not that sort of practice should be regulated.

The governing idea being that the public has to be safeguarded from individuals who would hold themselves out as capable or interested in engaging in services or providing services that they are technically not competent to do. One might say that some lawyers are engaging in services that they are technically not competent to provide, but nevertheless they have to meet certain standards provided by the Law Society.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the act sets forth the appointment of people to the foundation and the purposes for which the trust may be used. These include law reform, legal education and research, assistance to the Legal Aid Society, law libraries, provision of scholarships and so on. It is set up independent of government. It is a trust and it is administered by this group of individuals who make their decisions about how best to use the income that they derive from the interest payments on these trust accounts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would be happy to answer any questions. I don't believe it is controversial. There are no great variations and departures from neither policy approach nor drafting from the previous Law Society Act but there are some matters that are (inaudible). I think it mostly speaks to a different age that we are in. It is probably a little more precise about what our practice is in part.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to just make a few comments with respect to Bill 41, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of Newfoundland.

I have had an opportunity over the past several days to review this legislation in some detail. Furthermore, I have had an opportunity to speak with a number of individuals who have been active in the development of this new bill, in particular, the treasurer of the Law Society and also individuals who worked on the committee leading to the bill that we now have before us. I think it is fair to say that this legislation is good legislation. What will make it an effective piece of legislation is that it is the result of a fairly active and energetic effort on the part of many individuals who saw the need for some changes with respect to the existing law in the governance of the practice of law in this Province.

The minister referenced the Law Foundation, and it is indeed an important part of the function of the Law Society generally. It is a charitable organization in the true sense of the word. When we look at Section 67(1) it refers to the “objects of the foundation” which talks about “(a) legal education and legal research; (b) law reform; (c) assistance in funding the Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission as established under the Legal Aid Act; (d) the establishment, operation and maintenance of a legal referral service for the residents of the province...” Indeed, it is an agency, I guess a subagency of the Law Society itself, whose purpose is to assist, from an educational point of view and a contribution point of view, in helping the people of the Province understand more about the practice of law and the role of lawyers within our jurisdiction.

I have the privilege of serving as Chair of one of the subcommittees - it is the high school essay competition - and what that is, in fact, is on a yearly basis all high school students in the Province are invited in participating in an essay competition dealing with issues of public interest, and from a general point of view, issues as it relates to the practice of law generally. It is indeed indicative of the type of work that the Foundation does. In fact, prizes are awarded, prizes to the winning students and also to the winning schools, for the purposes of the purchasing of research materials and reference materials in the school library.

I am not going to prolong debate on this particular piece of legislation, only to say that I have reviewed it carefully. I have spoken with those individuals who were significant in the development of this particular bill, and it is clear to see that this is a result of a lot of work, a lot of effort, and I applaud the individuals who have played a role in the development of this piece of legislation.

One final point I would like to make is this. I believe all Members of the House have received correspondence on behalf of the Paralegal Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and there still appears to be some confusion as to really what the role of paralegals are in our Province. I know the correspondence that was forwarded to members on behalf of the Paralegal Association of Newfoundland and Labrador basically has requested that government give consideration to the regulation of paralegals within our Province. This is certainly important from the point of view that it would be of assistance not only to the paralegals and to the members of the Law Society at large, but indeed the public as well, so that the public will have a far greater understanding as to what the role of a paralegal is, so that there is no confusion, and that both paralegals and members of the legal profession will understand clearly what it is that a paralegal may and may not do.

It is certainly important, I think, that this government in the near future give serious consideration and attention to the fact that the paralegals are out there. In fact, there are a number of private institutions that we know of that offer this course. Individuals spend a lot of money in the training to become a paralegal, and there appears to me to be a lack of guidance and definition as to what their role is. This is an opportunity, as I see it, for government, now that the new legislation with respect to the Law Society and the governance of the profession is before us, to answer the concerns as raised by the Association ultimately for the benefit of the public at large, so the public at large will have a much greater understanding as to what that particular role is.

In conclusion, the legislation that we are now debating appears to be a move in the right direction. It deals with important issues facing the legal profession and the practice of law in this Province, and it tends to codify and organize some of the deficiencies that tended to exist in the previous act.

We on this side will support this legislation fully. It meets the needs of the profession and, as I have indicated on a couple of occasions already, it is the result of a lot of effort and a lot of energy by a group of interested individuals. I support and congratulate their efforts in this regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on Bill 41, An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society of Newfoundland. I also do not need to say very much about this bill, other than that it has been the product of a lot of work, particularly by members of the Law Society and benchers in reviewing the act and bringing some of it up to speed in areas where it needed to be revised.

We now have over 700 practicing lawyers in Province of Newfoundland who are members of the Law Society. It is important that the law regarding the operation of the Law Society - the way that the Law Society governs itself as one of the important self-governing professions and its responsibilities that come with that to protect the public - reflect the desire of the public and of the government and this House of Assembly to ensure that members of the public are properly served by practicing lawyers, and that when they conduct themselves in a manner that is inappropriate, dishonest or unprofessional there is a realistic and real way of dealing with them through the Law Society. That has been accomplished in this legislation.

That has been a confusion for some time. It is now clarified in this legislation which decides that the discipline committee, or a panel of the committee, in fact, has the power to make a binding decision not only as to whether or not the complaint has been upheld, but as to what the penalty might be. That is then a penalty imposed on a member of the Law Society. It is one that can be appealed to the benches or appealed further to the court. In fact, the decision is the decision of the panel.

Mr. Speaker, having served on the discipline committee for some years, and as chair of a number of panels, it is certainly a welcomed change to clarify that situation of circumstances and give the panels who are hearing the evidence and hearing the arguments firsthand, in fact, the power to make a decision as to whether or not a complaint is upheld and as to what the penalty might be. That is a very important change.

It is also to be noted that included in the panels who are hearing the cases, in addition to the lawyers who are members of the discipline committee, there will also be layperson who is a member of the discipline committee and lay people - members of the public - who are not practicing lawyers would also have a say in the discipline of members of the Law Society.

That is an important change, Mr. Speaker, and one that I certainly welcome based on my experience on the discipline committee of the Law Society as to have a clarified method of dealing with complaints before the society for misconduct of members. That is certainly an improvement that is to be recommended.

I understand that the Law Society itself had a fairly strong hand in assisting with the drafting of this bill and it is in conformity with the White Paper on self-governing institutions. With that in mind, I would say nothing further but to support the legislation. The legislation appears to be in order and in keeping with the modernization of the legal profession and the new approach towards self-governing professions in providing for non-professionals to participate actively in the governing bodies and also in the disciplining bodies of the profession.

I understand also that the legislation does provide for some control over paralegals until they have any legislation governing their professions or their ability to act in certain respects. That is important, too, that as long as there is no other legislation they will be subject to the provisions of this legislation in terms of how their own activities are prescribed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

I appreciate my colleagues' comments in favour of the bill. They are familiar with it and they have read it. I endorse the comments they have made as well. I think it is a matter of bringing this bill up to date with the Law Foundation, and they mentioned disciplinary provisions as well. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of Newfoundland”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 41)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of members in the House, the way that I intend to go down the Order Paper is: Orders 24, 25, 26, leave 27 for the present time and do 28, which would be all of the bills that the Minister of Justice has to put.

I presently call Order 24, “An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act”. (Bill 40)

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Teachers' Act.” (Bill 40)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What this section 1.(2) of the act does is, first of all, it repeals the current section of the act and provides for a situation in which they would not be rolled back because essentially they are ineligible for Canada Pension Plan benefits. It would be inequitable for us to take away -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: The hon. member raised a good question. Those who would be inside would not have been members of the Canada Pension for that period while they were teachers so they would not have accumulated benefits. When they left, I would presume - well, if they continued working they would be obligated to be members of the Canada Pension Plan and their service would be calculated from that point forward. If they work through to retirement, your rollback in your government pension plan is calculated as a percentage of the amount of Canada Pension that you receive so they would not suffer severely either. It really is related to the amount of Canada Pension you receive but what this does is ensure that members of religious orders who get no Canada Pension do not suffer a rollback of the provincial government pension. We believe that is a fair way to do it.

Section 1.(1) is really just a restatement of the manner in which the teachers' pensions benefits are calculated. The reason for this is that it is required in accordance with the regulation of the Income Tax Act. It does not change the pension entitlements of teachers; it is just another way that it has to stated in order to be technically compliant. It does not change the benefit in any way, nor the accumulations to date.

I think that essentially covers the two main issues. Like most income tax and pension calculation acts, they are fairly detailed. Trying to set forth in language what is essentially a numerical exercise is a little difficult, but if hon. members have any particular concerns or questions I will answer them when I close debate at second reading.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, we on this side merely want to say that we view this as being minor amendments and that while we could go on for some time, it would not improve the bill and probably would hold up debate unnecessarily. We give support our support on this side for these amendments.

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

If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close debate.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the support of the hon. members. They have done their homework and understand the nature of the bill, and on that basis I will certainly move second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 40)

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

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991”. (Bill 39)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This act deals with technical aspects of the Public Service Pensions Act. What it provides for in essence is, in some cases, a calculation of benefits that a person receives, and it is called commuted value. What that means - commuted value is the amount of money necessary to put aside, invested, so that the cash flows from that on a monthly basis would be sufficient to pay the amount of pension required to the end of your life. Now the commuted value is not calculated on an individual basis. Let me rephrase that. It is calculated on an individual basis but it based on actuarial tables. What they would do, for instance, in our Chamber, they would assume they we, as men, would live to age seventy-seven and would then commute the value of our pension on that basis.

Now, on an individual basis, of course, is not accurate because we all don't die on our birthday at age seventy-seven; but, as a group, that is the life expectancy for men so the cost of the plan and the value of any person who wants to acquire benefits is calculated in that way because over time and on the law of averages, and on an annuitized basis, that is the amount that we need in order to pay all the monies out.

Where that has value to us is to deal with certain situations. I will start with clause 7, perhaps, because that was one that took us the longest time to come to a reasonable solution about, and that has to do with the division of pension benefits upon a marriage breakdown. That was rather complex for a number of reasons. One was that it called for sharing of benefits when a couple divorced or separated. The difficulty was, of course, that the spouses' husbands and wives almost invariably have different ages. Secondly, one spouse being lower than the other, the question then is, do you value that gross amount or that capitalized amount on the basis of the pension holder's pension.

Believe me, we had a very, very long discussion on this both in Cabinet - I was lobbied by two individuals in particular who were concerned with how it affected them. Eventually, I must say, the solution we arrived at is this one: Part of it is that we use a joint table of lives so that the value is not any less for the younger spouse, who is invariably female in most cases. I should not say invariably but often the case. I should say, it is interesting that our workforce is disproportionately female so, to some extent, there may be a corresponding benefit to each sex because I think our workforce is about 54 per cent or 55 per cent female.

In terms of the bill, that was a more difficult part of it. I just want to say to hon. members that we really conferred essentially over a period of year-and-a-half with people who are actually affected. Because we did have circumstances where women, in particular, would have seen a drop of some $2,000 or $3,000 in what were modest pensions upon division. I know one in particular, and I will not use the name, but this person would have seen a drop in her share of the pension from about $25,000 down to $21,000, and another one from $13,000 down to $11,000. At those levels of income, those are substantial, and I do happened to know that they are satisfied with this, and do feel that their lobbying worked , and I think they were very helpful in the end in doing this.

The other aspects of this are more straightforward. They deal with the valuation when people leave the public service and then come back to it. Essentially what these provide is that if you now wish to purchase service where you have been out of government and you come back, you have to purchase it at this commuted value. You are not going to get a benefit so that you could purchase at a lesser amount than it actually takes to pay your pension, and we have different clauses that provide for that.

These set forth, again, in terms, what a terminating employee is, how we go about finding the commuted value and so on, and what is included in that service. You will find another provision here relating to what it must go into, life income fund and locked in retirement account. The reason for this is that generally throughout Canada there is what they call a vesting period and there is a lock in period. Once an individual attains a certain age, and have been a member of a pension plan for, I think, ten years, they cannot then take all the money out. That is really to protect ourselves against doing something foolish. You might question why government chose to do that, but we certainly chose to do it in the cases of pensions. Depending on your point of view, you might argue we should not do it here or we should do it more elsewhere.

In any event, I think that covers the policy that we have adopted here. These are, as I say, several substantial measures, I do not mean to infer that they are not, but they set forth a process of entitlement, transferability, and also portability that is set forth in various provisions. I think that is fairly common. The only other thing I should mention is that we have a new section that provides for a pre-retirement death benefit on the commuted value basis again.

So in most cases, this act speaks to circumstances where an individual is leaving government, his or her pension is being wound up, transferred or terminated, and in some cases a portion may be terminated because he or she is dividing it with a spouse. That part of it, as I say, gave us the most trouble. I'm pleased to say that over a period of long consultations we have evolved this particular methodology which has proven to be very satisfactory for those individuals affected.

I know I've been in touch with my colleague opposite and I am sure he would be happy to support this, or at least give us his thoughts on that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Again, we have consulted on this particular piece of legislation. It is a pleasure, really, to see the changes that have been made, particularly as they apply to those people whose marriages are discontinued. Upon the marriage breakdown, women in particular found that they were disadvantaged in the way the pension arrangement was made.

We have had extensive consultations with people who have lobbied on behalf of those people, and we have dealt directly with them from our side of the House, as have, I'm sure, the department officials in the ministry. We support the changes that have been put forward. That would mean that mostly women, as the minister has said, will not be disadvantaged. Also, we used to have a situation here, particularly as it applied to some of the political pensions, whereby if the pensioner died then the former spouse's pension would cease altogether. So you would end up with a situation where there was a potential for a person who had been in a marriage for a considerable number of years and then, when the pension was being received upon the retirement of the pensionable person, mostly the male, but then when that male died, very often if the marriage had broken down then the former spouse's pension benefits would stop altogether.

That was deemed to be very unfair and very unconscionable actually, and there have been changes made. Now these individuals will not be required to come to government or other agencies with cap in hand, you might say, seeking to secure a benefit for themselves in order to be able to maintain a standard of living that might be deemed to be satisfactory and acceptable.

The changes to section 7 are encouraging. I acknowledge that the officials in the minister's department have been fairly helpful and have been very happy to answer the questions we put forward. We on this side do not have any substantive difficulties. I could however, and should before I sit down, make note again of the public service pension benefits. While I will not elaborate, I will assume the minister will assume that I have given a lengthy dissertation on public service pensions. The fact is that these pensioners deserve to be protected by government. While we are doing some work here now, we also bring the minister's attention to the fact that many of the former servants of the Province have not been adequately looked after. While the benefits that were announced in last year's budget are a step in the right direction, in terms of getting support for all pensioners who are on a low income -

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much for the encouragement. I was about to sit down in a few moments, but now I have such encouragement from the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that I am now going to have to continue for a longer period of time. I was just going to announce that I was about to clue up my comments here, but the great encouragement of the Minister of Fisheries brought to my attention the fact that he is part of a government that has put the boots to public service pensioners.

With these few comments, and in spite of the encouragement of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for me to continue on for a great lengthy period of time, I will put these few comments on the record and say to the minister that I am very much pleased with the coverage that has been given to persons who are affected by marriage breakdowns. I also bring to his attention as well that we have to do a little more about the portability of pensions, particularly as we have working arrangements with other provinces, particularly Ontario, where we have a lot of our people transferring. The portability of pensions is an issue that has not been totally resolved, but I do believe there is a committee within the bureaucracy trying to make some headway on that matter.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak for a few minutes on Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. It would not be right to let an opportunity go by to remind the government as to how it is treating its own pensioners. There are two areas I want to talk about. One, of course, is the well- known one where government has failed to increase the pensions of those who had been expecting on an annual basis and had, for many years, received an increase in their pensions commensurate with the increase given to public sector workers. This is a practice that was stopped by the Liberal government in 1989 and pensioners have not received an increase since that time.

Mr. Speaker, those on the lower end of the scale were the ones who needed it most and, in fact, almost half of the pensioners were in a very low category; because we have to remember that not everybody in receipt of a government pension has spent thirty years working for government. Some of them were made redundant by this government when it started cutting back services, when it started laying off people and making people redundant in order to reduce the public sector. Many of these people have low incomes and have to go out and try to find another job.

That is secondary where - and perhaps the minister will address this one, if he will not address the first one - we do not allow public service pensioners, people in receipt of a pension from the government, to get a job with the government. That has had a very serious effect on some people who need a job because their pensions are so low they cannot afford to live and support their families ,and yet they are excluded from any public sector employment because they are in receipt of a government pension. I have even seen it applied to enumerators in an election who might make a couple of hundred dollars, and although they are otherwise fully qualified for the job, they are refused the job because they are in receipt of a government pension.

Perhaps the minister can address that and seek to change that policy which discriminates against people who may have every need of a job and in fact are available for work, maybe in receipt of a small government pension because they were made redundant after only a few years of service or a number of years of service but not a full pension, and yet cannot supplement their income by any form of employment by the government even if it is not in pensionable service. That is a question I would like the minister to refer to.

Are there any studies being undertaken by his department now to look into whether or not that example could be copied here, whether we have something to learn from the Province of Quebec as to how it handles pension funds and uses its pension funds to promote economic activity within the Province of Quebec.

Surely, with our hundreds of millions of dollars, as we are moving to an era of fully funded pensions, those pensions money, that pool of capital, could be used to support industrial and economy activity in the Province instead of going off to the New York Stock Exchange or the Toronto Stock Exchange to support capital enterprises throughout the world. Could we not ensure that a portion of that at least was invested for the useful purpose of increasing economic activity in this Province and providing capital for - not high-risk capital, low-risk capital - to enterprises within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to allow them to expand or to undertake projects and activities that would bring economic benefits and employment to the Province.

I guess, while I am on this issue of surviving spouses, the Minister of Finance - he is wearing his other hat as Minister of Justice - might tell us when legislation is to be brought forth to ensure that our law conforms to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the provisions in legislation that would serve to exclude gays and lesbians from many of the benefits of the spousal status recognized for married couples who have gone through the solemnization, a form of marriage under the Solemnization of Marriage Act. Now the Supreme Court of Canada has directed that pension legislation and other legislation should be revised to ensure that people involved in a similar or equivalent type of relationship between the same sex be given the same treatment and benefits as given to a couple in other circumstances. Perhaps the minister could respond to that.

I notice that the definition of spouse here is not interfered with at all, or changed, although the word spouse is used - surviving spouse of a pensioner. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the definition of spouse would be under this particular provision of the act, and whether his omnibus bill to bring the Province's laws in line with the Supreme Court of Canada decision is read yet; and, if it is not ready before Christmas, when he will be presenting it to the House.

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

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised the hon. member does not know what the definition of spouse is. I think it is pretty clear in some of our enactments.

In answer to his question, we do plan to amend several of the enactments. We did have a draft bill provided. The difficulty has to do with common law relationships. Each province has a different standard. In Newfoundland and Labrador, in order to be considered a common law spouse, you have to have a child of the relationship, which, in the case of homosexual couples, is challenging. I wouldn't say impossible, given modern technology.

For us to make any changes - there will be substantive change and there are several considerations. Should we say that they have to stand in loco parentis to a child that might belong to one partner or the other? The other thing, too, is that is varies across the country. I think in the Ontario case you had to reside together for three years. Ours, I think, is one year and a child of the relationship. You might have a couple that has resided together for five years, do not have any children, and want to treat each other as spouses but it is not under our enactment, as the hon. member can see. So, do we change the law and then say: Look, if you live together for a year, with or without a child, you are deemed to be a spouse - it has to be a child of the relationship - or must there be a child that you treat as a child you are responsible for - what we call the loco parentis Those are substantive issues and we looked, frankly, at probably amending it to say: Well, look, as long as there is a child who is treated, or to which they stand in loco parentis.

I have recently discussed this issue at the Finance Ministers meeting, oddly enough, because it came up in the context of a mandatory splitting of Canada Pension benefits, despite a bit of controversy around the provinces as to what they are going to do about this.

In any event, that is one issue we have to resolve. There is probably something to be said across Canada for having a common test as to what a common law relationship should be. Essentially in these cases we would not be amending the Solemnization of Marriage Act so much as amending our definition of what a common law spouse would be and to facilitate - just to have an equal standard. That is something that we had hoped to do before Christmas but unfortunately, I think, we need to resolve that a little more carefully and give some consideration to the extent to which we want to amend the law generally.

I should say that we do have a draft bill prepared. It has been through the committee system, and social policy is looking at it, but there is that substantive issue that we feel should be appropriately dealt with. The hon. member will see that bill coming before the House certainly in the spring, and we did hope to have it here by now.

In any event, I think that is probably the most substantive question the hon. member had and I therefore move second reading.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 39)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Order 28.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act”. (Bill 47)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A very simple amendment, this provides who will act as Chief Justice of the Trial Division, or Chief Justice of Newfoundland when there is a vacancy in that office. Right now the act is silent, but what it does is it confers on the next most senior judge in either court, either the Court of Appeal or the Trial Division, the right to act, and in fact the obligation to act, as the Chief Justice in the vacancy of that office. I think that speaks for itself.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is very little to add, I would think, to Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. Essentially what it now does is put in legislation presumably what the Chief of the Court of Appeal or the Chief of the Trial Division would ordinarily have done in situations where he would be absent from the court or when the request was made by the particular Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal or alternatively the Chief Justice of the Trial Division.

As the minister has indicated, this now simply provides a mechanism by which it is no longer done by the Chief Justice as a matter of choice or preference, but is now simply in legislation that the next senior judge will act in the stead of the absent Chief Justice. Other than that, I see no difficulty with members on this side having any great objection to this particular bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly the legislation is very straightforward. It may well have some purpose being in legislation rather than simply a matter of practice, because there are certain constitutional duties which the Chief Justice of Newfoundland has, as Administrator in the absence of the Lieutenant-Governor, for example, which probably could not be exercised by anyone other than the Chief Justice. Perhaps with this legislation the senior judge could perform those functions as well as others that may be statue based that do not offer a substitute in the event of the absence of the Chief Justice from the Province. Certainly nothing further needs to be said about that. Obviously the administration of justice requires that there be a continuous ability for the courts to operate and for the Chief Justice of both the Supreme Court Trial Division and Court of Appeal to carry out their required functions.

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

If the hon. minister speaks now he will close debate.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the support of the members on the bill and I therefore move second reading.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 47)

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Order 32.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Assessment Act”. (Bill 52)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I say to the hon. Member for Baie Verte, this is not an attempt to sneak anything by anybody. These are simply amendments that will bring the acts of the three cities in the Province in line with provisions that are contained in the new Municipalities Act which was proclaimed last May in the House, and which will become effective January 1, 2000.

What these amendments do is simply bring into play the powers that are in the Municipalities Act, so that come January 1, 2000, no municipality will have greater powers under the Municipalities Act than the three cities have under their individual acts under which they operate. This will put them in no less a circumstance in terms of administrative ability, taxing ability, collections ability, ability to be involved in economic development and all of these sorts of things than municipalities who are under the new Municipalities Act.

It is really substantially housekeeping in nature. It will serve to bridge between January 1, 2000 and at whatever time we bring in new acts for the three cities, (inaudible) to a circumstance where they will have at least the same level of municipal authority on all accounts and in all respects as the municipalities under the Municipalities Act.

Mr. Speaker, that is the brief explanation for it. If there are any questions of substance I would be happy to deal with them at the end of the debate by the members on the other side.

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

The minister stood in his place and said, just as he introduced this, and he was only up two minutes: There is no intention to sneak anything through. We on this side of the House know we have to keep our eyes and ears open in this House of Assembly. We know what tried to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Especially at this time of year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Especially at this time of year, in the late night sitting, what can happen in this House of Assembly, late in the evenings. We saw it happen before. Only for the keen ear of the Member for Cape St. Francis, we showed them one night. They have not tried anything like that since, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Fisheries is over there, not in his right seat again, as usual, mouthing off. We saw him the other day standing in the House of Assembly talking about crabs crawling 300 miles. That is what he was at the other day in the House of Assembly. I heard stories about that man down sliming around in the grass like a snake after the night crawlers. Now he is after the crabs down 300,000 feet in the ocean. He is over there talking to me. Hang your head in shame.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: I just want to ask the hon. member for clarification. I understood that in speaking to this bill, or any other bill for that matter, there had to be some relevance to the topic of the bill and the verbiage that would come from the opposite member on the other side. I would ask the hon. member, for purposes of my clarification - because I missed something, obviously- if he could make what I have in mind be as a great disconnect between this bill and what he is saying, if he could make that connection for me, so that I can follow his logic as he proceeds through his crabby presentation on Bill 52.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no doubt there is a question of relevance, but if the Chair would have to start now to enforce relevance it would be very difficult.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I am just getting to the point, these are just my introductory remarks. Like the minister was saying about sneaks and sneaking things through the House of Assembly, what did that have to do with this bill? He was up on a point of order? He should hang his head in shame. He does not know what he is talking about.

I was going to give a little speech here tonight - I may later on - on the Cabinet shuffle that happened recently, and the members on that side of the House do not even know anything about it. I will get into that later on. You do not even know anything about it. You do not know who is speaking for who.

To the point, and I shall have my comments in due course, this bill is a little bit more than housekeeping. I went through it. I am just going to refer to the minister's comments first. He was talking about how, what would be the right word?, insignificant, I suppose, this piece of legislation is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I am talking about consultation with respect to this. Here we are, on second reading of this bill, and when did we receive it? When did we receive this bill? I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs: When was this bill presented in this House of Assembly?

AN HON. MEMBER: Today.

In the last sitting of the House, this spring, the new Municipalities Act was basically approved in this House of Assembly after many years talking about it. At least fifteen years, I would say to the minister. Indeed, we had to put that through the House of Assembly and it was about time.

With respect to this bill, there was something that the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Government House Leader were up on not long ago. They were talking about trying to put bills through this House, rushing them through, and how we were trying to hold it up. Just listen now. We put a piece of legislation through the House of Assembly this spring and listen to this Explanatory Note now: “Clause 39 of the Bill would correct errors in the law that occurred in sections 107 and 147 of the Municipalities Act, 1999.”

The first week the House of Assembly opened the Government House Leader, the minister, tried for us to rush a bill through the House. We stood in our place and we said no. We had the galleries full, and he tried to embarrass us and rush it through, and tried to get the media onto it, that we were going to hold up this legislation. We did not. It is a good thing we did not because we would back here again. The Municipalities Act was on the go for fifteen years and we still had errors in it. When I say we, I should not refer to this side of the House. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and his department are the ones that are responsible for putting the act together. It is a fairly thick act too, I would say one-half inch thick, very comprehensive. Of course, we had errors in that. The government had errors in it.

Depending on the situation, I say to the minister, it is a probably a positive thing, because when you are at a council meeting oftentimes - and I had it recently in my district where two people were taken off council because of conflict of interest. You never notified me of it, though, which you should have - had some consultation. It is an important point that needs to be made with respect to this piece of legislation.

Also, there is another one here. I just highlighted a few I am going to make comment on. It says: ...the city may, with the prior written approval of the minister, provide for an expenditure in its budget for a capital reserve.

Also, we talked about, under section 138, a minimum tax for businesses, for residential and for commercial property. The municipality now can set a minimum tax for a residential property versus a commercial property. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, if you have a certain type of business, different classes of businesses with respect to this legislation, you can now have a different minimum tax for the different classes of businesses, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

If he wants to make a few comments on that in his closing remarks, he can do that. I expect he read it. I think he did. I would imagine he did. I suppose he read more than just his briefing notes, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. He is usually well informed on his legislation. I grant him that. I will not say it too much. It is only because of the time of year, Christmas, that I would say something like that.

Speaking of Christmas, just a little side note - I think the House will give me enough leeway for this. Christmas is almost upon us, Mr. Speaker, and we received a gift in this House today. I don't think anybody realized the gift we received in this House today. When the Minister of Mines and Energy was asked a question, he stood in his place and basically said that he could not speak for very long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: What a gift to this House of Assembly, after the performance we have seen that man give over the past few months here and last spring in this House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: He is agreeing? Well, there you go. The minister is agreeing with me, Mr. Speaker. What can I say - and the minister of employment and labour - employment and -

AN HON. MEMBER: I am not telling you.

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister of whatever. The Member for Mount Pearl is in complete agreement with everything I have said here today. I see her over there shaking her head.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Southlands.

MR. J. BYRNE: The member for Southlands.

Also, here is a very good one, a very interesting one, actually. I agree with this one wholeheartedly because, in the City of St. John's, the City of Corner Brook, or an municipality in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially rural Newfoundland, here we have section 161. It says, “Notwithstanding section 160, real property that is occupied for full time residential purposes by the owner shall not be sold for tax arrears by the council while it is occupied in that manner.”

Basically what it is saying is that once a person is living in a house who owns the property, not a renter, but a person who actually owns the property, that the house, premises or residence, will not be taken out from them. The city cannot basically throw them out. I think that is a positive thing; but, then again, there are people out there who can try to abuse that.

This piece of legislation is twenty-five pages long, but there is a lot of duplication here, because what they say for the City of St. John's applies to Corner Brook and to the City of Mt. Pearl. I pretty well covered the points that I wanted to make on this piece of legislation. I would say, when the time comes, that we on this side of the House will probably support this. We may have more to say in the -

MR. TULK: Committee stage.

MR. J. BYRNE: Committee stage, I say to the Government House Leader.

I have been in this House of Assembly seven years now, and that is the first time the Government House Leader said something to support me and try to help me along, so obviously he is weakening. He is not as bad - when the present Premier tried to clone the previous House Leader -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I have to say to the hon. gentleman that I am not weakening; I am just mellowing.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Again, just like the Minister of Mines and Energy, words are important semantics, I say to the Government House Leader - mellowing, weakening, whatever the case may be. There is a difference.

With those few words, I will sit down and see if anybody else would like to have a few words on this piece of legislation. I can go on, on this legislation, but I have to remind people - look, another brown envelope delivered to me. I will save that for another time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Later, it could be any time. It depends on the reaction from that side at any given time.

With respect to this legislation, I would say that we, on this side of the House - it appears that everything is in order here, I say to the minister. I am going to qualify my words by saying it appears. We will probably be supporting this in due course, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments. With that introduction of thirty seconds - very rarely does a member get an applause that last that long here. I feel humbled by the thirty seconds of resounding applause that I got at this introduction, from both sides of the House. I did want to make a few comments.

First of all, I want to say that we did not get this piece of legislation until this afternoon, and it was tabled very quickly. I did notice that we had not expected it to be called today, because it was not on the list of things that we had scheduled. I do recognize that the Government House Leader went outside for awhile and the acting Government House Leader decided that he would put that through.

I see the Member for Topsail shaking his head. I wasn't referring to him when I was talking about the acting Government House Leader. I was talking about the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

I did want to make a couple of comments and they revolve around the inconsistencies between the Municipalities Act and the school boards. It has to do with the issue of voting. I know there is an amendment coming forwarding a little later on that deals with an amendment to the Education Act, but I want to point our to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is not listening at the moment but I am sure will read Hansard, that when we are talking about voting, we have to have some consistency between what governs the 300 municipalities in the Province and what governs the ten school boards.

We do have a clarification of the conflict of interest coming forward by the hon. the Minister of Education but I am afraid to say that that is not exactly how far we should be going. We agree with that clarification; however, we believe that the whole issue of voting in the authorities of Newfoundland, there should be some consistency between the voting requirements and legislation governing municipalities and that which governs school boards because both authorities, whether you are a municipal council or you are an elected school board, you are duly elected by the people and you should have some consistency. For example, I said to my colleague, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, that there is nothing in the Schools Board Act which requires that a decision of the trustees made at a private meeting has to be ratified at a public meeting.

It then says, “Notwithstanding subsection (1), the minutes of a closed meeting shall not be available to the public.”

I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who is a knowledgeable member in the government on school board matters, that if we were to look at the way decisions are made at the municipal level after fifty years of evolution, we could offer a lot of constructive things to the way school boards are run in the Province.

Let me make one other suggestion. I say to the minister as well that we have a requirement in the municipalities that all votes have to be done in a public manner. For example, there is no secret ballot voting at the municipal level. I have been involved in municipal government for a quarter of a century. I have been a part of the rules system for a long time that worked to develop those rules. I have a fair bit of background and knowledge on it.

I would say to the minister, in honesty, that we have to look at the way decisions are made at school board level. We cannot have school board members coming in and saying: We are going to vote here by secret ballot. If you are duly elected to an authority like the school board you are there to vote, you have to vote, unless you are in some kind of a conflict of interest. We cannot have secret ballot voting but the present education act does not preclude secret ballot voting. Therefore, you could have that happen.

The third thing I want to mention to the minister is a good issue in the Municipalities Act. It is section 212(2) in the Municipalities Act. It isn't in the act we are now amending, I say to the minister. It deals with members abstaining from voting on a motion or resolution before the council. It says that you are not allowed to abstain from voting on a resolution at council level unless you are declared to be in a conflict of interest.

I say to the Minister of Education that there is a lot to be learned from the evolution of the parliamentary system at the municipal level that can be applied to the school boards of this Province. In fact, I guess it is okay if I say on behalf of my colleague for Harbour Main-Whitbourne that when we get to the Committee stage we intend to introduce some friendly amendments to the minister. I say to the minister now that we will be introducing some friendly amendments which will make the voting procedures for the school boards in the Province more consistent with the results of fifty years of evolution of voting procedures at the municipal level.

We believe that it is time to do this. For example, at the school board level, if you have fifteen members on a board, a quorum would be eight, so if you have a quorum you can have a meeting. If you have two members in that quorum that declare a conflict of interest you are down to six, and now you have four members who can make a decision. That is not acceptable at the municipal level, and there are ways and procedures in the Municipalities Act to cover that.

For her reference, I'm looking at section 212 of the Municipalities Act where it governs voting, and looking as well at section 213 of the Municipalities Act. We will be looking for an opportunity to have these provisions apply as well to the school boards of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, other than saying that these amendments are here now purely to make them consistent with the Municipalities Act, we support them. There has been consultation with both the municipalities involved and with the professional offices of clerks and other people involved in these municipalities. Therefore we will support them because they do bring consistency to the whole municipal government system in our Province.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member, my critic, was speaking there a few minutes ago I could not help but think how somebody could be so entertainingly light yet so intellectually deep in their discourse. It really was a masterpiece of a presentation. I recognize the unique and the innate qualities in public presentation that the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis has. I only wish that on some accounts I had the finesse in public debating that the hon. member has.

In saying all of that, there was at one point for one brief moment that I thought he was making sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Do you know what? He belongs with Jack Harris.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have to take the liberty of differing with my hon. colleague and friend the Government House Leader when he suggests that I am in the same league or should be in the same classification as the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I have to tell the hon. the member, my colleague, that when somebody gives me a free jacket, I do not look a gift horse in the mouth. I take my free jackets and I wear them proudly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I missed that. Can I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add any more to the debate than has already been added. I cannot say any more than to say a word of thanks and appreciation to those who spoke on the other side of the House who appeared, who wanted, who gave great effort to try and find something wrong with this bill, but at the end had to support it wholeheartedly, unequivocally, with great conviction and with a high level of support.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. J. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Municipal Affairs just said that we on this side of the House supported this bill wholeheartedly. I said we may on this side of the House support it. We were qualifying our words. It appears to be okay at this point in time. When we have more time to review it - we only got the bill today - we may not support it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Assessment Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 52)

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting Adoptions”. (Bill 45)

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this bill, entitled An Act Respecting Adoptions, is intended really to replace the Adoption of Children Act, which was a piece of legislation that has been in effect for approximately fifty years in the Province.

This bill signifies a real shift in how adoption services will be undertaken and provided in this Province. Our present legislation, as I said, is approximately fifty years old and people for many years have been asking for changes in the way that we have delivered adoptions in this Province. The bill and the lead up to it has undergone extensive public consultation for a period of a couple of years.

The present Adoption of Children Act only allows for closed adoptions. All of the adoptions must go through the provincial director of child welfare. Of course, the new Adoptions Act as it is presented here in Bill 45 will support new directions that include much more openness in agreements, it will provide for persons involved in adoptions to be able to chose service providers, while at the same time it respects the confidentiality for adoptions occurring prior to the passage of this new act through the registration of a veto.

This act is very consistent with the previous Child, Youth and Family Services Act which was introduced last year, because it clearly articulates principles that include involvement of children, youth and their families and communities in decisions that affect them.

A few of the highlights of this piece of legislation are that children under the age of twelve will be able to have an input into their adoption, and children will have the ability to maintain contact with their birth family following adoption finalization. This is a major concern that was expressed during the consultation process, particularly for older children. There will be a much easier process for relatives or step-parents through the adoptions process, through the provision of self-help kits. In addition to this, we will have the ability for an open record system on a go forward basis for future adoptions. People can use a disclosure veto and/or no contact declaration to protect the privacy of parties to adoptions which were finalized prior to the proclamation of this act.

This piece of legislation also provides for the ratification of the adoptions process in line with the Hague Convention on inter-country adoptions. The delivery service for the Adoption Act will provide for regional health and community services health boards to have the responsibility in each region of the Province to administer this act, and provide services to youth and their families.

Overall, what certainly comes through in the legislation is that it provides for a much more open system, one which has been called for for quite some period of time. Both adoptees and their families have recognized, to a large extent, that there is a need today for people to have access to this kind of information and to be able to access it in the future.

So these are changes and new legislation which have been in demand now for a long time. It is a significant piece of legislation, one which we feel very proud of. As I say, it adds another piece to the kind of social change which we are introducing through this whole process, very consistent with the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and I believe that some of the significant points that I have mentioned make for a very positive piece of social policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[The continuation of today's sitting will be found in Hansard 51A.]