The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today fourteen Grade 10 history students from Pasadena Academy in the District of Humber East. They are accompanied by their principal, Mr. Victor Kendall, and chaperone, Mrs. Trudy Read.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to send congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Rees, of Seal Cove, in my district, on Monday past they celebrated a milestone in their life when they celebrated their 70^th wedding anniversary. I think that is a tremendous thing to have been together for seventy years. They are both still in great health. They celebrated this on Monday past. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Burin Salvation Army Corps on their 112^th anniversary of providing care and service to residents of the Burin area.

This past weekend, I was pleased to be part of the Corps anniversary weekend which included a delicious anniversary supper, as well as other activities.

Mr. Speaker, May is Red Shield Appeal month for the Salvation Army, and we are all very much aware of the contributions they bring to our communities, especially to those less fortunate.

I want to thank the Burin Corps officers Captains David and Wavey Chaulk, as well as the rest of the Burin Salvation Army Corps for their service to Burin for the last 112 years and I look forward to many more years. May they look forward to many more years of service to the local communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to recognize in this House, the efforts of Bob Toms of Forteau, Labrador, who has been a member of the Canadian Rangers for ten years. Mr. Toms, a school teacher, who started the first ever Junior Canadian Rangers Program in Newfoundland and Labrador in September, 2000. Through his efforts the Junior Canadian Rangers now have seven patrols in our Province, including Churchill Falls, Black Tickle, Postville, Port Hope Simpson, Forteau, Conne River and Millertown.

In my district there are eighty children in the Junior Rangers from ages twelve to seventeen.

The aim of the program is to promote traditional cultures and lifestyle by offering a variety of structured activities to young people living in remote and isolated communities of Canada. Outdoor skills, camping, canoeing, map and Compass are some of the many activities they participate in. They also engage in public speaking and have a peer support group. The Labrador Straits team, which is led by Mr. Toms, is a model for other Junior Ranger groups across the country.

I would like to congratulate him on his efforts and also offer congratulations to the Labrador Straits Junior Rangers team on being selected to the prized program to pilot the program called: Prevention of Harassment and Abuse through Successful Education. This pilot will be done on behalf of all Junior Rangers groups across the country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to follow up on an announcement government made when the provincial budget was handed down in March.

At that time, government reiterated its commitment to improving transportation infrastructure in the Province and outlined funding for the provincial highways and roads. Government announced we would invest $22 million into our roads this year, a $6 million increase over last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous investment in the roads in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I personally travelled to many communities and met with residents to discuss roads in their respective areas. I listened to these people and we are now following through on our commitment. Over the past week my department has been announcing specific projects throughout the Province that will respond to these requests.

While not all needs can be addressed in any one year, I believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be very pleased with the roads program we have prepared for this year, with its extra emphasis on paving gravel roads.

Mr. Speaker, added to the $22 million roads budget is the $4.5 million government is investing in coastal roads in Northern Labrador, and the $2 million, representing 20 per cent of the cost that we have committed towards the construction of the Long Island Causeway, if our federal counterparts agree to cost share this particular project. This puts our provincial investment at $28.5 million this year.

To these provincial investments we add the $50.3 million announced in February under the federal/provincial Roads for Rail Agreement, and the $43 million we will spend on construction of phase two of the Trans-Labrador Highway, making this year's total funding for highways in the Province $121.8 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my department is also planning to upgrade several wharves around the Province, including a $1.5 million project for St. Barbe.

My department has started calling tenders for the roads projects and we look forward to working with the construction industry in what we believe will be a very successful construction season.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize there is a need for more upgrading of our highways and roads, but funding for road improvements has to be balanced with funding for health care, education, and costs associated with providing other government services to the public.

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant investment in our highway infrastructure. At almost $122 million, it is one of the highest allocations in highway construction in this Province since Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: During our Jobs and Growth consultations last year, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians told us they wanted government to invest more in transportation infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, government is responding to that request and investing more in transportation in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement just before the House sat today. The minister talks about $22 million in the budget for road work this year, $6 million over last year. Better, I say to the minister, better, but not nearly enough.

The minister himself, when he became minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister himself, when he became minister, after waiting nine or ten years to become minister, said that if he did not get the amount of money for roads this year doubled, he would not accept anything less. Now we get $6 million - 33 per cent - not nearly enough.

He talks about, over the past number of weeks, making announcements. He is trying to get as much good publicity out of this as he possibly can. He talks about the Long Island Causeway, $2 million. Who deserves credit for that other than the Member for Windsor-Springdale, who brought it up in this House of Assembly many, many times?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Also, the minister has the face and the gall to take about the Roads For Rail Agreement; ten or fifteen years later, still thanking John Crosbie for money for the Roads for Rail in this Province, and trying to get good publicity out of that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, get this: how many times -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, the only thing that he has forgotten to do in this Ministerial Statement is to total up the amounts spent from 1949 to 1972. He has covered most years between then and now.

Mr. Speaker, transportation is no doubt a critical element in our Province today; and highways, being the most common form of transportation, are very critical. However, there are still many dirt roads in this Province, and there are many paved roads in our Province that are in deplorable condition and certainly need work done, some of them in my own district. I think what is lacking for transportation in this Province is a long-term plan that will systematically improve the roads throughout without any regard as to political affiliation that the district may be in.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today to update hon. members on the Student Investment and Opportunity Corporation, which has an initial investment of $8.8 million that was announced during the Speech from the Throne and in this year's budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: In addition to absorbing $4.8 million in existing youth employment programs, the corporation has $4 million for new initiatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I am pleased today to announce the allocation of the first $1.4 million for new programs and supports for our young people. We will announce other initiatives as they are developed in the coming weeks and months.

The purpose of the corporation is to help potential and current post-secondary education students gain work experience and employment which will offset the cost of their education. The corporation has now been officially established and a board of directors is in place.

Mr. Speaker, through this new corporation, my department is building on the successes of existing programs, like SWASP, and identifying areas where new supports are needed, especially in rural areas. The new initiatives are based on recommendations and advice from the Province's Youth Employment Co-ordinating Committee as well as reviews and evaluations of existing programs.

I am pleased now to provide highlights of how these new initiatives will help our young people:

We currently have a Student Work and Services Program, commonly known as SWASP, which provides work experience, paid employment and tuition vouchers for students. We are very proud of this award-winning program which was devised in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I should say that similar models, after this Province developed it, have now been adopted by other provinces across Canada.

Through funding from our new corporation, students employed through SWASP who have completed one year of post-secondary education are now eligible to have the duration of their work periods extended from eight weeks up to a possible maximum of twelve weeks. The additional funding will also allow for more placements in rural areas of the Province and will enable us to increase the overall number of placements available through SWASP.

The corporation is also making SWASP a year-round program for young people who need work placements during periods other than the summer. Additional funds from the corporation will go towards work placements, counseling and career planning supports.

We also identified a need for students in industrial training to gain work experience. Through funding from the Student Investment and Opportunity Corporation, we are developing a career-related program to provide employment opportunities for students enrolled in industrial arts programs. This initiative will be developed in consultation with the private sector as well as the College of the North Atlantic and private colleges.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to have everybody working, if you don't watch it.

MS KELLY: Yes, and three more to come yet!

Working in partnership with the federal government, we will target additional funding towards the Community Access Program, which we all know as CAP, which employs youth in Information Technology positions.

We are also providing funding towards Increased Wage Programs for Post-Secondary Students. This initiative is aimed specifically at students from rural communities who need to live away from home in order to gain work experience that is directly related to their course of study.

Another way that we are addressing the needs of our students from rural areas is through the Memorial University/College of the North Atlantic and Community Service Council Small Enterprise Cooperative Placement Program. This program is receiving funding from the corporation to provide opportunities for students in co-operative education programs to obtain paid work terms for not-for-profit agencies or rural businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the new initiatives my department has developed are intended to provide work experience to our young people, to help reduce student debt levels, to address specifically the needs of youth in rural areas and to help young people in our Province to save towards their post-secondary education. While we already have a number of youth initiatives in place, the Student Investment and Opportunity Corporation is focused on building on these existing programs and directing funding towards areas where additional supports are needed.

My department will be pleased to provide additional details to MHAs in the very near future so that they can help their young student constituents across our Province avail of these new employment opportunities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for forwarding me a copy of her Ministerial Statement today. Certainly, I take the opportunity, on behalf of members on this side of the House, to congratulate the department on some of the initiatives that are put forward in her statement, and I congratulate them that we finally see a government that is taking the youth of the Province very seriously and are starting to address some of the concerns that are there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: What concerns me the most when I look at this statement, I say, Mr. Speaker, is that several times throughout the statement they talk about rural areas and the concern that people have in rural Newfoundland. Representing a rural district, I certainly understand some of those concerns: the lack of employment opportunities; the lack of training; the lack of wage subsidy programs; and the high amount of student debt levels throughout our Province and moreso in rural Newfoundland.

When we talk about these programs: most of the students that go out on these programs have to work for minimum wage, another concern that the minister should be looking at, doing something with the minimum wage of these students. The concerns that the people who come from rural Newfoundland have are: the high cost of attending school here in the city or other parts of the Province; the travel; the lodging; and the fact that they are away from home, Mr. Speaker. The opportunity for employment in rural Newfoundland is basically nil in a lot of cases, and I hope that some of these programs address that concern.

We have a high amount of student debt that I don't see addressed in this here, Mr. Speaker. Just within the past hour, I met with a young fellow from my district who has a $50,000 debt and is planning in the next couple of weeks to head off to Alberta. I would like to ask the minister and the government what they are planning on doing for that person in their programs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Are they on their feet in the House of Assembly addressing those concerns, Mr. Speaker? Are we trying to put a band-aid on what needs a major, major hospital visit? That is what we need here in this House, not a band-aid solution but a visit to the hospital itself to check it out.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns here in regard to student debt and work experience. I say, we look out into rural Newfoundland and we look at the businesses that are out there and we talk about wage subsidy programs - a lot of those businesses are just keeping their heads above water. You are going to have to put a little bit more emphasis into the students themselves, the training that they have, and give them a light at the end of the tunnel, give them something that they can look forward to.

When we look at a budget of $8.8 million, we had $4.8 million that was there last year. Mr. Speaker, to get up and announce $8.8 million, it is really $4 million new dollars. It is $4.8 million that was in the existing youth employment program that has been moved around and changed around.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: I say, Mr. Speaker, it is time that you start listening to the youth of this Province and put the money where your mouth is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for making available a copy of her statement in advance.

There are several important improvements to the youth employment strategy contained in the minister's statement, and we look forward to the details as to how these are actually going to work. I will say that we certainly commend the improvement of the SWASP program to make it a year-round program so it is available to all students, and also the notion of providing an increased wage program for post-secondary students who, if they have a job, may end up spending all their money or most of their money supporting themselves, for board and lodging or paying the cost of living away from home. I think that is very positive.

One of the most creative ones can be, Mr. Speaker - we will wait to see the details on how it works - the support for students in the industrial arts sector of our schools who don't really get job opportunities and training opportunities on the job, because it is very hard to get that job to get the training. I look forward to seeing how this program is going to operate and hope that it is a successful initiative.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues that a general election for school boards will be held September 25, 2001.

This will be the second general election of school board trustees since education reform. The first general election was held in February of 1998. School board elections will be held on the same day as municipal elections. Trustees elected at that time will hold office for a four-year term.

There are ten regional school boards and one Francophone board, the Conseil Scolaire Francophone, in the Province. There will be fifteen trustees elected to regional boards in the general election. Trustees to the conseil scolaire are elected by individual school councils.

I commend the work of the trustees elected in the last general election, who embraced the challenge of guiding the ten new school boards for the first years following educational reform. During the term of the first fully-elected school boards, these trustees took on many challenges, not the least of which was consolidating schools and school populations. We are deeply indebted to them for their monumental efforts in the initial years of our new school system. The students in our schools were well served by these dedicated individuals and as a result of their hard work and vision, these students are able to avail of improved educational programs and services.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of government, I thank all of those trustees who have given freely of their time and talents to serve the interests of education.

There can be no better way for a person to volunteer services than in the interest of children, in particular in the interests of children in our schools. Therefore, I encourage people throughout the Province to consider offering themselves for election to one of the 150 positions to be filled on September 25. There will continue to be many opportunities for our school boards as they work with all education stakeholders to improve the high levels of education in this Province.

As our student population continues to decline, we must find innovative ways to ensure our children are provided access to the educational programs and services they require to meet the challenges they will face throughout their lives. Students in our schools today will live and work in a global economy. They will compete with students from all over the world for employment. Therefore, we need school trustees with a vision for the future which will prepare our children to be the best in the world. Serving children can be one of the most gratifying tasks a person can undertake.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage those who want to make a difference in the education of children in their area to offer themselves for election on September 25.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, unfortunately I did not get a copy of your release, but in response to what the minister has said, certainly, when it comes to trustees they have had such a difficult term in coming to grips with the, I suppose, reform and the restructuring.

I hope, minister, when the elections come up this fall that we, indeed, have enough people who will put their names forward, to go forward as trustees, to carry on that job. Again, I say to you, I am not convinced that there will be, because this government, when it came to school boards, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they used these school boards for their own purposes and as buffer zones against the decisions they were responsible for but which they placed upon the shoulders of the trustees as they went around this Province closing down schools, trying to balance budgets, trying to deal with a system that is certainly underfunded.

I say to the minister, yes, I do hope that people will come forward as trustees -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: - and that they can continue on to give the very valued service that I know they have given.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess everyone already knew there was going to be a school board election September 25 because of the legislation placed. It is an opportunity to thank those who have served school boards, but also to acknowledge that the people who took on the task were, in fact, given responsibilities by this government which were downloaded to them to carry out budgetary restraint, and forced to make decisions that this government did not want to make themselves. At the same time, when they were looking for improved budgets, for capital budgets, the purse strings were held by the government so they could not do the things that were positive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I hope, Mr .Speaker, that in this next round of elections those people will actually have some control over the future of school operations in their districts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to rise on a point of personal privilege. If I heard correctly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. MATTHEWS: I heard the hon. member from the Conception Harbour-Whitbourne area -

AN HON. MEMBER: Conception Harbour?

MR. MATTHEWS: Wherever he is from, the hon. the critic for Education -

AN HON. MEMBER: Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. MATTHEWS: - say in his response to the statement from the minister that government uses school trustees for our own advantage and for our own ends.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, my interpretation of what he is saying is that he interprets the role and the function of a school trustee as being some sort of a lackey or a person who is incapable of using their own intelligence, performing their own functions, doing their job adequately, doing what they were elected for.

I want to say to the hon. member that, as a former school trustee for eight years, I take personal exception to the aspersions and to the slur and to the slant that the hon. member has put on the character, the role, the obligation and the capability of school trustees in this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon him to either affirm that he has no respect for trustees or else to withdraw the scurrilous, ‘slurrilous' comments that he just made with respect to their function!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will certainly take the point that the hon. minister has raised and will review the Hansard and take it under advisement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is about time for the Minister of Mines and Energy to wake up; and if we have had any part in waking him or that government up, then hear, hear, I say to the Member for Conception Bay!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier. In 1994, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador basically called for proposals to privatize what was formerly known as Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services. As I recall at the time, the government invited proposals from the private sector and eventually accepted the proposal submitted by the consortium led by NewTel. Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services then became known as xwave and became part of the Aliant group of companies. As part of the privatization deal, government contracted all of its IT requirements at the time to xwave for and until March, 2002; a contract which was worth approximately $170 million over its lifetime.

I would like to ask the Premier today: A couple of weeks ago he was confronted with the issue in Corner Brook, which he said that he would meeting with NATI, which is the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Technology Industries', that if they were going to sole source it again for another several years, that he would sit down with them and explain it.

I would like to ask the Premier today: In view of the public commitments that you have made, have Cabinet discussed this issue? If so, what detail have you discussed? Have you made a decision on what you will do for the government's own IT requirements? For example, will you sole source it or will you call public tenders? Has that decision been made yet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: No, no, I am just waiting.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that there has been no decision made on the awarding of any contract for government services. As a matter of fact, I think the President of Treasury Board and myself are meeting with NATI to discuss - we have met with them on a couple of occasions and we are meeting with them further this afternoon to discuss their concerns at -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I think it is at 5 o'clock this evening, if I am not mistaken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: We are meeting with NATI this afternoon to discuss their concerns.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Premier. This is a huge potential contract. We are probably talking in the vicinity of $200 million. The provincial government, as most people in this House know, is the largest possible or potential client for IT companies in the Province. It is absolutely huge. I would like to ask the Premier this question: Has government conducted an independent, objective analysis of the current procurement arrangements? If you have done that, did that objective, independent analysis include an economic analysis of the sector, an analysis of the value of expenditures received made under the current arrangements or current agreements, of benefits and constraints of the agreement to the local industry? Have you done that analysis to guide government and Cabinet, ultimately, in making a decision on which way they go or what they will do with their IT requirements from 2002, when this agreement expires, and beyond?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I hope, I say to the hon. gentleman, that the same thing does not happen to us that has happened to maybe some of the information services in the Province where, if you call out of here now, you get somebody in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. gentleman that what we are doing-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are the fellows who let those contracts, not us.

MR. TULK: To who? A great Newfoundlander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that we have had our people analyze this situation, take a look at it, and that we are meeting with NATI this evening, this afternoon, to try to -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) had nothing to do with the contracts you awarded.

MR. TULK: What is your problem, Rog?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - to alleviate their concerns and to discuss them with them, and to see if indeed we can address everybody's concerns involved.

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

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

I guess the concern surrounding -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The concerns that I am interested in leaving are not the concerns of any particular group or company but the concerns of the people of the Province. This is a huge piece of business that government is about to make a critical decision on. It is my understanding that government has not conducted a thorough analysis of this contract over the last seven years. It is my understanding that government has not looked at the economic analysis of the sector; that government has not looked at the benefits and constraints of this agreement; that government has done no research, for example, to try to determine and ascertain departmental views. In other words, government is about to make a decision without any detailed information before them.

I would like to ask the minister this question: If he has that information - he says they have had a look at it - will he table what government had the public service do in evaluating this contract over the last seven years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman would obviously love to be a member of Cabinet. Sometime in the future, the distant future, when his hair is as gray as mine, maybe he will be.

Let me say to him that whatever has been done has been done for Cabinet, and Cabinet has not made a decision on this issue as of yet. When that decision is made, any documents that are not related to Cabinet, sure, you can have them.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we will give it to you whenever we want, whenever we are ready, whether it is applicable now or later, because they have so much contempt for the public of the Province when it comes to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, you do! Yes they do, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: And your record as a government demonstrates that clearly. Don't say no to me when I can say yes and demonstrate it clearly to you, I say to the minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the minister this question - or the Premier. The contract in the last seven years was worth about $170 million. This one is worth about $200 million. There were good reasons in 1994, Mr. Speaker, to enter into the situation that we did; but today there is no good reason, as I see it, not to open up the entire call to anybody who wishes to make a proposal so that the people of the Province can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The question to the minister or to the Premier, Mr. Transparency and Accountability, is why won't you do it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, when you talk about contempt for process, the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that there is a Cabinet progress in place in this country. He knows that, as well as I do, if you destroy that Cabinet progress you basically destroy our form of government. He knows that, but yet he will continually day after day get up here and ask for documents that are Cabinet documents, and he knows full well. In the process of his sham openness and transparency, I say to him, because that is what it is, he will stand up and twist the words of people and twist the actions of government to try and make believe that he is more open than somebody else.

Let me say to the hon. gentleman: Cabinet has not made a decision on this process. We are meeting with NATI. Hopefully we will address their concerns, and there are concerns on both sides of the issue, and we will address (inaudible).

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

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

Here is what this member knows: You wanted to charge me $10,000 to get access to information on THM levels in the Province. Here is what this member knows. I ask you: Do you know?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question, since he is on a supplementary.

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

Let me ask the minister this question. He knows full well of all the information requests that he and his government have turned down from me. I am not going to get into that debate. We will save that for another time. Let me ask him this question: Has government talked to xwave, Aliant, any company or individual associated or contracted by xwave, in looking at, or being lobbied by xwave or any company or individual associated with xwave, in trying to ensure that this contract remains sole-sourced?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman, let me just answer his question very quickly. We talked to everybody who is involved in this process. We will continue to talk to them, and we are going to talk to NATI again this evening.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question again is for the Premier or the minister. Under the current contract, xwave was required of its original, over the last several years, to spin off some IT activity - worth about 1 per cent or 2 per cent of the total contract - to other IT companies in the Province. What are you proposing to do now, Minister? Will you call a public tender? Are you planning to extend and open up the process so that every company - why can't you make that commitment? If you have a benefit analysis done why don't you just open up the process, put out the criteria and let evert single company, who can provide that type of service to this Province, bid on it, so they can provide the type of service to the government, and ultimately, all of us will benefit by cheaper, better productive and more competitive stuff being provided to the people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. gentleman knows that - and this is what was done the last time around - there are reasons for sole sourcing contracts, for sole sourcing people to do certain things. As you move along a certain line, obviously, you can get more into the public tender contract. He knows that. There is no point in me saying any more than that to him about that side of it, but we will try to work out the best deal for the people of Newfoundland and for the IT industry in Newfoundland by talking with NATI, xwave and anybody else, I say to the hon. gentleman, who is concerned. The deal will be whatever is in the best interest of the IT industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss with officials from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Technology Industries in a concerned paper that they have provide to me. I believe they have also provided it to government. Clearly, it shows that the IT industry has grown significantly, worth about $700 million since 1994. They are ready to compete in an open, fair, level sort of way if government provides them that opportunity. The question is: Why can't you stand up today and make the commitment that whatever process and terms will evolve, that it will be open, it will be fair, it will be level, and that every company, who has the expertise to deliver services to the government and to us, the people of the Province, that they will in fact have an opportunity to do so?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentlemen that we will do - through analyzing the situation, through discussions with xwave, through discussions with NATI, through discussions with other people concerned - what is in the best interests - and I hope he is listening - of a developing industry, a very good industry, namely; the Information Technology industry in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we will try to increase the salaries of people - and that is one of the problems in the IT industry. We will try to ensure that we have a good, core functioning IT industry in the Province. Hopefully, we can accomplish that through discussions with NATI, xwave and others concerned. (Inaudible).

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, as a matter of fact, Minister, there are a few other things that I want to ask you now - was there anything else?

Mr. Speaker, final supplementary. My question for the minister is this, particularly in view of his answer just now: Wouldn't you agree, and wouldn't the Premier agree, that the only way to continue to grow an IT industry in the Province is to encourage competition amongst Newfoundland IT companies? In doing that, wouldn't you agree that growth will stall here if you continue to shut other companies out of the largest and biggest market for IT services in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentlemen must know that when you get into a developing industry there are certain things that you can do through a public tender. That is the purpose of the changes that were made to the Public Tender Act. There are certain things that you can do through the Public Tender Act and there are certain things that you cannot. As the industry grows -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: As the industry grows there should be an increasing amount of public tender. We have seen that in this Province on a number of occasions; in the telephone industry, the cable industry, and so on. We have seen that happen. It is a progression that has to take place.

What we will be discussing with xwave and NATI - what we are trying to do here is to keep a core industry and at the same time, as people develop the capabilities to be competitive and to carry on certain aspects of the work, to see that they get it. That will be the aim in our discussions with NATI, with xwave, and with any other IT group in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Premier about the state of the Province's water report.

Premier, other members of your Cabinet have said that the document has gone to Cabinet. You say it has not gone to Cabinet. Really, you are all over the place on this. If what you are saying is true and it has not gone to Cabinet, Cabinet no longer have an interest in it, then you no longer have a reason to withhold this report from the people fo the Province. Premier, will you table this report and share with the people of the Province the information that is contained within it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to give an answer in the Legislature today that I gave outside the Legislature to the media yesterday; which, of course, they decided to carry what they thought were the pertinent parts for their reporting.

The issue is this, and the clarification is good for the public record and for Hansard. There was a document in draft form by an official of the Department of Environment in 1996, that found no agreement. It was intended for Cabinet. As I said yesterday, outside the Legislature, the Cabinet, the government, this government, was looking for information five years ago about the water supplies, the drinking water in Newfoundland and Labrador, because we want to make sure that we are on top of the issues and protect the water supplies in the best interests of the health and safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We were being proactive and looking for information, through our officials, about the condition and state of the water supplies in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The official who was given the primary responsibility to begin drafting a report - because it does cover four different departments now: Environment, Health, Government Services and Lands, and Municipal and Provincial Affairs. There has been an interdepartmental committee, for several years, looking at water quality issues. The official who wrote the report, based on certain statistical information, when he subjected it to other officials in the same department, and other officials in the other departments that have responsibility, found nobody who agreed with the thoughts and ideas.

The statistical information is clear and is available anytime, in terms of the testing that was done, the assessments of water quality levels. It is available today, just like it was five years ago, to any Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: There were some thoughts and ideas, and some recommendations that other officials disagreed with. The Cabinet and the government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: That you know nothing about because you have never been in one, and probably will never be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we can only use information from officials if there is agreement and consensus, and it can provide direction for decision making. The standard that we have set as a government is that if there are reports and documents -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to complete his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - that are used by the government to make decisions, we would gladly make them public anytime because we know that the people of the Province would come to the same conclusions based on the same.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Premier, you just said yourself that there are conflicting opinions about this report. Even if there is one official who feels that there is information in this report pertaining to the health and safety of the people of this Province, then there is no justification for withholding the information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Premier, you have a moral obligation to the people of this Province to share with them information regarding their public health and safety. I will ask you again today: Are you going to release that report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the issue is that the hon. member is trying to pursue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is this: The statistical information that was in that draft report - which did not form the basis of a final report on which the Cabinet could take any decisions because there was so much disagreement amongst the officials - that talked about the measurement of certain levels in water supplies of certain potential contaminants is in the public domain, has been given to every single town council and municipality, has been used by them to judge whether or not they change chlorination levels or not. It was five years ago, Mr. Speaker. What is important, and what has been very important to that point in time, is that all of the relevant information, in terms of the testing of water supplies, has been made available publicly in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is on the Web site today. There is a report that is in the process of now being established in terms of last year's issue in 2000. There is another report for this year, for 2001. That is on the Web site as it is being compiled.

The relevant question was asked yesterday by a member of the media who said: Don't the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a right to know what the state of their water was that they drank five years ago? I said: Yes, absolutely, they do. The information that gives them that, they already have. The statistical information in that report is available, and has been available for some time, for anyone who wants it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

Premier, if you are telling me today that the information that is in that report is already out there then what are you hiding? Why will you not release that report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Who are you to say to the people of this Province that they have no right to the information pertaining to their public health and safety? Release the report.

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 Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, let me restate for clarity the position of this government. This government, Mr. Speaker, this particular government, firmly believes that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, given access to the same information - and listen carefully, Mr. Speaker, if they would. What I have said repeatedly, and what this government believes, is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, any time, given access to the same information that we use to make decisions, would probably, fair-minded people, come to the same conclusions.

There was no information in that particular report that was used to make decisions by the government because there was an incredible amount of disagreement amongst officials as to what the statistical information should conclude to. All of the statistical information is already in the public domain, has been used by the managers of water systems in the Province to take corrective actions over the years, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in there that is being hidden from anybody, and there was nothing in there that was used by the government to make any decisions about water supplies in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the President of Treasury Board, one simple, straightforward question that requires a very simple, straightforward answer. The minister budgeted $40 million for salary increases this year in the budget. This figure, the minister had stated publicly, was based on 3 per cent in the public sector. I want to ask the minister now: Will she give the House the revised figure based on the tentative agreements now that are going for ratification?

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

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

I think it is important to note that they are not ratified at the moment.

MR. SULLIVAN: I said, they are going for ratification.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: They are not even out before the membership right now. As we pointed out in our joint press conference, this year we will be assuming an extra deficit in addition to the one we have to offset the cost of public service wage increases, which we believe was a reasonable, respectful way to show all the public sector what they have been through over the last ten years, what we have all been through with respect to wage freezes and an economy which we have all worked together to try to improve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister telling us that she does not know the cost of the agreements that are going for ratification, or that she is not going to give us the figure? Which one?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered in terms of where we are. First of all, the agreements have not been ratified. This year, as we all know

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) budget $40 million?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: This year, as we all know, all of the contracts come in at different points in time with respect to when their contracts expire and the annualized amount. So, in addition to the portion of the $100 million which we have allocated, about $50 million, we have also identified a deficit which we will bring forward for next year to add on to our budget in the tune of $36 million.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, regarding the decision to drop alpine skiing from the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games this coming February in Gander. This sport has been part of the last four provincial Winter Games and often acts as a springboard for athletes who aspire to compete in the Canada Winter Games, where this Province has had representation now for more than a quarter of a century.

Alpine skiing is considered a traditional winter sport, Mr. Speaker, and I ask if the minister can explain why alpine skiing has been dropped from our provincial Winter Games, especially since the White Hills Ski Lodge has proposed to host the event?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to a very exciting Winter Games in Gander, coming up in 2002 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - where we will have the most ever, the highest number, of athletes competing.

We would say that there is a minimum criteria that is established, and one of the criterion includes the number of sites. There has to be a minimum number of sites in the Province participating. At this point in time, the proposal that was put forward to the provincial games committee does not include the minimum number of sites. Our officials have been looking at it, but that is the problem at this point. It is a sport that has been there traditionally but we also have to have a certain number of sites to make it a credible event. The criteria has to be met.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The sites that are represented, of the eight regions, five do meet the criteria, I say to the minister; but, through the selection process, there was no communication whatsoever with the governing body for alpine skiing. They filled out their application to be included and heard nothing until they received a letter saying that they would not be. Why, I ask the minister, was there no consultation and no effort to reach some kind of compromise and find a way to keep alpine skiing in the games? I ask the minister if he will review this decision with the view of including and keeping alpine skiing as part of the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we are always open minded. The games committee, which consists of the individuals in Gander who want to host the games, along with our own officials, I certainly will ask them to review the information. I already did, as a matter of fact, because we have had representation on this matter. I have already asked them to review what occurred, and the exchange of information and so on, and I ask again for a review of the criteria that we are using, because it is a traditional sport. I give that undertaking today. We are already underway at this moment and I will certainly be able to report where we are in the next short period of time.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to raise a point of order which I guess borders on a point of privilege as well. I note that there is a very strong habit with members of the Official Opposition, in asking questions, rather than asking questions to the minister through the Chair, to refer to people directly - the Premier: What are you trying to hide, et cetera, et cetera.

I recognize that some members are new and are not used to parliamentary procedure, but I know the Chair has brought it to the intention of members before. My concern is this: if this is a strategy of the Official Opposition to sort of personalize - and it is a more aggressive stance, I recognize that, and perhaps a more effective one - I do not want to be in a situation, Mr. Speaker, where, if we are following the rules in the House in asking questions directly through the Chair to the minister, and the Official Opposition is taking a far more aggressive approach: What are you trying to hide? You answer this question -

MR. FITZGERALD: You are being outclassed, boy, in Question Period. You are being outclassed. You argue when you get up (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

I say to the Member for Bonavista South, this is not a question of being outclassed. I can be just as aggressive and shout just as loud as the next person, and I can point fingers and yell and say: You and you this. I can do that, and I would be quite happy to do it, but what I want to know is, if that is a new rule of the House and the newest style of asking questions, then we will also adopt that very same strategy. If we are not going to change the rules of parliamentary procedure that go back however many decades or hundreds of years, then we should ensure that it be consistently applied and that members not be allowed to do that.

I simply say that, Mr. Speaker, because I would be quite happy to adopt a new strategy if that is the rule of the House; but if it is not, I would want to see that other members are not permitted to disobey the rules in that way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want again to respond to the hon. member's point of order, and indeed it is a very legitimate point that he raises. The Chair has, on a number of occasions, pointed out to members that when questions are being put, and when answers are being put to the House, that they must be in the third person and directed to the Chair. On a number of occasions I have asked members to do that. I know that on occasion members, when they get into their questions, sometimes ignore that rule, but I have brought it to your attention. Again I want to ask members that when constructing the questions, make sure that your questions are directed to the Chair, not to individuals in the Chamber, and in the third person.

MR. SULLIVAN: And the answers too.

MR. SPEAKER: And the answers as well, of course. Yes, the answers must be directed through the Speaker to members.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 No. 2. (Bill 20)

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

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

I have a petition about the bulk export of water from the Province:

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

These petitions came in from the Pouch Cove area. We continue to receive petitions. It is an issue that I have addressed on a number of occasions in the House. I will continue to address this issue in this House for as long as it takes to convince government of the same opinion that the former Premier had taken, that water has to be bottled and processed in this Province to provide maximum jobs, maximum spinoff benefits, and the royalties as well, to this Province, as opposed to doing to what the Premier is suggesting and allowing water to go out in bulk to perhaps be processed elsewhere, to be utilized elsewhere, to give the maximum benefit to somebody else.

We should have learned a long time ago that we cannot continue to allow our resources to go out of this Province as raw resources without the secondary processing in this Province. We have to demand that the people of this Province get the jobs and the spinoffs from our resources. That is what is wrong with the economy in this Province. The fact that our people, our young people, our educated people are moving away to find work elsewhere because they have not been able to find employment in this Province. The only reason for that is because we are shipping our resources out as raw resources and not demanding that we get our maximum benefit, our maximum spinoff, from those resources. That is what the people of this Province want. We are going to continue to demand that on behalf of the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 3. I move first reading of a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Citizens' Representative. (Bill 10)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Citizens' Representative," carried. (Bill 10)

On motion, Bill 10 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. TULK: Motion 4. I move first reading of a bill entitled, An Act To Amend the Shops' Closing Act. (Bill 19)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act," carried. (Bill 19)

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 13, Mr. Speaker. Second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Municipal Elections. (Bill 7).

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Municipal Elections." (Bill 7)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today to introduce the second reading of Bill 7, An Act Respecting Municipal Elections.

This bill, if enacted, will replace four pieces of legislation: St. John's Municipality Elections Act; the provisions of the Municipalities Act, 1999; the City of Corner Brook Act; and the City of Mount Pearl Act, and will therefore then become the enabling legislation for all future municipal elections in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the beginning that this legislation has been developed in consultation with direct input from the municipal stakeholders. My officials have met with the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, the City of Corner Brook, and representatives of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators Association. Also, the office of the Chief Electoral Officer has provided valuable assistance in the development of this legislation. The involvement of these stakeholders has been invaluable to us, and has served to ensure that the legislation evolving from this process provides the appropriate legislation tool for municipal elections in the Province for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, municipal elections in the Province are currently - as was already repeated - administered by four different statutes. This situation arose due to the fact that elections were included in the statutes at the time of their enactment and no previous consolidated effort has been undertaken. Subsequent then to the 1997 general municipal elections, discussions between my department and the St. John's, Mount Pearl, Corner Brook, Federation of Municipalities and the NLAMA group, resulted in a consistent approach to the conducting of municipal elections in the Province. This could best be achieved through the development of this Municipal Elections Act.

It was also felt by stakeholders that in addition to consolidating and modernizing the election provisions of the four previously mentioned acts, the new legislation should also address the issues of alternate methods of conducting municipal elections and issues of disclosure of campaign contributions. Therefore, it was considered important that the new legislation be developed in sufficient time to facilitate the elections in 2001, when these elections will occur.

I would like to take a couple of moments to highlight some of the more significant changes to the municipal electoral process outlined in the bill. Returning officers are authorized to delay the opening of the polls on election day, or to postpone an election for a period of up to seven days if the conditions warrant. For example, like inclement weather.

In circumstances where the number of candidates nominated for an election, or by-election, is less than the vacancies on the council, previously it would be incumbent upon the councils to contact the minister and ask for the nominations to be made. Under this legislation we are asking that the councils call for a second set of nominations before the minister can appoint persons to fill these vacancies.

Also, something new is that the town clerk of each municipality is the returning officer now for the municipal elections. At the start of the election process each council will be required to appoint an alternate who would be able to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the returning officer, if for reason the town clerk is unable to fill the role. The returning officer, as opposed to the council, which is currently the case, is authorized to appoint all necessary election officials and to determine the number and location of polling divisions.

Each council will decide whether to hold nominations on one day, as is currently the case, or more than one, but not exceeding five. The nomination process will take place between the twenty-eighth and the twenty-first day preceding election day, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. If nominations are held on more than one day the hour for nomination will be from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., not from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. as is currently the case. Nominations for municipalities that conduct their elections by way of vote by mail, will take place on each of the five working days between the thirty-fifth and the twenty-eighth day preceding the election and will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each day. That is something new that the City of St. John's was asking for, and other people are interested in that particular part of the legislation as well.

Residency requirements for candidates in municipal elections; normally six months but has now been changed to thirty days, the same as for voters. Also municipal employees, other than the clerk, manager and paid department heads, will be able to take a leave of absence to run for the election. Any employee who is elected must resign from his or her position with a council before taking the oath of office. This provision, as many of you know, came about as a result of the fire chiefs who wanted to run. So they can take a leave of absence and run for an election under the now proposed legislation.

The chief administrator officer of an agency or a body established and controlled by council will not be able to seek election to that council unless he or she resigns from that position. Members of the House of Commons, the Senate, the House of Assembly and judges of provincial and supreme courts cannot be nominated for elections to a municipal council.

Any eligible voter who has reason to believe that he or she will be unable to vote on election day can vote in an advance poll or by proxy. The requirement for proxy voting has been streamlined to ensure the integrity of the process. Returning officers will only be able to provide proxy applications directly to an impeditive voter or to his designated proxy.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities will be able to use the provincial and federal list of electors to assist in the preparation of their voter's list. As well, the voter's list prepared for the municipal election can be used for election purposes. Any election official, candidate, or agent, who uses the list for any other purpose, is guilty of an offence.

Candidates and their agents are prohibited from campaigning or distributing campaign materials within thirty meters of a polling station on election day. As well, mobile polling booths can be used to conduct an election in institutions where the number of eligible voters does not warrant having a polling booth opened for a twelve hour period.

As well, municipalities are authorized to conduct their elections by way of vote by mail, with the exception of the Cities of Corner Brook, Mount Pearl, and St. John's. Any municipality that decides to conduct their election in this manner will require ministerial approval. All municipalities that applied the vote by mail methodology will have to adopt regulations to govern their election process. These regulations will be subject as well to ministerial approval.

Mr. Speaker, another item where the margin of defeat in an election is ten votes or less, or a higher number, that each municipality can establish and a candidate makes a request, the returning officer must conduct a recount, the cost of which has to be borne by the municipality. Any candidate can request a judicial recount of the ballots cast in the election, irrespective of the margin of defeat.

Also, within ninety days of the date of the election each elected candidate will have to file with the returning officer a disclosure statement showing the total amount of money contributions made to his or her campaign, the listing of all individual contributions over $100, and the names of the contributors. Once filed, campaign disclosed statements become official records of the municipality and will be available for public inspection upon request. An elected candidate who does not file a disclosure statement in the required time, or fraudulently files an incorrect statement, is guilty of an offence.

Mr. Speaker, while this bill contains many provisions that streamline and modernize municipal elections process, by far the most significant changes relate to authority provided for municipalities to conduct their elections for the vote by mail, and the requirement for elected candidates to file campaign disclosure statement.

The vote by mail methodology was developed and is administered by Canada Post. While the authority to apply this methodology is new to the Province, it has been used in a number of Ontario municipalities in the last two general municipal elections in that province. The experience of those municipalities has been that voter participation has increased, and in some cases significantly, and the overall cost of running their elections has been reduced, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of democratic election principles. In addition to its use in Canada, this method has been used sometimes in the United States. For example, the State of Oregon uses vote by mail for all federal, state and municipal elections. Our analysis of voting by mail indicates that it could be an effective method of conducting elections for some of the Province's municipalities. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the City of St. John's intends to conduct this year's election in this manner if the bill is enacted.

The issue of the need for campaign disclosure has become a significant issue in the recent municipal elections, especially in some of the urban municipalities. It has now been addressed, and the bill requires that all elected municipalities within ninety days of the election file with the returning officer of that particular municipality, showing a disclosure statement, showing the total amount of money contributed to their campaign, and it must also contain a listing of all individual contributions over $100 together with the name of the contributor, which is pretty much like we have in the provincial.

Mr. Speaker, I have outlined some of the most significant provisions of the bill. There are other numerous ones, together with those outlined, that make for a municipal elections act for this Province that consolidates, modernizes, streamlines the municipal election process, and is strongly supported by the department's principal stakeholders, and which government is proud to bring forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make a few comments concerning Bill 7, and, Mr. Speaker, to inform the minister that we will be supporting this particular piece of legislation. I personally believe that it is time we got into municipalities in this Province, where they actually declare where their funding comes from to run for municipal office, to run for mayor or deputy mayor. We feel that it is time that this was put forward, so that we can have an open and very, very transparent view for the people of our Province who are electing councils.

As many of the members in this House, I had the privilege of serving in my municipality for five years. It is never easy. I guess being a councillor in a municipality, from a political point of view, you are starting at the very bottom of the scale. I say to my colleague - and I laugh - I believe the only thing worse than this could be being a school trustee, but I certainly won't get into that, I won't go there this afternoon.

I have read the legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is a good piece of legislation. Actually, I think what we are doing here is we are giving people the right to vote by ballot, which is the same as a provincial election in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is quite right, quite fair, and again, quite above-board. I believe we have to have the clerks in our Province to be returning officers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack Harris (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: The only way Jack might win now is if he got to count the ballots himself; two for me and one for the other fellow. I say that in jest now, Mr. Speaker.

The last comments that were made, you know, Mr. Speaker, as to who won what election, as to what caused them to not win, I guess, can only be determined by the candidate who runs for a particular office, himself or herself, and I guess we have all, those of us who have served on councils, gone through this procedure.

It is nice to see this legislation. It is nice to see legislation, Mr. Speaker, where somebody cannot sit back and say: Well, we bought this person - again he or she - body and soul. You know, we gave them a donation of X number of dollars and because we contributed that money we now own that individual. I don't like that, Mr. Speaker. I certainly don't like that, anybody being owned, especially at that level of government, because that is the level of government which sets the scale or sets the standard for all of our municipalities. Those of us in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who are fortunate enough to have municipal councils, we know the benefit for the council.

I always remember one time, when we get into paying taxes, how people do not really want to pay their taxes. I remember being on council and being the chairman of a committee and I heard a commotion in our hallway one day. A fellow who was pretty angelical in his language was talking to the town manager. The town manager, a little while later, came in and I said to him: John, what is going on in the hall? He explained it to me and I said: Well, if this guy wants a meeting with the committee, give it to him. Tell him we will meet him here tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Tell him the chairman of the committee has requested that he be here at 9:00 a.m. and we are going to have a meeting. But, I said, before we do that, I usually come down a bit early for meetings so I want you to make sure that everything pertaining to this gentleman is laid on my desk so I will have the opportunity to review it.

The next morning, of course, all of the committee members turned up, and indeed the guy who owed his taxes. Mr. Speaker, when he got into the meeting he was again very colorful, pointing out to us why he should not have to pay this amount of money. After about ten minutes of listening to this fellow, who was pretty colorful, I looked at the gentleman and said: Do you know what, Sir? You are right. Of course, that led to another string of words. He said: There you go. Look, even the chairman of the committee thinks I am right.

Now, he did not say it like that. He was a lot more colorful. I said: Yes, Sir, indeed you are right, because the first notice you got was last October. Somebody should have cut you off in October and here we are, five months later, still talking about your case. So, before this day is out, I am going to find out why we did not cut your water off five months ago; why we made a decision and then waited five months to enforce the laws and the regulations of this town. They are there for everybody else.

I knew at that time of probably eight or ten people who had their water cut off. Of course, that brought on another course of very colorful words. He said: There you are, the whole bunch of you. How stunned are you? Loom, even the chairman of the committee thinks I am right. I said: Yes, I think you are right, okay?

After saying that, of course, he jumped up and stormed out through the door.

Now, we had one gentleman on our council who was a bit older than most, a fine fellow and a very hard-working man, and every once in awhile he would interject to this guy: Look, pay your taxes. I have to pay mine; you pay yours.

These are the kind of people, Mr. Speaker, that I want to see run for council. These are the people who are above-board, way above-board and who are not owned by anybody.

When I ran and served for five years, I believe the highest donation I got for my campaign was actually $200. Every other donation that I received was $5 or $25; and, at the end of the day, when all was said and done, I would gladly, if I had to, have declared my amount; because the largest amount that went into running my campaign came from me and my wife personally. I would gladly have declared that, had I had to at that time, but at that particular time that was not necessary.

I see by the new bill that it is now necessary, if a person gets a donation, as we do in this hon. House, we have to declare where the money came from and the amount of money we received. I am sure there are people who really do not want to be associated sometimes with giving a particular candidate money, but so be it. That is open, that is a policy that is above-board, and it is very transparent. It is there for every person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who takes the time to see it.

As we all know now, Mr. Speaker, a lot of our municipalities are growing by leaps and bounds. I know in my own area we are probably one of, if not the largest and the fastest growing municipality in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think this here says to me there is nobody now going to serve on a council for ulterior motives because, like I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we cannot buy an individual now, he or she. The amount of money that somebody like the minister, if he is sponsoring me to run for council, however much money he gives me, or I give him if he is running, that amount of money has to be declared, and at the end of the day there is nobody in the community who can say: Look, that guy is bought and paid for; he is kept. Or: She is bought and paid for; she is kept.

I welcome this legislation. I say this to you, Minister: I welcome this legislation that brings in this openness and this transparency for the people of communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have all heard this, if we live in a larger municipality, as to why so and so gets on council; or, I can call him and have this fixed.

I have to say, in my own area - and I have two councils - I do not know of anybody who works with these councils or serves on these councils who have been bought and paid for by anybody; but I always find them very easy to deal with, very easy to work with, and all their dealings with me have been very transparent and certainly very much above-board.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this bill. I am glad to see the bill here. It sets out the guidelines as to what people who want to run for council can do. It talks about no elections and so on. It talks about ballot boxes and it also talks about having people declared as returning officers, and I welcome that. Who better in a municipality to be the returning officer for a municipal election than the clerk of that particular municipality? I know on election night in September, for the two communities where I live, I will do my darndest to be at both halls as the counts are being made and the announcements are being made as to who gets elected to council.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying to the minister that I think it is a good piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation which we on this side of the House, the Official Opposition, will certainly be supporting; and when the times comes to vote, we will certainly vote in favour of the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you the but?

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

But, but, I say to the member.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill 7. Finally, we have had -

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us an hour, Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us an hour.

MR. J. BYRNE: An hour? No problem.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have a piece of legislation that has been presented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that seems to be taking the proper course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: See? I give credit where credit is due. I always have, Mr. Speaker, in this House, but then people will not give me a chance to say it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let Hansard record the date.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We will find out now.

Mr. Speaker, the minister today stood in his place and presented the bill. He told us the reasons why the bill is being presented to the House. We also had time enough, before it being presented in the House, so that we could review it. As a matter of fact, we had a gentleman, Mr. Moore from Municipal Affairs, over to review the legislation, to tell us the changes, or the proposed changes, because they are not finished until it is voted on here in the House of Assembly. We had a good meeting with him the other day on this issue and there were some very interesting points happening here. This bill, by the way, is really - it is too bad it was not included in 1999, when they did all the changes to the Municipalities Act at that time. That is probably when it should have been done. It is one piece of legislation that seems to be following the proper process.

Usually we get legislation here that within months, or a year or so after, we come back and have to change. Hopefully, this will not happen. It is logistics within this legislation. I think the fact that there is going to be consolidation of four acts now: The City of St. John's Act, the City of Corner Brook Act, the Municipalities Act, 1999 and the provincial act with respect to elections, it is a good thing. It simplifies it. Everybody is going to be playing by the same rules. As a former mayor in a small town for seven years, I know of what I speak when I speak about municipalities and the elections, and the workings and the goings-on in the municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, some of the things that are interesting here, of course - one is the disclosure with respect to candidates who are running for municipalities of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The interesting point here with respect to this change, the amendments here, would be the fact that only those people elected will have to actually disclose the money they spent on a given campaign. Rightly so! Because the people who are not elected won't be making decisions with respect to the municipality and impacting upon people who are living in the municipality.

Also, Mr. Speaker, within the changes themselves, now they are talking about how there may be occasions where an election would have to be postponed or delayed; for example, due to weather. That can be done, that is going to be accommodated, within the act.

Also, opening of the polls: There may be some reason that the polls won't open, for whatever reason. I don't know. There can be any number of reasons.

MR. SULLIVAN: A storm.

MR. J. BYRNE: A storm, for example. Say, if they are supposed to open at nine and don't open until eleven, well they will be carried on a couple of hours later in the evening, to give everybody the opportunity to vote within that municipality.

Location of polls will be decided by the returning officer and not by other people who, if the polls are in certain locations, would be more favourable to certain candidates who are running.

Also, Mr. Speaker, section 11. Previously, I think, if you had an election and there wasn't an election called for a municipality and there weren't enough candidates running, the minister could appoint people to the council, councillors. Right now, with this change, there will have to be at least a second call for an election, to give the people the opportunity to give second thought to it and possibly encourage people to run. Again, a positive move.

Also, of course, the returning officer would be the town clerk. Again, a proper position for the town clerk. Also, if the town clerk cannot make it, there are conditions within the act that would allow them to appoint a replacement, which makes sense also, Mr. Speaker.

Under Part V, the minister talked about the mail-in vote or the ballot by mail which is set up now by Canada Post. He said that the City of St. John's is seriously looking at that procedure for this fall election, if this is approved in this House of Assembly soon enough, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Town of Labrador City is too.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

The other thing is that the cities can do this on their own, but the small towns, if they want to have a mail-in vote, they have to get the permission of the minister. There may be some arguments for or against that one, but I can live with it. It is not a problem there, Mr. Speaker.

The mail-in vote impacts on the ability of the people to campaign. If a candidate is running for election and they have a mail-in vote, it is great for those people who are really well known or recognized within the municipality, because once the people get the mail-in vote or they want to vote themselves, they can vote, but once you vote you vote. So, if some other individual decides to run and goes to the person's door, and then they decide they want to change their mind, they really can't at that point in time, because they will have already voted. So, that is one factor that should be considered, I suppose. Also, the mail-in vote can actually reduce costs to the campaign and to the municipality.

Section 14 sets the time, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the nomination process, the nomination day. Previously, nominations were on one day. Now, if they are going with the mail-in vote they can have a five-day nomination period which certainly would be of benefit to the people who are trying to make up their mind if they want to vote.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will mention another suggestion that I made that probably should have been in it.

MR. J. BYRNE: What is that?

MR. SULLIVAN: They are supposed to be nominated by a certain date.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes. We do that. You have to be nominated by a certain date, within a certain period, I say to the Member for Ferryland. That is already there.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no limit.

MR. J. BYRNE: There is no limit, I know.

Section 26. There is no need to be going into it clause by clause, because there are quite a few clauses there. I am just picking out and highlighting certain ones.

The voting by proxy. In the past, of course, that could be a very complicated process where you have a number of candidates going to certain individuals, or a certain group, and asking them to give them their authority to vote by proxy. Right now, that is going to be simplified and it is going to be tightened up. That will not be able to be abused like it has been in the past. Another good move.

Also, the minister talked about it when he was up, and we will talk (inaudible) was the list, the voter's list. We are working towards a universal list, again, which is good for the people in the municipality, for the candidates, and for all concerned throughout the Province.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, this is my last note here. The candidates now, once they are elected, would have to disclose any money that has been donated to them over $100. There is no limit on spending. They can spend any amount of money they want, as far as I can understand with respect this new piece of legislation here. The disclosure, anything over $100; most people, I think, would agree that is a good thing.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't need to comment on that because I don't like to be beholding to anyone, I say to the Minister for Works, Services and Transportation.

Anybody who wants to make a contribution to my campaign are certainly welcome to do so. I really do not go looking for any big amounts of money. I would rather depend on the ordinary citizen within my district to give me contributions, that way you get to represent the people who are voting you in. Now the Minister for Works, Services and Transportation may have contributions from big businesses, I do not know. He very well may. He has to live with that.

As I said, there is no limit on spending and maybe there should be some consideration given to the limit on spending because in any given municipality - for example, the City of St. John's - you might have an individual who is well known, who has lots of money and wants to run, and a new person starting out who is not in the system, relatively unknown, could be a great individual but does not have the amount of money to spend. So there could be some unfair competition from that perspective.

MR. BARRETT: Did Danny Williams give you a donation?

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, the Minister for Works, Services and Transportation, and the Deputy Premier, says that one name more often than everybody on this side of the House combined, since I have known the man. It is unreal. The fear that that man has set in the heart of the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation is completely unreal. I never saw it before in my life. If the man is in the gallery that fellow is over there blood red with blood pressure. Worried, worried to death.

Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to say with respect to this bill, other than the interjections by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I said it. I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs: Hopefully, this piece of legislation will not have to be amended in the near future and all the concerns of the people who had input and consultation will be addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising to speak at second reading on Bill 7, An Act Respecting Municipal Elections. The act, presently before the House, is a - I won't call it a consolidation, because strictly speaking, it is not a consolidation, but what has happened is a number of pieces of legislation have been replaced by this one. Instead of having a separate elections acts for the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, the City of Corner Brook, and the other municipalities, generally, they are tied into the one elections act. A number of changes have taken place as a result of this.

Generally speaking, I have to say that I support the act in principle, to bring together this legislation and one set of rules that could be applied to all municipalities. I do have some significant reservations, however, with respect to some of the provisions that are included in this new act. The principal one that causes me some concerns at the moment, and I have yet to be satisfied by the explanations of them and it seems almost an experimental process at this time, I am not so sure that we should jump right in to undertake a voting by mail process for all the cities in the Province to undertake voting by mail merely by a vote of council, and putting a set of rules in place that are approved by the minister. First of all, we are dealing with a very short time frame between now and September, and I do not know how soon these rules will even be available or known, or be able to be vetted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I understand that Canada Post is very interested in promoting this issue of voting by mail.

I have some serious concerns. In the case of the St. John's municipal election, for example, the voter turnout last time was fairly low, probably 55 per cent or so; but now, in addition to the 55 per cent of people who voted the last time, the other 45 per cent is going to be ballots, to be put in people's mailboxes, to 100 per cent of the voters.

It appears that there was at least 45 per cent who did not bother to vote the last time, for one reason or another. Yet, the ballots for those 45 per cent of the people will be put into people's mailboxes. It seems to me that there is significant room for activity that would be inappropriate during elections. We often hear of people so-called stuffing ballot boxes. It is very difficult to stuff ballot boxes in a provincial election or municipal election under the current rules, because the ballot box is there, there are people standing behind it, there are individuals who have to come forward in person to vote, and there are very special rules to be able to vote by proxy, very difficult rules to allow people to have, in fact, a mail-in ballot if they apply for it. There are very special ballots.

We do not have allegations of stuffing ballot boxes in provincial elections. I have heard of them in nomination meetings, by various parties, from time to time. I remember the famous one on Bell Island when there were many more ballots in the box than there were people in the room. I do not know if Your Honour was present at that occasion.

MR. SPEAKER: Just as a point of clarification, that was during the federal election.

MR. HARRIS: That was in the federal election. That is a peculiarity, fortunately, that we have not had experience of in provincial elections, where there are more ballots than voters. We will not have that here either. We are now proposing to allow a system that would - I will not say it would invite fraud. I am not suggesting that it is inviting fraud. What I am suggesting is that perhaps we have not yet figured out to what extent it would properly work and to what extent it is open to abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen some of the forms that have been provided by Canada Post, who are interested in this business. When asked certain questions, the officials of the Department of Municipal Affairs indicated that there is a voter declaration that is required; that there must be an oath or affirmation taken by the individual before identifying themselves and saying that they have not otherwise voted, before they can do this.

To get back to the analogy of stuffing ballot boxes, all that has to be done in this case, is that the ballot, and there are going to be thousands and thousands of them out there, given to people who were not motivated enough to vote in the last election but now, all of a sudden, they have a ballot which they may well be willing to pass along to somebody who comes and asks for it, or make it available to someone to get. In fact, all you have to do now, Mr. Speaker, is sign a piece of paper. A signature on a piece of papers says: I, the undersigned, swear or affirm that I am named on the voters' list for the voting place and have not already voted in the election.

This is a document that is a sample of how this would all work, but there is nothing here indicating that this is sworn or affirmed before a Commissioner for Oaths; so I do not even think it would qualify as an affirmation or an oath and thereby bring about the penalties for swearing a false affidavit or a false oath, because it is not an affidavit, it is not an oath. It says it is, but it is not.

I have, as I say, serious concerns because, in fact, by getting access to these unused ballots, filling them out and putting them in a mailbox, you could be literally stuffing the ballot box by putting a ballot in the mailbox. So, instead of having a controlled, qualified voter booth where someone goes in person or by proxy - and the proxy rules can be very strict and stringent - every mailbox in the city or town in which the mailing vote takes place is a ballot box. Instead of having numbered ballots that are controlled strictly by returning officers, there are ballots in every household in the city or town in which the mail ballot is going to be contained.

These are very serious derogations from the normal security that we attach to democratic voting procedures - very serious. I am concerned that we have not thought it through in terms of how the security for this could work and what level of confidence we could place in an election conducted by a mail-in ballot with rules that we know not what. Right now, there are a number of sections in the act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, actually one section. Section 54 is the section of the act that governs ballots by mail - one section of the act. I would submit that this is a very complex process; complex if we want to ensure that the democracy of one person/one vote actually applies, there has to be more than one section of an act to be involved in it.

I know that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs ultimately has the authority to approve or disapprove of rules, bylaws, to be passed by the municipality concerned. All it says is, "A council of a city..."- that basically limits us to St. John's, Corner Brook and Mount Pearl - "...may by resolution vote to authorize voters to vote by mail in an election." That is fine. Other councils of the municipalities that are not cities can just get the approval of the minister. That council has to then make regulations with respect to a mail-in system that are necessary to carry out the elections, and a regulation made under this section applies to all elections for the council that made the regulations that occur more than sixty days after that regulation is made.

You have sixty days in a notice for the regulations. So the regulations would have to be made by July some time. The procedures and forms only have to be produced thirty days before the election day. So nobody is going to know what these forms are until thirty days before election day. The only thing that it says here is, "The procedures and forms established by the returning officer, if they are consistent with the principles established under this Act and the required form of documents established by the minister, shall be considered to have been established under this Act."

Now, that is all very interesting, Mr. Speaker, but we are talking about something that has never been done in this Province before. I understand it has been done in Ontario, but it has not been done in Toronto, the largest city, in Toronto. I do not know what actual cities it has been done in, but we do not have any prototype regulations as to how it would work. We are performing an experiment with the electors of any city that might choose to undertake a vote by mail. I understand that perhaps there may only be one city that would do that, the City of St. John's. I understand there may be only one city to do that in terms of expressing an interest in conducting this.

I have some experience with municipal elections in the City of St. John's, most recently in the municipal elections of 1997. I have to say that there were many deficiencies in the system as it existed then, in terms of how the proxy votes were conducted, how the elections were carried out, and how the vote was counted. So, I have an understanding of how that works and some of the deficiencies. In fact, other aspects of the legislation solves some of those problems particularly with respect to proxy votes. There were some very narrow rules that were more often breached than followed in some cases, Mr. Speaker, and some of these problems have been fixed in a proper and appropriate way.

I do have very serious concerns if, instead of just fixing the problem, we say: Okay, let's have an election run properly - according to the new rules that solve the problems and fix the problems that were there - now we are having a whole new procedure, a whole new procedure that says: Okay, if we have 66,000 voters in the City of St. John's, eligible voters that is, we are going to send out 66,000 ballots to the mailboxes and whatever, to the doorsteps if they have no mailboxes, mail slots on the front porches, or whatever, of people, and for every person who is a voter there will be a ballot in that house. So, if there are five voters in a house, five pieces of paper, five ballots, go to a house.

When we are talking about a city in which the voter turnout in a municipal election was probably 55 per cent, or probably a little bit better than that, you can see that there are quite a few people who will have ballots who did not exercise their franchise last time. Some of that may be legitimate. In fact the mail-in ballot, if it is done properly, could allow people to exercise their franchise who might not otherwise be able to. I do not have a problem with a special mail-in ballot procedure, provided it is under strict controls, and we have that under the provincial elections; but if we are going to say that not only are we going to have mail-in ballot provisions but that ballot by mail for the entire population, the entire electorate, is going to be the method - I do not think it will stop them from having ballot boxes; you can still go and vote in person on election day. We do not know what the rules are going to be. What happens if five ballots come to a particular house for the five voters in that house or apartment building and someone takes the ballots, they go missing? Then you have somebody who collects them, somebody finds them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You do not know what the rules are yet.

They go missing. We were dealing with Canada Post here. I do not want to say that there is open criticism of Canada Post, but we are talking about a mail delivery system that first of all is not perfect and there is bound to be some mail that does not get delivered within the relevant time frame, perhaps one or two pieces out of whatever sample we have.

So, there are going to be some that do not get there for one reason or other. There is going to be some mail that goes missing. There is going to be some mail that goes to the wrong place. So, what happens if the ballot does not come? What happens if someone has picked up a handful of ballots of people who do not want to use them because they are not going to vote anyway, and they get sent in? Because all someone has to do, according to the forms that I have seen, is just sign a piece of paper, sign the name of the person that the package is made out to, send it in with the ballot in a separate form, and it arrives at City Hall or at the election office, and then the person phones up and says - or they show up to vote: I am sorry, you cannot vote. We have a mail-in ballot for you; or if they vote and their name is recorded. What happens if they go and vote? They vote in person and there is a mail-in ballot in the box, and someone who looks after it says: Oh, we have two ballots. This person has voted twice. Now, which vote are we going to count? The mail-in ballot or the one in the box that came in person; or if someone comes in and says: I did not get a mail-in ballot but I want another one because I am not going to be around on election day. Who is going to decide whether or not the mail-in ballot that has already been received was their ballot or not? Is that going to be decided before an election or afterwards?

I recognize that there may well be room Mr. Speaker, for a more efficient procedure for voting, and I know Canada Post has given some -

MR. McLEAN: Are you running for mayor, Jack?

MR. HARRIS: I know Canada Post has given some thought to it.

The hon. Member for Lake Melville has asked whether I am running for mayor. The answer is no. I am not running for mayor, so I have no vested interest in the rules here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: As far as I can make it - in fact, there is a provision there, by the way, that says that I am not even eligible for nomination.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Are you allowed to vote?

MR. HARRIS: I can vote. Not only me, neither are you, I say to the Member for St. John's East. You are not even eligible to be nominated for council.

MR. SULLIVAN: You're not?

MR. HARRIS: No.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's a relief.

MR. HARRIS: So, Mr. Speaker, we have - and I am not going to be moving an amendment to make it possible either.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) stop him from running again?

MR. HARRIS: There is a new provision in the legislation, and I do not have any difficulty with it. It says that there are certain people who are not eligible for nomination and these would include: Members of the House of Commons, Members of the House of Assembly and Members of the Judiciary, who are not eligible to be nominated. That is the new clause: "15.(5) A person is not qualified to be nominated as a candidate for councillor if he or she is a (a) member of the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada; (b) member of the House of Assembly of the province; and (c) judge of the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court of province."

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't disagree with that.

MR. HARRIS: I don't disagree with it either. I am just saying, in answer to the Member for Lake Melville: Am I going to run for Mayor? The answer is no, I am not running for mayor and I am not even eligible to be nominated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any personal interest, as a candidate, but as a citizen of St. John's, that is the only municipality likely to undertake this mail by ballot, I have some questions about this procedure and whether or not it can be fair. To me, it seems like an experiment and I do not know if we should rush into this. We have not seen any rules. I recognize that this is only May but the rules do not have to be made until thirty days before - or the forms and procedures do not have to be adopted and promulgated until thirty days before the election, and the regulations do not have to be made until sixty days and presumably approved by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs sometime over the summer. So, there is really not much opportunity to scrutinize these rules, other than the minister now - with all due respect to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, perhaps he is not the only one who should have a look at them and have some influence on whether they are appropriate or not.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that having such a vague and broad section of the act which says that the regulations must be in keeping with the principles and body of this act. Well now, there is a provision that you could literally drive a truck through, because that is really a matter of interpretation in most respects. It is a matter of opinion whether particular provisions are in keeping with the principles of the act, but yet, that is what section 54 says. Section 54 says that the regulations must be consistent. This is the wording: "54.(5) The procedures and forms established by the returning officer, if they are consistent with the principles established under this Act and the required form of documents established by the minister, shall be considered to have been established under this Act." Now, that is a pretty big stretch, Mr. Speaker. A pretty big stretch. Who decides whether they are consistent with the principles established under the Act? Who decides? It is not very clear, Mr. Speaker, unless it is the minister. It does not even really say that, Mr. Speaker. It does not even really say that.

The regulations that we have here have to be approved by the minister. We understand that, but how do we have an opportunity, as members of the public, or members of this Legislature - how do we have any public discussion about this or any debate on the issue?

Clause 97.(1) of the act says: "Where, under Part V, a municipality decides to conduct elections by mail, that municipality shall make the necessary regulations to enable it to carry out an election by mail."

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

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

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Madam Speaker, for a few minutes?

I won't go on for very long, just to clue up.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't mind. If the members of the Official Opposition want to retaliate against me for raising a point of order, then I guess that's the way she goes. I guess we have to live with that.

MR. J. BYRNE: No leave, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave has been withdrawn.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, I was thinking about (inaudible) now I am not so sure.

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, no leave.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the member on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Do I understand, Madam Speaker, that the Member for Cape St. Francis is denying me leave to address the issue, the Municipal Elections Act, at second reading, in retaliation of the fact that I raised a point of order in the House this afternoon after Question Period?

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

There are rules of procedure that gives twenty minutes to speak on the bill. There is an opportunity to raise that in committee. The Member for Cape St. Francis said that he did not give leave, and according to the rules and the time limit set down in committee - that me and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi sat on. We revised it to have twenty minutes to speak, and leave is not granted. There is opportunity in committee to speak at length on the bill and the opportunity is there to do so.

MADAM SPEAKER: I understand that leave has been withdrawn.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to thank the speakers who have spoken in support, and some of the questions that we had on the bill. I am sure, as we go into committee, that we will be able to address some of these.

Again, thanks for the support. I think it is a good piece of legislation. It is timely. It is long overdue. I have been involved with all of the stakeholders. So in that sense, I am very pleased and honoured to be able to bring it forth today.

With that I conclude second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Municipal Elections," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 7)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Motion 15. Second reading of a bill, An Act An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act And The Occupational Health and Safety Act. (Bill 16)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act And The Occupational Health And Safety Act." (Bill 16)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to introduce Bill 16, An Act An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act And The Occupational Health And Safety Act, second reading.

In October of last year my colleague, the hon. the Minister of the former Department of Environment and Labour, launched a review of the Province's workers' compensation system. The minister appointed a task force in response to requests by key stakeholders and in recognition of the fact that the commission is facing serious financial issues that require immediate attention. In fact, the workers' compensation act requires that government conduct a review every five years, and this is the reason for this one.

Madam Speaker, the task force was comprised of five members of the Board of Directors of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, including its chairperson, Wayne Trask. In addition to Mr. Trask as chairman, this group included labour representatives: Reg Anstey, Judy Vanta, and employer representative: Roger Flood, and at-large representative: Mr. Don Warr.

Honourable members will be aware that the task force held public meetings throughout our Province and extensive consultations with stakeholders. They received 110 written submissions, heard ninety-seven presentations and held round tables with stakeholders.

On February 16 of this year, less than four months after being established, the task force publicly released its report. The task force report confirmed the serious financial challenges confronting the workers' compensation system in this Province and the need for significant reform to protect the future financial integrity of this program, which is so critical for workers and employers throughout our Province.

The workers' compensation program pays either directly to, or on behalf of, injured workers in this Province, approximately $100 million annually. The task force report outlined forty-eight recommendations for action affecting employers, workers, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, and government. These recommendations reflect the strongly held view of the stakeholders, that significant reform is required to ensure the system remains intact and is a system that is fair, effective and sustainable.

The task force recommendations support the position of stakeholders at quick fix solutions. Increasing employer assessment rates or reducing wage protection levels of injured workers are not the answer. Instead, the clear message to the task force and to this government is that the future success and sustainability of the system is contingent on a fundamental change in mindset. In fact, that was the title of their report: Changing The Mindset.

Among partners in the workers' compensation system, there must be significantly increased efforts to reduce the numbers of workplace injuries. Where injuries do occur, there must be significantly better performance in returning rehabilitated workers back to their jobs.

These are the fundamental principles reflected in the legislation that I am bringing forward today, Madam Speaker. Government believes that a package of reforms outlined by the task force is the foundation upon which we will build and encourage a safety culture. It places the workers' compensation system on a sound financial footing and ensures an effective, fair and sustainable system, which is so important to all workers and employers in this Province.

Madam Speaker, I would like to publicly state today how pleased this government is with the work carried out by the task force. This report has not only been unanimously endorsed by the task force but it has also been publicly endorsed by key stakeholders groups, such as: the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council. I am pleased to see that we have a member of that group up in the gallery today, Miss Marilyn Tucker. It is nice to see you here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union.

It is in this context that I am pleased today to advise that government has approved all of the core recommendations for action by government. The bill, which this House has before it, outlines a series of legislative amendments to implement these reforms.

Madam Speaker, prevention is a fundamental principle. The bill before us today, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act And The Occupational Health and Safety Act, significantly increases the emphasis placed on prevention of workplace accidents and injuries. The bill requires that, all employers, depending on size, develop a workplace health and safety program or policy. Workplace health and safety representatives will be mandatary for companies with less than ten employees. Health and safety committees or worker representatives receive approved training relevant to their responsibilities. Employers formally respond to recommendations made by workplace health and safety committees or worker representatives. Health and safety committees or worker representatives participate in workplace inspections which the employer is obliged to carry out. Employers consult with workplace health and safety committees or worker representatives on all matters respecting occupational health and safety relevant to their workplace. Madam Speaker, these measures will come into force on January 1, 2002.

Here are some interesting facts I would like to share with this House, Madam Speaker. Soft-tissue injuries count for two-thirds of all injuries to workers. These injuries cross all sectors from heavy industry and manufacturing to health care and office work. To reduce the occurrence of soft-tissue injuries, amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act will provide the Lieutenant-Governor in Council with the authority to introduce new ergonomics regulations.

It was interesting to read -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ergonomics?

MS THISTLE: Ergonomics is the key word. So we can be sure that we are sitting at our workplaces, at our desk or whatever the situation might be, that we are sitting in a unit or chair or whatever the situation might be, that passes all the tests and we will not be there bringing on an injury that could be prevented. The regulations envisaged will be based upon the approach taken in British Columbia and will require an assessment of risk and a plan to address soft-tissue injuries where the risk it present.

It is interesting, when you look back over the task force review, that the cost of new injuries from 1993 to1997 was between $51 million and $56 million per year. In 1999, the cost of new injuries increased to $97 million, and the projected increase by 2005 is $151 million annually.

Government views these changes as providing valuable tools to the workplace parties, to address health and safety issues in their workplaces. Collectively these measures should contribute to a safety conscious and injury prevention mindset among employers and workers.

Madam Speaker, return to work is a fundamental principle. The second principle of this legislation is the importance of enabling injured workers, once rehabilitated, to work as quickly and safely as possible. All the statistics that you will read about this particular subject tells us that the sooner a worker is back at their place of work the best chance they have for complete recovery and getting back into the permanent return to work. Anyone that is absent for longer than three to six months, their chances diminish.

This legislation establishes a requirement for proactive action and cooperation among employers, injured workers and the Workplace Health Safety and Compensation Commission to assist injured workers to return to work. Specifically, the legislation will require employers of large companies - these are companies with twenty employees or more - to rehire employees once they are recovered and rehabilitated into their former or a suitable alternate position within that company; require employees to take proactive measures to return to work once they are safely able to do so; and require employers and injured workers to maintain active communication throughout the recovery and rehabilitation process.

Extended earnings loss is one of the major cost drivers for the workers' compensation system. Statistics demonstrate that the longer workers remain off the job the less likely they are to return to their pre-injury employment. The co-operative return to work model, reflected in this legislation, by requiring greater proactivity, accountability and communication among the partners and the workers' compensation system, will benefit workers, reduce the length of time workers are off work and result in savings to the system.

Madam Speaker, these two fundamental principles, reducing workplace injuries through proactive prevention programs and returning rehabilitated workers to work safely, are central to this legislation and will be instrumental in ensuring a workers' compensation system which is fair and sustainable.

Madam Speaker, consistent, effective and transparent administration: It is important that all government programs be administered as fairly and efficiently as possible. The legislation that is being brought to this House today includes a number of measures to ensure that this is actually the case. This bill, Bill 16, includes amendments to provide that workers' compensation benefits are paid only for injuries which are work related.

With respect to injury recurrence, compensation is paid on the basis of earnings at the time of recurrence. The current requirement to pay a minimum level of compensation is repealed so that payments for all workers are based upon actual wages lost as a result of injury.

Madam Speaker, it is also important that the appeal mechanisms under the system be clear, transparent and efficient. The amendments I am tabling today will ensure that the grounds for and decisions on appeals are clearly based upon the act, regulations and policies governing the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.

Streamline the appeals process by reducing the time frame for registering and rendering decisions on appeals to the workers' compensation: The time frame for registering appeals will be reduced from ninety to thirty days. The time frame for deciding on appeals will be reduced from the current maximum of ninety days to sixty days where hearings are involved, or forty-five days where no hearings are involved. The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission will make comparable reductions in time frames for appeals registered internally, however these do not require legislative amendments.

Madam Speaker, government has accepted the recommendations of the task force with respect to paying retroactive benefits to surviving spouses of injured workers who have remarried. As a result, retroactive benefits will be paid to surviving spouses who were remarried after April 17, 1985. This measure is consistent with recent court interpretations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Government has also accepted the task force recommendation that the level of benefits to surviving spouses in the pre-1985 group be continued at their current levels.

Madam Speaker, the task force report outlined forty-eight recommendations for government, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission and other stakeholders. Many of these do not have legislative expression, but are important and significant, none the less. There are twenty-four recommendations for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, and the commission is committed to implementing these to strengthen the programs, policies and practices which the commission itself has the legislative authority to implement.

By the same token, the Department of Labour will be taking proactive measures on recommendations which do not require legislative amendment, but are critical, none the less. My department will be introducing measures to substantially increase and enhance enforcement activities to ensure workplaces comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. These measures will contribute to safer workplaces and complement the activities of the commission in focusing attention on preventing workplace injuries and illnesses.

Madam Speaker, the task force heard and it listened. Government has also heard and it has listened. The legislative program which I am announcing today provides WHSCC with the tools which are necessary to address the challenges confronting the workers' compensation system. The focus on reducing workplace accidents and assisting rehabilitated workers to return to work is in the best interests of the workers' compensation system's two principle clients, workers and participating employers.

I encourage all hon. members of this House to support this legislation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 16 in second reading. I know we have lots of time in committee stage to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go a second beyond (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: We won't give him leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I won't be asking for leave this evening, I say to you, Madam Speaker. The person to my right now is being a bit sooky, so I will just say -

AN HON. MEMBER: To your left. To your left. Turn around when you say that.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) to your right..

MR. J. BYRNE: I hope you are right, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Bill 16, An Act An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And compensation Act And The Occupational Health And Safety Act, Madam Speaker.

I was of the understanding, when I saw the report here, with the change in the mindset, that this legislation was certainly going to be beneficial to the injured worker. But, from what I can understand, and what I see of it - I mean, we have forty-eight recommendations in this report. A pretty good job, I would say, Madam Speaker, and then we get the legislation. From what I see here, the benefits are going to be going to workers' compensation. We had something like fifteen recommendations out of forty-eight talking about prevention.

In this legislation - what I see more of - it is going to favour workers' compensation with respect to penalties, Madam Speaker, talking again about putting the injured worker through more hoops than they have jumped through in the past number of years. I have gone to workers' compensation on appeals for many people over the past eight years, I say to you. There is one that has been active now for over three years. Now we are talking about putting them through more hoops.

Reconsideration, for example, that is a hoop I refer to. Now, we have the commissioner who makes a decision that will now be sent off to another commissioner. From what I understand, most of them are being reconsidered now. The commissioner makes a decision on it, and if it is not in favour of workers' compensation, they want to send it off to another commissioner for reconsideration, and it is up to the commissioner to decide if he will reconsider it or not. What do you think he is going to do? They get paid by the case as far as I understand, Madam Speaker. Sure he is going to have to reconsider it, to look at it again, and there is going to be another delay for the injured worker.

Madam Speaker, what is really happening here is that the commission, the workers' compensation commission, gets another crack at the injured worker who has been suffering and waiting for compensation, probably, for months and months and months. I have heard cases at workers' compensation - I have been down there - where the caseworker has said to the injured worker, who is a client of workers' compensation: Listen, my job depends on getting you off workers' compensation. Now, what chance does the injured worker have? This legislation, I thought, was going to address that. I do not think it is going to in many, many cases.

Also, they are talking about now, when the worker applies you have to appeal. It is going to be cut down to sixty days. From what I understand, with respect to some of these cases, the ninety days, which it is now, is not even sufficient to make the case, and now they are going to cut it back.

Another point that is upsetting me, with respect to this legislation, is that the injured worker has to show the commission where they are contravening the act when they make their decisions. We are talking about ordinary people, citizens, workers, in all fields within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in all kinds of situations. I do not want to be classifying people, but we have people who are lawyers. What we are going to see now, with this legislation, is that people who appeal it, if they do not know the legislation, if they are not trained as lawyers,or whatever the case may be, and they cannot interpret the legislation - and most people will not be able to - they are going to lose the case right upfront because they are not going to be able to make a case where they are contravening the act.

What I am saying now, Madam Speaker, many members in this House of Assembly who are not lawyers, on both sides, represent clients, injured workers, at the appeal board, before the commissioner, and oftentimes, very often, they win the case. So, what they are doing is making it much more difficult with this legislation, by far, for the injured worker.

When I read the summary of the recommendations in the report, I thought the legislation was going to be there to assist the injured worker. Not likely! Again, I know that the workers' compensation and the debt that they have - and it is building. It is going up exponentially, the debt they have. That is a hard, difficult situation for the board itself, the workers' compensation board, I suppose, but that is the system that we have. The workers' compensation is an insurance for the workers in this Province. That was a decision made by government years ago to go that route, and you cannot be penalizing people by bringing in legislation making it more difficult for them to meet the conditions of the act.

Also, in the report there are recommendations here - there is one, I think, with respect to people in dangerous jobs. For example, the RNC, who cannot refuse to do certain tasks; firefighters who cannot refuse to do certain tasks. If they are sent in on a dangerous situation and are injured or hurt, or whatever the case may be, they get 80 per cent, as far as I know, of their salary. In the report, I think it recommends that 20 per cent be borne by government to top it up because they were in a situation where they could not refuse to respond or they could lose their jobs. I do not see anything here that says government is going to actually cover that 20 per cent. Why did they appoint a commission to make recommendations that they are not going to follow? We see that so often with this government, Madam Speaker.

Also, in the report we talk about home care workers, where they go in and are now not actually covered under workers' compensation. Another serious situation, Madam, Speaker, for those individuals, and I do not see that this is going to be addressed in this legislation here. There are many issues that have to be addressed with respect to this legislation. We reviewed it very thoroughly and the act has been voiding - there are going to be many issues that need to be addressed in committee on this.

I have a problem. The minister was up painting a rosy picture. Right? She was, with respect to these amendments or these changes to the act. It is not as she has been saying over there, and I have to disagree with her. Some of the things that are there we will be talking about in committee. Under section 27, they talk about the health and safety program with respect to businesses with ten or fewer employees. Then we have a health and safety policy for workers who "...are employed at a workplace, the employer shall establish and maintain an occupational health and safety program in accordance with the regulations." Then we have committee training: "38.1(1) Where 50 or more workers are employed...". With respect to this, I want to address it when we get into committee, Madam Speaker.

Under section 19 - I do not want to go section by section because we can do that in committee - there are areas there that need to be addressed. The amount of average earnings, for example, under section "(k) whether a particular disease is peculiar to, or characteristic of, a particular industrial process..." needs to be look at.

The commission now are going to be talking about the degree of impairment. To me, it has always been a difficult situation with respect to the FPI and the extended earnings lost. These things (inaudible). It is at the discretion of certain people. I am in a situation where I am appealing one right now, with respect to function impairment and the extended earnings lost. The department, or workers' compensation I suppose, is making a statement that it is only 10 per cent. To me and other individuals, and doctors, it is much more than that. I think decisions are being made at workers' compensation based on dollars, not on what is legitimate and what the injured worker should have. That is something we will be addressing in committee, more than likely.

Also, Madam Speaker, application to review commissioner; there are areas there that we are going to have to address with respect to the thirty days and the various procedures that will be followed during that time.

Another one they are talking about in this legislation is cooperation in rehabilitation and in the study itself. Anytime I have had any dealings with injured workers, it was certainly - most of the people I had dealings with were bending over backwards to accommodate workers' compensation. I have had injured workers who went to physiotherapy, who went through other procedures to try to get back to work early, ease back, and they hurt themselves more. Now, workers' compensation, under this legislation, is going to be - because they tried to cooperate they are going to be penalized if they are injured again. It is all well and good for the minister to say that this is great, but it is certainly not. What I am talking about of course is the reoccurrence of injury. That is something that I am going to be talking about in committee stage.

Minimum compensation is another one, as I referred to earlier, that needs to be addressed. We will be addressing that in committee.

Education and retraining, here is a good one. I had an example the other day where an individual who worked seasonal, making something like $14 an hour, and they wanted him to go back to be retrained. He was injured of course. The workers' compensation board wanted him to go back for retraining. He put in a submission that he wanted to be retrained for a job at that level, $14 an hour, but they said because it was seasonal: we will retrain you at a position that is $6.50 an hour; because they averaged it out over the year. Again, it is something that needs to be addressed and the minister should address it. I have been talking about the return to work and rehabilitation under section 88 and section 89.

Madam Speaker, I am not going to say much more than that at this point in time because I want to bring these points forward and have a little bit more to say on some of these issues in committee. With that I am going to sit down. Maybe the member to my right wants to get up and say a few words because he is not going to have the opportunity to refuse me leave today.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, there will be other days when we will have the opportunity.

MR. J. BYRNE: No doubt.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to rise today and say a few words about this important bill: To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act And The Occupational Health And Safety Act of the Province. Having risen to say that, I would like to point out for all members in the House that when the task force to review changes to this act were going around the Province, I am disappointed to say that I was the only MHA, to my knowledge, who appeared before the commission to recommend changes on behalf of injured workers that should have made.

Madam Speaker, workers' compensation in this Province, and in other jurisdictions, is a no fault insurance. That has been established - beginning in Ontario - since 1911, by Judge Meredith. Before that time employees, when becoming injured on jobs, had no other option but to sue their employers; something that was not practical for them, something they could not afford and certainly not something they received justice from. Many times workers and their families lived in poverty the rest of their lives if somebody became injured on the job site and could not provide for their families. That is just a little bit of history.

Some personal involvement, during the time that I was president of the Steelworkers Union in Labrador West, at the Iron Ore Company, we had three fatalities during my term as president. I can tell you, when you have a fatality on the job and you have to go to someone's home and report to them that their love one, their husband and father is not coming back anymore, it is not the easiest thing in the world to have to do. To go back a little bit further, in 1977 we had three deaths, three separate fatalities, in a nine-day period, followed by a two-week strike in which many of us in our local were sent to jail for defying the law and refusing to obey an injunction, simply because people were dropping like flies around us and nobody knew who was going to be next, and workers were not going to go back to that environment until we had some commitment from the company, from the government, that we would be able to go back and work in a safe environment and that something would be done to prevent what was called at that time, the slaughter in industry.

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about that, because if we look at it in the broad context, and we look at this piece of legislation, it is a few simple words. The main thing in any workplace around this Province is not necessarily after the fact. The focus should be placed on preventative safety programs, to prevent accidents from occurring in the first place. That has to be a priority, not only with the government but with employers and with workers alike, because we are all in this together and we all share equal responsibility when it comes to having a safe workplace.

I would like to talk about some of the education programs that have been developed in different places over the years, and they range from large employers to small employers who have adapted quite well. I think we heard the minister earlier this week talk about the awards that were passed out for safety in the Province. One of these was not a large company in the sense of operating in the Province, H.J. O'Connell Construction Ltd., who won an award for reducing their accidents at work in excess of 90 per cent. I suggest that there is not one workplace in this Province or in this country that cannot significantly reduce the number of accidents they have at work if safety is given the proper attention it should receive in the workplace.

Safety enforcement is something that this department, the minister's Department of Labour - safety enforcement is another area where we need fully trained qualified people to make sure that safety legislation and compliance is enforceable and they visit the work sites on a regular basis. Without enforcement, we lose the ability to put in practice what we were able to do.

Workers' compensation - the review that was done, the changes that are here, the recommendations that were made by the task force, while some of them may be good recommendations that are long overdue, there are other areas, I would say, based on the submissions that I have read, based on the experiences that I have had in dealing with injured workers over the years, and based on what they were telling me at this hearing as they were going around the Province, some of the major things that injured workers were concerned about are not addressed in this document anywhere. They concern things such as, if a person is on workers' compensation and they are receiving 80 per cent of their net income, if they are eligible for CPP, then the CPP for the injured worker is deducted dollar for dollar. That is most unfair.

If an injured worker, for example, is capable of doing a certain amount of work, then we have what is called a deeming process. I can tell you, that deeming process is just a way that the commission has invented to get off the hook of the responsibility for injured workers. Right now, I do not care what type of employment you are at when you receive your injury; when you go on workers' compensation and you are getting benefits for a period of time, eventually you are going to be deemed. You are going to be deemed - I know in the past, two of the most common occupations for deeming people were taxi cab dispatchers and lotto booth salespersons. It did not matter if neither was in the community in which you live; you were deemed as being capable of that. It did not matter if you were in a community where they were but the jobs were filled; you were treated as being another unemployed worker, looking for work within your capabilities, and you were looked at the same as the person next door who had no disability whatsoever. You were deemed as capable as him when it comes to seeking employment in these jobs.

That, I say, Madam Speaker, is most unfair to injured workers who, through no fault of their own, received an injury at work and a life interruption. There is nothing in any of this, and there is nothing in the documents that we have seen, that can tell the untold stories of the misery, suffering and agony, not just by the injured worker but by his family members as well. Because, when you go to 80 per cent of your net salary, you not only take a reduction in your amount of take-home pay. For the most part, in almost all cases, if you had things going for you when you were working, before you became injured, such as a dental plan, such as air transportation programs and insurance plans, many times all of these are out the window. You do not qualify for them any more from your employer, you do not qualify for them through workers' compensation, and you are left without any protection for some of the basic things that we need from anyone. You are very vulnerable at that point in time. Anything you need, whether it be prescription drugs, if it is not related to your injury - dental care for your children - it has to come out of the 80 per cent net that you are receiving as benefits from workers' compensation, in what we have, so-called no-fault insurance.

I would like to speak specifically to some of the changes that are proposed in this bill. If we look at the return-to-work provisions, we will see that, and I will quote section 88, "The commission may take those measures and make those expenditures that it may in its discretion consider necessary or expedient (a) to help in getting injured workers back to work; (b) to help in lessening or removing a handicap resulting from a worker's injury; (c) to help in the rehabilitative measures of personal care and home care; and (d) to provide counselling..." These are things that the commission say that they may take - not shall- they may take into consideration.

"An employer shall co-operate..." as well.. Getting back, in anything to do with rehabilitation for injured workers, the first priority should be getting them reinstated in the same workplace, with the same employer that they were working for when they had their injury, to put them back on an even keel, as much as possible, as they were prior to their injury.

There are places around the Province, Madam Speaker, that are doing that. I know, for example, in my former workplace, the Iron Ore Company of Canada and the Steelworkers Local 5795, they have a very good program. Where ten years ago people would not have been able to return to work, through the process of being sensible about things, trying to find out and work with the employee as to what the person can or cannot do, accepting that, and making some minor alterations in the workplace, many people who never would have returned to work under the systems that were in place ten years ago, can now do so. We still have a long way to go in this Province before that is the rule rather than the exception.

The other thing I would like to say on that is that it is important that we keep up in legislation, that we keep up with what is happening around us, because the Human Rights Commissions have taken an active role in deciding the question of whether or not an employee can be returned to the workplace. The Supreme Court of Canada, in many cases now, in arbitration cases, have established and determined that employers can be responsible, will be responsible, within reasonable cause, of making changes to the workplace under the duty to accommodate, and that accommodation for injured employees is not something that is in the future. It is happening around us now, and I would suggest that it is going to happen more and more as time goes on.

Madam Speaker, the other issue that I really take exception to as well is the top-up that was removed during the last review, where it is now illegal for any employer to top-up workers' compensation benefits; so that if you received 80 per cent net, you could receive 20 per cent top-up. It is surprising, because I was doing an appeal this week for a constituent here in St. John's and I was surprised to learn that, as a federal government employee, if you become hurt and injured on the job, it is not illegal for the federal government to top-up your loss of income to make sure that you are whole at the end of the day. The way I understood it, from the appeal I did this week, if you are a federal government employee and you are receiving 80 per cent of your net, it is quite legal and quite okay for the federal government to top-up the other 20 per cent. Here in this Province, our legislation makes it illegal for employers to do that now. There were many employers, Madam Speaker, in this Province who were doing just that, prior to the changes that came about as a result of the last review.

MR. HARRIS: These were negotiated agreements.

MR. COLLINS: These were negotiated agreements.

MR. HARRIS: We gave up something to get that.

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

So, you know, it is a question of what do we do and where do we go and how do we make the system fairer? Let's not forget one thing: While the right to sue an employer was given up around 1911, if I remember correctly, while that was given up then for good reasons, there are many people in today's workplaces who could possibly sue. I would argue with anyone who talks about the cost of workers' compensation as a premium, that they are missing the point entirely, because they will never, Madam Speaker, never pay in premiums what one court case could cost them. They will never pay in their lifetime what they owe, the place of employment. One court case could wipe them out financially.

So, there is a good deal there for the employer and there is a good deal for the employee, who does not have to go through the hassle of litigation to get what they are due. I say, Madam Speaker, there are many things in the area of workers' compensation in this Province that need to be done to make the system more balanced and fairer for injured workers. I don't know one injured worker, I have yet to meet an injured worker, who would rather be injured and off work than be at work as he was prior to his injury. The objective of every injured worker, Madam Speaker, is to get back to work, to full employment, gainfully employed and making an income to provide for his family.

I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that there are a lot more entrenchments that need to be put in place that put the pressure on to return to the place where you got injured. Not too many people like to come down in salary a whole lot in this life, and that is a reality. If you were an electrician all your life, or a millwright or an aircraft engineer, and then you are told that you can go to work, and we expect you to go to work, selling lotto booth tickets or working in some other industry that is way below, in a pay sense, what you were making prior, that is not an easy thing to deal with. There are many lifestyle changes. The untold stories on workers' compensation are the tragedies and the whole question of the suffering and agony that not only, as I said earlier, the injured worker goes through, but his family as well.

I am sure, Madam Speaker, that I will have an opportunity before debate closes finally on this bill to make some other points, but I will say that there are some good changes proposed, that came as unanimous recommendations from the task force, but I also qualify that by saying that there are many more changes that are needed in order to make workers' compensation fair to the injured workers of this Province.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour. If the minister speaks now, she will close the debate.

MS THISTLE: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all hon. members for participating in this debate today. It was an interesting exchange of information. I want to say that there is a strong focus, on this bill being brought to the Legislature, that prevention is the key. Of course, we have to keep in mind the sustainability of the actual workers' compensation system. It was meant to be an insurance plan in case of accident or injury. The changes that we are proposing here today would be for the benefit of the workers and the employers.

In response to some of the questions, one in particular: What are the benefits for the injured worker? I would have to say that even though the workers' compensation system is in a financial crunch at this time, there has been no change made to the actual 80 per cent benefit level to injured workers. Of course, it still remains tax free. But, as I said before, the focus is on prevention as 80 per cent of net is still considered to be tax free. We have been able to retain the premium rate by employers which is now the highest in the country.

I do thank you for your valuable contribution here today. Madam Speaker, I now move close of second reading of this bill.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act And The Occupational Health and Safety Act" read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 16)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 16, Madam Speaker, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, Bill 17.

The explanatory note in the bill says what the bill is about, really. The explanatory note says, "This Bill would amend section 44 of the Financial Administration Act to confirm the authority of trustees appointed under the section to manage, both in the past and in the future, sinking funds of Crown corporations and Crown agencies whose borrowings have been or may be guaranteed by the province."

Madam Speaker, I just will say that this was brought about, in the main, because of the Health Care Corporation which raised long-term funding, $130 million, for a site development project. This borrowing, which is guaranteed by the Province, has a term of forty years. The corporation will establish a sinking fund to provide the retirement of the debt at maturity.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you say forty years?

MR. LUSH: Yes, but it was discovered that the health care never had the authority or the expertise in management to do this. They have requested the board of trustees, which manages the Province's sinking funds, to perform this function. In order to do this, we have had to bring in this amendment, because the board of trustees is only permitted by law to manage the sinking funds of the provincial borrowing. So what we are doing here is expanding the powers of the board of trustees to take care of sinking funds of Crown agencies and Crown corporations. That is the idea of the change.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) carried.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is not carried yet. There are some points I want to make on this.

While I agree with this bill, I do not agree with the action that percipitated this bill. The action of the bill is - if a health care corporation now has to borrow $130 million, I do not think it should have happened in the first place. I think this Province is responsible for the capital construction costs of buildings in our Province, whether it is schools in our Province, whether it is a hospital that is in our Province, and it should have been borrowed, managed and built out of the provincial funds on the books of our Province, not passing it off to those boards.

Now that it is done - it can be reversed - but now that it is done, I agree the expertise may not be there in the debt management over these sinking funds and that we now should support this bill to allow it to be done under the government umbrella rather than under hospitals boards.

The minister has said forty years. I was told, and the public was told in 1995, we would need to borrow - initially, it was going to be $70 million, and then we were told we were going to borrow $100 million dollars. I went over to the music building at Memorial and I sat there and listened to the announcement: We are going to borrow $100 million to reorganize the hospitals in St. John's, to consolidate, shutdown. I said: I support consolidation of hospitals if it is going to save costs on running facilities, paying light bills, operating the whole facility, provided we do not compromise the service that is there.

I went to the first AGM of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's and I raised the issue and I asked the people at that meeting at Holiday Inn - there was about 200 people there witness to it - I said: How much are you borrowing and what is the period it is being borrowed over? One hundred million dollars is being borrowed over a twenty-year period and we are going to pay $10 million a year for twenty years. That is $200 million on the debt. That would pay it off, and we would have $10 million to reinvest back into the system. Now it is gone. I asked questions here in this House before, and it climbed up to $130 million. It has climbed up, and I think other costs are not even included in that $130 million. There are some expenditures with furnishings and other things, over and above that. The cost of buying St. Clare's and the cost of buying the Grace Hospital on top of that, and other costs, by the time they are amortized and paid back it is about another $21 million or $22 million.

So we have gotten into upwards of $200 million on the reorganization of hospitals here. Now you are pushing it of on hospital boards and carrying it on the debts of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's in this case. I do not think it should have been done in the first place. Look, it is out of the public treasury, and it should be managed out of the public treasury. Infrastructure going in to be able to care for people should have been done. Now that it is done, they find out that we do not have the authority to do it, or I should say, we do not have the authority to debt manage and manage the sinking funds and we need the legislation to do it.

I will support that now. I will support doing it, but I think we should revisit the very beginning, the borrowing, and put it where it is supposed to be. Don't hide it under a hospital board. Don't

hide it under any other board or Crown corporations. If it is borrowed out of here, it should be borrowed out of here, because we are responsible, we guarantee the debt and everything else. So what is the difference in taking $130 million and spending it by a hospital board or the Province overseeing and approving the expense of $130 million, when we are responsible for it anyway? We are giving them the money anyway, and we are doing it. It is a waste of time, it is an extra procedure that we do not need to incur.

Anyway, I wanted to make that point. I disagree with action that precipitated this bill. I do not disagree with the bill, but I disagree with the reason as to why it should ever have had to come to the House in the first place.

That is, once again, an example of a strategy of government to shift the cost, and shift things off to hospital boards, so they will have to deal with it, and it won't be a problem on the plate of the government. It should not have happened in the first place.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. LUSH: I thank the hon. gentleman for his remarks that have some validity in certain schools of thought. I would leave the detail of his remarks to be covered by the minister in committee.

With these remarks, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 17).

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

MR. LUSH: Order 17, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, Bill 18.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act." (Bill 18).

The hon. the Minister of Labour.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to enter into second reading on the Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, Bill 18.

As you might be aware, in September of last year, my colleague, the Minister of Environment and Labour, launched a review of labour relations in the Province's oil and gas fabrication and construction sector. At that time, my colleague appointed Mr. Morgan Cooper to investigate and recommend measures to create long-term labour relation stability, certainty for major construction and oil and gas fabrication projects in the Province.

Mr. Cooper held extensive research and consultation with stakeholders at yards all across the country and in the U.K. In his report, he submitted to government seventeen recommendations, seven that would effect change. I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that government endorses the framework outlined in the report and today I am bringing forward this legislation.

The bill I am introducing today will authorize the Labour Relations Board to declare illegal work stoppages and to issue cease and desist orders. This measure will provide a faster resolution and early return to work in the event of illegal work stoppages.

Also, this bill will indicate increases in fines of penalties for illegal work stoppages.

There will be specific mandatory requirements for an employers organization and a council of unions that must have certain criteria in place in order to qualify for a special project.

This bill will indicate that the practice of union labeling on special projects at the Bull Arm site only will be prohibited. This measure will provide equal opportunity to all fabrication yards to bid on work at the Bull Arm site. This is consistent, of course, with the Province's commitment to maximize opportunities related to offshore development.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the last two projects at Bull Arm, we have gained much experience and improved our skill set. The site is a world-class facility with an infrastructure and a location that can support the fabrication and construction projects our expanding offshore development will require. Although we have faced some labour relation challenges at Bull Arm, I am certain that the measures outlined in this legislation will address those concerns and provide the basis for a strong, stable and productive labour relations climate.

I think what has been important, Mr. Speaker, throughout the whole report that Morgan Cooper has presented is the fact that he says that peace and labour harmony cannot be legislated. The greatest chance of peace and labour harmony being had and maintained rests with the actual parties themselves. That has been his underlying theme, but the amendments that I would be bringing forward to the bill today would assist those changes very much.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to invite debate on this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to say a few words on this piece of legislation, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, Bill 18. Of course, this is coming out of, as the minister said, the Morgan Cooper report. I suppose when we sit back and look at it, I mean, there is always going to be controversy and some strife within the labour forces within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and anywhere. The problem, I suppose, that the minister is trying to address is the unlawful strikes or illegal strikes, whatever you want to refer to them as, walkouts and what have you.

She says there are labour relation challenges within the workforce, of course, and that this report, itself, was trying to address harmony within the workforce. The report itself makes a statement that to have harmony, you are going require cooperation between the groups involved. That is right to an extent, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, but there are always legitimate concerns within the workforce and it could be for safety reasons, it could be health reasons, it could be financial reasons that there are problems within any group or individual.

Mr. Speaker, she says that the legislation that is being represented here today will go a long way to alleviating the problems within the workforce, especially with respect to special projects, and, of course, we know that there are some concerns there.

The recommendations that were put forward require seven changes to the legislation. Out of the number of recommendations that were put forward - I think there were some seventeen. Again, the minster is correct on that. I would assume she is. I note the recommendations that require legislation numbered in the report are 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 17. With respect to number 6 recommendation, it says: the consultant recommends that the Labour Relations Act be amended to authorize the Labour Relations Board to issue declarations of unlawful strikes or lockouts, as well as directives to cease and desist from such unlawful acts. Again, I suppose, anything that is being done unlawfully has to be addressed. If this is going to be the way that it needs to be addressed, so be it, I say to the minister, and if it is going to improve things - if it will improve - fine. That remains to be seen

Sometimes there is no amount of legislation that can control what is going to be done or not done, if a certain group of people, or any group or any labour force or workforce or segments within the workforce, decide that they are being treated unfairly or they feel that they are in danger, or whatever the case may be, and they decide to break the law. We had the Premier of the Province, not long ago, talking about civil disobedience down in Marystown; so he himself, I suppose, agrees, on occasion, to breaking the laws if the need be, and if the people decide that it is required with respect to civil disobedience.

MR. HARRIS: If they feel strongly enough about it, I think he said.

MR. J. BYRNE: Those are the words, if they feel strongly enough about it, in that situation. Any amount of laws will not actually fully address the concerns of certain groups, depending on the situation.

Also, recommendation number 7 says: The consultant recommends that the Labour Relations Act be recommended to strengthen penalties for employers, employers' organizations, trade unions and employees who encourage or participate in unlawful strikes.

What they are saying here, I suppose, is that sometimes we see illegal strikes. We saw the wardens a few years ago - last year, I think it was, or the year before - when the wardens went on an illegal strike and we had people put in jail over it. I suppose this will try to strengthen that. On that, too, we see the penalties that are going to be imposed are going to be quite significant.

Recommendation number 11 also refers to certain revisions in the Labour Relations Act. It says: To be amended to prohibit an employer or trade union from including in an agreement in relation to an undertaking declared by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council... and it goes on. There is no need to get on to it. Again, as I said earlier, the laws and principles involved, if they are not considered fair by the individuals involved, no amount of legislation is going to prevent certain actions.

Recommendation number 14: The consultant recommend amends to the Labour Relations Act to clarify that statutory requirement for employees to be in the bargaining unit at the time of negotiation.

Again, we are getting into negotiations between various bargaining units and we are really stipulating now, with this legislation, timing of when people are considered to be in the bargaining unit. Again, it remains to be seen. I cannot speak to say for sure if it will or will not work. Hopefully it will do the job that it is intended to do.

Recommendation number 15: The consultant recommends that the Labour Relations Act be amended to include mandatory criteria for employers, organizations, that may be involved in collective bargaining in relation to special projects. The criteria include - and it goes on with four criteria. It goes on into recommendation number 16 to include employers the same as the trade unions. Again, these changes to the act may or may not do the job. It goes on to recommendation number 17.

I am not going to say a lot more about this Bill 18. I assume hopefully that the minister and the people in her department have done the proper research and consultation and review to put a piece of legislation forward that will not require changes and amendments a month or two months or five months down the road, like we see so often in this House of Assembly, and like we are going to see in the very near future. We are going to see something come before this House, probably next week, with respect to a piece of legislation that went through. Of course, we made the case at that very point in time, and the minister knows what I am talking about. She is smiling over there. She knows what I am talking about. Hopefully they have done the job on this, and it will do the job that it is intended to do.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to sit down. Now I have to stay up for another ten or fifteen minutes. The Minister of Education is trying to give me a hard time. I know she votes for me; she lives in my district. She is getting me going, to get me to stay up here for another ten or fifteen minutes. I was just about to sit.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Education, you did not do that, I was only joshing you.

In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I hope and I think it is going to be a relatively fair piece of legislation that will do the job that it is intended to do.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to say a few words at second reading on Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, in response to the report of Morgan Cooper, labour relations processes on offshore oil and gas fabrication and construction projects issued in January of this year.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of significant provisions in this legislation that are - well, one or two which are new to our labour relations regime in the Province. They are in response to the difficulties and complexities of large scale construction projects, particularly offshore, but they do have influence on all labour relations in the Province, particularly those provisions which allow the board to make a determination of a strike being lawful or unlawful - a strike or a lockout having occurred, that has either been declared authorized or threatened. That is a new provision in our act. It is a new jurisdiction for the Labour Relations Board. I think that is a significant change and a significant step.

Other provinces have similar designations where parties can go to the board to seek a declaration. What we have up to now is someone going to court with an affidavit alleging an illegality and almost always getting an injunction which then may or may not be enforced, depending on the circumstances, and sometimes to the chagrin of the courts not being pursued by employers or in some cases thinking that they could negotiate away contempt of court proceedings and various other matters which the judiciary has frowned upon over the years. It also ups the ante considerably by making what is in ordinary terms a civil dispute or a breach of contract, in some cases it might be called civil disobedience, as the Premier talked about, making it into a crime almost immediately because of a court order ordering people back to work, then being enforced by contempt of court and the penal provision. That is the regime that we have right now.

This regime which has been used elsewhere, where the labour board itself is entitled to issue declarations and orders which are enforceable upon filing in the court, but there is a step- procedure, a stage-procedure, that may well be - and I am saying this sort of tentatively. I am not saying this is a better solution or will result in a better way of dealing with illegal strikes, whether they be in the construction industry or any other industry, but it is certainly a procedure that deserves to be tried.

I have not done a detailed legal analysis of this area of law, Mr. Speaker, so I am not able to comment from a legal research perspective into it. I see that it has some merit as an approach. I do not know that it would preclude an employer from going to the courts to seek an injunction. I have a feeling that it would not. That would require some sort of amendment to the Judicature Act. I know we have provisions - we had provisions and we still do have provisions - in the Labour Relations Act saying that you cannot get an ex-parte injunction in a labour dispute. That was never effective in preventing injunctions, even an ex-parte basis being granted in the court, because there were ways around interpreting that, (inaudible) ex-parte injunctions being granted. We have seen provisions; from time to time courts have swung one way or the other in allowing ex-parte injunctions in labour matters, in some cases in a trend towards not allowing them without both parties being present in other times. So, there is a lot of non-clarity in the law there.

Let's face it, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious and important area of the law when you start making illegal and criminal, by contempt of court, that which a day before, an hour before, or a minute before, was only in breach of a labour relations agreement, or perhaps a breach of a statute, without criminal penalty.

It is a serious matter. I hope that this regime serves to lower the tensions and lower the ante a little bit when we have things that might be technically called illegal strikes but arise out of the frustrations that occur sometimes when parties to a collective agreement, in many cases the employer, is acting in a way that raises the ire of the workers by threatening things themselves, such as we had last week, or two weeks ago, threatening to close down a machine or a mill if the employees do not respond to the employer's demand to change an existing, binding, collective agreement. That is what we had in Grand Falls at Abitibi Consolidated, an existing, binding, collective agreement which they employer said: If you do not change this we are going shut down a paper mill. We are going to shut down a machine and put 250 people out of work.

That is a situation which often prompts an illegal strike. The next step is, the employer goes to court, gets an injunction, and all of a sudden these people who are legitimately outraged by an employer taking a particular action, if they continue in their strike, are guilty of contempt of court and they are hauled before the Supreme Court who potentially sends them to jail. That is the escalation that occurs very quickly. It can very quickly occur under our law.

I hope employers will use this process to try and seek a solution and a resolution to a matter in a manner that is less confrontational and provides more of an opportunity for the Labour Relations Board to play perhaps a conciliatory role or to allow for a little bit of time to elapse so that these things can - sometimes have a little cooling off period - provide a solution which might just be escalated by going to court with an injunction. You do not solve labour relations problems with injunctions. That might solve the short-term issue, but it may cause long-term riffs in the employment relationship that may take a long time to heal.

I am looking forward to seeing how this operates in practice. I think we should consider whether or not - maybe the Department of Justice considered this. I know the Minister of Labour and her advisors will be watching closely how this provision operates in our jurisdiction, to see whether we can have some legislative provisions which would allow us to rely more on this and less on the courts to enforce this provision. Perhaps some changes to the Judicature Act might be in order at a certain point in time if this legislation proves to be a better way of dealing with labour relations disputes. I will say that about clause 2, which I think is very interesting and a new jurisdiction of this Province.

With respect to the special projects legislation, I know this legislation that we are talking about now applies - the provision on labour direction with respect to illegal strikes - to all labour relations, not just special projects, not just Bull Arm, not just the construction industry, but all labour relations. That is a new jurisdiction.

The other provisions of the act before us today deal with special projects.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if anybody else wants to listen to me, but I would.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps listen is not the word. I would like to be able to hear myself speak. These are important provisions, Mr. Speaker, and I want to treat them seriously.

The special project provisions of our act and, in fact, the special projects that we have had over the last number of years, are very complex. What the Lieutenant-Governor in Council does when he makes special project declarations has very far-reaching effects. We had serious problems at the Hibernia project for a number of reasons: The collective agreement was negotiated prior to one person taking up the tools. Not one person had taken up the tools, the collective agreement was in place, and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council said that this will be the collective agreement for the project. That was very rigid . It led to a lot of problems. In fact, it led to illegal walkouts, it led to jurisdictional disputes, it led to problems where employees who had not been considered in the collective agreement were working on the site. Employees who, in ordinary labour relations terms, would be members of a bargaining unit will be part of an overall collective bargaining regime, not mentioned in the collective agreement, Mr. Speaker. No procedure. No method for actually doing it.

A number of unions went to the Labour Relations Board to try and get certification for office workers, for example; for draftspersons, many of whom employed on the project were being paid far less, with engineering degrees and other qualifications, far less than other people who had far less qualifications who were covered by the collective agreement. They wanted to be represented in collective bargaining. They had no way of doing it unless the employer agreed. They went to the Labour Relations Board and the Labour Relations Board said: Yes, we do have that authority. The court said: No, you don't. That has not been addressed here. We do not have anything that addresses that. There is no method for people to be added to a collective agreement or changes to the collective agreement that the employer is not prepared to agree with. There needs to be some adjudicate or process in these special projects because it is that type of injustice that leads to unrest at major construction sites, particularly when it is an opportunity in this Province for people who might be working on a special project for a defined period of time.

I know the Member for Bellevue, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, has a lot of people in his district who worked at Bull Arm or worked at the Hibernia construction project. He says no. They must have all been laid off.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am sure the union members in the member's district got jobs out there and I know that many people worked at Bull Arm who never had a union card in their lives, Mr. Speaker. When they went to Bull Arm they did and were members of the union. The member, I think, is being facetious because he would know that the provisions of a special project for Hibernia specifically required the unions to allow people to work on that site, despite the fact that they did or did not have membership cards of the union. So, the minister is being facetious and not telling the complete story when he says that.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that many people work on these projects for a short period of time and they expect, because of the nature of these projects - people have been making significant amounts of money and they want to be able to regulate their relations with the employer, even if they are not included in the special projects. There has to be an adjudicative (inaudible). How do you add some group that was not included because (inaudible) did not think of them? I am thinking of the draftspersons at Hibernia, for example, and others who needed to get representation. Unless the employers (inaudible) to agree to add them, they did not get included. There was no interest arbitration, for example. You can have rights arbitration under the collective agreement but if you did not have any rights to be covered, there is no provision for interest arbitration to add people to the collective agreement. That should be provided. That should be provided through legislation and it should be provided in the special project designation or included, by requirement, in a collective agreement that is approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. That is absent from this.

The second problem that we had, which is addressed here, is a problem with the Terra Nova Project; the PCL contractors collective agreement with the PDA. That was negotiated, Mr. Speaker, and essentially imposed on the workers of this Province. I have to say that. There were people at the negotiating table but, I think it is fair to say that this is a fair conclusion, that collective agreement was imposed on the workers of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: We do not have to determine whether a construction site (inaudible). This legislation takes care of that, and I am sure that the Minister of Labour explained that to the member at the Cabinet meeting when this legislation was being approved. If he did not understand it I will explain it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am not going to touch that one, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what closet the minister hangs out in and I will not -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is in looking for one of (inaudible) suits.

MR. HARRIS: He may have been looking for the other suit, the one that was in his closet for a long time. I think it might have been seven or eight or ten years; but that was our problem here.

The problem with the PDA - and I am not here to place blame on any one individual, union or group, Mr. Speaker, but it is fair to say that that agreement was imposed upon the workers of this Province who did not have a say in whether or not that agreement would be their agreement for collective bargaining purposes. This is addressed here because now a collective agreement has to be ratified. There have to be provisions for ratification. Now, whether that is actually going to happen - I am not entirely clear. We will deal with some of these issues in committee, but if the Lieutenant-Governor in Council passes a special project order that says: this is the collective agreement - that is what the orders have said in the past - then ratification appears irrelevant, Mr. Speaker. Whether there is provision for it under the PDA or type, or the council trade union (inaudible) or not, unless that ratification takes place prior to the Order-in-Council then that will really be of no effect.

I think there are a couple of important changes that are brought about as a result of this. I think that we ought to be really clear, that special projects can last a number of years. The Hibernia project was five, six, seven years, and without any provision for changes, amendment or adjudication of interest type matters during the collective bargaining process or during the life of the special project - it is difficult to deal with. Any other matters I will deal with in committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: This legislation, in principle, is good and we look forward to seeing how the provisions, particularly those with respect to the new Labour Relations Board jurisdictions, actually work in practice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Labour.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. members opposite for taking part in this debate.

I now move closure of the second reading of Bill 18.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act to Amend The Labour Relations Act,"read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 18)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate certain bills.

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

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 4, Madam Chair.

Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act. (Bill 5)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act." (Bill 5)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 5.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000." (Bill 6)

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 6.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act." (Bill 13)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 7.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act." (Bill 15)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 8.

A bill, "An Act To Establish The Order Of Newfoundland and Labrador." (Bill 1)

On motion, clauses 1 through 18 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 9.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Chiropractors Act, The Dieticians Act, The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994 And The Social Workers Association Act." (Bill 11)

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 10.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991." (Bill 14)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 11.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999." (Bill 12)

On motion, clauses 1 through 26 carried.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 5, 6, 13, 15, 1, 11, 14 and 12 passed without amendment.

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members for their excellent cooperation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: - and the tremendous progress that we made today.

I move that the House on its rising do adjourn, and I wish all hon. members a very good weekend.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.