June 3, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 41


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome some visitors to our galleries. We have 100 Grade 7 students from Villa Nova Junior High School in Manuels, in the District of Topsail. They are accompanied by their teachers: David Sullivan, Robert O'Keefe, Mike Dinn and Susan Mosher, and teacher's aid, Miss Bungay.

We welcome you to our House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by members.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have statements by the following members: the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the hon. the Member for St. Barbe, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, and the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I wish to congratulate the Mount Pearl Special Olympic Tigers who won the end-of-the-year Floor Hockey Tournament that was held last night.

Mr. Speaker, I was the honourary guest referee for the tournament and it gives me great pleasure to say that the Tigers beat all of the teams and were successful in the final game, and walked away with the championship.

The Mount Pearl Tigers Special Olympic Team showed great determination in their victory. The members of the team are: Eddie Hynes, Harry Fitzgerald, Tracy Barnes, Robert McGrath, Geoffrey Power, Andrew Hynes, Danny Russell, Andrew Ash, Nadia Brenton, Matthew Kelly, Jasmyn Azizan, David Wells and Travis Sceviour.

I would like to thank the Dog's Rugby Team, Greeley's Bruisers and the Fortune Bay Aces for their participation in the tournament.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the coaches and volunteers for this event. Without their efforts, tournaments like this would not take place.

In closing, I must also mention that the Mount Pearl Special Olympic Tigers and other Special Olympians will be travelling to Gander and Gambo on June 11 and June 12 for the Provincial Games.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like for all members to join with me in wishing them and all other Special Olympians good luck, have fun, and enjoy your weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of dedicated, talented youth in Grand Falls-Windsor. I rise today to congratulate not only one, but twenty-five of our community's best and brightest who were nominated for the Grand Falls-Windsor Youth of the Year 2003.

On May 26, the nominees gathered at McDonald's Family Restaurant on Cromer Avenue, who for the past thirteen years have co-sponsored this event with the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor. At the end of the evening, Nancy Clarke, a Grade 12 student from Exploits Valley High, was honoured for being named Youth of the Year 2003.

Like all other nominees, Nancy boasts an impressive resume of community activities. She began four years ago with the scouting movement and has since volunteered her time with the Grenfell Intermediate Breakfast Program, school tutoring program, and the canteen for the Minor Baseball Association. Nancy also offers her help to the Memorial United Church, where she is a member of the Junior Choir, a Sunday school teacher, Communion server and reader. Not stopping there, Nancy also volunteers with the Lung Association, Heart and Stroke Foundation, Epilepsy Group, Diabetes Association and the Kidney Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Nancy Clarke is a leader in her community. I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating her on being recognized as Grand Falls- Windsor Youth of the Year for 2003. I would also like to once again congratulate all nominees for their outstanding citizenship qualities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a hero. In July of 2000, a young man from the Northern Peninsula would have lost his life if not for the selfless actions of his boating companion and friend.

On Neddies Harbour, a group of young people were attempting to make their way back to shore when their boat oars were lost in the water. Jonathan McKenzie went into the harbour to retrieve them but was caught by the current. What happened next, Mr. Speaker, is a true act of bravery.

Without thought about his own well-being, Jonathan's friend Gregory Shears jumped into the cold water and rescued Jonathan. He used his training as a lifeguard to calm his friend Jonathan and properly return him to the boat.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, Gregory was recognized in a ceremony in Rocky Harbour for his actions. He received one of the highest awards a Canadian citizen can receive from Her Excellency the Governor General, the Certificate of Commendation.

While it is nearly four years since that fateful night, Gregory still speaks humbly about the events. He feels that he did that night what anyone in the situation would have done. Mr. Speaker, while I certainly admire Gregory Shears' modesty, he is still a hero to many, especially Jonathan McKenzie.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating a true friend and hero, Gregory Shears, for receiving the Certificate of Commendation from the Governor General of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a woman, a very special woman, an Inuit woman from the North Coast of Labrador, from the community of Nain: Isabella Pain.

Mr. Speaker, Isabella Pain was Co-Chair of the negotiating team for the Labrador Inuit Association that recently negotiated a final deal between the Province and the federal government. She was also the Chair of the committee that negotiated IBA with Voisey's Bay for the Labrador Inuit Association. Mr. Speaker, her community work speaks for itself in helping out and reaching out to families in need and, most important of all, Isabella Pain is an ordinary down-to-earth human being.

In Toronto, a couple of weeks ago, she won a big award. Last night, I, along with the Member for Virginia Waters, had the opportunity to go to Memorial University as she accepted her award for the top forty under forty.

Mr. Speaker, to the young Inuit people on the North Coast of Labrador, a week ago they ratified the agreement. What a role model for these people to have, to know that people from the North Coast of Labrador can stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone in this country.

I ask members of this House to join me in congratulating Miss Pain on an award that she so rightfully deserves.

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 rise today to offer congratulations to the sponsors, organizers and participants of the 10th Annual Y Enterprise Olympics, which took place May 27-30 at Hotel Gander.

With the help of the sponsors ACOA, HRDC, the Royal Bank of Canada, the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, the Y Enterprise Centre, and the Department of Education, 100 Grade 11 and 12 students from ten school districts participated in this showcase. There were two competitions, the NLCU Enterprise Showcase Competition and the RBC Business Plan Competition.

The Project Manager, Paul Dwyer, indicated that the talent that these students have exhibited over the past few days, in both the Showcase and the Business Plan Competition, have been incredible.

The NLCU Enterprise Showcase is designed to encourage senior high school students to display their enterprising ventures in a trade show setting. The winners of which were: First place went to a venture called the Newfoundland and Labrador Chocolate Moose, and that was won by Lisa Leshane and Melissa Caravan from Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts. Second place went to Kelly Lynn Au and Christen Williams of Prince of Wales Collegiate, and third place, a tie between Ryan Tobin from Stephenville High and Stephanie Nash from St. Catherine's in Mount Carmel.

As for the RBC Business Plan Competition, first place went to Compu DustClutch which was put forward by two students -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HEDDERSON: The first place went to Compu DustClutch, that was Megan Burke and Cheryl Barron, from Dunne Memorial, St. Mary's. Second place to Olivia Heaney and Krista Kennedy, Mount Pearl Senior High, and third place, to Sarah Greenslade from Queen Elizabeth High in Foxtrap.

The Y Enterprise Olympics have been a great learning experience for these students and I am sure that I can call upon the members of this House to join with me to offer congratulations to these young entrepreneurs for their very worthwhile venture.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the son of a man who was a young officer cadet landed on the beaches of Normandy on the June 6, 1944, and who later became the commanding officer of our own Royal Newfoundland Regiment, I am very pleased to rise today in recognition the 60th anniversary of D-Day and to honour all veterans who fought and died for our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 1944 tens of thousands of Allied troops stormed the beaches of Normandy marking the beginning of the end of World War II. The Royal Newfoundland Regiment formed an artillery unit and many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians fought in various battalions for Canada and Britain.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian airmen, sailors and soldiers were among the first to arrive on the coast of Normandy to begin D-Day, a battle that is widely regarded as the turning point in the Second World War. Allied nations incurred significant losses on D-Day, however, the courage, the bravery and perseverance of our soldiers led to the end of that war. Many of the soldiers who fought on D-Day and during the Battle of Normandy gave their lives, and they must be remembered by all of us.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday Veterans from several Allied nations will be honoured at a very special 60th anniversary in France. Ceremonies have also been planned throughout the Province and I encourage Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to pay tribute to our veterans by attending.

Mr. Speaker, I find it fitting that we honour our veterans in this hon. House, as they fought and died for the very values and virtues that this House represents. Every year, the anniversary of D-Day reminds us of the importance of democracy, the damage of tyranny and the heavy price that comes with both.

Mr. Speaker, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we have been blessed with sovereignty and freedom. That freedom did not come without sacrifice and I feel it is our duty as citizens of this great Province, to guarantee that the tremendous contributions of our soldiers are never forgotten. Too many good men and women perished in the name of peace and freedom. I ask that all members of this hon. House join me in remembering them today and always.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate receiving an advanced copy of this particular statement and, I must say on behalf of the Official Opposition, we are glad to have the minister and the government recognize such an occasion by making a statement in the House today as this weekend approaches.

I think, Mr. Speaker, there is quite a history attached to this in Newfoundland and Labrador . People in our Province would know that prior to Confederation, Newfoundlanders always played a larger than life role in unfortunate conflicts within the world. As Canadians today, it is well known and recognized that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians make an inordinate contribution in comparison to our population to the Canadian military and to peacekeeping efforts around the world.

Again, I think, Mr. Speaker, it serves us all well to remember issues that arose, and instances that arose out of conflict, to learn from them but never to forget. We are glad to join today as members of the House, and glad to be asked to join with all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in remembering so that we do not ever forget. Unfortunately, too many people made tremendous contributions and sacrifices with even their lives in the past, and our hope and wish is that we all learn from it and it never happens again. So, I am glad to join in the comments and the statements made by the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, would like to acknowledge the importance that our veterans played in all the conflicts that have taken place throughout this century in particular, and the efforts that they made. Even though our very right to sit here today as a Legislature, the right to participate in organized labour and negotiate freely, the right to attend church even, the basic things that we enjoy as a society today are all owed to the efforts of the men and women who fought and paid the ultimate price in past wars.

Mr. Speaker, the past wars that did take place are unlike the ones today where we see a lot of high tech warfare taking place and tools being used. This was largely a hand-to-hand, in the trench and in each other's face fighting. That certainly took a lot of effort and, as I said, many people paid the ultimate price. I think it is important to remember, as well, that a lot of the men and women who served in the First World War and the Second World War - well, we say men and women, but they were actually more like boys and girls, because they were very young. I wonder sometimes if we, today, could meet the task that they met and do the same thing that they had to do when required to do so on behalf of all of us.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform members of this House, and the people of the Province, that government has been, for quite some time, and continues to work with High Liner Foods Inc. on possible solutions to keep the fish plant in Arnold's Cove in operation, and to secure access to quotas associated with that operation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Arnold's Cove plant employs close to 400 people and generates approximately the same number of indirect and induced employment. Two and a half years ago the facility was offered for sale, however, Mr. Speaker, there were no buyers.

The plant in Arnold's Cove is state-of-the-art. The superb management, staff, and technology, make it one of the best groundfish plants in North America, if not the world. It is the type of processing facility that is required if Newfoundland and Labrador is to remain a major player in world groundfish markets. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, should groundfish stocks recover, it is critical that we have plants like this one to ensure that we can process fish found in our waters for the benefit of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, High Liner Foods operates the plant and has access to substantial enterprise allocations that are important to the people of this Province. While these allocations are currently at low levels, it will be prudent for this government to ensure that these quotas and the historical rights associated with them remain available to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as a whole. This government, Mr. Speaker, will do what is required to preserve the historical rights to fish in our adjacent waters.

Mr. Speaker, the Arnold's Cove fish plant is an anchor of the local economy in most communities ranging from Southern Harbour to Clarenville. Without the involvement of the provincial government, and commitments from the workers and from other agencies, it is questionable whether this operation will continue. I must note, Mr. Speaker, a very important note, that the Province's policy of not providing loan guarantees and direct financial support to primary processing companies remains in place. Any solutions must, and will, Mr. Speaker, be consistent with the policy of not subsidizing the operations of processing plants. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are open to new and innovative ways of doing business, and we are open to new technologies and directions. Only a long-term strategy will ensure that the Arnold's Cove plant will remain open, and that the quotas associated with them remain accessible to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am optimistic, Mr. Speaker, that commitments will be reached with other stakeholders in the coming days - commitments that will provide for a stable future for the Arnold's's Cove fish plant, and commitments - most importantly, Mr. Speaker - that will retain access to these quotas for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I will pledge to this House that I will provide a public update on the status of the plant and the associated quotas as they develop, and report them in a timely manner to the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Member for Trinity North - this is too serious to be getting on with that kind of foolishness.

I wanted to thank the minister for providing me a copy of the statement, and I want to compliment the government in terms of their initiative in working with the people and the management in the Arnold's Cove area in terms of working on this very worthwhile effort.

I would like to say that I echo the comments of the minister in that, in his statement, he indicated that it had one of the best workforces in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is true. Also, the operator of this particular plant, Bruce Wareham, is probably one of the best operators in the world in terms of fish plant operations. That is one of the reasons why this plant succeeded during the cod moratorium, because of the management and the workers at the plant. I would like for all of us today to lend support to this endeavor, because the people there have never had a hand out, but right now they need a hand up.

Congratulations to the minister. I want to compliment him on such great work.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Arnold's Cove plant, as the minister said, is a state-of-the-art food processing operation, fish processing operation, a high-tech and a highly qualified workforce.

While recognizing, Mr. Speaker, that this is a challenge for government, I would ask that not only the Minister of Fisheries, but the new Minister of the new Department of Business, and the new Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, start thinking about this as an opportunity for some innovation, for some thinking outside of the box, some way to say: We have a facility, we have a workforce, we have the technology, and we have the management. Let's find a use for this and maintain those quotas at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, the spectre of Burgeo, and Burgeo's fish quota being shipped to Canso, Nova Scotia by representatives of the Barry interests that hangs over -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: - hangs over plants like Arnold's Cove, if we see an opportunity, if someone sees an opportunity, of taking that quota and moving it elsewhere. This government has to be committed to ensuring that does not happen to Arnold's Cove and that we find a good use for this plant and that we have an opportunity for these workers to maintain their jobs and their commitment to doing a good job and producing a good product.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am pleased to rise today to comment on the twentieth annual conference of the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association which is concluding today with an address by the Premier, as we speak. This conference provides Newfoundland and Labrador with the opportunity to showcase our abilities, to support the growing petroleum and gas industry in the Province and elsewhere, and to promote the potential - significant potential - off our coast. This conference also attracts numerous visitors from around the world, including all of the key decision makers from all of the major companies on the planet, who are operating in the oil and gas industry.

I believe it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we have established ourselves - and I am speaking about the Province and the service and supply sector and NOIA, itself - as a significant oil producer; an accomplishment that is all the more staggering considering that less than a decade ago, Newfoundland and Labrador did not produce one barrel of oil. While exploration has led to discovered hydrocarbon resources totalling over two billion barrels of oil, ten trillion cubic feet of natural gas, our undiscovered potential is much greater with estimates of more than six billion barrels of oil and over fifty trillion cubic feet of natural gas awaiting exploration and development.

A key partner with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in promoting our capability and our potential is NOIA. I take this opportunity to commend the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association and its members on the significant role they have played in developing and helping this Province to establish itself in the oil and gas industry and throughout the world. Through sponsoring this annual conference, and by NOIA's participation in the oil and gas shows in this country and around the world, this organization is an integral part of the continued promotion and development of this very important industry.

Over the course of the conference, those attending were provided with an update on the status of the Province's petroleum projects as well as the latest in emerging technologies.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the theme for this year's conference, East Coast Canada: Success in a Challenging Environment, offshore Newfoundland and Labrador is a challenging place in which to operate but also a very successful and profit-based place to operate. However, we have proven, I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, particularly with the Orphan Basin, Laurentian Sub-basin, the Flemish Pass, areas left with the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, and many more, that profitable projects can be developed. We are committed to building on the success of this industry as a government. We are committed to ensuring that the benefits of the oil and gas industry are maximized like they have never been before, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Indeed, the NOIA conference over the past number of years has grown. Every year it has grown, it has gotten bigger and better, which shows the level of interest, no doubt, of the industry players in our offshore industry. It is a great opportunity for the stakeholders involved to get together to find our what is happening and what is about to happen and what other opportunities exist. For example, we have had a lot of development over the last fifteen years: the White Rose project, which brings benefits to Marystown, for example; what has happened in Bull Arm with the White Rose project; the natural gas announcements of recent days by Husky is a great potential we have here; the Laurentian Sub-basin, and us having gotten a favourable decision last year on that matter; and the opportunities in the Orphan Basin and the South Whale Basin. So, there are lots of opportunities there. We have done pretty good so far, in terms of the benefits to this Province. We have to maximize the opportunities and the benefits that we have there.

My only disappointment to date is that this government is not putting the feet of the federal leaders to the fire and getting their commitments vis-à-vis our benefits from the offshore industry. This is a perfect time to do it, now, during this federal election. They have not taken us up on that offer or suggestion yet, but they certainly should. The minister, of course, is very up front and no doubt wants to see benefits maximized; so, whatever he can do to persuade the Premier of this Province to get on with it and get that commitment from our federal leaders, NOIA will be even bigger and better in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to congratulate NOIA on its twentieth annual conference and its twenty years of growing with the oil industry in this Province, and showing what we can do to participate in that. I do not share the rosy view that the Opposition House Leader has in terms of us getting benefits from our offshore oil and gas.

The real challenge to this government is to take the same kind of stance that they did when the Inco agreement was being talked about, to give notice that we want, not just to maximize our resources in some general way, but we want to show that we are going to be full participants in our offshore oil and gas development, that we are going to have an equity share in what goes on. We need to hear some specifics from this government, and the Premier and his government. The Premier with his business experience should be able to say to the oil industry that we expect to get more than we have gotten and show us how we are going to do it.

We are looking forward to that kind of leadership from this government because that is the kind of expectation that they created when they were over here when they talked about Inco.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal Minister of Natural Resources refused to give a commitment to the people of the Province regarding changes to the Atlantic Accord. As a matter of fact, in the media today it was stated and quoted, attributed to the minister, that share of oil revenues is not an election issue.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier, or whoever has the dubious distinction of answering on his behalf today: Does the Premier and this government - which touts their wonderful relationship with Ottawa as one of the keys to the future - agree with the statement made by the federal Natural Resources Minister yesterday, that share of oil revenues is not an election issue? Is that concurred in by the government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is interesting to note today, Mr. Speaker - first of all, I want to say to the Opposition House Leader, the only federal leader who has not talked about committing more of the resources, financial and otherwise on the Atlantic Accord to Newfoundland and Labrador, happens to be Paul clawback Martin. The only federal leader.

To the issue that the Leader of the Opposition has raised: Do we believe it to be an election issue? You better believe we do, and over the next four weeks we are going to make it even a bigger one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: But the question is this. Here is the question that needs and deserves to be answered by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This week the federal minister met with the entire Liberal caucus and they committed to support him and every Liberal candidate. How is it that you can go out and chair campaigns and support Liberal candidates who do not support this Province in its efforts to get more of its resources for Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the question that you need to ask today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the Government House Leader has been taking yelling and screaming lessons from his leader, the Premier. It does not help answer the questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government, and to the House Leader or the Premier, now is the time to get the commitments from Ottawa. After a federal election I believe everybody in this House understands and agrees that it will be too late.

Mr. Speaker, his description of a caucus meeting that we had yesterday shows quite clearly that he was not in the room and knows nothing about what was said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the current federal government, the Prime Minister has no trouble giving commitments about health care, infrastructure, all of the things that are important, but nothing about the Atlantic Accord.

The question is this: What exactly does the government, with its great lovey-dovey relationship with Ottawa, and the current government plan to do to secure a commitment during the next four weeks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he uses the term - and I suppose he must use it very loosely, lovey-dovey.

I would like to ask this question: How is it, I ask the Leader of the Opposition, that the Member for Bellevue, for example, is chairing the current MPs campaign, that every member opposite is supporting every Liberal candidate with themselves, their workers, et cetera? How is it that you can stand in the House today, in all honesty and sincerity, and ask what we are doing when we are doing everything within our power, while at the same time every member of the Official Opposition is out knocking on doors for the federal Liberal Party of Canada? Come on, give us a break and the people of the Province a break!

Mr. Speaker, why won't the Leader of the Opposition say publicly what his stand is? Why won't he come out and every member say they will not be supporting Liberal candidates in the current federal election?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the students who are with us today, and their teachers, would understand - they have been told many times - you cannot answer a question with a question. It means they do not have an answer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: It shows they do not have an answer. There is no answer because they are doing nothing. Mr. Speaker, when we offered to work with them last week their Premier said: We don't want you; which was the answer last week.

Mr. Speaker, another issue related to the offshore. The 8.5 per cent ownership of Hibernia, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talking about having a share of the action. What action, if any, is going to be taken by the government with its great relationship with Ottawa to get a commitment about the 8.5 per cent share of Hibernia during the election within the next four weeks?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall in this House in 1996 when there was potential of a significant find of the magnitude of Voisey's Bay. It was called Cartaway. Do you know what it turned out to be? It turned out to be, like every Liberal Leader who I have ever met in my life, an empty hole full of promise.

The fact of the matter is this, that - why didn't we want your participation? Why would we want the participation of members opposite who, throughout the next four weeks, are supporting, will knock on doors, are cheering federal Liberal candidate campaigns in this Province? Why would we want the support of a party that on the one hand asks questions, but when the true test comes, the real test, Mr. Speaker, of where they stand with their feet, it is going to be knocking on doors for a party that won't support Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? That is why we don't want your type of help, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would only suggest that the Government House Leader has much more credibility when he acts like himself instead of trying to act like the Premier. That doesn't quite work.

Mr. Speaker, custodial management and fisheries issues, with the relationship between the current government, the current Premier, and the Government of Canada, which has been talked about as being such a wonderful relationship, what plans are there - because we have gotten no answers with respect to the other issues - what plans are there by this government and this Premier to make that issue an election issue, or is he going to have another federal minister come here and say, custodial management is not an election issue, and the Premier going to answer, but I have a wonderful relationship and that is good enough for me?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, you know, I have to say, the way the Leader of the Opposition is getting on today, you wouldn't know but before the federal ministers are coming here that the Premier of the Province is writing their script for them. I mean, give us a break.

The fact of the matter is this, in the next -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) do about it?

MR. E. BYRNE: What we are going to do about it. We are going to get rid of Paul Martin and the federal Liberals during this election. That is exactly what we are going to do about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: And, Mr. Speaker, if they had any ounce or shred of credibility, they would be out today either working for a Conservative candidate or an NDP candidate, to ensure that not one Liberal is send back to the House of Commons on June 28. That is what they would be doing.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, one has to ask the question: Why is it that members opposite, such as the Member for Bellevue, who was out cheering the campaign of the current MP, Liberal campaign, how is it that you can sit in the House one day demanding that we do something while you go out, in the real test, and continue to support that type of politician and that type of politics? That is what the people of the Province want to know from you, you, you, you, the whole lot of you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say, the imitation of the Premier by the Government House Leader is getting a little bit better. It is getting a little bit better. It is getting closer to what we would actually expect.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this - and I am glad he answered as he did, because we know that the Prime Minister of Canada is going to be in Newfoundland and Labrador tomorrow. My question is - I expect that our Premier is going to seek an opportunity to meet with him, because they have such a great relationship - is he going to ask for commitments in the offshore or, Mr. Speaker, is he going to say to the Prime Minister of Canada tomorrow, like the Government House Leader just said, that our intention is not to work with you but to get rid of you. Is that going to be the question and the answer tomorrow in their meeting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House eleven years. For six of those, I was the Leader of the Opposition's critic when he sat here. I always know when you get to him, because he starts to get personal. Always, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Just for history's sake, a little trip down memory lane, in the past he has called me the puppet leader, he has called me a viper, he has called me a babysitter, and now he is calling me an imitator.

I can tell you this, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, there is one act that we will not be imitating, and that is the act that they are perpetuating on the people of the Province by supporting candidates - Liberal candidates - in this election who will not stand up for this Province.

The one thing that we will not be doing, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and to all people of the Province, like those members are doing, is supporting policies and programs that keep people in Newfoundland and Labrador in a dependent state. We are after more independence for the people of the Province. That is what we are after. Why aren't you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So much for answers. Perhaps we will ask a question of someone else over there and we might get an answer instead of simply rhetoric. My question is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General responsible for the Public Utilities Board.

Last month this government, Minister, beat unions over the head and would not use the law concerning binding arbitration because you wanted to make decisions yourself. Yet, with the insurance law, we see your government refusing to deal with this issue. You are abrogating your responsibility and you are passing it off and foisting it off onto the Public Utilities Board - a board which was supposed to be an independent, quasi-judicial body that only regulates. It is the responsibility of government to make policy, and the responsibility of the board to regulate.

Why, Minister, is your government misusing, abusing and compromising the independence of the Public Utilities Board in asking them to make policy decisions regarding the auto insurance industry in this Province, rather than doing it yourselves and just trying to avoid an issue that you do not have an answer for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I have been out of the House for the past two weeks, I am not sure exactly what the hon. member is referring to but I will certainly take his question under advisement. I want to ensure him that I am sure that the Public Utilities Board will provide a major, independent, quasi-judicial role in dealing with the regulation of insurance in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I appreciate that you were absent, but certainly you stayed tuned enough, I suppose, to understand that the responsibility of the board is to regulate. You are the minister; you know that.

Another example is where this government got rid of the Petroleum Pricing Commissioner, are now going to have to change some law so that again they can foist it off unto the Public Utilities Board.

To you, as the minister, what do you think of this government who will not stand up and deal with the issues because they might be a bit hot and controversial, and they are foisting them off to a board which you are responsible for, which is supposed to be independent? You are supposed to make the decisions and handle the problems, not pass them off to somebody. What is your opinion on that, as a minister? Where do you stand on it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board has played a major role in regulating utility rates in this Province. It is a perfect place in which to look at regulating the automobile insurance, not only for automobile insurance but also for all types of insurance. We look forward to their analysis and we look forward to the role that they will play in helping regulate and control insurance rates in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite clear that the minister does not understand the difference between regulation and policy-making. Maybe if you get that difference straight, you could give the board some proper directions.

Minister, in line with your government's commitment to be open, transparent and accountable, would you, as the minister responsible, today, now, here, undertake to table in this House all letters, e-mails, directions, instructions, and any and all other correspondence of any kind in your department or from your government to the Public Utilities Board regarding the directions and the conduct of these public hearings into the auto industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board is there to protect the consumers in this Province and we will ensure that they have all the information they need to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Government Services and concerns the automobile insurance reform package.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is happy with what the government has proposed; not the industry, not the consumers, not the general public. Given the fact that the minister plans to have a major reference this fall to the Public Utilities Board, is she prepared to table in this House today, the Terms of Reference of the work that the Public Utilities Board is going to be expected to do, so we will know what exactly it is they are going to inquire into and whether or not they will give a real hearing and a real opportunity for a full study on public automobile insurance?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we have before the House now will give the authority of the PUB to have those hearings, and, in due course, the details will be released.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It appears that the minister has not thought about the Terms of Reference, but will they be asked to do what the New Brunswick all-party committee did in terms of looking at the start-up cost, looking at the operating cost, the trade implications, the types of coverage that might be available, the type of public automobile insurance system that they might recommend, all of the things that might need to be considered so that the people of this Province will have a full understanding of their full option of public automobile insurance? Is that going to happen, or has the minister even thought about that yet?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, in the hearings that are going to take place, all options of insurance are going to be looked at. The auto, the commercial, the marine and the residential are going to be looked at, and the public system as well. All information will be available for presentation, and the hon. member can do a presentation at that hearing with his public system. I am certainly going to compile all the data that is available. Particularly, this government has a mandate to mandate insurance.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if the minister thinks that she can do the kind of work that this committee did in New Brunswick by one submission to the board, she is out of touch with reality.

Mr. Speaker, at the rate that insurance companies are leaving this Province, shouldn't the minister have something done soon to have a public automobile system ready to go when the insurance companies abandon this Province because of her and her government's policies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this government does not want to lose any business from this Province, but the companies have a right to make a business decision. We have written these regulations and these reforms for the consumers of this Province. That is who we are concerned about.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period, I ask the minister why he was bringing in legislation which would force an auction system for shrimp upon fishermen and processors in the Province. The minister responded by saying that it was not forced; it was an option. I ask the minister: If this auction system is optional, why do we have legislation in the House to bring in an auction system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that is presently before the House, and hopefully will get passed before we conclude, whenever we conclude, is enabling legislation. It gives the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture the authority to institute an auction for the fishing industry in the Province. Without that authority we could not do it under the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

There are many aspects of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. There are many aspects related to union dues, grievance procedures and all those types of things that must be covered off, both in an auction and under the normal course of collective bargaining, if we are to go forward. Without the amendments that we have put forward and the enabling legislation, there will be no recourse, for example, for fish harvesters to grieve against processors if they did not get what they were offered under the auction, and there will be no recourse, for example, for their organization to collect union dues and so on. So, that is the reason that the legislation is before us today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in debating the bill later in the day, the minister said what he was legislating was a voluntary pilot project for the auctioning of shrimp. Nowhere in this legislation - and I challenge the minister - will you find the word, voluntary. Nowhere will you find the words, pilot project, or nowhere will you find the word, shrimp. In fact, this legislation gives the minister the authority to establish a mandatory auction system for all species of fish, including crab. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he confirm this to be true?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, under its current rendition, there is no reference to shrimp, crab, herring, or anything like that. It is referred to as fish. There is no requirement in the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act for a negotiation on mackerel, on herring, on cod, on crab, on shrimp or on any other species. However, the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act enables the minister, the industry and all its various components, to engage in that process. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, for an auction. What this auction does, what this legislation will do when it is passed, is enable an auction to be set up in any of those species. Yes, Mr. Speaker, but what I said in the House yesterday and what I have said consistently is that we are endeavouring - what we are trying to do is institute an auction in the shrimp fishery. At the present time - over the past couple of weeks we have engaged in a discussion on an optional auction for shrimp. That, Mr. Speaker, is what is going on right now. That is what we are attempting to do -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude by saying this to the member. Why is he so adamantly opposed to an auction? One day he is saying we cannot have plant production quotas because there is no competition, and the next day he is saying we cannot have an auction because there will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about an optional auction system, yet he refuses to put the word in the legislation. I asked him to do it yesterday. He refuses to put it in there. What he is suggesting is a mandatory auction system for all species.

I ask the minister a final question: Why is he here today, or why was he here yesterday, bringing in a bill, talking about an auction system for shrimp, when fishermen are out there fishing shrimp today and landing it to processors who are processing shrimp today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I will tell you why I am here today bringing in legislation to enable an auction to take place in the shrimp fishery, Mr. Speaker, because obviously the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for this Province must have slept through the past seven years.

Yes, today, Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry is prosecuting shrimp, yes they are fishing under a collective agreement, yes they are fishing under a negotiated price settlement, a price that was settled through negotiations. What happens on June 24, Mr. Speaker? Is it going to be the same as it was last year, with a substantial portion of the fleet tied up for six weeks? Is it going to be the same as it was the year before when it was closed down by processors for part of it?

What the auction will enable people to do, Mr. Speaker, is enable individuals to make individual decisions. It will reward people for quality, and it will reward people for landing in close proximity to plants. That is what we are attempting to do in the auction. In case he missed it, Mr. Speaker, while he was the Fisheries Minister, the shrimp fishery -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: - in Newfoundland and Labrador shut down on two or three occasions. What we are attempting to do is put a new regime in place that hopefully, Mr. Speaker, will prohibit that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a final supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member can get into his personal attacks all he wants. That is only a way to deflect away from himself, because he won't answer the question.

Simply put: Why are you forcing an auction system on fishermen and processors when neither want it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, you are not supposed to answer a question with a question, but nevertheless: Would he prefer that I impose plant production quotas, because the fishermen don't want that? Would he prefer that I impose Final Offer Selection binding arbitration which they refused to accept this spring? What is it that you are going to do in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador that people won't be opposed to?

We are trying, Mr. Speaker, to take a leadership position here, to change the process that is in place in our fishery, that has utterly failed under the previous administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Government Services.

Minister, your government's treatment of our seniors is simply deplorable. First, you try to claw back the pensions of public service pensioners, then you increase government user fees, particularly those for ambulances, driving tests and vehicle registrations, and now you have failed the seniors again in addressing the insurance reforms. Seniors pay substantially more for insurance coverage even though they may have driven their entire lives without an accident.

Minister, can you tell this House, and the seniors of our Province, why this administration has eliminated the age discrimination piece from Bill 30?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the age discount - the age has been eliminated from this bill right now. It will be in the full public hearing, but I would like to say that the seniors would have lost a discount that they presently have if we put that in. We are now going to go to a public hearing to see exactly what the people want us to do with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: There is an average savings to everyone with a policy, auto policy insurance here in this Province, an overall average of 15 per cent on their policies when these reforms come in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will advise the minister and inform her, when we get to debate on this issue, why she is absolutely misleading again, when she talks about the seniors losing under this discrimination clause. It is absolutely improper.

The Premier continues to tout the level of co-operation you have with other provinces in this country on a variety of issues. All four PC governments, for example, in Atlantic Canada, have put forth plans, including your own party, to implement a $2,500 cap on insurance. Yet, your government now have changed your position to go from a cap to a deductible. We also know, Minister, that as recently as this week in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, where a cap was used, that consumers are benefitting by as much as 30 per cent in the reductions on their public liability piece.

Why are you and your government offering the consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador a paltry 9 per cent on public liability when these other provinces next door could get and are getting 30 per cent? Are aren't we getting 30 per cent here in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the New Brunswick Province have put in a cap and have been experiencing problems and they have had a committee to look at it again. Their savings are anywhere between 12 per cent to 14 per cent.

This government was committed to having savings and bringing auto reforms for the consumers of this Province, and this is exactly what this legislation is doing. The consumers of this Province will have 15 per cent savings.

The one thing I would like to say to the Opposition is that they had a file for eight years and did not do anything with it. All they did was talk, no action. We have seven months in office and the people of this Province are going to see 15 per cent savings on their auto insurance, and they are going to see a lot more, Mr. Speaker, when we get through with our public hearings.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of this Province have seen in the last seven months what this government has done. You have slammed them every way that you possibly could. That is exactly what your Administration has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Minister, every province in Canada has devised a way to reduce claims, to achieve a reasonable level of savings for consumers. Some provinces have used public systems. Some provinces have chosen no-fault systems, and some have chosen caps. Why is the Newfoundland and Labrador Government the only Province in Canada, the only government, to reject the implementation of insurance reforms that cap or limit claims?

These systems have been proven to work, contrary to your comments about the New Brunswick experience, and put money back into the pockets of consumers. Why are you forcing this legislation down the throats of everybody in this Province - the consumers, industry, everybody - when nobody is in favour of it except for you and your party? Why?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Opposition Leader said, where did you get the deductible, last evening?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: Where we got the deductible, the select committee in 1998 recommended a $15,000 deductible. The Opposition Leader also said that the select committee was put in place to investigate a no-fault system on insurance, not because rates were increasing. This is not correct, Mr. Speaker. The select committee on no-fault insurance was put in place to address the significantly increased cost of automobile insurance, as stated in this book - a document which the Opposition Leader should have read the first line, what it exactly compiled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: It was put in place for the rates, because they went up 172 per cent, and this government is going to do something about that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

I rise in the House today to table the following reports: The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods for the fiscal year 2002-2003; the Newfoundland and Labrador Livestock Owners Compensation Board For The Fiscal Year Ended 31 March, 2003; the Newfoundland and Labrador Crop Insurance Agency For The Fiscal Year Ended 31 March, 2003; the former Department of Mines and Energy for the fiscal year 2002-2003; Report of Mining Leases, Mineral Leases, And Surface Leases Issued For The Period: April 1, 2003 - March 31, 2004.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit the 2002-2003 annual performance report for the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. This report addresses the department's activities and outcomes from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I am also advising hon. members that this report includes information on three external government corporations that reported to the minister in 2002-2003 namely: Newfoundland Hardwoods Limited, Newfoundland Oceans Enterprises Limited, and the EDGE Evaluation Board. The 2002-2003 Annual Report of the Business Investment Corporation, a fourth external corporation, was tabled in November, 2003.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my hon. colleague, Minister Burke, Responsible for the Status of Women, and in accordance with the government's commitment to accountability, I am pleased to hereby table the Annual Report for the Women's Policy Office for the fiscal year 2002-2003. The report documents the activity and the outcome of the Women's Policy Office from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, to table the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of reports?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to table the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the Department of Justice, and also to table the Annual Reports for the Legal Aid Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Public Utilities Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There has been some shouting across the floor between some hon. members. I ask members, if they wish to carry on these discussions, that they should do it outside the Chambers, not in here, and thus interfering with the presentations of the House. The Chair had difficulty hearing the Minister of Justice and Attorney General making his report a few moments ago.

Tabling of further reports? Notices of motion? Answers to questions for which notice has been given? Petitions?

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am standing again today, Mr. Speaker, to give a petition on behalf of the people of Grand Falls-Windsor in their plight to secure the consolidation of the two health care boards that are currently now in Grand Falls-Windsor and in Gander.

No matter how many times I get on my feet and give this same petition, I still get no answers from the government of the day. I have outlined the business plan of this proposal on several occasions. I have asked for the criteria from the Minister of Health and Community Services, what she will be laying out to both boards so they may, in fairness, provide and put forward their proposal to the Minister of Health and Community Services. I have gotten no answers and I have been able to tell her day after day that the Central West Health Care Board, which covers a distance between Baie Verte and Eastport - they are only one hour driving distance from the Central West Health Care Board from all of the constituents, clients or patients who might use that particular service.

We all know that the consolidation is for administrative people only. It is an administrative wing that will look after all of these facilities. They do not need to travel by air. Ninety-nine percent of their work is road based. The good part about it, I guess, is the fact that over 60 per cent of the current patients who are served by the two boards live in the area of Grand Falls-Windsor and are currently served by the Central West Health Care Board. They have had a fabulous record of being able to recruit and retain professional specialists in the Central West Health Care Board. Not only that, they have the best record for fiscal matters in this Province of any other board. The mere fact that the Central West Health Care Board are able to offer this accommodation, of combining two boards at no renovation cost to the government and no rental fee in the future, is an offer that they cannot refuse.

I do not understand why the Minister of Health and Community Services is not able to tell us here in this House or advise either of the boards what the criteria is, so that they will have an equal opportunity to put forward their business plan. As representing the people of Grand Falls-Buchans, we have been led down the garden path before on the consolidation of the school boards where no criteria was used. Everyone can clearly see that we should have been chosen. We had the most modern up-to-date facilities and we are in the middle of two districts but yet, for all that, the Minister of Education went out and chose a different board. He chose the board in Gander. So, these are the kinds of things that we are up against -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have Leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: We will give her leave, a few second to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: A few moments has been given.

MS THISTLE: Thank you for the generosity of the government to give me a couple of seconds to clue up.

I do implore and ask that the government would be fair in their deliberations and just offer the basics, and the basics is the criteria required so that the two boards will have fairness in bringing forward their proposal, that is all I ask.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the people in Labrador. Today the signatures come from the people of Labrador West and Wabush, in full support of an auditorium to be built in the Upper Lake Melville area.

Mr. Speaker, again, as I said in the days past, the Upper Lake Melville area needs an auditorium to service all of Labrador; every riding in Labrador. Most importantly of all, they need that so the children in Labrador can have access to a way of life that most other children across this Province take for granted.

Mr. Speaker, there is no auditorium available in Goose Bay. Again, these children who get together from the Coast of Labrador, the North Coast, the South Coast, from Labrador West who travel into Lake Melville, they do not have the opportunity to go to drama festivals and music festivals to show their talents and what they have to their peers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much talking across the House, again. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member. The hon. Member for Torngat Mountains has the floor, let's listen to his petition and the prayer that it contains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is, indeed, a very important issue for the people of Labrador. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Education, to the Minister of Transportation and Works, and the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, and to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs to listen to the Member for Lake Melville because I know that he has brought this issue to caucus and to Cabinet ministers time and time again.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government opposite, that because of the construction season in Labrador, if this auditorium is not started this year, not only do we stand to lose some of the federal money that has been allotted there, but the students all across Labrador will have to do without an auditorium for at least another year-and-a-half to two years.

Mr. Speaker, I say to every Cabinet minister across the way, what the children from Labrador, in particular, are asking for is what students in other parts of this Province take for granted. I urge government, the Minister of Education, to go back and revisit this serious situation and give to the people in Labrador what they rightfully deserve.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will sit down for today but I will be back again Monday with another petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the Public Service Pensioners in the Province. Mr. Speaker, these pensioners have been hard done by. They are senior citizens and they have asked us to present a petition on their behalf. They feel that this government has, in fact, led them down the garden path. They have suggested they were going to do things, when in fact members of the government side were telling them quietly: no, the government will not do that. We are just doing this but you can rest assured that you will not be treated in that manner.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Service Pensioners are questioning why a government would do that, why they would use them as pawns in the negotiations in the last strike. They are not happy with that because they really believe that they have made a significant contribution to this Province. I think we all recognize that seniors have in fact done so much to lead our Province to where we are today. They need to be recognized for that and treated with respect and the dignity that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at our Public Service Pensioners and how long they have gone without an increase in their pensions - in fact, the first increase they got since 1989 was in 2002. We all know what has happened in terms of the cost of living in that time frame. I think we all recognize as well that anyone who is put in the position, whether on a fixed income, must find it very difficult when you find other costs are escalating.

I know the seniors in my own district, the District of Grand Bank, need every penny that they can get their hands on. I know every year I have been hosting what we call a seniors' forum where they come together. It is an opportunity for them to not only network and have a bit of fun together and get to know other seniors from other parts of other districts, but it is also a chance for them to explore ways of finding better things to do for themselves and, as well, to express concerns that they have. Of course, every time we have this forum we invite people in to address issues impacting on seniors, whether it is health care, whether it is safety issues and so on. I can tell you that in talking one on one with those seniors, I know that for many of them it is a difficult, difficult time. Difficult to make ends meet in a lot of cases when you see the cost of utilities rising; when you see the cost of living overall going up. Of course, when you look at the fees now that this government has imposed, it is having an impact on the most vulnerable of our society and, of course, our seniors are listed among that group.

When you look at the increase in fees, for instance, to take an ambulance, and when you realize the cost of drugs and you realize that a lot of our seniors have health care problems and they need those drugs; they need access to a hospital. So in a lot of cases where they do not drive themselves, if they need to get to a hospital and it is a critical situation for them, they will have to call an ambulance to do that. Of course, the cost of an ambulance has gone up. Also the cost of a medical escort. If a doctor determines you are so sick that you need a medical escort to go with you in the ambulance, that has also gone up.

For those of our seniors who are still driving, of course, then it is an added cost that we are seeing today with just getting your driver's licence and registering your vehicle. Overall, the cost of living for seniors -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

MS FOOTE: Just some time to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, again, I present this petition on behalf of our Public Service Pensioners and ask the government to recognize how important it is to come to their aid and do whatever we can to try and alleviate the burdens that they face as they try to live day to day in our Province.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to present a petition. Before I do so, I want to take the opportunity to wish one of my colleagues in the House of Assembly a Happy Birthday. The Member for Cape St. Francis, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the one who passes out all the money for municipal infrastructure in the Province, I want to make sure that the hon. gentleman has a Happy Birthday indeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am sure the member knows that her comments to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs are really contrary to Section 92 of the Standing Orders. I cannot see that it is pertinent to the petition she is presenting, whatsoever, but I am sure we all agree with her compliments to the minister.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do apologize if that was somewhat out of the realm of what was allowable at this time under petitions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to present a very important petition on behalf of the people in my district. It is with regard to the Williams Harbour highway.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented petitions on a number of occasions in the House of Assembly with regard to the community of Williams Harbour. I say to the hon. Member for Lake Melville that I would appreciate his support in his lobby efforts inside the government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - to move forward this particular initiative. Maybe, if he wants to listen now, I can tell him why this is so important to the people of my district and to the people of Williams Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, this is a small, isolated community in Labrador. They are about eighteen kilometres from the Trans-Labrador Highway, a new piece of highway that was built under the Liberal government and just completed within the last year. Mr. Speaker, this community was under the understanding that they would, indeed, get a highway connection as well. The environmental assessment work has been completed., the routing of the highway has been completed, and there is absolutely no reason why this road cannot proceed. There is enough money in the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund to allow for the construction of this highway and to ensure that the people in the community of Williams Harbour will have a complete road access within the next twenty-four months.

Mr. Speaker, the people are very upset. They are very disappointed. Unfortunately, they do not have the privilege to come here and to protest on the steps of Confederation Building, like many other people in the Province have had to do over the recent months and years; but, Mr. Speaker, I am here to present their case and to speak on their behalf. They are not happy with the fact that government has chosen to spend money out of the Trans-Labrador Highway fund to put a marine service vessel in Lewisporte that the people did not want and did not see as a necessary expenditure. They do not agree with the fact that money out of this fund will be used to run the terminal facility at Lewisporte, and the onshore operations, and that their concerns are being left unaddressed.

Mr. Speaker, I have said to the minister once before -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to conclude my comments?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader has granted leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Government House Leader knows the importance and the magnitude of this issue, and I hope that he will encourage his Cabinet colleagues, the Minister of Labrador Affairs and the Minister of Transportation, to fund this important initiative, because it is important to the people of Williams Harbour. It is important, indeed, to the people of my district.

It will not cost the general revenues of the government one particular cent, because the money can be used to build this road out of the Labrador Transportation Fund. I say to the hon. people, come to this community and talk to the people there. You, too, will understand how important this is, and the reasons that it needs to be constructed. It can be done in very short order with just a commitment from the members on the opposite side.

Orders of the Day

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

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

First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are going to do Motion 1, first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 33)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, " carried. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 2, first reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 32)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, " carried. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 32 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Order 4. I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate clause-by-clause An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the said bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 26)

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 8.

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

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just rise to have a few words further to the debate that occurred yesterday on Bill 26. Mr. Chairman, I guess this bill fell certainly far short of what I was expecting when the amendments for the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act were being brought forward. I want an opportunity to explain a couple of these things because, in the commitments that were made by the minister on several occasions - I think the first occasion was in January, when he made the statement that he would bring in an auction system, and then later reneged on that in hopes of having some kind of collective agreement or collective decision-making process implemented between the processors and the fisherpeople in the Province. In the absence of that, the minister once again came out with an ultimatum that he would implement a shrimp auction.

Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding, as was the understanding of most people in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, that any particular initiative that the minister would impose within the industry would be directly related to shrimp - an auction system that would be directly related to shrimp and shrimp only - and that the system would be a pilot project to determine if an auctioning system could work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, we have all heard and been around, actually, auctioning systems that have been occurring in other parts of the world. It has been used in a lot of the European countries in terms of how fish gets sold or bought within those particular countries, but it is certainly a new concept, for all intents and purposes, to be introduced in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was my understanding that this would be done as a pilot project on shrimp to see if it could work and if it was a mechanism by which we could look at the sale of fish within the Province.

Mr. Chairman, the act, Bill 26, which is before the House at this time, does not indicate that. What Bill 26 does indicate is that this will be an auction system for fish, which means that it can apply to any fish species, whether it be crab, whether it be caplin, whether it be cod, whether it be lobster, turbot, urchin, whatever the case may be. It can apply to any particular species. According to this act, it can be implemented whenever the minister requires it to be done. It would be at the minister's call, at the minister's whim of whatever is going on within the industry in the Province. If he saw this as a mechanism that he could implement, he could go ahead and do it and it would not require consensus of the industry, just like this bill today is not requiring consensus of the industry. It would not require consultation with fisherpeople, or with processors or unions within the Province. Basically, it would require nothing more than a decision of the minister himself, or herself, to proceed. I have some problems with that. One of the problems I have is, first of all, the impression and the intent that was left within the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The impression that was left was quite clear, that this would be a pilot project, that it would be done on shrimp alone and that it would be optional. We do not see anything in the legislation that allows this to be an optional mechanism for the sale of fish. Mr. Chairman, that is a huge problem, and I am going to give you some examples because I have talked to a number of processors in the last couple of days. I have talked to a number of fisherpeople, actually as recently as this morning, with regard to this particular bill. This is what I am being told. Mr. Chairman, as we speak today the shrimp fishery is conducting itself under the existing collective agreement. There have been final prices negotiated for shrimp to be landed to certain areas or certain plants within the Province. Those agreements have been worked out between processors and fisherpeople.

Mr. Chairman, the situation is this, that process is in place. It is working right now, today. If we were to implement this bill and bring in a shrimp auction immediately, how will that impact upon the current arrangements that are already existing?

Now, I am sure the minister is prepared to get up and provide an explanation to me on that particular question, but it needs to be explained because those are the questions that I have been asked as recently as this morning. And that is: Right now, I have a current negotiated price with a plant to sell my shrimp at this amount landed in this location. How will this auction system impact upon that? Do I have an option to continue with the agreement that I have with the processor or do I not? According to this bill you would not, because nowhere in this bill does it allow you to have the option.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: No, it does not. Well, the minister can have his opportunity to explain, but nowhere in this bill does it allow you to have the option.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, if you have to go to an auction system on shrimp - say we are dealing with just shrimp and you have to go to an auction system, will there be protection for people who want to sell to certain processors? I am not convinced, Mr. Chairman, that is the case. Reading the legislation, studying it, reviewing it clause by clause, I have not seen a mechanism that would allow that to transpire. That concerns me, for a couple of reasons. One, because I have processors in my district which are actually companies that are owned by fishermen and, of course, they want to sell their product to their own company. They are the people who founded the company, built it up over the years, and they want to be able to sell to that company. There is no guarantee, as I see it in this bill, that will give them the option to sell to that company and not have to participate in an auctioning system process. So that has to be clarified.

The other thing that has to be clarified is the fact that it applies to the sale of fish. We cannot have a piece of legislation going through the House of Assembly that allows for an auction system to be implemented in all fish species at any time. I will tell you why. Because the people in the industry have to have the opportunity to have their views known as well. Mr. Chairman, that will not happen. If this bill is to pass that will not happen because an auction system could be implemented starting in May of next year for crab. It could be done arbitrarilly by the minister simply because this legislation would allow him to do that with no consultation with the industry, and that would be wrong.

We all know how volatile the fishing industry is right now. We know how volatile the crab fishery is, in particular. We know that there would be, if there was an auction system, probably the opportunity for a lot of small processors to lose out because they would not be able to bid the prices up, to compete for the product like larger plants can do and, therefore they would be left out and probably would see their entire business compromised because of it. So by doing that, by passing this legislation which will allow for this system to be implemented in all fish species, it will compromise a lot of the small processors that are out there. If you were to have crab, for example, they would not be able to compete with the larger companies. They would not have deep enough pockets to bid the prices up, to get the product, and therefore their entire business would be compromised.

The other problem I have with that system is that you have fishermen, some with 5,000 pounds of crab, some with 500,000 pounds, and that is a big difference, Mr. Chairman. When you are talking about offering your product up under an auction system - and I am talking about crab now, because this bill allows the minister to do this for crab as well as for shrimp. If you were to do that you would have very small enterprises which would become very vulnerable in that process because they would not be guaranteed to get the kind of prices that they would want for their product as a larger boat, or a boat with more crab and so on and so forth, and that would not be appropriate.

I think that before we pass a bill in this House which gives the minister the authority to implement an auction system on any fish species, we need to make sure there is consultation with the industry and that it is something that is wanted. Mr. Chairman, I can guarantee you today that the conversations I have had with fishermen, as late as this morning, and with processors in this Province, that this is not the preferred piece of legislation that they want to see. They were under the assumption that the minister would look at a pilot project for a shrimp auction which would be optional. I think that all of us might have been able to give that an opportunity to test the waters out there in the Province to see if it would actually work, but what the minister is coming in and asking for now is an open book policy. It is a policy that allows him to implement an auction sytsem on any fish species, at any time, and that is where the problem is, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will sit down now and come back to this in a little while.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I want to endeavour to answer a couple of questions. I thought I had answered them yesterday, but I will try again.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, this is, as I said in Question Period, as I said yesterday and I have said on a number of occasions, this is enabling legislation. It enables us to implement an auction. It can be a mandatory or an optional auction.

Mr. Chairman, I am endeavouring to answer the questions. Does the legislation speak to it being mandatory or optional? No, it does not. It does not say optional, neither does it say mandatory. What we have in front of us is not a piece of legislation that says that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will implement a mandatory auction for all species, which is what some of the members opposite are, in essence, suggesting that we are trying to do. What we are trying to do is implement an auction system in shrimp.

There is also, as I told members yesterday, some interest by some processors and some fishermen on the South Coast in having, in 3PS, an optional auction on cod for the fall fishery. Mr. Chairman, whether that can be brought together or not remains to be seen. That is where it is at.

What everybody, members of the public, fishermen, fish processors, and what have you, have to remember is that currently, under the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has a great deal of authority when it comes to conditions of license. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, as they both well know on that side, can implement today, I can today implement, plant production quotas in this fishery, just by signing a conditional license and mailing it out to every fish processor in this Province, telling them how much, as a conditional license, they are authorized to process. Have I done it? No. Did they do it? No. You can only go down some roads so far, and you have to have a certain amount of support and bring things along. Mr. Chairman, you have to have the authority to be able to do these things.

Mr. Chairman, I know earlier the year, when the crab fishery was tied up, when the shrimp fishery was tied up, members opposite were crying out, members in the industry were crying out: What is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture going to do about it? What is he going to do about it? Mr. Chairman, we are trying to do something about it. We are trying to give ourselves another tool, give the industry another tool, to set prices and allow the fishery to proceed. Mr. Chairman, that is all we can do. We cannot, Mr. Chairman - within the confines, for example, of the current legislation, there is nothing more that we can do other than appoint an arbitrator, appoint a conciliator, appoint a mediator, to act as a go-between for the various parties in the industry. That is all we can do. Either that, or impose plant production quotas, for example.

Mr. Chairman, we have said, and the industry is well aware of this, on all other species, what we have said is that, we will not be - and I said this earlier the year. I put it in a letter to the processors and the union, that we will not be imposing, implementing, or whatever you want to say, plant production quotas in any fishery this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: This year?

MR. TAYLOR: That is right, this year.

What we have said is, come the middle of September, and concluding by the end of October, we will facilitate a discussion on plant production quotas, fish auctions, whatever, any other idea that anybody has about how we might restructure this industry, and bring that to fruition, hopefully, by the end of the next season. That is what we are trying to do.

I will say this: The members opposite, in their discussions, in their assertions about crab, first of all what they certainly must recognize is that under the current system we have a minimum negotiated price. I know the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair raised the possibly of a person in an auction, a person who has a 5,000 pound quota - which there are probably none in the Province - but a person who theoretically had a 5,000 pound quota would not have the same bargaining power in an auction as a person with 500,000 pounds. That is absolutely false. As a matter of fact, the person - for the first time in history, probably - who has 5,000 pounds has exactly the same bargaining power as the person who has 500,000 pounds. The reason for that, is that the auction deals on a load basis, on a trip basis.

If we had a scenario like we have in the Province today where, at the beginning of the season, or prior to the season starting, the fish buyers and their respective agents are traipsing all over the Province - the fish processors and their agents are traipsing all over the Province - trying to secure deals with fishermen over and above the negotiated price, then, if you have 500,000 pounds verus 5,000 pounds, you have a great deal more of bargaining power.

Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do here, and I think what everybody must recognize, is that we have a collective bargaining process in this Province that is broken. It has been broken for a long time. Final Offer Selection has not worked for a number of years now. It worked for the first couple of years, and there have been significant problems with it ever since. We are trying to put another regime in place that will allow a fishery to continue without the interruptions that we have seen in the past. Can I guarantee that will be successful? No, I cannot; but, Mr. Chairman, to do nothing would be irresponsible on the part of us and irresponsible on the part of the people on the other side.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I appreciate their raising their concerns. I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I sat and listened, and I would appreciate if she would do the same; because, if she sat and listened, maybe they would hear the answers and maybe some of the questions they ask, they would not have to ask again.

Mr. Chairman, this is enabling legislation. It enables you to do things. What we have said, and what the industry is clear on, is what our stated intentions are.

That, Mr. Chairman, is where this thing lies. As for the question about - again, I will say it, because obviously, I do not know if they do not hear it or what, but clause 35.2 says, "The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture may establish an auction system for the sale of fish." - may. It does not say shall. It does not say will. It says, may. We, in the context of may establish, have said that we will establish an auction for shrimp. Under the current discussions that we have been having with the industry, it will be an optional auction.

The question that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asked - I hope she is paying attention so she will not ask me again - under an auction, whether it is an optional auction or a mandatory auction, it is still very much possible -

 

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I absolutely resent the comments by the minister. I was being addressed, Mr. Chairman, by the Speaker of the House of Assembly and I was, in no way, not listening to his comments or avoiding him in any way. In fact, I find this bill very serious. I am listening very intently, and I can guarantee the minister that I will study this bill and respond to it clause-by-clause as we go through this entire process, so he need not worry about my attention on Bill 26.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I, certainly did not suggest that the member was not paying attention. I said, I hope that she is paying attention so that she will not have to ask me the same question again, because a couple of the questions that she went over just now were asked yesterday by her and her colleague and I answered them then. I will endeavour to answer them again now, but I am not going to answer them many more times.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, the answer is the answer. I do not mind answering questions, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, as long as the answer is received. If you do not like the answer, well, that is good enough.

The answer, Mr. Chairman, when she asked whether a fisherperson who has a relationship, say, with the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, if they would be able to maintain that relationship under what is being proposed in the shrimp? The answer is absolutely, yes, because if we have an optional auction and there is a collective agreement, if we have a minimum negotiated price, fishermen can fish under that or they can fish under the auction. They make the choice. If they decide to fish under the negotiated price, they can go in and sell to the plant of their choice, the same as before, the same as what we have right not.

If we pass this thing today, for example, will this change what is happening right now in the industry? No. The present price schedule is in effect until June 23, and will remain in effect, to my knowledge, until June 23. It will remain in effect until we reach an agreement with the industry on the implementation of an auction, or some other event prevents us from carrying on. That is the status. Although, I will say this: If we did have a mandatory auction, there is absolutely no reason why individuals, say, on the Labrador Coast, who wanted to sell to the shrimp company's facility in Charlottetown, would not be able to do so.

Mr. Chairman, that plant is very much strategically located. Fishermen on the Labrador Coast, I would expect, would hail in only to the Charlottetown port when they hail in from at sea, saying what is their preferred port to land. If they said Charlottetown, well, I would think that there is nobody else in this Province who will be able to compete with the plant in Charlottetown for that product; because, first of all, there would be no transportation - and I will conclude with this - costs associated with moving the fish from the boat to the plant in Charlottetown but there would be a substantial cost associated with moving the fish from the wharf in Charlottetown to some other production facility in the Province. For that reason, I think that fishermen would still be able to maintain their relationship with the companies of their choice.

I will conclude right there and endeavour to answer other questions as they arise.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak to Bill 26 as well, because, as I said yesterday, even though it falls under the Department of Labour, it is probably the most important piece of fisheries legislation that I have seen here in the last nine years. It concerns an auction system. It started out to be a auction system for shrimp and, in questioning the minister yesterday in the House, he told me it was a voluntary or a pilot project, an optional pilot project on shrimp; but, if you have read the legislation carefully, as I have done and my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the members on this side of the floor, we realize that the words: optional, voluntary, pilot project, are not used. That gives me concern. The fact that the minister never mentioned the word optional until I questioned him yesterday leads me to believe- it worries me. To say it bluntly, Mr. Chairman, it worries me that there might be another motive here that we do not see, because if we had the straight answers up front, maybe we would not be here today.

I have some concerns about an auction system for shrimp and the other species of fish because, if we pass this piece of legislation today, the Minister of Fisheries for the Province can mandatorily - he can legislate or he can enact an auction system for any species of fish starting five minutes after we put this bill through the House today. That concerns me. It concerns me because I have talked to numerous processors, I have talked to numerous fishermen, and nobody seems to want it. Nobody seems to want an auction system.

I know the minister said, just then, that some processors and the harvesters on the South Coast of the Province want an auction system for cod. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, I would have no problem with the minister writing into a piece of legislation that there would be an auction system for cod on the South Coast. Like I said yesterday to him, we would agree to something like that, but it is obvious that he does not just want an auction system for cod. Yesterday, when I said it was an auction system for shrimp, well, I found out since then that it is an auction system for everything.

He talked yesterday about, he had visited European countries. I think he went a few years ago when he was working with the FFAW -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Okay, Mr. Chairman. I think you said it worked elsewhere in the world. An auction system worked elsewhere in the world. I do not know why he is so touchy. This is what leads me to be somewhat leery of the bill. He went somewhere out of Canada, to visit countries where auction systems were in place. Probably it was Iceland. Maybe he does not consider Iceland to be part of Europe, and maybe it is not, but he said he went to other places and saw an auction system in place and it worked quite well. Maybe it did work quite well, but I will tell you one of the reasons why it would not work quite well in Newfoundland, like it would in other places around the world, is because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Maybe in Iceland the system is open, but the problem here in Newfoundland and Labrador is the system is not open. The Member for Kilbride might want to learn something here. The reason that it is not open in Newfoundland and Labrador is became the minister, who sits right across from me here, has the ability to issue processing licences, just like all preceding ministers had. They had the ability to issue processing licences, but we do not issue processing licences to everybody. There are only a select few individuals in companies in this Province who own processing licences. I think that an auction system would work best if anybody could buy the product that the fishermen is going to sell, but when you have a very limited number of people involved in a particular fishery, the processing of a particular fishery, there could problems. I will give you an example.

Two years ago - I think it was two years ago - the Minister of Fisheries, when he was the Fisheries critic, and you, Mr. Chair, the Member for Bonavista South, and the Premier sat in front of cameras and you indicated, you insinuated, that there was a cartel in the fishing industry in this Province and that these processors were colluding to fix their price for crab. As a result of that - and I think you got the information that you needed to take it to the Competition Bureau. I think you might have gotten that from the Member for Bonavista North, at least that is the word in the industry out there. Anyway, you had information in your possession that led you to believe there was a cartel in the fishing industry and, as a result, you were going to the Competition Bureau of Canada to have these processors investigated. That was a very serious allegation. The Competition Bureau, as far as I know - and maybe the minister might not like me after because he was the one who called them in here. I do not know if they reported back.

If you have a group of processors out there like the minister, like the Premier of the Province and some of his caucus feel there is, who are trying to limit competition - well, if you have an auction system, let me tell you what is going to happen. If indeed this is true, what the Premier believes, that there is a cartel in the fishing industry, well, obviously, when a fisherman leaves the wharf, goes out and catches his load of shrimp, if these people are colluding to do a number on the fisherman, well these harvesters, these processors will also collude to drive the price of shrimp down to that fisherman when he comes in. If it is true what the Premier insinuates and says is true about these processors, what they will do is they will sit in a room and say: George is out there now, he has 30,000 pounds of shrimp on and he is heading to the wharf. He is going to hail in and he is going to ask us how much we want for his shrimp. Well, let's no one bid over twenty cents a pound for his shrimp. Under this thing, he will have to sell it.

I asked the minister the other night in Estimates: Would a fisherman have to sell to the highest bidder even if he did not want to sell it to him? The answer was: Yes, you have to sell to the highest bidder. If there is a cartel in the fishing industry, I would see - as the Premier insinuates - that you are going to see the price of shrimp go down rather than up.

I have another problem with it. I represent a district with two shrimp plants, one in Twillingate and one in Seldom. The one in Seldom is owned by a co-operative. It is called the Fogo Island Co-operative. It is owned and operated by the plant workers and more importantly, for the debate here today, the fisherman of Fogo Island. They own the facility. They own the shrimp plant. They also own the crab plant out there. They also own the groundfish plant. Now, under the minister's system, if he were to say tomorrow - if we pass this piece of legislation and the minister says tomorrow: I am enacting a shrimp auction. You have to obey by the rules. You cannot strike. You have to fish. The processor has to buy it because it says right in the legislation that you have to do it.

So, if an individual fisherman, like Glen Best from Fogo Island, sails tomorrow to harvest shrimp and on his way in from the fishing grounds with a load of shrimp onboard the auction system starts, if he is offered fifty cents a pound by the Fogo Island Co-operative and the plant in Twillingate offers fifty cents plus one one-thousandth of another cent, he has to sell his shrimp to the fish plant in Twillingate even though the individual I am talking about is the Chairman, the President of the Fogo Island Co-operative. He does not want to sell his shrimp in Twillingate. He wants to sell it to the company that he is the president of, that he is a member of, that his family also works for. His relatives work at the plant. His neighbours in the community work at the plant, and for reasons other than that one one-thousandth of a cent, he would rather sell his shrimp to the Fogo Island Co-operative. Well, under this piece of legislation the gentleman would not be allowed to do it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is right. I will not be voting for this bill as it is written here today. I tell the minister - I had a discussion with him outside the House yesterday - I will work with him to try and amend this bill so that it is acceptable to me, acceptable to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, it is acceptable to everybody and, more importantly, that it is acceptable to the fishermen and the plant owners in my district, and the plant owners and the fishermen in this Province.

Yesterday when I questioned him about being mandatory, he said: No, it is not. Here is what he said it is: It is an optional pilot project for shrimp. That sounds fine and dandy, a pilot project. An optional pilot project for shrimp, but what if you really read the bill, as I have done? It is not very long, Mr. Chairman, the amendment to the bill. It is actually one, two, three pages. I challenge the minister to read it, I challenge the Member from Goose Bay to read it, I challenge all the members opposite to read it, and tell me anywhere in these three pages where you see the words optional pilot project for shrimp. You don't see the word optional in these three pages, you don't see the word voluntary in these three pages, and, more importantly, you don't see the word shrimp. What you see is, this legislation will allow the minister to bring in an auction system for fish. Under this very act the definition of fish is all species except for cured fish. The original bill was probably written in the day when there was just salt fish, that is all we were selling here, salt cod.

What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that none of this is what the minister is saying, which leads me to believe: Why is he trying to mislead me, mislead the House, in saying that it is optional? I notice that the Health Minister and the Member who happens to be from Topsail and the Member from Deer Lake are over there grinning and laughing at me, and making fun at me, but I don't blame them because I don't say there is a fisherman or a plant worker in their districts, so this is of no interest to them. I suggest you go elsewhere and have your little laugh.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

There is far too much shouting and bantering back and forth across the House.

MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I don't mind the member opposite disagreeing with what we are trying to do here, that is his democratic right, obviously, Mr. Chairman, but when he suggests that I am trying to mislead him or trying to mislead anybody in this House, I think it has been determined that that is unparliamentary language, and I would ask the member to withdraw it, because I am certainly not trying to mislead anybody. I have clearly been on the record about this since January, about what I am trying to do. I am trying to work with the industry and I will try to work with anybody to try to improve on this industry. I am not trying to mislead anybody in this, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The Chair certainly didn't hear the remarks, because he was into a conversation with the Clerk at the Table. If the minister feels strongly about that, then the Chair can review the tapes and rule on it at a later date.

I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, that his time has expired.

MR. REID: Can I just speak to that point of order, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the minister is so testy, but I don't think that I said deliberately misled. I know I said misled, but I don't think that the word misled is unparliamentary. If I have offended you, I will withdraw the remark anyway.

Thank you.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make a few more comments. I appreciate the minister standing in the House and providing the explanations, as he has. One of those was with regard to the system being an optional system. I raise it, Mr. Chairman, only because the minister, himself, has raised it and has said to people in the fishing industry that this will be an optional system. My problem with this is that nowhere in the bill does it indicate that. Of course, he says nowhere in the bill does it indicate that it is mandatory, and he is indeed correct. It does not say in the bill that it is mandatory either, but what it does, it leaves the impression and it leaves one to interpret the legislation to believe that it is an optional system. You have to be very clear because I have seen it done many times, and yesterday was a good example.

Yesterday, when the act for the professional fish harvesters was amended in the House of Assembly, it was done so because there were loopholes left in the legislation that allowed for a court challenge, and therefore the regulations had to be tightened up to fill those gaps to fulfill the original intent of which the legislation was designed.

All we are saying is that, again, we are dealing with a situation where the minister, his intentions, I believe to be good, and I believe his intentions to be just as he conveyed them, but the legislation does not reflect what the minister's arguments are. This is where we have the problem; because, if the legislation is not going to guarantee that this is an optional system and that it is going to be done in shrimp alone, we cannot support it. At the present time, the industry is not prepared to accept legislation that will be a blanket policy that allows an auction system to apply to all species, and this is where we have a difference of opinion.

I say to the hon. minister that if the legislation reflected what his intentions are, and reflected the arguments that he made publicly - and that is, that this would be a pilot project, that it would be an optional system and that it would be done on shrimp alone - then, Mr. Chairman, I tell the minister that I would be one of the first people in the House to support the legislation simply because I, too, believe that we have to look at other mechanisms and other options. But I am not prepared to write a blanket policy for this minister or any other minister to go out there and restructure the way that fish pricing and collective bargaining is done in the Province, at the whim of anyone within the future. I am not prepared to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you this: The other thing about this legislation, and I think it is an important point and it needs to be noted, is that there have been amendments made to section 35.4 of the legislation, which is the section that talks about lockouts. One of the things that I experienced last year when I was sitting in the department, is that there was a disagreement out there in the industry between processors in which they had a bidding war on prices. One was competing with the other one to the point that the prices escalated, bonuses were being negotiated with fishermen as side deals and so on. As a result of it, the price being paid for product escalated to where it was no longer profitable for the processor to continue. What happened, Mr. Chairman, because of that dispute, the plants were locked up, the plant workers were left without work, and government was left with almost no mechanism to deal with that situation.

I say that because the only mechanism available was to withdraw processing licences, at which time the processor could go out and issue a court challenge. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, what the verdict would be, but having been in the position, my guess was that probably within forty-eight or seventy-two hours they could have had it reinstated again. Really, you were left almost powerless to deal with this kind of a situation. What really needs to happen is, there needs to be penalties brought in under this section so that, when the act is defied, there is a mechanism for the minister and for the government to deal with it.

I was really disappointed when I saw that the minister did not do that, because it certainly would have been my intention, and I certainly would have seen that it was brought into legislation; because right now, today, in this Province, if that very exact same situation were to happen, there is still no mechanism to deal with it. I can tell you, from having been in government, there is no government that wants to go out there and withdraw a licence in a plant and put 200 or 300 people out of work as a means of punishing a processor. No government wants to do that, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, your hands are tied.

My advice to the minister would have been for him to bring in, under this section, revisions to add penalties to those who defy the consistent legislation so that when you have a situation where processors are going to lock plant workers out, or they are not going to process product, or they are going to tell fishermen to tie up, we are not going to bait and ice you because we are going to shut down for a couple of weeks in protest, then there is a mechanism to deal with it. Right now, that does not exist.

I think that the minister should have done that because he has not addressed that particular situation within this legislation at all, and he has not made any appropriate amendments to deal with it. I think there should have been a penalty process implemented as part of this. because I can honestly tell you that it is much easier and it is a much more effective means of dealing with that kind of a situation as opposed to withdrawing a licence, or as opposed to closing down a plant and sending all of the workers home and tying boats up.

That is the unfortunate thing, because right now, Mr. Chairman, any one sector in the fishing industry can close down this industry in a matter of hours' notice. Fishermen can refuse to sell and there would be no production in plants. Plant workers can choose to walk out and there would be no one to process the fish. Processors can choose to lock the door and therefore there will be no production.

Any one group in this industry can close down the entire fishery for any particular reason and there is no penalty and there is no means by which government can deal with it, the minister can deal with it, or anyone else. Mr. Chairman, that has been one of the long, consistent problems that we have seen in the Province. Maybe the minister should have considered that in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this will have impacts. This legislation will have impacts, and it is much more than a pilot project. In my opinion, it is leaving the entire industry wide open. It is leaving it very vulnerable to a new mechanism of bargaining fish prices, and one that I do not see as being all that favourable in the Province today. I would have to ask the minister: What was the depth and breadth of his consultations with the industry? Does he have the full support of the Fishermen's Union? I have not heard them in the media, Mr. Chairman, taking a position strongly one way or the other. I would like to ask him that. I would like to ask him what the fishermen and fisherwomen in the Province are saying with regard to this legislation. I would like to ask him what the processors are saying, and if they are acceptable to the fact that there is an open, blanket policy that could change the mechanism for setting prices for fish in this Province at the whim of a minister. My guess is, that would not be well-received. Not well-received at all.

I think that most people in this Province would have been more inclined to work with the minister, to try and look at this as an option for shrimp on a pilot basis, to see if it could work this year or if it would not work this year. Mr. Chairman, that is definitely not the case. It is unfortunate. It really is unfortunate, because I think that this legislation that the minister brought in goes well outside the realm of what he conveyed to the fishing industry. That is the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that enough, because you cannot be going out and saying to the industry that we are going to do a pilot, and we are going to see if a shrimp auction will work, and we are going to see if it is a process which we can use, and then walk into the House of Assembly and put a bill on the table that does not say that it is optional, does not say that it is a pilot project, but indeed says that it could apply to any fish species in the Province, at the whim of the minister. Mr. Chairman, that is the reason that I have so much trouble with this legislation.

The other reason I have so much trouble with this legislation, Mr. Chairman, is because it does not address the current situations that we have seen in the Province, in the industry: situations where we have had processors who have been able to lock workers out, and no mechanism for the minister to deal with that situation under current legislation because the legislation, as he knows and I know, is very old and needs significant amendments, and that he had the opportunity here to bring in amendments that would have allowed for him to have some control and some mechanism by which to deal with those types of situations. He is lax in that and he has not done that. He has not lived up to meeting that particular demand and that particular problem which exists out there in the industry right now.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will have some more comments later.

CHAIR: The hon the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a couple of comments here, particularly related to the member's closing commentary, talking about how we could or should amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, or bring in some legislation to impose penalties on - I don't know. I gather from what she is saying - on anybody who decides not to fish or process fish, thereby shutting down the industry.

Mr. Chairman, as she should know - we all, I think, need to recognize that you cannot force people to - you can deal with a collective situation by prohibiting strikes or prohibiting lockouts in the context of a certain arrangement, but you cannot - I do not believe you can or should - impose on individuals -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Well, if they do it - I guess I tend to agree with you, but a collective action can then be dealt with in the context of - it becomes a legal matter in a court issue then, as I understand it, which happened last year in the middle of the crab shutdown. There was a court injunction sought by the FFAW. In the context of the shrimp dispute earlier this year, there was a court injunction. The proceedings were about to begin or began or whatever, seeking an injunction there also. So that is how you deal with it in a collectivity, but on an individual basis, I say to the member, that it is very difficult to - fish harvesters and fish processors have to have the ability and the right to make their own decisions as an individual, whether they can fish or process profitably. If they determine that they cannot do that, then obviously they have to have the latitude to be able to tie on their boat or shut down their plant.

A collective issue is separate. I understand where the member is coming from, and I think we grappled with that situation the same as I suspect they grappled with that situation when they were on this side of the House. There is no easy answer to that. You can impose all the penalties that you like, but you can't force people to fish and people to process when they believe they are going to lose money. That is all I can say to that, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I am not going to go into this in any great detail here now. I am not going to take the full ten minutes that I am allowed, but I will read again for members Mr. Vardy's comments of 1997-98, his recommendation, "The Task Force recommends that planning and consultation begin as soon as possible to undertake an auction based upon the following considerations: The auction pilot to begin in 1999 or in 1998, if at all possible; The initial focus to be cod in areas 3Ps and 4R 3Pn." Obviously, there wasn't the problems associated with the shrimp fishery back then that we have today so nobody would have thought about that. "The auction to be conducted electronically, using a hail at sea system;" - which is what we are proposing - "Proposals to be called for an independent company to operate the system..." - and that, Mr. Chairman, is what we have done. "Appropriate legislative changes should be made to exempt the pilot auction from the provisions of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, while ensuring the proper deduction and remission of Union dues by the auction house." - and that is exactly what we are about here today.

I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, this is what Mr. Vardy said in 1997-98. "Appropriate legislative changes should be made to exempt the pilot auction from the provisions of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, while ensuring the proper deduction and remission of Union dues by the auction house; and Expansion of the pilot project to other species could begin as soon as feasible."

That is exactly what we are endeavouring to do here, something that was recommended by a group that they had commissioned back in 1997-98. They did not act on it. It was not dealt with for a whole variety of reasons. You know, there is lots of fault to go around but we are acting on it. You can never make a substantial change, as we are trying to do here today, in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador without a significant amount of opposition. People fear change. They do not know what they fear about the change, necessarily.

I hear people talking about: Will they be able to get ice and bags? Well, of course, they will be able to get ice and bags. That is an operational detail that we have already discussed in the context of the implementation of an auction. We, as Legislators - the people in the fishing industry are big boys and big girls. They own multi-million dollar operations. The fishermen own million dollar boats, $1.5 million, $2 million boats. The plant operators own $10 million, $12 million and $15 million plants. Now, certainly to God, Mr. Chairman, we do not need, in this House, to be discussing how we are going to get ice and bags aboard fishing boats in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We do need to discuss broad policy issues, like we are endeavouring to do here today in the form of an auction in our fishery, something that has worked tremendously well in other jurisdictions in this world. But, for some reason, members in our industry and in this House are throwing up the boogeyman and suggesting that we not go down this road. I can only say, if they can show me, as I have said to the industry, another road to go down that makes sense, that is going to set prices for fish in this Province, that is going to enable us to have an orderly fishery, that is going to enable us to have fishermen and fisherwomen on the water at the appropriate times of the year and successfully compensate them for quality, for landing at the appropriate times and the appropriate places, those types of things, and will allow our fish processing sector to have a consistency of supply that will allow them to put forward the highest, the most premium quality product that they can to the market on a regular basis, then show it to me and I will tear up the bill that we are proposing here today and I will never bring up the word auction ever again.

Mr.Chairman, when I said that, as I said to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo yesterday, you do not want plant production quotas, you do not want an auction. Okay, good enough. That is fine. I can accept that. I do not have a problem with it. Tell me what you want. Tell me what you want, Mr. Industry. Tell me what you want. I am more than willing to entertain the suggestion and more than willing to work with the industry to do it.

Mr. Chairman, it is not lost, I do not think, on a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Minister of Labour, or the government in general, or the Opposition members, for that matter, in their capacity as MHAs, should not have to spend the amount of time that they do trying to sort out the problems that fish harvesters and fish processors, both who are private sector businesses, employees and employers, sorting out their problems for them. Mr. Chairman, that, I do not think, is lost on very many people. But, nevertheless, we are endeavouring to help them with that.

Mr. Chairman, there comes a certain amount of responsibility associated with a privilege to process fish and harvest fish in this Province. There comes a certain amount of responsibility with being the government and the Opposition in this Province. Mr. Chairman, if we all took our responsibilities a little more seriously, our responsibilities to the greater community, maybe these problems could be fixed; maybe we would not have people throwing up the bogeyman. I am not suggesting that members opposite are. They are raising some legitimate questions. I am endeavouring to answer those legitimate questions, but there are people out in the industry who are throwing up bogeymen - for lack of a better terminology - to scare people off what has worked very successfully in other jurisdictions in this world and what has the potential of working very successfully here in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to speak for a few minutes on this bill. I did speak yesterday and talked about the nature of the fishing industry and the balance between the fishermen, fish harvesters and fish merchants, I guess, historically, but now we call them fish processors. They play the same role. They have the same amount of power. In fact, in some cases they have more power now than they did years ago over people. They seem to work together. At least the government thinks they do, and a lot of people think they do. In fact, this government, when they were in Opposition, went to the Combines Investigation Act and sent a letter to Ottawa asking for an investigation about collusion between the fish plant operators in the Province, and that investigation is going on. I do not know if anybody has heard from them in two years, but there is supposedly an investigation going on.

There is a concern, and a serious concern, as to what happens in the fishing industry because of that relationship that is there. We do have another player, and a significant player, that has been operating in the fishing industry for the past thirty years, since this Province, the first one in the country to give, and probably still the only one to give, the right to fishermen and fisherwomen - fishers is now the common term - to give fishers and fish harvesters the right to bargain collectively and to organize by geographical certification.

We have a very strong representative organization representing the interests of fish harvesters, plant workers, trawlermen, and that union has operated with a great deal of power, with a great deal of democratization. They were the ones who promoted the professionalization of the fish harvesters, which we have another piece of legislation before the House now concerning. They have a very strong role to play. As I said yesterday, there is an interest - there is an interest - in a pilot project. There is an interest in experimentation, to see if this works. Everybody is very cautious. I know the minister said that people are resistant to change. Well, there is a reason, Mr. Chairman, that they are resistant to change, because they are concerned about what it might do to their livelihood. There is that concern, and it is a very real one.

The Member for Fogo & Twillingate, and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, brought up some of the concerns that individual fish harvesters have. It may be that it could affect, negatively, smaller operations; maybe not in the shrimp, but maybe in other species. If the minister takes this power that he is being asked, and goes nuts with it, and decides that he is going to go around with this big stick that he talked about yesterday, and try to push his weight around, then there may well be very big problems. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that if there are those kinds of problems then there is going to be significant revolt - significant revolt - not only from those small processors, small fish harvesters that the Member for Fogo & Twillingate is talking about, or the Fogo Island Co-op. There is going to be a revolt from them, and there is going to be a revolt from the Fishermen's Union.

Mr. Chairman, the Fishermen's Union may have dissension; they may have not perfect agreement on everything. In fact, we have some disruption on the West Coast in the last few days. Not everybody agrees, but I do not think anybody in this House can say that the Fishermen's Union have not gone to bat for the fishermen and fisherwomen and plant workers in this Province for the last thirty years. They have a track record. There is a real sense of caution being expressed about this type of legislation and also about giving the minister too much power.

You know, in addition to the shrimp, there is a suggestion by some elements, on a voluntary basis, on a let's see if - maybe it can also work in 3PS cod. Some processors and some fish harvesters are interested, and maybe that should work on a trial basis as well.

We do have an interest in giving the minister some power to do this, and I know the argument has been made for just make it voluntary and just make it shrimp. It reduces the flexibility, of course, and it would not allow the cod experiment that some people have been talking about, but remember what we did a few years ago, Mr. Chairman, when we talked about the Final Offer Selection. That was brought in, and I believe there was a sunset clause on it. Maybe the former Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, would enlighten us on that because he was there getting the direct advice from the bureaucrats who had been following this thing. I believe it was under his watch that we brought in the legislation that removed the sunset clause. The legislation was set for two years, was due to expire, and people decided, and it was decided then by this House, that the Final Offer Selection seemed to be working and it was then brought in as a permanent feature to try and solve the crab issue. So, we had a sunset clause.

Maybe that is a solution. Maybe if we are saying, and the minister is saying, well, it is a pilot project, trial basis, and all of this, the kind of caution that people are coming up with, maybe if the minister is given this kind of power and something happens where every time some dispute comes up or something cannot be resolved, we all go to the auction system. Maybe that is not what we want to see happen. We should not have, perhaps, to come back to this House and say we want a change in this legislation from this side. Maybe if there is a sunset clause, maybe if we put a time limit of one year or a two-year limit on the legislation.

I have not drafted an amendment yet, but I gather this debate is going to be going on for some time. Maybe let' have a look at the legislation that was brought in when the Final Offer Selection system was being tried out by the industry.

The fishing industry has been operating for 400 or 500 years in this Province, and various methods have been tried over the years to try and make sure that the relationship between fishermen, fisherwomen and fishing families and the merchants - various methods have been tried to make it fair. Lot of methods have been in place to make it unfair, but as democracy progressed in this Province, as we did have thirty years ago the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, that was the legislation that turned the balance, I submit, Mr. Chairman. All of a sudden, the fishermen and plant workers and the fishing families in this Province had a chance to bargain collectively and refuse to sell their fish.

Under the law, without the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act - this is a bit of a legal lesson, I suppose, for some people - without the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, if a group of fishermen refuse to sell their fish, that is illegal. It is called a conspiracy in restraint of trade, to collectively refuse to carry on a trade and a business, and what has happened in the past, historically, is that people were sent to jail for that. We have the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act which protects people and will continue to protect people, if we do it right.

If this is a system that is being proposed that might work to better achieve that balance, then I am in favour of it, Mr. Chairman, and if there is a need for flexibility, then perhaps we should let the minister have some flexibility. But, if the concerns that are being raised by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair are legitimate - and I am not suggesting for one minute that they are just fearmongering here. I think the concerns are legitimate, but whether they would come to fruition or not, I don't know. The concerns are legitimate. Perhaps a reasonable alternative would be to put a time limitation on the power of the minister under this act, and if the minister and the department, in operating this, if it proves to be effective and acceptable, not open to abuse, then the same thing that happened to the Final Offer Selection legislation in this Province, perhaps that legislation could be brought in, in one year or two years, or whatever time frame is determined to be the reasonable way to go. That may be a solution that could satisfy, at least satisfy, the members of the Liberal caucus who have raised these concerns, so that if there are issues that arise over the next year, over the next year and a half, while the minister is conducting his pilot project or his trial in shrimp or in cod, if that turns out to be an option, then the minister would have to come back to this House and seek an extension of that power or seek to remove the limitation on it at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: I am talking about this particular legislation here, the power to have an auction at the minister's option. We have the Final Offer Selection under the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, and there was a sunset clause there - it was in force for two years - to allow for a trial basis. Then the government of the day, the Liberal government of the day, came back to the House and said, we think this is working, we would like to make it a permanent feature of collective bargaining in the fishing industry for crab, and the House agreed with it, because the system had worked, it had allowed the crab season to open -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Sure. The Government House Leader has a question to ask.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. Government House Leader, the Chair would like to welcome students from St. Mark's School in Kings Cove, Grades 4, 5 and 6, to the gallery of the House of Assembly today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: A special welcome, as well, to their teacher chaperons, Mr. John Adams, Ms Alice Lewis, Ms Yvonne Pevie, and bus driver, Mr. Wells. Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I was just out to a meeting, so I just want to be clear on the issue. Are you recommending that we put a sunset clause in place, a two-year sunset clause? Is that the recommendation, so that would provide, I guess, another opportunity that, if it did work, or if wanted to put it in perpetuity, it would provide some comfort or relief from the point of view? Is that the suggestion you are making?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, that is a suggestion. A number of members on this side of the House - I raised it yesterday, too - raised concerns about the fact the powers being granted to the minister were very broad. All species, as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was questioning in Question Period today, mandatory or optional, it was not specific enough to satisfy the concerns being raised by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

I raised the concerns yesterday about: Are we going to upset the balance here or is something going to be unfair? If we had a sunset clause like there was when we government brought in the amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, to allow for Final Offer Selection in the crab industry; there was a two-year - I believe it was two years; I would have to check and see - sunset clause. What it would do is, it would force the government to come back to the House. So, if there were problems, you would be required to come back to the House. There would have to be a debate. If a fisherman from Tizzard Cove has a problem because of something that happened in the auction system, it can be brought forward. If it somehow or other disrupted the balance between fishermen and fish harvesters and plant workers then we could debate it and they would not get that consent.

I remember when the government of the day had to come back to the House -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman, just for a couple of minutes?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: I recall when the Minister of Fisheries came back to the House on the crab issue, on the Final Offer Selection, there was a universal acceptance that yes, the system had worked and we were satisfied. There was very little debate on it. I think there were one or two speeches. We said yes, the system has worked and we are prepared to make it a permanent feature of the collecting bargaining regime in the fishing industry, because it had managed to get the crab season open when people wanted it open and you did not have that problem.

Now the Minister of Fisheries is genuinely coming to the House looking to solve this problem, what happens on June 24 when the market is going to go soft and the quality issues come alive. Is there going to be an option or an opportunity to fish? If it can work, then we should try it. If it does not work, and if the fears raised by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo or the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and me, yesterday, if they come to fruition, then he is not going to get any permission to continue those powers or to carry on those powers down the road.

That is just a suggestion that I have, because I know there are significant, serious and legitimate concerns being raised by people over here. Maybe if we went that way, everybody could be happy.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I was listening to the debate earlier and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo said, the Member for Kilbride, if he sits down and listens, may learn something. I do not know why he attacked me like that today.

I can only say that any time a legitimate and bona fide suggestion is made, for example, like the one you made, that we would put in a sunset clause, two years, I think - I spoke with the minister, and he will speak to this in a moment - that requires, that has, as part of the legislation that would eventually pass through the process, the bill stage, through here, that would require that this issue - it is a new concept, obviously, and it is new for a good reason. Other systems have not worked with respect to collective bargaining in the fishery. I think we all need to acknowledge that first and foremost, and understand what the minister is attempting to do, and hopefully will be able to do, is something that is new and innovative and will provide some certainty to the industry that will allow an industry to not see the types of incidents and situations that have developed over the past. That is where we are headed and, under the leadership of the minister, that is where this is going.

With respect to the sunset clause, we notionally do not have any general trouble with that requirement. The minister will explain in more detail why the requirement for two years, and I will leave that to him, but notionally we can have a look at that. I do not see that being a problem, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. If it is seen as strengthening the piece of legislation. I think that is what we are all after.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the Government House Leader has suggested, a sunset clause is not something that would be problematic from my perspective. The biggest thing from our perspective is, first of all, if we were to entertain a sunset clause, we would have to have two seasons to be able to try this. As you can appreciate, number one, there is significant capital cost associated with bringing this thing up to speed. I do not know what the exact figure is, but we estimate that it would probably be somewhere in the $150,000 range for software, computers, office set-ups and what have you. Theoretically, that could be recovered in one year, if we had 90 million or 100 million pounds of shrimp run through the auction; but, with an optional auction, it is highly unlikely that we would get those kinds of volumes going through. If we had a mandatory auction, and things went relatively smoothly, I think it is reasonable to expect that we might go close to achieving that target. In any event, a two-year auction for the recovery of the cost associated with set-up would be reasonable.

Secondly, it is very difficult to prove anything in one year. You know, there will be hiccups associated with it this year that we will have learned from and we will be able to incorporate into our plan for next year, or work around in our plan next year, I should say, so two years would be essential as far as I am concerned. That is not a problem.

I know the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has some suggestions on making this more restrictive. I have no problem in restricting it in time, but the other restrictions, I think, would be problematic. If we restricted ourselves to implementing an optional auction on shrimp, well, first of all, we already know there is some interest in cod. Who knows what other kind of interests might come up in the next twelve months on other species? We would like to be able to have the flexibility to work with the industry to develop this, and the more volume that we get going through the auction, obviously, the greater chances of this thing succeeding. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo has some fears about what would happen to small plants if we decided to go down the road of an auction on crab, for example. You know, if we had the sunset clause on this legislation, I think we will have our stomachs full to try and put this thing together on shrimp, especially with the lack of co-operation in the industry. We will have our stomachs full to make this thing work on shrimp and I do not plan on biting - I probably have more bitten off now than I can chew, but I do not plan on biting off any more for the next little while.

I understand where you are coming from. Crab, for a whole variety of reasons, you cannot, in the near future, whether you could ever go there, go down the road of an auction on crab. We have something like 3,400 vessels engaged in the fishery. We have something like 250 or 300 ports. We have tens of thousands of landings, and it just would not work. You just cannot get there on crab, so it is not an issue, but the less we have to come back to the House for amendments, the better, I think, that it would be. A sunset clause prevents us from going too far, too fast.

If I believe in this, from a perspective of principle, then it is in my best interest as a minister, and our best interest as a government, to be able to demonstrate that this thing worked on shrimp before we go anywhere else. If you give us two years, we will be focusing on shrimp. If somebody else wants to do something - you know, if the industry wants to take it upon themselves to develop a cod auction, fill your boots. The legislation enables you to do that. That is that, on the species side of it.

As for optional versus mandatory, I can only say this - and you can it for what it is worth and take it how you like - if we were to say optional, as you can appreciate, as the former minister can appreciate and everybody here can appreciate, as I said yesterday, it is very difficult to engage some of the industry in a discussion on substantial, fundamental change like this. In my view, the only way that we will be able to convince them that it is in their best interest to work, for us all to work together to make an optional auction work, is if the shadow of a threat of a mandatory auction hangs over everybody's head. A mandatory auction hanging over my head is not - you know, I do not want to go down the road of a mandatory auction because you could be going too far too fast and risk tainting this thing for the long term.

As well, the processing sector may not want a mandatory auction, some of them, because of the substantial investment that they have in boats. The harvesting sector may not want a mandatory auction, some of them, because of the substantial money that processors have in them and because of their affiliation with Fogo Island Co-op; fishermen, for example, their affiliation with their company and their sense of community and those type of things. Those are the issues, but if we restrict ourselves to optional only, I can assure you that we will not get the engagement that we require from the industry to make this thing work. We will only get the engagement that we need, as I said yesterday, if we are able to say: Look, you will either work with us, and we can all work together to make this thing happen, or we will go on and do it our own way, and that could mean a mandatory auction. I hope that is taken in the spirit that it is given. It is not meant to serve as a threat or anything like that, but we have - as people can appreciate - to be able to exercise some influence over the participants in the industry.

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I will just say that we have no problem with a sunset clause. I think that provides everybody the comfort that we are prevented from going too far, too fast. It puts the onus on us then as a department, a government and a minister to prove to everybody that we were not as foolish as some might think of us, and it forces us to come back to the House in a year-and-a-half's time and show you this is what we did, or to come back - or not to come back, because if it does not work I will not be coming back to the House looking to remove it. You will do me a favour by putting a sunset clause there because I will not have the embarrassment of standing up here and asking for the act to be amended to remove it. So, it is a bit of a favour for me too I suppose in that respect.

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I respond to some of the questions that were raised just then, I would like to make two points, Mr. Chairman. I certainly did not mean to insult the Government House Leader. I thought, coming from the Goulds, that if he sat around here long enough this afternoon he might learn some of the intricacies of the fishing industry. That is all I meant by it.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: One of the first jobs I had upon leaving university, so the member knows, that put me into about 480 communities in the Province, both in Labrador and on the Island, was actually with the UFCW Inshore Fisherman's Union. It was a tremendous experience. I got to meet a lot of people, a lot of good individuals, decent individuals, hard working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but, what it did provide to me, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, as well, is a pretty good, general background and education about how important and critical the intricacies of the fishing industry are to Newfoundland and Labrador. So, just for your own information.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the member again. I did not mean to insult him by saying that he did not know anything about the fishing industry. I am sorry.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to apologize to the Minister of Fisheries in the comments that he made there in his second last speech, when he said - he certainly insinuated that I do not take my job seriously. He also insinuated that I am doing this for other reasons than the good of the people in the fishing industry. That is certainly not the case, Mr. Chairman. I take my job very seriously.

MR. TAYLOR: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: A point of order, the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I do not appreciate it when anybody impedes motives on me and I would not profess to do it or would not try to do it to any other member in this House. I believe the member is doing what he thinks is in the best interest of the people of the fishery and I take his comments as being legitimate and bonafide. I said that we all need to, in the industry, take our jobs seriously, and we do. There are serious issues here that need to be clarified. So, Mr. Chairman, if the member is feeling a little bit sensitive today, than I apologize.

CHAIR: There is certainly no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, maybe if he would listen he would learn something, instead of yapping at me while I am trying to speak here.

Mr. Chairman, we are here today to discuss - and maybe we will have a look at what the - maybe later on today, or over the weekend, we may have a look at what the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi just proposed, the Leader of the NDP, but I am certainly not going to rush into anything here today.

I am going to explain to the people who are listening out there, and anyone over there who does not know a lot about this, why I am opposed to an auction system under this piece of legislation. I think, if you would listen, you would realize that these are legitimate concerns by not only the fishermen and the fisherwomen and the plant workers in this Province but it is also a concern for some of the plant owners, especially those who own the smaller plants. What I mean by smaller plants is not the size of the plant but how much they put through the plant.

Mr. Chairman, if we pass this bill - if we agree to pass this bill this afternoon and we gave assent to this bill this afternoon, the minister would have the authority, if he so desired, to go out tomorrow and say to everyone in the fishing industry, we are implementing - or I am, as the minister, I would have the authority. I am implementing an auction system for crab and yes, it might benefit some, and I will tell you who it would benefit. It would benefit, primarily, the richest people in the industry. It would represent the richest people in the industry and these are the minority. We live in a democracy and I have no interest in doing something that only benefits a minority. I am far more concerned with doing something that would benefit the majority, especially if the majority are the poorer ones.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Chairman. If the minister said today that he was going to implement an auction system for crab - and under this legislation he would have every authority in the world to do it. Tomorrow a sixty-five foot boat with a full-time crab licence, probably with 300,000 pounds of crab in his quota, would set sail, and after three or four days he would radio into the auction desk and say: I have 40,000 pounds of crab onboard, start your bidding. And the bidding would start because anyone who knows the industry, the more crab you have to sell, the better a processor likes you. He will cut you a better deal than he will cut you if you have a limited amount or a small amount of crab to sell.

So, the bidding would start and, obviously, he would probably get a decent price for his crab. But then, on the other side of that, you have a fella from Tizzard's Harbour, a fella from Indian Cove, a fella from Deep Bay on Fogo Island, a fella from Toogood Arm on New World Island, you have that individual who has an eighteen foot boat and he has 12,000 pounds of crab. That is what he has. He is a supplementary crab fisherman; what we call a small boat fisherman. He has 12,000 pounds of crab, unlike the large boat fisherman who has 300,000 pounds. Now, because he is fishing an eighteen foot boat, because under the law his boat has to be less than thirty-five feet - and I tell you, Mr. Chairman, a lot of them have an eighteen foot boat. Now, he will set sail tomorrow morning under the minister's system, and he will go out in his eighteen foot or his twenty or his twenty-four foot boat and because of the size of his operation, he is not permitted to go beyond thirty-five feet. He only has 12,000 pounds of crab to make a living on. He cannot go with a larger boat than his eighteen footer. He cannot go out far, cannot carry a lot of pots aboard and, at the end of the day, he has 1,000 pounds of crab aboard instead of the 30,000 pounds aboard. The reason he has 1,000 pounds aboard is because he cannot carry much more than that and he is supposed to hail into an auction desk.

Well, I say to the minister and I say to a lot of the members opposite, an individual with an eighteen foot boat probably has nothing onboard to hail in with. That is one thing. That is one problem. The other problem is this, if he does have a radio and he hails into the auction desk, wherever that might be, and he says to the processors around the Province: Start your bidding. They say: Yeah, right. The fella is going to land now in Tizzard's Harbour this afternoon at 5 o'clock with 400 pounds of crab onboard and yes, we are going to bid a lot for that. We are going to bid a lot for that. That is the reason I am opposed to the auction system. That is the reason I would prefer the system that we currently have, where it is agreed upon, there is a collective agreement, or it is collectively negotiated for a minimum price. It is a minimum price that he is guaranteed under the collective agreement today. Whether he lands, in a 65-footer with 30,000 pounds of crab, or he lands in an 18-footer with 300 or 400 pounds of crab, he is guaranteed a minimum price for his crab. He is guaranteed to make somewhat of a living, even though that might be a small one this year. He is guaranteed that. He is protected under the Act that we currently have in the House, the Collective Bargaining Act between the union and the processors. He is guaranteed it.

If we go with the auction system, he is guaranteed the highest price that a processor wants to give him. Then they might also say, yes, we will give you $2 a pound for your crab if you land it in Twillingate, or if you land it in Cottlesville, or someone might be foolish enough to say to him, land it in Baie de Verde, 200 miles away, in an 18-foot boat. Here is the problem I have, Mr. Chairman. That is the problem. Under the current system he is protected. He is guaranteed that if someone buys his crab they have to give him a minimum price.

That is one group that I am concerned about, the small boat fishers in this Province, the men and women who go out in small boats. A dangerous job! A very dangerous job! They have to pick the days they can go out because of the weather.

The other group is what I referred to earlier, the small processors in this Province. That is the processor who might have an excellent plant. It might be large, but he only manages each year because he has some connection with the fishermen and the fisherwomen in the area, that he only probably processes 3 million or 4 million pounds rather than 10 million or 15 million pounds.

Under this auction system, these individuals are going to be hard put to compete for crab, when an individual is coming in with 30,000 pounds of crab on and you say, start your bidding. Let me give you an example. There is a plant in Cottlesville on New World Island. They do 3 million or 4 million pounds a year. The individuals who own it are not rich. They don't have deep pockets, they don't fly helicopters, they don't have fixed-wing planes, they don't have mansions in King William Estates, and they don't have cottages and summer homes on all the salmon rivers in the Province. I think all of us know that some of these larger processors do. They don't live in $400,000 and $500,000 houses, but they manage to eke out a living and they manage to employ people in my district, the people in Cottlesville on New World Island.

That individual now will be forced to compete, and I know that he is forced to compete for crab right now, but I think under an auction system, where a fisherman is on his way in and then has to start bidding, that that individual who owns that plant, or the two individuals who own that plant, are not going to be able to compete with the larger fish companies, like FPI, the company we were talking about earlier this week, an international company, a company that the Premier did not want to talk about the other day. You are not allowed to talk about them, that is a private company, you are not allow to talk about them.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo that his time has expired.

MR. REID: By leave?.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I am saying is, how can that individual company compete in an auction system with FPI? I am only using FPI as an example because it is a good company, a great Newfoundland and Labrador company, but that company sold $800 million worth of fish last year internationally, whereas the plant in Cottlesville, that I am talking about, probably sold $10 million or $12 million worth of fish. How can they compete under this system? It has its drawbacks. Minister, when I tell you that, I am serious about that. I am worried about the small processor. I am worried about what I call the small fishermen. I think people in the industry know who I am talking about.

Under this legislation, even though you say you only want to try a pilot project and you only want to try it for shrimp and you might want to do it for cod on the South Coast, the problem is, that as the legislation is written right there now, once we pass this bill - and believe me, you do not even need to debate it with us. You can keep me and my colleague, and everyone, on our feet here until you bring in closure, there is nothing we can do to stop you from passing this bill. You have thirty-four members on that side, and, with the NDP, we have fourteen here, so if you want the bill passed, you can do it.

The Government House Leader, the Member for Kilbride, said just then, the reason the minister is bringing this in, is because we have tried other systems and they do not work. Well, that is not true, Mr. Chairman, that other systems do not work. They do not work perfectly, but for those of you opposite, who do not represent fishing districts, who do not have fish plants and plant workers and fishermen and fisherwomen in your community, I will tell you what, under the system that does not work, we have harvesters our there today harvesting crab, landing crab, processors buying it, and it is being processed. Under the system today, that he wants to bring in the auction system for shrimp because it does not work, under that system today, there are harvesters harvesting shrimp, there are harvesters landing shrimp to fish plants in my district and the processors in my district are processing shrimp. If it does not work, how come the people, at least in my area today, are working harvesting shrimp and crab and working processing shrimp and crab? How come, if it does not work? Why do we need the auction system right now if the system is working.

I say to the members oppose, you talk about systems that do not work, as far as I am concerned, collective agreements work. We just had one in the public service. It does not work right, but when the contract for the civil servants in this Province ran out, they had the right to strike and they did. Unfortunately, unlike every other collective agreement outside of government, unions and companies do not have the right to do what government did, and that is force the workers back to work and tear up their contract. Today, under the system that we have, if the price is not sufficient for a fisherman to fish, or he does not think it is, he does not fish. That is the system that all businesses in the free world, where they have unions, operate under. We have some problems here, but I think there are ways that we can get around it under the Final Offer Selection model, and I will talk about that the next time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am having a great deal of difficulty, I think, following the Member for Twillingate & Fogo in his commentary. I understand what he is saying, but the rationale is not sound. He made the same speech that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair made there a little while ago, about somebody with 10,000 pounds of crab not having the same bargaining power as somebody with 300,000 pounds of crab. Mr. Chairman, he is suggesting that in an auction they would not have the same bargaining power, or that that would somehow reduce the bargaining power that they currently have. Mr. Chairman, I just cannot buy that.

The bottom line is, presently, in the system, we have a minimum negotiated price. He can stand up and tell me if I am wrong, but in recent years, under the current system, we have seen the small boat people, the small boat fishermen and women in this Province, be the ones who probably land some of the best quality product in the Province, because they are on day trips, most of them, anyway, landed in small lots and what have you. They land the best quality product in the Province and what do they get? They get the lowest price. Do they get the minimum negotiated price? Absolutely! If that is $2.08, which is where most it came in last year - it is $2.47 right now - but if it was $2.08 a pound when it came in last year, that is what they got. They might have gotten another 10 or 20 cents over and above that later on in the year; they might. A lot of them did not.

Two or three years ago there was the big racket, two-and-one-half years ago, out on the Northwest Avalon, I will call it, where a bunch of small boat fisherman who were promised 10 or 20 cents a pound or something, after the season, did not get it, and they went and had a protest in front of the companies. Did he hear tell of any of the bigger boat fishermen, at that time, out protesting because they did not get their 30, 40 or 50 cents a pound? No, not likely, Mr. Chairman; not likely.

The old system, the system that we are currently operating under, is not fair to the small boat fishermen. It does not provide the same benefit per pound to the small boat fishermen as it does to the larger boat fishermen. That, Mr. Chairman, is an indisputable fact. That is that!

He is talking about crab. He continuously throws up crab, fearmongering, even though he knows that the season for crab is about two-thirds over now. By the fifteen of July it will be entirely over; practically.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: No, no we are not passing it for the next three months. That is the end of it. I already indicated, as the member knows that we will be prepared to accept, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi suggested, a sunset clause on this, that there would be a defined period in which this piece of legislation would apply, starting June 15, June 23, or whatever date we could find agreeable here, and running out on December 31, 2005. That is not something that I am adverse to, Mr. Chairman, because that gives us two seasons in which to make this work. If we cannot make it work in shrimp, in two seasons, then it is not going to work anyway. That is not a problem.

As I said before, we are focused on shrimp, yes, but what about if Mr. Fishermen's Union and Mr. Association of Seafood Processors drops in here in three week's time or a month's time and says: Boy, that auction you are talking about, now that we have had a look at it, now that your independent company that is going to run this for you has set it up and we have seen how this is going to work and we have had the trial runs and all of that, boy that is not such a bad idea. Maybe we would like to try that in species x. What are we going to do? Run back to the Legislature? Sorry, boy, we cannot do it. Because, if we have to operate on total consensus in this industry in order to make something work, nothing will ever happen. If you do not have the authority, in the legislation, through enabling legislation, to get you there, to enable you to institute this, as you see fit, then, Mr. Chairman, you cannot do it, because you cannot do it in the absence of a total consensus. That is that, Mr. Chair.

This is what it is. It is enabling legislation. To answer some of the questions that the members opposite had a little earlier. Why didn't we bring in the legislation specifically speaking to a shrimp auction? Because, Mr. Chairman, this legislation that we have before the House today, is the legislation that was here prior to 2000. This legislation was grabbed off the shelf, in essence, Mr. Chairman, from the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act prior to its amendment back in 2000. What we have before us today is the act prior to 2000, the act that the fishing industry and the Minister of Fisheries proceeded on, the act that enabled the current Minister of Transportation and Works, when he was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture back in the 1980s, to institute an auction for the Middle Distance Fleet. What did he do? He instituted an auction for the Middle Distance Fleet. Did he go and run off and do one in crab and shrimp and caplin and lumpfish and all of that? No, he did it where it made sense, did it where it fit, tried it and it worked very well, just as it can work very well in the shrimp fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, if we try.

There are people, and I understand why, in the processing sector who have substantial amounts of money tied up in boats and they, Mr. Chairman, do not want to see the boats free. They do not. I do not know what it is. I do not know if the Member for Twillingate & Fogo cannot see that or what, but what we have in this industry today - and it is just as well to call a spade a spade. I mean, when you owe $800,000 to a fish company, you are owned, you are kept, and we are no different than we were prior to the 1940s and 1950s. We are no different than when we were operating under the truck system, essentially.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Pardon? Say it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Well, I will answer you when the time comes.

Mr. Chairman, that is what we have, and there are processors in this Province who do not want to see those boats freed up, and if we had a mandatory auction, boats today who are fishing for the minimum negotiated price, because they owe $800,000 to Processor X and cannot move to Processor Y, would be free to move from Processor X to Processor Y, and my guess is they might see a change in the price that they get. That is my guess. I could be wrong.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude with this. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo, when we were here in Question Period or in debate a couple of days ago and it came up about the auction then, I said that, in the Estimates Committee - when we were on Fisheries and Aquaculture Estimates - that he supported the auction. Now, he has been ever since trying to deny that. He has been ever since here in the House talking about all the evils of an auction. I do not know if it was a moment of enlightenment that night we were here doing the Estimates on Fisheries and Aquaculture, or if it has been many moments of denial ever since then, but, for the record - and it was on the record - on May 11, 2004 - I am not sure when it was, but it would say it was somewhere around 11 o'clock in the night, so perhaps it was when he was getting weaker and tired or something like that. Anyway, Mr. Reid said - this is what it says here. I apologize. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo said - I am just reading from the thing - I would like to see an auction system work in shrimp and in all species.

Imagine that. The man who is here in the House today telling me that I should amend my bill to say shrimp only, that man was over in one of those chairs right there. I cannot remember which one. I believe the one that the Leader of the Opposition sits in now. He was over there and he said: I would like to see an auction system work in shrimp and in all species as it does in some other countries. In a fair and open marketplace, fishermen will get the best price if the market so demands the product.

Now, boy. It almost sounds like something I would say. It almost sounds like something I would say, that does. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, on that comment, I will conclude my remarks for now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 26. I admit up front and acknowledge that I am certainly not as well-informed, or near as well-informed, as the minister, who spent many, many, years involved in the fishing industry - himself, personally, as a fisherman, and now in his capacity as minister - nor the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, who spent many, many, years involved in the fishing industry. Although mine is not of a generic nature, of being concerned about the fishing industry issues which are far bigger than this one particular piece of legislation, I am more concerned about the specifics of this bill itself, and some of the comments that have been made back and forth, particularly by the minister.

It seems to me that we are here with Bill 26 at this point in time, to start with, because something happened in the fishing industry that the minister needed to respond to. For example, we started back in January with different positions being taken by people in the industry - processors, fishermen, union people - and the minister found himself in a situation where he tried to do something vis-à-vis an auction. It when off the rails, for whatever reason. Further negotiations took place between the stakeholders, and fell off the rails again. So, the minister feels that with Bill 26 he can address some of these issues. I find it curious, his use of the word, big stick. He said yesterday, he needs a big stick. You have to have a big stick and a carrot when you are dealing with the people in the industry.

Well, that makes one question the motivation for bringing this. Is he doing this to respond to a problem that he has in the fishing industry? Albeit - and it started with the shrimp industry in particular. Is that the purpose and motivation of this bill, or is the minister trying to accomplish two things here with this bill? Is he trying to find a solution that he may or may not use in the shrimp industry? Is he, at the same time, trying to create a big stick for himself, that he can use for any other species in the fishing industry?

Now, I would suggest that we do not pass legislation - and we never have drafted and passed legislation - so that we give any legislative body big sticks, so that they can pound people over the head with them whenever they feel like it. The legislation generally is specific, so that it deals with an issue. I ask the minister if the reason and motivation was to resolve a problem in the shrimp industry, and you wanted to have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: No, the minister can respond. I have several issues that you can all respond to.

Rather than motivation, if the purpose of Bill 26 was to deal with the issue of selling, purchasing, and buying of fish in the shrimp industry, why does this bill not only say shrimp? Legislation should be specific. We do not pass generic pieces that you can create, put them on the shelf, yank it down whenever you feel like it, and use it. That is one of the fallacies and one of the faults with this piece of legislation, that you have gone far beyond what you intended to use it for, which was to come up with the use of the auction system in the shrimp industry.

It is quite obvious, in the clause in this bill, the minister, in section 7, makes reference to 35.2 and he says, "The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture may establish an auction system for the sale of fish." It does not say for the sale of shrimp. So, if the purpose and motivation was for shrimp, change the word fish to shrimp. Why are we having all these protracted discussions about, will it or will it not include crab? The minister is saying: Well, it does not bother the crab because the season is half over.

We are not passing this legislation for this season either. We are passing this legislation, presumably, so that it goes on the books and will stay there for some period of time. If it is shrimp that you intend to deal with, deal with shrimp. It is not a case of fearmongering, as the minister said when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo raises issues about crab or whatever else. It is a legitimate question. If we are going to pass a criminal law, or any kind of law to deal with an issue, we deal with the issue. If it is shrimp, it should say shrimp.

The other part was, whether or not this was a pilot project or whether this was intended for a be-all and end-all, forever, without limitation, in perpetuity. There is nothing to indicate in this act that this is a pilot project. Again, it is being done, it is very generic, put it up on the shelf. I have the power; I can use it to whatever I want with it.

The minister has acknowledged in the debate here that maybe we can get around this issue of the pilot piece by using the sunset clause. Maybe we can say we will pilot in the sense that we will pass the law now, we will put a sunset clause in for two years. Sunset, for those who do not know, all you are saying basically is that this piece of legislation will be under the sun or apply for a certain period of time. Whatever period of time that is set out in the bill, when that sun sets on it, it is over. If we said this clause will last from June 23, 2004 to June 23, 2005, and then the sun will set on it, that is all the sunset means.

My question of the minister is: We may get around the pilot piece that you, yourself, acknowledge is what you wanted to do here, because you do not know yourself if this is going to work. If that is the case, you might want to try it, but the sunset clause could possibly get us around that provision. I submit, if we are going to have a sunset clause, again, the sunset clause should only be for the period of time that you feel is reasonable - maybe two years is the reasonable period of time - and it should only be for the species that you want to deal with, which is shrimp. Have a sunset clause that deals only with your intent to use the auction system in shrimp selling and buying. If the minister feels, after two years of this being applied in the shrimp industry, that it works, you could easily change the Act to include another species. If you decide, after experimenting with it in the shrimp industry, that this might be a good for crab, the easiest and appropriate thing to do is come back and say, we want to expand it, not to start off now with the whole ball of wax and say: Well, we do not know if we need it or not, but we have it if we wish. The proper process and reasonable process would be, use it for shrimp, use it for the period of time you want to, as per your sunset, and if it works, it is simply a matter of coming back here, as soon as this fall, and saying: We have tried it, it worked, we want to expand this now for the crab, we want to expand this for mackerel, or we want to expand this for herring. Why do you need the whole ball of wax if you can get by, do your experiment with your shrimp, and do it for a specific period of time?

We can sit here for two or three days arguing about whether you should or should not have the big stick, and no one would disagree that you need to be in a position, when you are dealing with the stakeholders and players in the fishing industry, and I mean all of them, you need to be in a position that if there comes a point where there is a stalemate, somebody has to be able to make a move. Nobody disagrees with you on that. It is probably the government, as represented by the minister, who would be the best person to make that move, when the players themselves cannot decide where to move. Maybe the minister is the right person. Nobody disagrees with that, but you do not need to have a bigger stick than you require. If you are talking about shrimp, deal with shrimp. Let the experience in the industry prove whether you want to move to some other species in the future, and then you can look at it justifiably, based upon hard, cold facts and evidence and say: Yes, that worked in shrimp; now we are going to adapt it to another species.

The other question I have with the legislation is: Where is the optional? The minister has not answered that question. I understood, from the Question Period yesterday, that this was to be optional. You would or you would not have a choice of whether you want to sell to the auction or not. If you entered into a relationship, for example, with Eric King Fisheries Limited in Burnt Islands, and you wanted to continue to sell to Eric King, that is up to you to do; whereas if you enter into the auction system, then you must accept the price that is offered. That is my understanding of what the minister said yesterday in Question Period. I agree, that once you go into the auction, whoever offers the highest price, you have to take it, because you have chosen to have the auction system apply to you. I also understood, from that answer from the minister yesterday, that meant you did not have to adopt the auction system if you did not wish to.

My question is: Where, minister, in Bill 26, does it say that a fisherperson in this Province has the option? It does not say it, and that is a concern. If you want it to be optional or voluntary, we are simply suggesting to you to say it and that can be done. That can easily be amended to say, it is optional, but once you enter into the auction system, thou shalt be bound by what are the rules governing the auction. That is not here and that is where the difficulty is coming from, not that you are not well-intentioned. The difficulty comes in that you are not being clear. You say one thing in Question Period, but it is not clear, it is not readable, it is not evident, it is not in there. If your intent is to make it optional, state such.

I realize the Leader of the NDP has a different position than we have vis-à-vis the optional. He does not think it should be optional. That is fine, that is his prerogative, that is his entitlement, to think that he does not think it should be optional. The main person here to be concerned about is the minister, and the minister has told us in Question Period - and it is in Hansard yesterday- that this is optional. I ask the minister - and we will get a chance to get back up again - please show me, in Bill 26, where this system will be optional? Please explain again, to me, why you need to cover off every species if your immediate problem was shrimp, and please tell me, again, because I understand now that you do agree, why you need an in perpetuity period versus the sunset? I take it you are in favour of the sunset, to make it a pilot project, as it were, by having a sunset clause?

Those are some of the questions. I am not an informed fisherperson or anything, like yourself, in the industry, but I had these, I think, fairly straightforward concerns when reading this, and if I have the concerns, I am sure there must be some others who have the same concerns. We cannot agree to pass a piece of legislation that gives more than you want.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader that his time is expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I look forward to the responses from the minister in regards to those questions and look forward to having an opportunity to respond again.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman..

Mr. Chairman, just to try, I guess, to answer those three questions, and deal with them in some order. I say to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, that the motivation for the legislation is to be able to deal with a problem in the industry. Is that problem specifically related to shrimp? No, but it is the most substantial problem in the industry, as we witnessed this past spring.

To give the chronology, once again, because there has been some confusion about the chronology. In late January talks between the processors and the union had broken down over the implementation of the Gregory/Broderick piece. Yesterday I heard the Member for Twillingate & Fogo - he was incorrect in saying that there were discussions going on in January about price. They were a long way from talking about price in the shrimp fishery in late January. They could not even agree upon the implementation of the Gregory/Broderick piece which would have led them to a discussion on shrimp prices. Those discussions broke down. I met with both parties. I said: you have - I think it was ten days or something like that, which turned into actually two weeks before I finally moved - to get your act together.

The Member for Twillingate & Fogo suggested yesterday that they walked away from the table then and did nothing. That is not correct. They did engage for a period of time. As a matter of fact, we had some officials from our department sit down in a couple of meetings with them to see if we could facilitate that. Anyway, that did not come to anything. A couple of days before I sat down and informed them of my intentions to move on an auction. Talks did break down, but there was for about a week, a week-and-a-half, discussions back and forth between processors and the union.

When we announced that we were going down the road of an auction - as you can see from the legislation here, we had no legislative authority to do so. That is why this is here. Every time a development takes place, as the former ministers would know and former government would know, that when there is a stalemate between the union and the processors about some issue related to price, whether it is on shrimp or crab or whatever, they come running to the government to help them solve their problem. Government's ability to move is very limited. What we propose here is a bit of, I guess you could say, a pressure release valve; is really what this is about. A pressure release valve so that when people - if they cannot reach a collective agreement, a fishery can still be prosecuted in the form of an auction where individual harvesters and individual processors can make their own decisions.

As for the comments that I made yesterday, I suggested yesterday to - the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile raised a question about the stick; the big stick, big carrot, I suppose, scenario. I suggested that in trying to work something out here you do need something in the way of a stick and a carrot to help move things along. What we have here in front of us is - I say to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, I do not believe that it is in our best interest to restrict, specifically in the legislation, the auction to being an optional auction. If we do that we will not get the engagement in the industry to putting it together because they will say it is optional, so there is no real need. He is only allowed to go and put an optional one in place anyway, so there is no fear of him bringing in a mandatory one. We will treat this with lip service and move on. In two year's time this is dead, but if they know that they could have a mandatory auction imposed upon them then maybe they will work to have the collective bargaining process, on the one hand, work here and an auction system work on the other hand in tandem with it.

As for the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile saying that we do not have generic legislation that we can grab off the shelf at anytime, I would suggest otherwise. The Fish Inspection Act right now gives the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture the authority to impose a wide range of conditions on processing licences in the Province. The minister can, at any time, impose plant production quotas, for example, and amend the specifications for pack out. I can, tomorrow, tell the crab industry that they must process all meat, or they must process 50 per cent meat, or they must process 10 per cent meat.

Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of latitude in many pieces of legislation that this government operates under. There is a great deal of latitude, certainly, in the Department of Fisheries for the minister to, from time to time, impose things that are right now not imposed. He or she does not have to run back to the House of Assembly every other day. For example, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, last year she was considering implementing a conditional licence that required 10 per cent production of meat. She did not have to run to the House of Assembly to do that, because she had the power under a conditional licence. There are many examples of where ministers, and the government, can have tools at their discretion, that they choose, for a variety of reasons, not to use on times.

As for the timing, Mr. Chairman, as I said before, we are not adverse to accepting a sunset clause to having this thing in place for a defined period of time, but I am very much hesitant to restrict this to an optional auction. I think we have to have the ability to make this mandatory, because we could find ourselves on June 24 with no fishery because there is a dispute over prices. If we don't have the flexibility of imposing a mandatory auction, then I am sure that the Member for Twillingate, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and a whole host of other people in this Province, will be on the radio and on the television and in the newspapers saying: Where is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture? What is he going to do to get the fishery going? Time for him to act. That is what we will hear, the same as we heard all spring.

Mr. Chairman, we are looking for the ability to be able to act. As with every piece of legislation, the minister, whoever that person might be, is always held accountable, can be held accountable, by the industry and by the public, for the actions that they take. This is no different, you are giving the latitude to act, you might never use it, but you have to have that ability.

As for restricting it just to shrimp, as I said earlier, there is an interest, whether it is able to be developed or not, in a cod auction on the South Coast. Somebody might now make the suggestion: Well, why don't we limit it to shrimp and cod in 3PS? That is probably, on the surface, not a bad suggestion, but everybody knows that you don't just go out and catch cod. You don't just sail out and heave over a bunch of nets or heave over ten lines of trawl and haul back one codfish, two codfish, three codfish, and nothing else. There is pollock and haddock and hake and halibut and grey sole and American plaice and yellow tail flounder that come up from time to time in the net. So, a fishermen comes in and he has an optional auction in place for cod on the South Coast and, by the way, I have 100 pounds of yellow tail: Well, boy, you are not allowed to sell that in auction. I have 100 pounds of halibut. You are not allowed to sell that in auction. You have to figure out another way to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do they sell it now?

MR. TAYLOR: How do they sell it now? Well, they sell it now through a collective agreement, if one exists. For many species that we have out there, there is no collective agreement. By trying to make things too restrictive, a lot of times - I understand and I appreciate the concerns of members opposite. I hope that we can find a way to work ourselves through this over the next couple of hours or next couple of days, whatever it takes. In trying to deal with the issues that you put up, do not make this, or try to make this, so restrictive that nobody is able to move. Like I said, you have been in the position of Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. You see that there are very few tools at your disposal when you are confronted with a racket between harvesters and processors - very few.

Yes, you can pull licences. Not one person in this House is going to pull the licence out of Catalina, or out of Port Union. Not one person in this House is going to stand up and tell FPI : You start up that plant or I am pulling the crab licence out of Bonavista - not one.

MS JONES: (Inaudible)

MR. TAYLOR: No, and you cannot put anything there to deal with it, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. If you were able to put something there to deal with it, why didn't you put something there to deal with it in the couple of years you were here? You did not, and you have no suggestion. You have no suggestion to deal with it.

MS JONES: (Inaudible)

MR. TAYLOR: You do not. You do not. You said: Impose penalties on them if they do not process. That is a wonderful suggestion. We will impose a $500,000 per day fee on FPI for every day that they do not process shrimp this summer. If they decide that the market is so weak that they have to shut down, what are we going to do? Impose that, or a $10,000 one, or a $15,000 one. What are we going to do when the Iron Ore Company of Canada, because of inventory gluts in the world steel market, decides that they are going to shut down for two weeks up in Labrador City? What are we going to do? We are going to say: No, no, you guys -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: It is the same thing.

MS JONES: Violation (inaudible) legislation.

MR. TAYLOR: That is what the court is for. The court, last spring, when the FFAW went and sought an injunction, did their job. That is where this gets dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, I endeavored to answer the questions. I do not know if I answered them satisfactorily, but I am sure that in the short term I will not be able to convince them of the validity of where we are trying to go.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, the minister cannot stand up and say that you have control to withdraw licences, but who is going to withdraw licences? Mr. Chairman, there is probably not a minister in this Province that ever held the position that he had, that would want to go out and, as a repercussion of breaching legislation, or breaching an act, to revoke a licence and close down a fish plant in this Province and put hundreds of workers out of work. That is why this legislation does not address the problem that existed in the crab industry a year ago.

Mr. Chairman, last year there was a lockout by processors in this Province, and the lockout was because processors themselves could not agree on price negotiation. They were bidding the prices up, could not afford to pay the premiums, jeopardizing their own businesses, and the minister and the government of the day had no legislation whereby they could correct the problem, penalize the operators, or anything of the sort. All I said today to the minister is that he had an opportunity here. He had an opportunity to bring in a piece of legislation that would allow them to wave the big stick, if that is what he wanted to wave, a big stick, over the industry, and it would have given him the opportunity to deal with people who breach legislation, like illegal lockouts and so on and so forth.

Mr. Chairman, the real problem with this piece of legislation is the trust-me attitude that is trying to be employed in the House of Assembly; because you cannot bring in a piece of legislation that says one thing, but then stand up in the House of Assembly and say that my intentions are good, trust me, and we will make sure that this does not happen or that does not happen. It does not work that way. When it is passed in this House, it becomes a law, and no matter what intentions you have, Mr. Chairman, the laws are upheld first and foremost, I say to the minister opposite.

The problem that this side of the House has with this legislation is the fact that the minister himself went out in the public, said he would do an auction for shrimp, and that it would be an optional auction, and that it would be a pilot project and we would see how it works. Yet, he comes in with a piece of legislation, tables it in the House, offers it up for debate, and tries to put it through, saying that it will apply to all fish species, that it will not be optional. If you do not comply, I can use mandatory regulations - I have it here in the act to enforce it - and it will be on all fish species and not just on shrimp.

That is the problem that we have with it, Mr. Chairman. You cannot go out and tell people you are going to do one thing, and then come into the Legislature and try and pass a piece of legislation and have a law that states something completely different.

I will not support that kind of action, and I will not support a bill that falls far short of what was conveyed to the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador; because I can tell you, from the conversations that I have had in the last two days with fisherpeople in this Province and with processors in this Province, they had no idea that this bill was going to apply to all species of fish. They had absolutely no idea, Mr. Chairman. Actually, many of them are only learning about it since this bill was tabled and presented in the House at 11 o'clock on Tuesday night. That is new information that has come to light.

I have to say that we have all seen where the trust-me attitude of the government opposite has gotten us already. We saw that on a number of occasions already this year in the House of Assembly. Mr. Chairman, I stand before you today, having a district that was one of the ones that experienced the wrath of it first-hand, because the people in my district were told they had a commitment. They were told, trust me, we would honour a consultant's report on marine services and implement whatever it said. You know where that trust-me attitude got them. Absolutely nowhere, completely opposite.

The public servants in the Province saw the trust-me attitude from the other side of the House when they saw advertisements taken out, in the middle of an election, saying that there would be no positions lost in the public service, signed by the Premier, who was the candidate at the time, running for the Premier's seat, and what did they get? They never saw the fulfillment of a trust-me commitment and promise from the members opposite. Now, today -

AN HON. MEMBER: The ferries (inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes, and the ferries as well. There was a commitment written right in the Blue Book during the election campaign, that said: We would not increase ferry rates. What happened? The first Budget that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is so proud to get up and stand in the House and present, has an increase in ferry rates of up to almost 20 per cent over the next three or four years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five per cent.

MS JONES: Twenty-five per cent over the next three or four years. So, we have seen the trust-me attitude, Mr. Chairman.

Now, today, we have the Minister of Fisheries waltzing into the House of Assembly with a bill that says: Mr. Speaker, I want to be able to have the power and the control and the big stick to wave over the fishing industry in this Province to implement an auction on all fish species whenever I require it.

That is the bill the minister is bringing into the House today. When you stand up and say: Listen, we do not want this; we are afraid of what could happen in the crab fishery in this Province, or in some other fisheries in this Province, if we were to go to a full implemented auction system. Do you know what the minister's response is, Mr. Chairman? Trust me. That is his response. I have no intention of doing that right now. You trust me and we will make sure. Mr. Chairman, that attitude has not flown with the people of this Province, it has not flown with the people who trusted him on ferry services, it has not flown with the people who trusted him as public servants, it has not flown with the people in my district who trusted him, and it has not flown with the Metis nation who trusted their word, Mr. Chairman. I say to the minister, your intentions, however good they may be, are not certainly substantive in the light of all the other things that have transpired since your government has taken office.

That is why, today, to be able to stand up there and say, that we want to bring this in and to trust me, that we are not going to go out and implement a full auction system in every species in the Province within the next twenty-four months, is not on for me, I will say that, Mr. Chairman. It is not on for me and it is not on for a lot of people in the fishing industry in this Province, people who have worked very hard to build up the enterprises that they have, and they have worked very hard to try and secure allocations of fish species for themselves and to run a small operation, or, in some cases, a bigger operation.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think they would be too willing today to throw out the whole process of collective bargaining on every fish species in this Province, have it thrown out and, all of a sudden, bring in a complete new mechanism without any consultation, without any discussion, and, certainly, without a lot of them even asking about it.

Even the people, Mr. Chairman, that I talk to in the shrimp fishery, who have known for months now, since the minister announced that he was going to put a shrimp auction in place, many of them do not understand how this shrimp auction would even work this season or next season. They have raised many questions with me, Mr. Chairman, over the course of the last couple of months, with regard to how a shrimp auction would work, when they would hail in at sea, if they could have a preference of where to sell or where not to sell, if they even had to participate in an auction system. Well, all I can tell them today is that, according to this bill that the minister is bringing in, if he wants them to comply they will have to comply. That is all I can say to them, Mr. Chairman. If he announces an auction system, you go ahead, you have to participate in it. There is nothing in here that says you do not. There is nothing in here that says it can be an optional system for them; absolutely nothing at all.

It offers very little comfort to people in the shrimp fishery, but a lot less comfort, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, to people who are in other fisheries in this Province today who, all of a sudden, are realizing that there is a bill before the House of Assembly that could allow for an auction system to be implemented in any species of fish, in this Province, at the whim of a minister, whether it be the current minister today or whether it be another minister sometime in the future. That does not give them a lot of security, I can guarantee you that. It certainly does not do anything to give them any, I guess, confidence that this bill can provide stability in the industry for the long term.

Mr. Chairman, I talked to fishermen in my district today and they were individuals who are already fishing. As you know, in my district, like a lot of districts, the shrimp fishery is ongoing. People are out there, they are dragging now, they have been landing product, the plants are open and in operation and so on. They are all actively participating in the fishery and they are doing it on their collective bargaining rates. They have agreements with processors, prices in place to fish. They asked me today how this new bill going through the House is going to affect them.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that her time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will have some further words later.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is the same questions, and I do know if I give the same answers. They are the same, same, same old, same old, same old.

Mr. Chairman, all winter, when we were trying to see where we were going to go with this industry in order to get collective bargaining going, there was a significant debate taking place in this Province about plant production quotas, auctions, status quo, binding arbitration, Final Offer Selection. All those types of things were debated formally, informally, what have you, over the course of the winter.

Mr. Chairman, the Gregory/Broderick piece, which is what this industry is operating under right now, what the shrimp industry is operating right now, this past winter, January, February, March, as I said, we talked about bringing in- the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair talks about these many months ago that we talked about bringing in an auction and people still do not understand what it is all about. There is very good reason for that. She is right, some of them, a lot of them, do not. There is a very good reason for that. She talks about these many months ago, as though we were working on this, that this was going along for the last -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, that is right, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I will give her an answer. All she has to do is stop talking long enough to hear it. Mr. Chairman, all she has to do is stop talking long enough and she will know. If she had been paying attention this winter to what was going on, she would have known. If she had paid attention to me twenty minutes ago, when I was talking, she would have known that we said in January that we were going to have an auction. The industry came to me with a signed letter, signed by both sides, given to me on March 9, saying: Mr. Minister, if you will pull the auction back off, we will agree to implementing the Gabe Gregory-Bill Broderick piece. To which I sent back a letter and said: Thank you very much.

The only thing that could not agree upon , they said, was the term of the pilot project. They could not agree. The union wanted one year. The processors wanted three. I said: Well, good enough. You can give me a letter saying that you agree to two years or you can give me a letter saying that you agree to disagree and I will tell you it is going to be two. So, they gave me a letter saying that they agree to disagree, and I told them it was going to be for two years, the pilot project. So, away we go, March 9, with a letter back to them saying: Fill your boots. Implement the Gabe Gregory-Bill Broderick piece. I don't have a problem with it.

Plant production quotas, in case everybody out there did not know, and I am sure they do, plant production quotas is what the Gabe Gregory-Bill Broderick piece is all about. I remind the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that the company that processes shrimp in her district, the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, were adamantly opposed to the Gabe Gregory-Bill Broderick piece, primarily because of the share that they were going to get - and probably because of a variety of other reasons, because of a couple of other reasons also - but they were adamantly opposed. They wrote me letters. I saw it. You know, no, they did not want it. I had phone calls from them, whatever. Give us the auction. That was their comment: Give us the auction. No problem.

I ran into Ken Fowler the other day out at the airport: Where is the auction? Boy, there is nothing you can do, trying to fix these problems in the fishery. That was the comment he made to me out standing up by the car rental place at St. John's airport. The only thing that you can do is provide an auction so that people in Newfoundland and Labrador, just like they do everywhere else in the world, can make up their own mind about whether they are going to buy fish or sell fish, whether they are going to catch fish or process fish on a daily basis, based on their own economic circumstances. He said: Put the auction in place and go and leave it alone. Walk away from it. Let people sort out their own problems.

That is what the man said to me, and they absolutely did not want to see plant production quotas. They do not want to see it in crab either.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the same thing I said to everybody in the industry back about a month ago now, I guess, that I will ask the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company their opinion on an auction for any other species when we have that debate, September 15 to October 31, on plant production quotas and on an auction or any other arrangement that they want to come forward with. We will have that debate.

I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, if she wants to keep asking questions, there will be ample opportunity for her to stand up and ask those questions along the way. Yes, the fishermen in this Province, the processors in this Province, are apprehensive about this auction, absolutely. I am, too. I am also apprehensive about leaving it alone and not doing something. I am more concerned about that than I am concerned about the failure of the shrimp auction.

Mr. Chairman, there is only one thing that we can be assured of. By leaving this thing alone, like it was last year, and the year before, and the year before that, and the year before that, and the year before that - am I up to the seven year befores yet? - because, for the last seven years.... If we leave it alone, we can be sure that it is not going to work. Seven years. In 1997, the first Northern shrimp fishery started.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was in charge then?

MR. TAYLOR: Somebody asked me: Who was in charge then?

In 1997, the first Northern shrimp fishery started. What happened? Tie-up. In 1998, the second year of the Northern shrimp fishery, what happened? Tie-ups. In 1998, I was aboard the boat. On August 20, I think it was, I took her out for my first run. By September, she was tied on for a few days. She was tied on for a week or so, I think it was, at that time, nothing too serious. It tied up that spring for a little while. I tied on for a little while then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I wasn't seasick, I assure the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I might be House sick here, but I am not seasick when I am aboard the boat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, in 1999, every time - she went along half decent in 1999, I think, as I recall. There were some tie-ups in the Gulf, as I recall. In 2000, we struggled through. Every time we came to the wharf there was a different price schedule. The minimum negotiated price came down in April. On April 12, I left Port Union for my first trip with shrimp, tied her on, on August 17, with it all ashore. I can assure you, every trip from April 12 to June 30, when we put the crab gear aboard, every trip we came ashore there was a different price schedule. Not the minimum negotiated price, not the one that was collectively agreed to, I can tell you that.

MR. REID: How will that change under an auction system?

MR. TAYLOR: How will that change under an auction system? I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, that people will get paid for the quality that they land. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there will be changes in prices as it goes along. Everybody knows that come June 23, when the price that is in effect now, when that drops off and the new price comes in under the previous arrangement, that things do not change overnight like that. There is a gradual change, and that is what the auction is meant to accomplish.

Mr. Chairman, those are some of the questions and those are some of the issues that we have to address. I just say to the members opposite, there are only two alternatives. There is collective bargaining or the open market. Collective bargaining has not worked so we have to try the open market in an auction.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matter to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again? Presently? Tomorrow?

MR. E. BYRNE: What is the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Ask leave to sit again, the Committee of the Whole?

MR. E. BYRNE: Ask leave to sit again? Later, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

MR. E. BYRNE: Presently is now. Later is later.

MR. SPEAKER: After the supper recess in other words.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Before we move the recess, I want to move Motion 3, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday and Motion 4, to move pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. tonight.

With that, I guess we will vote on those first and then we will move the recess.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 3, 2004.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

It is moved, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, June 3, 2004.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe, by agreement on both sides, that the House will now recess until 7:00 o'clock in the evening.


June 3, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 41A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 26?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Harding): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 26)

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise again to speak to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, an act in which the Minister of Fisheries would like to bring in an auction system for, he says, shrimp; but, under the bill that we have before us, it is for all species of fish, including crab, caplin, cod, shrimp, or whatever a fisherman or harvester in this Province wants to catch.

Mr. Chairman, as I said here before today, they may look at a sunset clause, but the one that I have in front of me - I don't know if it was proposed by the minister or the Leader of the NDP. It is not one that I would put in there because it still talks about all species of fish and there is no one, I would know, who would like to have an auction system for crab at this time.

Mr. Chairman, in speaking this afternoon and last night, the Minister of Fisheries talked about the various reports that the previous governments had commissioned; I think he said two of them. He mentioned the auction system.

If I remember, Mr. Chairman, unlike him when he said that he accepted in principle all of the recommendations in the Dunne report, I never did once say that I accepted all of the recommendations in the Vardy report that was commissioned by me back three years ago. I had some problems with the report. For that reason, I never accepted the report in principle. For that reason, I did not say that I supported an auction system for anything, Mr. Chairman..

In listening to the minister this afternoon, he said that the systems that we have had in place in the past have not worked. Collective bargaining did not work; we had tie-ups. He also said that when we had the Final Offer Selection in place, that did not work; we had tie-ups. He said that, for that reason, we needed to bring in a new system.

I say to the minister, as I said this afternoon, as we speak, fishermen are fishing and processors are processing. If that is not working, I do not know what he can do to improve on it.

I say to the minister that I do not think the answer to the problems that he sees in the fishing industry are going to be solved by an auction system even when he said he was a bit apprehensive about an auction system himself. If that is the case, I ask the minister, and maybe he can tell me later, why he feels apprehensive about an auction system. If he feels apprehensive about something, why should he go ahead and bring it in?

One of the things he also said this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is that the Final Offer Selection system does not work. I can tell him one reason why the Final Offer Selection system does not work. If he does not mind, I will take the liberty of explaining the Final Offer Selection system for those amongst us who do not know what the Final Offer Selection system is, and for those who might be looking at us on television tonight.

Mr. Chairman, the Final Offer Selection system came about, I think, in 1997, after what the minister refers to as the pepper spray incident, when Mr. John Efford was the minister at the time and there was a tie-up in the crab fishery for a number of weeks. The season was getting on and no one had caught any crab. The plant workers were out of work, the fishermen were out of work, and they had an incident here in St. John's. As a result of that incident, the minister of the day, Mr. Efford, commissioned David Vardy to do a report. I think there might have been some others with him. They came up with a solution to settling prices in the fishing industry, and that solution was what they called the Final Offer Selection. What it was, was that at a prescribed time each year the Fishermen's Union, the fisheries union and the group of plant owners called FANL at the time, Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, sat at the table and what they would do at a prescribed time, they would sit at the table and they would each present their price for the year. The union would present what they wanted for crab and other species, and the processors would present their price, and they would try to come to an agreement.

What they wanted to do was bring it close enough so that if they could not agree they would send it to an arbitrator. Instead of an arbitrator trying to get them to come together on their final price, he would pick one or the other. In other words, if the price for crab - if the fishermen or the harvesters in the Province wanted $2 a pound for crab, and the processors were saying we will give you $1.80, maybe the union came down to $1.95 and the processors came up to $1.85. If they could not agree on the price, then they sent it off to the arbitrator and he would pick one or the other. In most instances, they were close enough together that it did not matter. So if he picked the processor over the union, then so be it. Fishermen fished, the processors processed, but in recent years what has happened is that the gap between them, before they sent it to the processor, was wider than they anticipated. What has happened is that in a couple of instances, or at least one, when the arbitrator ruled in favour of the processor, the union said: Don't fish.

Herein lies the problem with the Final Offer Selection; because, even though the bill is there and it was in the legislation, the penalties were not there. Even though it was illegal, even though it was illegal for a union to say don't fish and tie up your boats, just as much it was illegal for a processor to say we are not buying your crab, after an arbitrator said here is the price of it. That has happened. The penalties were not there, and therein lies the problem.

We had an example of that just recently, even though the Final Offer Selection was not in place, and that was on shrimp, earlier the year, when the arbitrator ruled in favour of the processors and fishermen decided that they were not going to fish. Had the Final Offer Selection model had some teeth, then that would not have happened. That would not have happened, because if a union suggested that you should not fish, if there were penalties then maybe they would not have done it.

Likewise, last summer, when the processors and the union sat down and the price was negotiated halfway through the summer, the processors decided that they were not going to buy the crab and they actually locked out the fishermen. They would not buy. That was also illegal but the legislation did not have any teeth to issue fines.

I say to the minister, maybe that is what we should be talking about here tonight, rather than talking about a system that he feels apprehensive about himself; that he does not know how it is going to work. He does not know right now if it is going to be optional or if it going to be mandatory. So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the minister that before he goes and jumps in there up to his nose, into the auction system, that he should examine these things.

The minister also talked yesterday about carrying a big stick. It is my understanding that the minister said yesterday that what he wanted the bill for was in case, when June 24 comes and there is a new price about to be established for shrimp - because that is the date that it will be this year - that if it is decided or if it is agreed to or if it is mandated that the price that the processors are offering for shrimp is not sufficient to allow fishermen to fish for it, and there is a tie-up, then he wanted a stick. In fact, he said yesterday that to be an effective Fisheries Minister - I do not know his exact words - to be an effective Fisheries Minister, you needed a carrot in one hand and a big stick in the other.

I never did think that way, myself, because I never thought, being the Minister of Fisheries and an elected representative, I should have a big stick to be able to club anybody with, but I think the problem with the minister is that he has being hanging around with his Premier too long. I think he has been hanging around with his Premier too long, because I think that is exactly what the Premier has exhibited to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the past seven or eight months; because, prior to the election, the Premier ran around this Province and he was touchy-feely, cosy with everybody. Everybody loved him because everywhere he went he was nice to them. Everywhere he went, anybody who had a problem he tried to fix it for them, or if anybody asked him for something, he said: We will do that for you once I am elected. That was the carrot. The big stick was getting elected. Give me the power. That was the big stick, because he made all the promises. He told the unions that he was not going to cut their wages. He told the unions that he was not going to lay anybody off; he took ads out for that. He told people he was going to build them hospitals. He told other people he was not going to tear them down. He told them he was going to build cancer clinics and everything else, so he offered the carrot so that he could suck the people in, in this Province, I take it, like the minister wants to do on this auction system. He offered the carrot: trust me. I won't use it. Just give me the legislation, and I won't use it. I would never do that, I promise you.

Well, the Premier promised: You elect me and I will look after you. That was the carrot the Premier used. Once the Premier was elected and got the big stick of government - he does not talk about governing people in this Province; he talks about ruling them and controlling them - once the Premier was elected and got the big stick, look at what he did with it. Immediately, what he did was he threw the carrot out, the bait that he used to suck people in to elect him, and then he took out the big stick. Instead of saying we are not cutting any civil service jobs, like he had promised, instead of saying he was going to increase wages and be kind to unions, instead of opening hospitals and building new ones, instead of increasing the number of school boards and the number of teachers, which they led people to believe before the election, what did he do? When he got the big stick -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Oh, it is relevant. It is relevant, Mr. Chairman. It is relevant, minister, because you talked about having the big stick. You talked about having the big stick. The Premier has the big stick, and look what he did with them. Look at what he did. He promised no layoffs and he is laying off 4,000 of them. He promised no cuts or rollbacks, and look at what he did. He promised people hospitals and he is bulldozing them into the ground. He promised people a decrease in ferry rates and he increased them. He promised people more teachers and he cut out 475 of them. I can go on and on and on, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo that his time has expired.

MR. REID: That is too bad, Mr. Chairman, I was just getting started.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to listen to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. I have listened to him over the past couple of years, fairly intently on times, not that he has provided a whole lot of answers for the problems that we have in the fishery, but I have listened nevertheless. I listened to him talk about competition, or lack thereof, in the industry. I heard him talking earlier this year about collusion, about his opposition to plant production quotas because there will not be, in his estimation, and there would not be certainly with plant production quotas, any competition.

Mr. Chairman, what we have in front of us here today is the ultimate competition tool, an auction, where people offer up fish and where those who want it offer up bids. They are tied only to one sale, not two. If a boat comes in with 40,000 pounds of shrimp on board and a processing plant or several processing plants are interested in buying it that they bid - the sale is done based on the 40,000 pounds of shrimp. It is not done based on the 40,000 pounds of shrimp that is there today and the 500,000 pounds of shrimp that might be associated with it. It is not done based on the 40,000 pounds of shrimp that is there and the 500,000 pounds of shrimp that is associated with it and the 200,000 pounds of crab that is associated with it. It is based on 40,000 pounds of shrimp and what the value is of that shrimp on that day, to that processor and to that harvester. That is what we are talking about. That is what an auction is all about. It separates shrimp from crab. It separates quality from quantity. It rewards people for the quality of the product that they land as opposed to paying for 40,000 pounds of shrimp that might be of inferior quality because you do not want to upset the apple cart as it relates to the 200,000 pounds of crab that you are hoping to get from that same fisherman at some time down the road.

That, Mr. Chairman, is one of the fundamental problems with the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. People buy inferior quality. People are not concerned about landing inferior quality simply because they have that big bargaining tool, that quota of crab. It has hurt many people in this industry. It has hurt those who are most dependent upon the shrimp. It certainly has had a tremendously adverse impact on the West Coast Fleet, the North West Coast Fleet, the 4R shrimp fleet who are entirely dependent on shrimp. Those fishermen, Mr. Chairman, have to take what they can get when it comes to shrimp. Why? Because they do not have 100,000 or 150,000 or 200,000 pounds of crab to use as a bargaining chip when they are looking for a price on shrimp. Under an auction, each sale is based on the day that it is landed, the quality of the trip, where it is landed, the time of the year that it is landed, those types of things. People who fish at the most opportune times, people who fish and take care of their product, people who are quality conscious, those people can individually benefit tremendously from an auction system. As a result of that, Mr. Chairman, the whole industry itself can derive greater benefits from the increase in quality because it changes the way our product enters the marketplace.

Right now, as I said earlier, and I said on a great number of occasions over the past couple of years, 50 per cent of the shrimp that is landed in Newfoundland and Labrador is not fit for the European market. It will not meet European Union specs. The European Union, of which Great Britain is a part, is the biggest consumer of cold water shrimp in the world. While we have a problem with the tariffs getting into the European Union, even a bigger problem is the quality of our shrimp that we produce. It cannot meet European Union specs. Mr. Chairman, an auction can deal with that, because a fisherman who is not quality conscious - and there are some who are not quality conscious - will not get compensated for the same amount for 40,000 pounds of shrimp as somebody who lands a quality product. That is something that we have to address here and it has not been addressed in the former structure that we have had for price setting. It has not been captured. We have not been able to deal with that.

Mr. Chairman, there was - and I will say it again because members opposite - it is almost like the Chinese proverb, it is almost like they have to learn something and forget it seven times before they finally get it.

Mr. Chairman, the Middle-distance fleet, as I said earlier, in the mid to late 1980s operated under an auction. When they operated under an auction there was an excessive amount of codfish and groundfish available in the Province and in Atlantic Canada. An excessive amount, several hundred thousand tons. The Middle-distance fleet was a small component of that fishery. Well, Mr. Chairman, they put their fish up on auction. They garnered a greater price for their product at the end of the day and the quality of the product increased substantially. That, Mr. Chairman, was a substantial success. Approximately seventy-five plants were eligible to purchase fish from the Middle-distance fleet back in the mid to late 1980s. They were, as I recall, four or five or six boats in total that were engaged in that fishery and in that auction. It worked extremely well and it did increase the value of the product because the quality of the product increased at the time.

Now, Mr. Chairman, to speak to a couple of the items that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo brought up earlier. He talked about how I, or we, as a government, have accepted the recommendations of the Dunne report, in principle, all of them. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have. It was a report that was commissioned, by the way, by their government when they were in power last summer, in the middle of a crisis in crab, that they had no - I do not know - ability, no knowledge or no wherewithal at the time to be able to deal with. I sympathized with them at the time because their hands were somewhat tied as to the flexibility in dealing with that matter. They did appoint a commission to study it, to have a look at it. They came back with recommendations, substantial recommendations; an extensive report.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, we did accept that report and we are moving forward on that report, but he brought up the Vardy report and how, when he was minister, he did not accept the recommendations. He did not accept it in principle and did not act upon it. He talks about the auction. He did not mention he did not deal with the auction. The auction was a very small and passing reference in the 2001 report. The minister, at the time -

AN HON. MEMBER: 2002.

MR. TAYLOR: In 2002, I mean.

In 2001, in the middle of a shrimp racket where the fishery was tied up, again, what did he do? Like the minister after him, he kicked it out to a study. Well, I do not know what to do with it right now so I will kick it out to a study. I will get Mr. Vardy to have a look at this and see what we can do. He shipped him off. Mr. Vardy went and looked at the industry, tramped around Northern Europe for a little while, had a look around Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada, came back with some recommendations. One of them was about an auction, but it was not a very big piece of that. He just, in passing reference, said maybe an auction could be entertained. Further, Mr. Chairman, he did recommend plant production quotas. Those were the two options that Mr. Vardy threw up at the time. He was advocating plant production quotas. The minister at the time, the current Member for Twillingate & Fogo, would not touch it with a ten-foot pole. He will not touch plant production quotas with a ten-foot pole and he does not want to touch an auction, so he says anyway.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vardy made an extensive recommendation on - when I referenced the Vardy report and the recommendation on an auction, that was the 1997-1998 report. That was the report Vardy did that time for Minister Efford on crab and how changes should be made to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. He did recommend Final Offer Selection arbitration, but he recommended it as an interim measure. We are not going to go over it again tonight because I went over it a dozen times in the past day-and-a-half on what Mr. Vardy recommended, but he did recommend an auction. He recommended that Final Offer Selection be an interim measure and that we move down the road towards bringing in an auction in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. No surprise, Mr. Chairman. That government did not act upon that and we are trying to act upon that, because it has not worked. Everybody acknowledges that.

I listened to the member opposite. As I said earlier today, I listened to him. I understand their concerns. I, in some ways, share their frustrations but I do not share their desire for inactivity. I do not share that.

They talk about implementing fines, implementing charges against fish companies or fishermen or the fishermen's union for not fishing or not processing or whatever. Mr. Chairman, how come? With these problems so imminent over the past number of years, when binding arbitration came down and the processors some days, the fish harvesters some more days, did not accept arbitration and decided not to fish or not to process, to shut down their boats, or to shut down their plants, how come they did not do it? How come? Because I think, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department or their officials in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture may have told them that it is probably not a viable option. Just as I believe it is not a viable option. The only recourse under binding arbitration, if the parties fail to act on it, is for the court to issue a cease and desist order on the tie up or lockout. That is what we saw last year. That, I suppose, is what we might see if it ever occurs again. Those are the facts as it relates to that.

The auction was there. Are there people out there in the industry who are concerned about it, who have reservations about it? Absolutely! That is what Mr. Vardy said. Mr. Vardy said in 1997-1998 that it is highly unlikely that we could bring an auction system to fruition in this Province without significant opposition from the players in the industry, and there are well-known reasons as to why that is. There is money, by fish processors, into boats. There are all kinds of issues related to that.

Mr. Chairman, I just fail to understand how on the one hand members opposite can be the champions of competition, can be the advocates, or competition in the industry, can be so adamantly opposed one day to plant production quotas and a system that would be implemented related to that - because in plant production quotas you would have collective bargaining to set the prices and that would be the price. Then it becomes incumbent upon the harvesters and the processors to settle the price that is appropriate. So, they can have that set up or they can have an auction, but you cannot have a combination of both, which is what we have in the industry today.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I will conclude, because I know my time is up, by once again pointing out to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and all who want to hear - how could the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, from May 11 to now June 3, have such a radical change in opinion, when he said here in the Resource Committee, in this House: I would like to see an auction system work in shrimp and in all species as it does in some other countries. In a fair and open marketplace fishermen will get the best price if the market so demands the product. Mr. Chairman, how could he say that when he sat over there on May 11? How could he be so supportive of an auction at that time and say that he believed it could be - that he would like to see it happen here in this Province, that he would like to see our fishery operate under that on May 11 and here we are now on June 3 and he is so adamantly opposed to it?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a lot to talk about here tonight. The Minister of Fisheries has a quote, or he pretends that he has a quote there, where he said I would like to see an auction system work in a fair and open system. I thought I went through that with him this afternoon, about what a fair and open system I was talking about. I would not mind an auction system under a fair and open system. I told you that this afternoon. I explained to you what I meant by a fair and open system. We do not have a fair and open system. What I mean by that is: How can you have a fair and open system when there are a limited number of people out there who are permitted to buy your crab or permitted to buy your shrimp? If there was a fair and open system then anybody - you would not be licencing fish plants in a fair and open system. There would be a free marketplace out there where anyone who wanted to go in and buy shrimp or buy crab could. That is the ideal world. I am not promoting it here in this Province but what I am saying is that is what I was talking about. So don't misquote me when you talk. That is what I am saying to you.

We are here tonight, Mr. Chairman, and we are talking about an auction system for shrimp. Under any auction system - but we are not only talking about an auction system for shrimp, we are talking about an auction system for all species because nowhere in this piece of legislation does it mention the word shrimp. It is not there. It says fish, and that means all species. So, let's talk about it! That is all species, but we will use your example of shrimp. In order for an auction system to work you have to have a product that people want. If you want to jack the price up - if you want to get five or six people bidding on that product, they need to have that product. They want that product and they are going to be willing to pay for that product. But, I say to the minister, maybe he will get up and tell me the answer to the question. When was the last time we took all of the shrimp quota in this Province? We took the shrimp quota once, I do believe, Mr. Chairman, since we started fishing it inshore in 1997.

You worked in a plant yourself, Mr. Chairman. You were one of the managers of a plant yourself and you were well involved in the industry. When was the last time that they took the shrimp quota? How are you going to be out there bidding and bidding and bidding on shrimp, bidding up the price when there is more shrimp there than you can actually use? Not only that, but if we caught the quota every year the federal government would increase the quota for us because there are lots of shrimp out there.

The only reason the federal government has not increased the quota year over year over year, in the last five or six years, as the minister knows, is because the quota is tied to the market, and that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the government, the processors, and the union have all lobbied the federal government to say: Don't increase the quota this year because we cannot sell what we have. You know that to be true. So, how do you expect an auction system to drive up the price of shrimp? When a plant owner knows, he knows already this year that there are more shrimp out there than he can sell. There are more shrimp out there than the market can eat. So, why would he say to himself - well, simply because there is an auction system and not a negotiated price for shrimp. Why would a plant owner, simply because right now he is paying, for example, fifty cents under a negotiated price, why would he go to seventy-five cents because there was an auction system when he knows there are tons of shrimp out there? It is not like there is a limited amount and he has to compete with someone else. In the crab fishery it could be like that. In the crab fishery there is lots of competition because there is a limited amount of crab that we are allowed to catch and the market demands more than we are allowed to catch in this Province. Therefore, it is worth more.

The problem we have, Mr. Chairman, in the shrimp fishery in this Province is that we have more than we need. We have more than the market wants. There is not a place in the world where there is not shrimp. It is the most abundant fish species in the waters around the world, not just salt water shrimp but fresh water shrimp. We have been trying to break into the United States. We have been trying to break into the European market with shrimp, but the problem with the European market with shrimp is that the EU places a tariff on our shrimp. They place a tax on our shrimp going into the EU such that it makes it prohibitive for us to sell to them. Because they are catching their own shrimp and because they have a tariff on ours, our shrimp is more expensive than theirs so they do not buy ours. It is simple! That is the way the world trade operates.

We have been trying to break into the market in the United States, but the problem in the United States is on their blind taste test they say: Yes, our shrimp taste better. Our shrimp taste better but they do not buy them for one reason. Anyone involved in the fishery knows, other shrimp around the world, especially warm water shrimp, are large. Those are the ones when you go to the fancy restaurants, even here in St. John's, and you ask for a shrimp cocktail, you will get these huge shrimp. They are not Newfoundland and Labrador shrimp. They do not come from Newfoundland and Labrador. They are not caught in the North Atlantic. Our shrimp are small, and as the saying goes, and the minister has heard it a hundred-thousand times himself: The Americans eat with their eyes. They eat with their eyes. If you put a huge shrimp up there and you put one like that up there, they are going to take the big one every time, even though the taste is not there. That is the problem, they eat with their eyes.

I see the Minister of Finance over there, who should know better. His whole family is involved in the shrimp fishery. The whole family own plants, operate plants, are involved in the fishing industry and all he wants to do is mock this. He does not care. He does not care one iota about the fishermen in this Province because his whole family is involved in the processing sector. So, I would expect him to laugh. I would like to see what he has to say about it. If he knows better he will be quiet tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Minister of Finance wants to get up and embarrass me, feel free to do it, I will sit down, if that is what you want. If that is what you want, Mr. Finance Minister. You just take up the challenge is all I can say to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Now, Mr. Chairman, the crowd opposite do not like to hear the truth. They know they have a bill here that they cannot defend. They know they have a bill here that the minister had to bring in an amendment to the same time that he brought the bill in. They know they have a bill there that none of them understand over there, because he is out there saying: Oh, this is an optional auction system. Where the word, optional, is not in it. This is a pilot project, where in the bill it does not mention the words, pilot project. This is a bill where he is coming in and telling his colleagues: This is optional. This is a pilot project. This is voluntary and it is for shrimp. None of the words I just mentioned are in the bill. Yet, the crowd opposite, everyone of them, to a man and a woman, will stand when this debate finishes, thirty-four of them, and vote to pass it and they do not have a clue what is in it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: There you go! Exactly! They all clapped and said exactly what they are going to do. They are going to vote to approve a bill that they do not know what is in it, just like they vote for everything the Premier says. Do you know why? They are sheep, and sheep follow their leader. In this case, their leader in this bill is going to be the Minister of Fisheries. I challenge the rest of them to get up. I challenge the member for Goose Bay to get up tonight and tell me and my constituents why they should have an auction system for shrimp.

With that I will sit down and let the member from Goose Bay stand and explain that to me.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is in no position of authority on the shrimp fishery to be talking about the Member for Lake Melville. He can lay his log books on the table here tonight if he wants to and tell me how many tons of shrimp he is after catching. I would be more than happy for him to show me where his good toes were up on the northern edge.

Mr. Chairman, this is about trying to restructure an industry. This is about going down the road and trying to make some bold new steps. This is not about - as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo knows, because he did it for a couple of years - sitting down in the Petten Building on Strawberry Marsh Road with your feet cocked up and not knowing what to do with the industry. I know he must know about that because he spent two years there. I am not saying he had his feet cocked up on the desk, but he certainly did not do anything constructive for the industry. He certainly did not do anything constructive for the industry. Well, I guess if the shoe fits wear it, is all I have to say.

Mr. Chairman, as for the open and competitive issue related to the auction. We have thirteen shrimp plants in this Province. We have eight fish companies who are engaged in that. Mr. Chairman -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and I would say, Mr. Chairman, when he was the minister there were many, many, many people in this Province who said what in the world is Gerry Reid up to? What in the world is the Member for Twillingate & Fogo up to? He has been there for two years and the only thing that anybody can point to in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador which that minister did when he was in his seat was reactive a shrimp plant in Twillingate. That is it. That is his total accomplishment. That is good enough, Mr. Chairman, I don't hold that against him.

MR. REID: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo on a point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I say to the member opposite, the Minister of Fisheries, if that is one thing I accomplished during my stay as the minister I am very proud of it.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, that would not be so bad, you know, if he was not then, and still now, blinded by his district. That is all! That is all he knows about the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is his district.

When he was the minister he reactivated a shrimp - he activated or reactivated. He did not reactivate it because it was never active. He activated a shrimp licence in Twillingate and at the same time hauled 8 million pounds of shrimp out of St. Anthony. Oh, no! He could not do anything for St. Anthony. He could not put a crab licence in St. Anthony. No, no! That was adding capacity to an industry that was plagued by overcapacity. He did not have a problem with it. He did not have a problem with adding the thirteenth shrimp plant to the industry. No! No! That was not a problem because that was his own district. I bet you now, Mr. Chairman, if I walked in here tomorrow or Monday and said that I was issuing a crab licence in St. Anthony - which would be exactly the same as what he did in Twillingate - if I walked in here tomorrow he would condemn me for it. He would condemn me for it. We did have one issued in 1998 and you saw the letters. You saw it and you did not have a shrimp licence in Twillingate, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

Mr. Chairman, that is what that minister did. How is that relevant to this tonight? He added to the overcapacity and the problems in this industry. He was part of a government that did not lay out a plan for the shrimp industry when it was developing in 1996-1997. He was the government who did not decide on how plants should be stationed around this Province. Now, Mr. Chairman, what do we have? We have an industry that three reports over the past six or seven years have identified as having overcapacity and being overcapitalized. That is what we are trying to deal with. We are trying to enable an industry to carry on. He talks about: When was the last year? When were the years that the shrimp was landed in this Province? I can tell him. 2000 was the only year that the quota was caught. It was the last year, by the way, that I fished. I do not profess to have been a big part of it, but I did catch my quota. That was the last year that it was caught, Mr. Chairman, 2000. Why has it not been caught since then? I will tell you. Well, part of the reason why it was not caught last year was we had about seventy boats, eighty boats on the Northern Peninsula tied up for six weeks. I can tell you, the crowd on the Northern Peninsula know how to catch shrimp. The crowd in the 4R fleet will haul in shrimp when nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador is able to haul it in, but they were tied up for six weeks. Why? Because they did not think it was feasible for them to fish. That will not change under this. It will not change under this.

Mr. Chairman, we all know there were fishermen who were fishing at that time and got additional payments for their shrimp. Why? Because they has 100,000 pounds of crab to hand out. They had 200,000 pounds of crab for their bargaining chip. What do the crowd in 4R have? They have their shrimp, and they either sink or swim on their shrimp. An auction allows those fishermen in that fleet, who can land when the time is for landing, who can land the quality that the processing sector and the marketplace demands, it allows them to get the appropriate compensation they really deserve, and it does not take away from them because they do not have a crab licence or 100,000 or 200,000 pound of crab to smack on the table when they are trying to sell their shrimp to a processor. That is what an auction does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I heard the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair talking about what Dwight Spence says. I know what Dwight Spence says. Dwight Spence has reservations about this. Understandable. I know, in 1997-1998, when we were talking about bringing in Final Offer Selection in the winter of 1998, I can tell you what Dwight Spence said about that too. Giving up our right to strike? We will never get another price for shrimp in the Province. We cannot give up our right to strike. But they gave up their right to strike, and life went on, in 1998, when they brought in Final Offer Selection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, they have been tying up since then, I say to the member. He insists on asking silly questions because he does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Chairman, that is what we are trying to do here, make some changes in the industry. Is this widely supported? No, Mr. Chairman, it is not widely supported. That is why I have said to members here that I am prepared. I am prepared to live with a clause that puts a sunset on this legislation, that allows this to take place for a couple of years, a couple of seasons, and goes on.

Why isn't it widely supported? Because people do not have the knowledge of an auction and how an auction works because they have never been exposed to it here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why. It has worked everywhere else, everywhere else in the world, from Maine to Alaska to Iceland - and now that I have mentioned Iceland, the member said: Well, we do not have an open and competitive market here in the Province. As I said, we have thirteen plants. I can tell you, some of those plants want shrimp, and want shrimp bad enough, because they have markets to fill.

What do we have in Iceland, Mr. Chairman? The last time I checked, Iceland was an island out in the middle of the North Atlantic, up there in the middle of nowhere, and I can tell you that anybody who catches shrimp 100 miles off Iceland, nine chances out of ten, they are not going to run to Norway with it. They are not going to run to St. Anthony with it. They are going to land it back in Iceland. Now, tell me how much competition there is in Iceland. There must be a significant amount because the auction works. There are not even enough roads in the country; the roads do not even connect to all the shrimp plants. A hail-at-sea electronic auction works up there where there are no roads, or very few roads, connecting the communities. You either go into one port or you go into another port and you get your shrimp sold. They seem to be happy enough with it. Everybody around this Province always talks about Iceland, how well off Iceland is, how good Iceland's fishery is run. Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe it is not such a bad idea to try something that they find so successful. Maybe it is not so bad to try something that Norway finds so successful. Those are the things - I know I am not going to convince them, because you cannot convince those who do not want to hear. You cannot educate somebody who does not want to listen. That is the problem that we have here, Mr Chairman.

I realize that some of the issues that have been raised are legitimate, but, as I said earlier, there is a tremendous amount of authority resting in the hands of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture right now, authority that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture does not use, and has not used.

The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was a minister last year, and she contemplated instituting a requirement, as a condition of licence, to require all plants to produce 10 per cent meat from their crab, but she did not do it because she realized the implications that would have on the harvesters, the market, blah, blah, blah, so she did not do it.

Mr. Chairman, she had the authority, the minister before her had the authority, and the minister before him had the authority, as do I, to institute plant production quotas. Did they do it? No. Did I do it? No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to do it?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, if I do what you want me to do, and if I do what the Member for Twillingate & Fogo wants me to do, to tear up this auction legislation and go back to the system that we are operating under right now, in order to get through this season, under the Gabe Gregory and Bill Broderick report - the implementation plan for the Vardy report is basically what it is - in order to do that, I have to dodge back down across the road to Strawberry Marsh, write out the conditional licence, and limit the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company to roughly 10 million pounds of shrimp and production, limit St. Anthony to roughly 10,200,000 pounds of production -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TAYLOR: It is true. It is absolutely true. That shows how little she knows about the events that are going on in the Province today, because the Gabe Gregory and Bill Broderick piece, fundamental to that is a raw materials sharing piece. Fundamental to that, the agreement that was signed on March 9, the agreement that was signed on March 9 by the Fishermen's Union and the Association of Seafood Processors on behalf of the processing sector, consistent with the Dunne report, consistent with the Vardy report of 2002, was a raw materials sharing piece. The shares have all been laid out. They have all been provided to me. It is just a matter of me signing the conditional licence, which I now have the authority to do, as they did for some period of time; for years, Mr. Chairman.

If they want me to continue on down the road that we are on right now, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo says: Boats are fishing now. Well, boats are fishing now. They are fishing under an agreement, under a price schedule that was arrived at as part of a raw materials sharing arrangement that was negotiated this spring. It is contingent upon a shrimp co-ordination centre being implemented that tells fishermen when they can fish and when they cannot fish, that gives them authority to sail or not. If they call up the shrimp co-ordination centre and that body says no, you cannot sail, then they cannot sail. They are tied on until the glut, if there is one, passes. Then they can go through the harbour.

That, Mr. Chairman, is what we are operating under right now, and if we do not go down the road of an auction, that is what they are asking me to institute in the Province right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to make a few comments responding to what the minister has just said because, I can tell you, I do not need the minister across the way to stand in this House and give me any lecture, Mr. Chairman, on what this legislation means or what the intent of this legislation is. He stands over there and says: Either they are not listening - and they should be being educated.

Well, I say to the minister, I do not need him to stand up here in the House tonight and try and educate me on this bill and on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I would say to him that we are listening but we are certainly not hearing anything any different than what we heard from the first minute that the minister stood in this House to introduce the bill.

I will tell you what the people of the Province heard, Mr. Chairman, because the people of the Province were listening as well. They were listening on January 22, when the minister issued his first big press release saying that I am putting you all on notice and there is going to be a shrimp auction in this Province. Then they were listening again on March 15, Mr. Chairman, when the minister again made the big announcement about how he is putting a shrimp auction in place, and they are listening today, Mr. Chairman, to the minister when he tries to bring in a piece of legislation that does not talk about shrimp at all, but indeed talks about all fish species in this Province.

That is the problem, Minister. That is the problem with the legislation. If anybody here is not listening, it is he, himself, Mr. Chairman. He is not listening to what the industry is saying. Nor is he listening to the comments that are being raised in this House of Assembly.

I am going to say to the minister, he says that I either have one of two options, according to the report which was presented to him by Gabe Gregory and them. He says: That is either that we implement an auction system or we go with the other option, which is raw materials sharing.

I will say to the minister: When I was in that department, I certainly did not accept any raw materials sharing as a law within that department, and if anybody has accepted it, it is the minister himself. Mr. Chairman, I will say the other thing to him: He is the one who is in charge and he is the only person who has the power or, I guess, the attorney to be able to implement raw materials sharing as a law in the Province. For him to stand there and say: I have no other option - he always has an option. He is the minister. He is the one who is in control. He always has an option, and to stand up here tonight to say that I either go to an auction system for all fish species in the Province or I go to raw material sharing, is not factual. I have to say that because the minister has the authority to either do or not do. It is at his discretion, and to leave that impression in the public that it is either-or is wrong, and he knows the difference.

I wanted to raise that point because it is not factual, and people who have been following this and understand it, they know the difference. They know that the minister went out and committed to them on March 15 that he would bring in a shrimp auction system. I think, for the most part, a lot of people in the industry are prepared to try a shrimp auction for a couple of years or whatever as a pilot project to see if it will work and to see if there are any benefits for having a system or a mechanism like that for the sale of fish in the Province, but they are certainly not willing to give the minister and the government opposite a blank piece of legislation that allows them to go out and implement a shrimp auction in any fish species in the Province. That is the reason why we are here tonight debating this legislation, because it is not what the minister committed to in the industry, it is not what he discussed with them, it is not what has been circulating out there and being discussed. In fact, it goes much further and much more beyond that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, he was talking about the 4R fleet, and talking about the shrimp fleet. I met with the shrimp fleet in 4R on many occasions and I can tell you that, yes, there have been a lot of difficulties, a lot of challenges and frustrations that this fleet had to overcome over the years, and are still trying to overcome, but to stand up here tonight and to leave the impression that all the people in the 4R shrimp fleet are over there jumping up and down to get this auction system in place is not, indeed, factual either, Mr. Chairman, because I have talked to them. I was only up there about two weeks ago.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, I have heard them on the Fishermen's Broadcast and they have expressed concerns about it. I heard the head of the 4R fleet on not too long ago. I read his articles in the paper. Yes, they are concerned about it, Mr. Chairman, and they are afraid, because they do not know if the auction system in shrimp is going to drive the price to fishermen up or down. That is the problem. Are they prepared to take it as a pilot and see if it works? My understanding is that most of them are. Are they prepared to make it a mandatory piece of legislation in this Province? No, indeed they are not, Mr. Chairman. Indeed they are not. Are they prepared to have an auction system for all species? No, indeed they are not, Mr. Chairman, but they are willing to try it in shrimp. They are not convinced that it will work. They do not know - the uncertainty that exists around it.

Mr. Chairman, the 4R fleet have said - the head of the 4R fleet said - that he does not know if it will drive the price up or drive the price down. That is a big concern because we all know that in the industry in the Province right now there is a possibility, because the market price for shrimp is not great, because of the competition that we have in Canada, we have difficulty competing with marketing our shrimp to the European Union simply because of the tariffs that we have to pay on our share of the product going into the marketplace. We are not able to compete at that same level. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we do not know if it going to drive the price up or down. We know that our processors who market the product have stiffer competition. We know that they are not on a fair and equal playing field when it comes to marketing the shrimp into the European Union; but, Mr. Chairman, we also know that it is these factors that could bring the price of shrimp down under an auction system as well, so we have to be very careful.

I say to the minister, don't get up and leave the impression, first of all, that it is either an auction system or a raw materials sharing, because that is not the case. It is him who has the power to determine that. Do not get up in the House and also say that the auction system is going to be for shrimp, and yet bring in a bill that says it is going to be for all species. That is where we have the problem.

The other problem that I have with this, Mr. Chairman, is that this bill is being put before this House in the last couple of days and, to my knowledge, it has been done with very little or no consultation with fisherpeople and processors in the Province.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand it right now, there has been very little consultation at all. Most of them did not, or were not even aware that the minister was proposing a bill that will allow him to implement an auction system for all species of fish, an auction system that could be mandatory in the Province, and one that they would not have the option to opt out of, and that is the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to members opposite - I am going to say to the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, has he gone out and talked to the fisherpeople in his district? Has he consulted with them to find out what their views on this are, to see how they are going to feel when the time comes that they may find themselves hailing in at sea on crab and turbot and cod and everything else? Has he consulted with his constituents?

I say to the Member for St. Barbe, has he gone out and consulted with the people in his district? Has he been up in Port au Choix and talked to the shrimp fleet up there? Has he gotten their views on what they think it is? Does he know how they feel if they decide to go with a system like this in cod and how it will affect the people in the 4R region of his district? I doubt it, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde; did the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde go out and consultant with the fishermen in her district? Has she been out on the wharfs and in the fishermen centres and met with these groups of people and found out if they support this auction system? If they are prepared to (inaudible) a bill left with this government that allows them to bring in a blanket policy to offer an auction system for all species of fish in this Province? I doubt it if the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verte was down in her district -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay de Verde.

MS JONES: Bay de Verde - and had meetings with the fishermen. I doubt it, Mr. Chairman. I will find out, but I doubt it. I would say that if she did go down and meet with them she would find out that the fishermen in her district are indeed not agreeable to give the government opposite a blanket fishing policy which allows them to implement an auction system on any species in this Province. So, I tell her to call them up and talk to them, and she will find out that they are not supportive of this legislation.

I ask the Member for Burin- Placentia West, has he gone down and consulted with the fishermen in his district, and women, and talked to them to see how they feel about this policy, to see if they are in support of it? How they feel about it down in the Burin Placentia area when they have to hail in at sea for every species of fish that they have? Are they prepared to give up that kind of power and control to the minister to make that decision as he feels and sees fit? I doubt it, Mr. Chairman. I doubt it very much! I would not think that is the case.

I ask the Member for Bonavista North, has the Member for Bonavista North gone down and met with the fishermen and women in his district? Has he gone out and asked them what they think of a fish auction in the Province? Not what they think of a shrimp auction, Mr. Chairman, what do you think of a fish auction? How would they feel down in the Member for Bonavista North's district when they are out crab fishing and they know they have to hail in at sea to look for a price on their crab? I have met with a lot of the fishermen down in the member's district and I do not think they would be too happy about that, Mr. Chairman. I do not think they would be too happy at all because they are not satisfied, at this point in time, to give the government a blanket policy which allows them to go out there and take full control over their industry and implement a complete new mechanism for the sale of fish in this Province without doing consultation with them. I think the members need to go and talk to the fisherpeople in their districts. Talk to the processors who are providing jobs there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few more words on this particular legislation. I know it has sparked, apparently, a great deal of debate and concern from hon. members, and I understand the concern. I under the concern because we are talking about the power relationship between fish harvesters or fishermen on the one hand and plant operators or merchants on the other hand - the old name, the fish merchants. The fish merchants and the fishermen or the processors and the harvesters as they call them now. That is an age old battle, Mr. Chairman. I think we have to very careful as to how this Legislature interferes with that relationship. I think there is a concern being raised that we are giving the minister too much power. I think that is the concern. That is what I am hearing. We are giving the minister too much power and this minister is going to use it to hurt the little people. Now, that is the gist of the complaint and the concern over here.

Well, my sense, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a very strong and powerful union out there that has spent the last thirty years fighting for the little people. Whether those little people work in the fish plant, whether those little people are in the inshore boats, whether those little people were trawlermen. Because I remember the trawlermen strike of 1972-73 when the owners of those trawlers were saying: We can't guarantee a minimum price for the people out there after spending ten days on the water because they will stay in their bunks. They will stay in their bunks. I remember that, Mr. Chairman. The fishermen are lazy. They are too lazy. They will not work. If you guarantee them $100 for a trip they will stay in their bunks. These were men who were working four hours on and fours off, twenty-four hours a day, for ten and twelve days. The fish merchant said if you gave them a minimum price of $100 or something for their ten days work they would stay in their bunks. That was the attitude that existed when the fishermens' union started, Mr. Chairman .

I remember on the South Coast of this Province one fish merchant saying: Oh, you know, the people of Burgeo are very nice people but they can't govern themselves. So he took his llamas, his dogs and his cats and he went on his boat and went away. The people of Burgeo got along very well with a union and a unionized plant until the bottom fell out of the fishery in the 1990s and Mr. Barry took their quota to Canso, and the government was unable or unwilling to do anything about it. It was not for the lack of fighting on behalf of the little people, so-called little people, that the concerns are being raised about here, but there is a very strong and powerful interest at work and has been very effective for the past thirty years representing the interest of the small people in the fishing industry.

I have a bit of faith in them, Mr. Chairman. This minister might have some flexibility in this legislation but there are certain limits to what he can and cannot do. He is going to be bound by common sense and he is going to be bound by the political forces at work. There is a real politick - p o l i t i ck, I think it is called, a real politick. Something that is different from law. Something about the reality in the fishing industry of this Province that is at work here. It is important that members not get to literal about the power that is being given here, because you may have power in legislation but that does not mean you can use it.

We saw a situation last year where the crab operators shut down their plants and refused to operate. They went to court and they went here and they went there. At the end of the day their plants opened up, but they were able to do exactly what they wanted for quite some time. There is a power out there in the real world, that we know about obviously in this Legislature, but the law cannot control everything that happens. So, I am saying to hon. members here, that we are talking about facilitating a methodology for the sale of fish that exists in a lot of other countries. As I said yesterday, you cannot import it from one country to our industry and be sure that it is going to work and be sure that it is not going to upset the applecart and upset the relationship between the fishing industry, the producers on the one hand and the harvesters and workers on the other. You cannot be sure that is not going to happen.

I would feel very uncomfortable if we were saying to this minister and this government, and to future Ministers of Fisheries: Anytime you want to, you can impose a system of auction at sea that the minister has been talking about. But we are not doing that. We have a commitment from this minister and if he breaks it everybody in the Province will know that he is breaking it and there will be hell to pay. A commitment that he wants to try a system that, as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair said, the shrimp fishermen, generally speaking, want to give a try. They want to see if there is some value in an auction system, if it works for them. Now, it may not work for them and if it does not work for them they are not going to participate in it and not going to want to do it even if he makes it mandatory. I doubt very much if he can force people to get in their boats and go out and fish. I doubt very much if this minister has the ability to go to every wharf and every boat in this Province and say to the fishermen, or whatever way he can do it: You go out and you catch shrimp and you sell it to that man there, or you sell it to whoever has the highest price. He is not going to be able to do it. No Minister of Fisheries of this Province has ever been able to say to people, you go out and fish, because they are going to stay home. If they do not want to fish, they are not going to fish. We have seen that happen in the last six months in this Province. So, I am not overly concerned.

Not only that, as I propose - I have an amendment here and at an appropriate time I will move it. It is called a sunset clause. What it means is that this legislation which is being proposed here today, if it comes into force the amendment says that these sections shall cease to have effect on June 1, 2006. So, if nothing further is done, Mr. Chairman, this system will no longer be possible to be had. It will be gone. He has this season to try it out and he has next season to try it out and perfect it. If he cannot convince people that it is a good system it will be gone, because this minister is not going to come into this House and ask us to pass the legislation again if it has not worked, if people have been complaining about it, because the debate that we are having here today about potential fears will be a very different debate. It will be a debate telling us what happened when the minister made a mess of it, if that is what he did, or when it did not work for the best interest of the fishing industry or the fish harvesters of this Province. As he said a little earlier, we are doing him a favour because if it does not work we are saving him the embarrassment of coming into this House and asking us to pass legislation on the basis that he has not been able to make it work.

So, Mr. Chairman, somewhere in this debate there is room for a realization and a recognition that the fears are real. The fears are real.

AN HON. MEMBER: Indeed they are real.

MR. HARRIS: They are real. The member can underline it, as she has earlier, and she will again no doubt this evening; all night she says. She can underline that.

You know, this auction system has worked in other counties; not the same country as this, not the same Province as this, not the same industry. The fish harvesters are willing to try it out and the minister is telling us that to make it work, to have a little bit of flexibility. It may not be just one species, it may not be just shrimp. There may be other aspects of the catch that have to be related to make the system work. If there are a group of fishers - and I understand there is in 3PS - who, along with a few processors, want to see if they can work out a little system that will work for them, there is a mechanism to do it. If they do not want to do it, I doubt very much if this minister is going to force them to do it. I do not think he would be the Minister of Fisheries very long if he did. It is not really a question of trust, Mr. Chairman. It is not really a question of trust. It is a question of real politick once again, because if this minister cannot manage this system the fishermen and the plant workers, and the fishermen's union and all of those people involved in the industry, will be here in this building to tell the Premier that they want a new Minister of Fisheries.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has a very more words to say on that. But the reality is, if this Minister of Fisheries is not doing a proper job he is going to be replaced. So, I am not too concerned. Just as if the government does not do a good job they are going to be replaced too, and that may not be very far down the road. The way things are going - there is a trend, there is a very serious trend. If this trend line keeps going at the current rate of decline the Premier may have his wish. He may be down to zero before the end of July, Mr. Chairman, because the trend is going like this and it is going fast. So, something has to happen to bottom out. Something has to happen. Maybe we are at the bottom of the ski hill, I do not know, but if the hill is a bit longer this could be all over very soon.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) and he made the same speech again tonight.

MR. HARRIS: I may have made the same speech before, but you know history does not always repeat itself, I say to the Government House Leader.

We have other secret weapons, Mr. Chairman, and one of them is coming here tomorrow.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

We have other secret weapons. One of them is coming here tomorrow, and he has in his pocket, 100 per cent of the offshore oil and he has 8.5 per cent Hibernia share, which we have not heard Mr. Harper say anything other than he is prepared to sell for the benefit of Canadians, and we haven't heard the other man who is coming here. The other secret weapon that we have is Paul Martin. He is coming here tomorrow, too. He is another secret weapon of the NDP, I say to hon. members. He is coming here tomorrow. By the time tomorrow is over, we will have the Premier saying: The only people you can vote for in this election are the NDP. He has already said - he has it in the paper here: You have to vote for the party and the leader who is going to give the most to Newfoundland and Labrador in the offshore oil.

So far we have Harper and Layton saying, we will give you 100 per cent of your offshore resources, but we only have Layton and the NDP so far saying, we will give you the 8.5 per cent Hibernia share. So I am waiting for the Premier next week to say that we all have to vote NDP in this election. That is our other secret weapon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I believe I have expired my time and the leave that I have been granted.

I will get a chance to speak again, Mr. Chairman, but I do think that we can let this legislation go with a sunset clause that would make sure that the legislation will die of its own accord in two years, and if it does work then it will obviously not see the light of day again after that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A few more words on Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. I guess I can only reiterate what I have said over the course of the earlier evening, the afternoon and yesterday afternoon, on this bill. I will say again, we have to try and change the way that we set prices in this industry, how we compensate people for quality, how we reward them for fishing at the appropriate times of the year, how we compensate them for landing in close proximity to plants and those type of things. That, Mr. Chairman, is what an auction, in purest and simplest terms, is best at doing. That is what it has done in other parts of this world. I see no reason why it cannot do it here in this Province. Mr. Chairman, we have said, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, we are asking for the authority, the enabling legislation, to implement an auction in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, what we are asking for - and I will say it again - is the ability for the legislation that was in existence in this Province prior to 2000. Because, what we have in front of us, in the proposed legislation, in the bill that is before us, is the legislation that the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act operated under back then. There could have been an auction imposed at any time on any species in this Province. What we have done over the past month, in getting ready to bring this bill to the House, is take that legislation and prepare to reintroduce it to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

I do not know when the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act came into existence first, back around 1970, somewhere around there, I guess, where it came in first. We operated all those years with this legislation and we have seen one auction in the Middle Distance Fleet, as I said earlier, in the late 1980s. Right now, we are asking for the same authority, not to be restricted in our ability to only do it in shrimp; because, Mr. Chairman, by the time the year is over, by the time we are halfway through the year, people might have said that this is not a bad idea. In September we might find ourselves with - I do not know, just grab something out of the air - a herring auction. Maybe people will say, maybe the industry will say, herring is not a bad fit for this. Maybe we should try it.

I am not interested in an auction in anything else at this time. I am interested in having the legislation that will enable us to try and bring a shrimp auction to fruition in this Province because, as we all acknowledge, or I believe we all acknowledge, the shrimp industry in this Province has not performed very well over the past seven years. It has been plagued by problems, it has been plagued by tie-ups, it has been plagued by shutdowns, and this is one of the first substantial steps that have been taken by government in those seven years to try and change the way that the business operates. That is what this is about. That is what we are trying to do. It is the first time in seven years that there has been a substantial - I should not say that, because Final Offer Selection was an innovative and new approach at the time, back in 1998, and it worked reasonably well for a couple of years and then started to go down the tubes around 2000. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, that is what this is about.

Members opposite can try to make it into a crab auction if they want. They can try and make it into an auction on halibut, if they want, but the fact of the matter is that we are trying to get a shrimp auction. But, do we want to be restricted? No, Mr. Chairman, we do not want to be restricted because, as I said to members earlier, there is some interest and it is not something that we are driving, not something that we are pursuing, for that matter, but there is some interest in an auction in 3Ps for cod. Now, that is going to be entirely up to the industry to bring that together. If they cannot find an agreement on how they would do that - and my understanding is that they are talking about cod in the context of a fall auction that would be optional, that would work in conjunction, in tandem, with a collective agreement with a minimum negotiated price. If they can put that together, I would say to them: Good luck. Fill your boots. No problem. We are hoping that we will have a piece of legislation here that is able to accommodate you.

If we do what the members opposite want us to do, we will not be able to do that. We will hear fellows down on the South Coast - and we will hear them, I know, because I have heard them before - we will hear people down on the South Coast who will say: Bye, the minimum negotiated price, yes, that is there, that is all right. But I, who bring in superior quality, I do not get any more for my fish than the fellow who brings in his half-rotten fish that he caught, that he hauled out of gill nets that were soaking for four days.

That is the fundamental problem, Mr. Chairman, in this industry. We do not have a system that is able to reward fisherman x right there, who is quality conscious, who tends his gear regularly, who bleeds his fish when it comes aboard, and who lands it with ice on it, washed, and all of that. That person gets no more and no less than the person over on this side of me who does not tend his gear, does not look after his fish, does not bleed it when it comes over the gunnel, does not ice it in to the extent that he should, and both of them end up, at the end of the day, with the same amount of fish - the same price, I should say. That is the problem, so that is what we are trying to do. That is where we are trying to go.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to members opposite. I listened to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair a little while ago, and she said, in response to my assertion that we could do an auction in shrimp, we could do an auction, or we could do the Gregory Broderick piece. That is what I said. I said we could do an auction or the Gregory Broderick piece. I said, those are the options that are open to us: Gregory Broderick, plant production quotas; auction, freewheeling.

She said: No, no, no, those are not the only two options that are open to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Well, you said that is not correct for the minister to say that. There are other options.

All right, I will give her the same opportunity that I have given the processing sector and the harvesting sector, the Fishermen's Union, the Association of Seafood Processors, anybody who wants to give it to me; I do not care. I do not care where it comes from. The Minister of Fisheries over in British Columbia can fax it in to me tonight if he wants to. Tell me what the other options are, because I am all ears, Mr. Chairman. I am all ears. I am eager to listen. I am eager to learn. I am not one of those people who, in spite of having a significant amount of experience in the industry, probably as much as anybody here when it comes to experience in the industry, I am not above being taught something about the fishing industry. I am not above taking advice from people on how to fix the problems in this industry. I have said that right from the day I took over as minister. I said it before that. I have said it since then, and I will say it here again tonight.

Mr. Chairman, if the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has some profound statement to make, some wonderful suggestion on how we can fix this industry, other than what I am proposing, other than what David Vardy - if she wants to tell me, or anybody else wants to tell me, if there is another approach that David Vardy, with all of his years in the industry, that Eric Dunne, with all of his years in the industry , that Gabe Gregory and Bill Broderick, with their years in the industry, that all of those people have talked about over the years, that the five or six studies that they commissioned and spent a pile of taxpayers' dollars on over the past number of years in studying the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, and came up with all of these recommendations from auctions, the only two substantial ones that came up on this were: auction and plant production quotas. Those were the two pieces. Final Offer Selection was a piece, arbitration was a piece, of the plant production quota system.

If they want to tell me that there is another one, I tell you, I have no problem sitting down here tonight and listening to it. I have no problem. I will stay here until 7 o'clock tomorrow morning, when I have to catch a flight, and listen to it.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I am going to hear it. I don't think I am going to hear it, because I said to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo yesterday, over by his desk: You tell me that an auction cannot work, and I know that you are adamantly opposed, or so you say, to plant production quotas. Well, good enough, I can accept that, but tell me what the solution is. Well, I don't know what the solution is. No, that is what I thought, that you did not know what the solution was.

Mr. Chairman, here we have a couple of people over on the other side who are telling me everything that is wrong with what I am trying to do but they cannot tell me what the right approach it. So, I will sit down now and let them have another few minutes to tell me what the right approach is.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I was just noticing the -

MR. LANGDON: I was standing before (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, it is up to the Chair who he recognizes. I am not trying to limit debate.

Since about 2:50 today we have been debating this. It is pretty clear that we are not going to make much progress tonight. If the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape le Hune wants to take a few minutes, I will certainly take my seat and allow him to have a few, because he has not spoken on the bill yet, I understand. I will certainly take my seat and give him a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, then I will return.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape le Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the Government House Leader for doing that.

I want to say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs, no one is against the auction system. I am certainly not. The consultation that I have been able to do, and I have not done a lot, but I have talked to the union people, I have talked to the inshore fisheries council, I have talked to a number of fishermen, and it was their understanding that the particular system that we have in place, the auction system which the minister is going to implement, they want to see it done first, species by species by species. I would say to the minister, if it was introduced by shrimp and shrimp only, and it worked, imagine him coming back into the House saying to the House: We did it for shrimp, it works. We want to do it for cod. We want to do it for turbot. We want to do it for lobster. We want to do it for whatever. Then even after a year or two, whatever the case might be, he will come back in here highly regarded by the people in the industry because they had done what they were looking for, but they done it step by step. That is what the people I have talked to in my own district have said to me. I have talked to the person who is the president of the inshore union as late as suppertime, and her comment was: We have been meeting as a union. We have been meeting with processors and so on and we are not, in our own minds, far enough advanced, as we see it, to be able to have an auction system right now.

The thing is, for all of us here in the House - and I say to the minister, who is a friend of mine - we live on the same street, one door up - it is not personal. We do not want to get into that particular thing, or certainly I do not. None of us here, regardless - and I look at my colleague right across the way from me, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, we have served municipalities for years. You were president of the federation, I was vice-president. The Member for Mount Pearl was with the federation for years and was a municipal leader, but we do not have all the answers. We have to listen to the people outside and make some particular decisions on the influence and on the information that is provided to us. That is the situation, as I see it, with the people who are out there in the inshore fishery.

He talks about the cod in 3Ps. That is the area that I represent. I was listening very attentively to the minister as he made his comments a few moments ago on grading on the fish. Let me just illustrate for you. I have been on the wharf a number of times when the boys have been catching cod and landing cod, and landing cod last summer. Here is the situation, because my brothers-in-law are fishermen, they catch cod. They fish cod and today they are out fishing for halibut. When they brought their cod in - and they do have a trawl, by the way. They bait their trawl, they go out in the morning and they set their trawl. They catch the fish, and as soon as it comes in over the boat they bleed it. It is put in ice and it is brought in, and they are expecting to get top quality for the fish that they have. The person down the road does it in a gill net. Probably it is in the net for two or three days and is not as good a quality, it is not bled and so on.

The problem is not so much with the processor - as what the lady in the union told me tonight when I was talking about it - it is the grading process that is there, because the fish is not graded on the wharf when it comes on the wharf. It is put into sacks. It is sent to the processor and it could be two days before it is graded. If you have fish that comes over the side of a boat that is bled A-1 quality, that is what the fishermen should be getting. They are not getting it because it is not properly done. She said: We thought that grading was great. The union was recommending it, the processors were recommending it and we have it but now we know that it is not.

So, the auction system for us - let's take it one step at a time. Let's do it for shrimp. We are not against the auction system but let's take the summer, let's take the fall, let's have a group of people, like some of the people - I have never, ever gone to Iceland to see the shrimp industry, to see how it works, but they are saying that a number of their people could have been sent to the Faeroe Islands to see how it works and bring it back. So, I see nothing with having it done in this particular way, which was initially done to be optional, not mandatory. In this particular sense there is trepidation and there is fear by the people who are out there, especially the fisherpeople and those small boat fishermen, those who are in thirty-five foot longliners and twenty-five and twenty-six and thirty foot open boats. These are the people who are in the area that I talked to, these are the people that I listened to and these are the people that I want to represent. That is why I did not speak on it today before. I wanted an opportunity to call some of the people in my area, the people who have been out fishing today. They are telling me they do not want it to be mandatory. I am telling you, they do not.

I do not want to take up a lot of time. I just want to express the views that I see from the people that I represent, the fisherpeople. They do not want a blanket coverage in this particular piece of legislation. They want it done for shrimp. They want it done to be an optional thing. When that particular species works out - as the minister said, the other processes have not worked the way that it should. I was the Minister of Labour when they brought in the first act, the Fisheries Bargaining Collective Act, and it was a big improvement over what we had. Obviously, the thing about it is that when you do it then there always has to be an update of legislation to make sure that you improve on what you have done because hindsight is probably always 20/20, and if every piece of legislation that we ever did, if it was perfect we would never need to make any amendments.

That is what I have been told by the people whom I represent, and that is why I say to the minister tonight that he should do it for shrimp. Then, obviously, when it does work he will be able to come back into the Legislature and say to us, and to people and to me - I will be glad for him to say to me: I told you it would work. It has worked. Now we want to do it for cod. Now we want to do it for halibut. Now we want to do it for lobster. Now we want to do it for herring. Then, in that case, he will come back and be a hero as far as the fisherpeople are concerned. Why do it now? Trepidation and fear. It has not worked, and the people out there, at the end of the day, become browned off because it was not done, that they have not been consulted on it and it is just rammed through.

That is the problem in this particular case right here, for the people who are involved in the inshore fishery, the people who fish cod. Even the people who represent them on the union says: We have not been properly informed. We have not gotten enough consultation on this. We are going into it with trepidation and fear, and we do not want to be in that kind of a situation. When we go into it, we want it to work. There is nobody who wants it to work anymore than we do because they realize that there has to be a better way.

The lady that I was talking to, and two of the fishermen earlier today, they were saying: We would like to see it for lobster. If it works for shrimp than we can introduce it for lobster. If it works for lobster than we can do it for others. In this particular case, an whole blanket, where you do the whole gamut of the fishery and introduce it that way. That is not what was intended. I am sure if we do it that way, then obviously, at the end of the day, the minister would deserve credit for it, and rightly so, by taking it slow, step by step, rather than forging ahead without all of the consultation that is needed and knowing if this particular system is going to work for shrimp or not. If it does not work for shrimp than, obviously, I am sure that the minister and the people who work for him can find a different way that we can improve on the system that we have or the auction system, whatever the case might be. Take it one step at a time. Work at it in that way. I am sure if that happens then, at the end of the day, the fisherpeople who will be affected by that, the minister and the processors and so on would be benefitting because it would have been well-thought out, well-planned and in that sense everybody would benefit and there would be no losers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you Mr. Chairperson.

As I was saying before, I appreciate the comments made by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune in this important debate, but we have been debating now in Committee since about 2:50 today, so I think what we will do now is move to another piece of legislation.

From that point of view, Order 3, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31)

MR. PARSONS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I raise a point of order with regard to procedure, I guess, in the House, Mr. Chairperson, particularly regarding the television cameras.

I understand we have notice that we will be open beyond 10 o'clock tonight, and I raise the issue concerning whether or not the proceeding will be televised after 10:00 p.m.

In inquiries that I made with the Table Officers earlier, I was advised that the way the procedure works is that the time is only booked for the cable, or the satellite time in order to hear the proceedings, until 10:00 p.m. each evening, and in order to go beyond 10:00 p.m. there has to be notification of some kind given to the satellite company in order to make that ruling and to actually book the time so it is usable. Of course -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: In fairness to the Table Officers, they said: We don't want to go out and book time beyond 10:00 p.m. because we don't know how long we are here and it costs so much per hour to book the time.

The concern, of course, is that if we are going to go beyond 10:00 p.m. we feel that there should be televised proceedings. That is the procedure that has been adopted in this House for the last number of years.

I guess, in trying to find a reasonable solution as to whether the Table Officers do book the time, and how they get some idea of how much time to book, there is only one person in the House who has any idea of how long we are going to sit beyond 10:00 p.m., and that would be the Government House Leader.

Now, it is none of our business when he decides to rise the House or close the House for the day. That is totally within the prerogative of the Government House Leader, as it should be, but that does not take away from the fact that the proceedings, we feel, ought to be televised, and if the Government House Leader - quietly, secretly, or whatever - wants to give some indication to the Chair as to how long we are likely to be here, those arrangements can be made outside any information or knowledge to the Opposition. He can go ahead and book the time so there is no wastage, because the Government House Leader would have an idea - can give them an idea - when he wants to do that, or thereabouts. Meanwhile, we don't have any interference in terms of the cameras cutting off at 10:00 p.m.

I feel that is very fair, it is appropriate, and that is why I raise it at this point rather than get later in the evening and find out that the time has not indeed been booked.

CHAIR: To that point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, to that point of order - oh, go ahead, Jack.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the point of order - and I thank the Government House Leader because he can address both points - I want to support the point of order or point of privilege. It may be more into that, Mr. Chairman, because we look around the galleries and there is nobody here. You would think that is because nobody is interested, but - the House sits in public. In fact, I remember during the strike there were a number of people saying there is something wrong with this picture. You were arguing this emergency legislation late into the night and there was nobody in the galleries.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were at home.

MR. HARRIS: They were home, glued to their televisions, knowing that they could watch -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The members opposite think that is funny, but there were 20,000 people on the streets and there were a lot of people interested in whether or not the legislation was going to pass, and when it was going to pass, and what was going to happen, and whether they had to go to work the next morning. They were watching, sitting at home. That is the nature of our Legislature right now. The nature of our Legislature is that the public attends the Legislature by watching the televised proceedings of this House, and if we are going to have a continuation of the proceedings of this House beyond 10:00 p.m., the public has no notice. They cannot rush in here and say, well, I want to watch the House, because they have some sort of commitment from the Legislature that the Legislature is televised.

I think that the point is very well taken because we are changing, in effect, a public session into a private session by turning off the satellite accessibility. I think that is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, the people are getting upset opposite because they know that this is the truth. They know that this is the truth, and that people watching this right now - I have had phone calls already this week from people saying: What happened last night? We were watching the Legislature and all of a sudden it went off, and we understand you sat until 11:30 p.m. or 11:45 p.m. and we don't know what went on.

That is the point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I know the House Leader let me speak before him, but the point is an important one and I would like -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

I ask if he would get to his point of order.

MR. HARRIS: The point of order has been made, Mr. Chairman.

I think the emphasis has been there that we are changing - at 10 o'clock tonight, when the television cameras go off, we are effectively in a private sitting of the House and that is not appropriate and proper under our rules of order.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, to that point of order.

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

The impression has been clearly left that there is only one person in the House who knows how long we are going to be here, and that is me. Now, how incorrect could that statement be?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) true.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is not true. It was your decision today to filibuster on Bill 31, not mine. I don't know what the strategy in the Opposition caucus is, and nor should I. That is for you to decide, how much time you want to put in on every bill or whatever, but you cannot stand up and say it is up to me, as Government House Leader, when we are going to close, when effectively every moment that you speak you add time to it. That is the first point.

We all have a role to play in terms of when the House closes or does not close. I moved the motion that the House sit beyond 5:30 p.m. and beyond 10:00 p.m., which is completely within my right to do, and completely within government's right to do.

To the point on the television, I don't know if I recognize the Opposition tonight or not. One day they are left of Lenin and the next day they are right of Attila the Hun. I mean, two weeks ago it was going to cost $30,000 every night we kept the House open. Shameful! It is costing $30,000 for camera, suppers, et cetera, et cetera, when it really does not cost $30,000 to keep the House open after 7:00 p.m., but there was a big deal about it then. Now the expense of television does not seem to be an issue with them.

The fact of the matter, having said all of that - and members know this, or ought to know it - is that we don't book television time at 7 o'clock today. The way it works - and the Liberal Opposition now were the government when they brought it in - is that you book time for the day before. The staff in the Speaker's Office -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Two days before, is it? Two days before, time has to be booked, so they make their best guesstimate. They don't know when the House is going to be. We all play a role in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo says I should tell them what? That we are going to be open 1:00 a.m. on Thursday when, if they had to pass bills today, we could have been out of here at 5:00 p.m. and then we would have had to pay for something we did not use? I do not have that power and I do not have that knowledge. All of us have that sort of - we are complicit in how and when bills pass here.

I cannot look into a crystal ball, thanks be to God, and look into the mind of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and know what he is going to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, nor would I want to. The fact of the matter is that two days before we have to book the time so you make your best guesses. It is not about trying to keep out the public or not have the public informed.

To the point that the Leader of the New Democratic Party indicated that in fact we are turning the place into a private session, what nonsense. The doors to the galleries are open. Anybody in this Province who wants to walk in here tonight, into their Confederation Building, into their House of Assembly, and listen to the proceedings, are absolutely free to do so.

This is not a private sitting. We operated like that for years, before the cameras came in, so the point of order is not a point of order whatsoever in my view. To suggest that we somehow have the power to do that, we don't.

Mr. Chairman, I would advise to move on. I put a motion for Motion 3, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31)

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader. To this point of order or a new point of order?

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order and the comments made by the Government House Leader, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: First of all, let's clarify here, I think it is quite understood that the Government House Leader directs what business we do here in this House. Let's not confuse between what he does and what our right is, in terms of debate. Let's not confuse that with the public's right to see what we are doing here.

This is the same government that talked about family-friendly hours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Nobody needs to stay here beyond 10:00 p.m., if you don't want to. There are all kinds of days left in this year, 2004, to have the debate on this legislation. There is no requirement that it be done here. There is no filibustering going on. We have a right, as an Opposition, to discuss the details of the legislation, and that is exactly what we are doing here.

We have a right to debate it. The government has exercised their right to go beyond 10:00 p.m. to do it. Let's not confuse that, and those rules, with the fact that we, in this Province, have been having televised proceedings. Since this House opened in this session, this is the third evening. I know it might be two days, but what I am saying to the Government House Leader, and what I am raising here, is that this is the third time in this session that we have had an issue with the House being open and not being televised. We had one evening here where we went until 1 o'clock in the morning - beyond 1 o'clock in the morning, to about 2 o'clock in the morning - and the cameras went off. The public wanted to know what happened on Bill 18 at 1 o'clock in the morning, when we were that close and nobody got to see the vote.

We came back here the other night. We were here until about 11:45 p.m. Again, the public calls and says: What happened? You went beyond 10:00 p.m.

The thing is, I say to the Government House Leader, there ought to be - whether you can do anything about it or not - there has to be some mechanism that, if we are going to televise, if we are going to go beyond 10:00 p.m., there should be some kind of Standing Order whereby the television cameras roll.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: With regard to the Government House Leader's comments that this House is open and anybody who wants to come into these galleries can come in, if we go beyond 10:00 p.m., that is absolutely right, if you happen to live within the confines of St. John's.

The people who watch these debates, I would have the Government House Leader know, they all do not have the good fortune, I guess, to live in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Some of them live out in Port aux Basques. Some of them live out in Burnt Islands and Burgeo. Some of them live out in Central, and they would like to see what is happening here.

All I ask is, don't confuse what is happening in terms of debate with the right to have that debate televised, and right now the system is not working. The only way I know to make it work, the only person who has any idea of how late we are going to work, is the Government House Leader. That is why I put it out there.

Now, if the Government House Leader wants to say that we will go until 11:00 p.m., and we book until 11:00 p.m., we could do that days in advance. If we want to go until 4 o'clock in the morning, we could book it until 4 o'clock in the morning, but some provision should be made to do the bookings. That is all I am saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

To the point of order or a new point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, before I recognize another member to my right.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the only way that can happen is if the Opposition House Leader advises, and we advise each other - we know that the day before or whatever - we are thinking about sitting on, say, Thursday night, tonight. So, the Opposition House Leader says to me: We are going to speak for four hours on Bill 31, four hours on Bill 26, and two hours on, say, Bill 33. It would be very easy. Then you could calculate it and say: Okay, we should get out of here by 2 o'clock.

I have no idea how long he and the members of the Opposition are going to speak to a particular piece of legislation - none. I have no idea how long they are going to speak, so to say that I know exactly when we are going to open and how late we are going to be open is absolute nonsense because it is not true.

Today, for example, if the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition moved to say: Okay, we will move past Committee and we will move past Committee on the other bills, we could be out of here in fifteen minutes. I don't know. They can speak on.

The fact of the matter is -

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) going to be televised. That is the problem.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, with respect to televising, that is a great comment. All you have to do is, two days in advance you have to book the time. Two days in advance. So it is not as easy, I say to the Opposition House Leader, and he should know this, as turning on and off a light switch and saying: Well, let's do it and be gone out of there. Two days in advance, that is the fact of the matter.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair will allow one more speaker to this point of order.

I recognize the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. That will be the last speaker to this point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I would not even be up only he dragged me into the debate by using my name over there a few minutes ago.

Mr. Chairman, he made a comment earlier, just a few minutes ago, that was somewhat misleading. He said it was not he, solely, who determined how long this House stayed open. It was not he, solely, who determined if this House opened after 5 o'clock or after 10 o'clock.

I would say to the minister that it is he. It is he who rises every day when we are ready to adjourn, and he is the individual who says: I give notice that this House will not close at 5:00 p.m., and I give notice that this House will not close at 10:00 p.m.

It is not the people on this side. You are the one, I say to the Government House Leader, who makes that decision, because we would not be here after 5 o'clock this afternoon if you did not say we were not sitting tonight, and we would not be here after 10 o'clock tonight if you did not say we were not going to sit beyond 10 o'clock tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair realizes the uncertainty of debate here in this House, after sitting here himself for a number of years, and the way things happen and the way the unexpected happens. It is my understanding, in talking with the Clerk at the Table, that booking for television time has to be made two days in advance.

The Chair rules that there is certainly no point of order, but maybe it is the time when the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader might be able to speak with the Speaker, who, I guess, ultimately determines when television time is booked or not, and work out some arrangement, if it can be worked out, by going and doing that process.

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Order 3, Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31)

CHAIR: Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill 31, which provides for minor amendments to the Schools Act, 1997. It is a bill that needs to be brought forward. It involves a minor adjustment to section 57 of the Schools Act, 1997. I say a minor adjustment because there is a deficiency in the current act which neglects to include a provision which would declare new school boards successors in law when they replace the school boards which have been dissolved.

There is a bit of history with regard to this. This provision, by the way, was present in the Schools Act, 1996, and indeed even in the Schools Act, 1990, but in 1997, with the revision of the 1996 act, it appears that this provision was left out. I would say that it was an inadvertent deletion or admission - or omission, I should say. It is very important at this particular time, with the consolidation of school boards as of September 1, and it is absolutely necessary that these new school boards be declared successors in law. This is indeed the purpose of this particular bill and one that, once it is passed, will certainly assure that the new boards will become successors in law, that the transfer from the current boards to the new boards will assure that agreements, contracts, the divesting of properties, will become the responsibility of the new boards. It is a standard provision. This is nothing new and, as I pointed out, not only within our own history, especially in the current acts of 1996, these provisions have been there. Indeed, if you go across the country, the Schools Acts would contain this type of a provision.

Again, to go to the consolidation of the school boards, Mr. Chairman, this would assure a very smooth transition. If it were not there, Mr. Chairman, it is another aspect that you would have to look at; because, if it were not there, there would certainly be a potential for some legal uncertainly, and naturally we would not want this to happen. Currently, I guess, the process of consolidating boards from eleven to five is progressing along. We need this provision put in there to make sure again that, as of September 1, the responsibilities of the new boards would include the responsibility for current agreements, contracts, and, of course, divesting of the properties. The bill is housekeeping. It is one that, again, has to be done.

With regard to the consolidation of the boards, Mr. Chairman, because that seems to be on people's minds, the consolidation of the boards is taking place. It is a progression from the restructuring that began in the mid-1990s, 1996-1997, which again goes back to the acts that I have already referenced. Since 1997 there has been, certainly, if we are looking for reasons for the consolidation of the boards, since 1997 we have seen the enrolment of students drop by somewhere in the vicinity of 25 per cent, Mr. Chairman. We saw the number of schools go from well over 400 down to just over 300, a decline in the number of schools of something to the effect of around 30 per cent.

With regard to the teaching force, again we have seen that drop as well. The number of teachers, the percentage of decline is something in the order of 17 per cent. Along those three areas, Mr. Chairman, we do have decline. On the other side of it, when we look at the school districts, we see, as well, that there has been relatively no change with regard to decline. Obviously the school districts have remained in place since 1997, but we see as well that the administration at these school district offices has certainly not decreased. We see the program staff has not decreased. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, on these two items, the district administration and the program staff, we have seen increases as opposed to decreases.

Following through - and I reference, of course, the Williams report of the early 1990s and consequently the Williams-Sparkes report in 2001, who clearly recommended that within the next number of years from that date, 2001, that a further look at the board structure with the idea of consolidating even further was certainly a recommendation.

I reiterate, Mr. Chairman, in talking about the changes that are going to be brought about with regard to this consolidation, it is a governance and administrative side of our education system in Newfoundland and Labrador. Governance in the way of school board trustees, and administration in the professional staff that are at these school boards. The restructuring is taking place not at the school level, because since 1997, as I have already pointed out, the number of schools, the number of students, and the number of teachers, have declined drastically and there has been restructuring in even the number of schools, something to the tune of well over 100 schools being closed down since 1997. The changes that we are referencing right now are changes, again, at the governance level, at the administrative level, as we bring the school boards number down from eleven to five. To look at it in the context of consolidation of boards, we can go back to 1996-1997 and see how we went at that particular time from twenty-seven boards down to eleven.

I might also add, Mr. Chairman, that this consolidation of boards now is certainly not a new thing. It is something that was looked at. It happened back in, I think, the late 1960s when there was consolidation of boards as well. It is a factor that, as we go through the years, considering the consolidation of boards is simply a review of where you are at that particular point in time, and this consolidation of boards is a natural consequence of the decline that we have seen in the number of students, the number of schools, the number of teachers. At this particular time, we certainly can see that the savings from this particular consolidation are savings that can address the serious concerns that we have regarding the deficit that this Province finds itself in at this particular time.

Again, to go back to what I said originally, this is a bill and it is an amendment to the Schools Act of 1997. It is a minor adjustment, an adjustment that is necessary to ensure the smooth transfer of the responsibilities of the current boards to the newly created boards. This provision will ensure a smooth transition and will bring about a board that can accept those responsibilities and act upon them. The terms that is used is, the boards become successors in law, and they would bring about the assurance that this transition would be a smooth one, that it will bring about the desired effect that we need at this particular time, and that we are moving forward during this time to make it - the education system of this particular Province - to ensure that things are running smoothly, that we have the emphasis or concentration on that area which is most important, that being the children, the students, of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The consolidation, again, is a consolidation that has been well thought out. It is consolidation that, again, is a natural consequence of the restructuring that began in the early 1990s. It will move our education system along, and it can provide a level of education in this Province that will be second to none. We also will point out that this consolidation will affect all aspects of the school system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but not to the extent that it should disrupt what is going on in the classrooms.

With regard to the consolidation of the boards, obviously the regional offices are going to remain intact and the staff at the regional offices will, certainly to some degree, be similar to the types of staff that we have there now; that these regional facilities will indeed continue on. The efforts of the personnel who are there, even as we speak, certainly in many cases these personnel will be much the same. When we look at our itinerant teachers, for example, these certainly are attached to students. They are there because they are attached and responsible for certain students. That should not change.

When it comes to the program specialists, again these program specialists, even as we speak, are setting up for September so that when the schools open in September everything should be in place; because, in looking at preparing for a school year, it is absolutely necessary that preparation be done at this particular time in the year. As a matter of fact, as we wind down in June, we can see that basically the program specialists, the personnel in the schools, the principals, the teachers, will have in place what is necessary to ensure that, when our schools open up in September, everything will be in place, that is required, to make sure that the needs of the children, the students, are addressed.

It is important that we support it, and I fully expect that this bill will be supported, because all members of this House certainly realize that in this one, in this particular bill, it is absolutely necessary if we are to ensure that the boards, these newly created boards, are fully able to discharge their responsibilities in September and concentrate efficiently on the delivery of educational programs and services to students. The lack of clear legislation provisions in the act as we speak, the act of 1997, certainly makes it necessary that we do ensure the passage of this.

The merging of the school boards certainly will bring about change. There is no doubt about that, but, as the hon. members of this House know, each of the new school districts will have those headquarters. There will be senior administrators, as well as regional education centres which will house at least one senior education administrator. Our program specialists, our student support services, our itinerant teachers, student transportation, and maintenance services will continue on.

I must say, when we look at the work that, I guess the people that I have just referenced, have done over the last number of years, they have put in place programs and policies in these school boards that will serve us well as they move these forward into the new boards. I certainly would look at the aspect of our trustees as well. The service that they have given to the current boards in dealing with restructuring, that certainly has presented many, many challenges. Especially in this last decade, challenges that were met, for the most part. We have an education system today that, again, I feel is second to none. We have done the work that is required. I take my hat off to the trustees, to the senior administrative staff in our board offices who are -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne that his time has expired.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

CHAIR: Leave has been denied.

MR. HEDDERSON: Certainly, if I need it I will come back at a more appropriate time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to say a few words with respect to this particular bill, Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, at second reading and now I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words about it in a little more detail now in the committee stage where the whole intent is to take some time, repeatedly if we need to, like we have done in the previous committee with respect to the amendments to the fishing industry Collective Bargaining Act, to try and get at the details of it.

Mr. Chairman, again, so we do not lose sight of what is happening and what is going to happen, no one should be under any illusion that anything is going to happen other than at a point in time, when the government decides that it has heard enough of the debate, this bill will pass, because they have the majority. They have made a decision themselves and this is our opportunity to try to ask some questions, raise some points, express concerns if we have them, but we are under no illusion as to what our abilities are. We will raise the points that we have and, at a point in time, it will pass.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things is because - I will raise a few points about this because I understand it will pass. As of this point, it is not the intention of the Official Opposition to actually propose even an amendment to any one of the clauses. We will raise our concerns. We will ask some questions and we understand, at a point in time, they will vote for it and we will vote against it because we do not believe it is necessary for starters, but I do not think we are going to convince the other side of that. But we will not leave the opportunity to at least make our points known. I know that the Parliamentary Assistant, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is listening, will listen and does listen, and will make a note of the points. I do not expect that we will convince them to change much but I do appreciate the opportunity to speak, to present the points and to be listened to. I do appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the issue that was raised a bit earlier in a point of order at about 10 o'clock. I will not go back to that, other than to say for a government that prides themselves - because I have heard the Premier and several of the ministers say how they pride themselves in being open and accountable and wanting to brag about the things they are doing. It is awfully strange that the last time we were here, two nights ago at 10 o'clock in the night, in the middle of a debate and still introducing brand new legislation that had never been debated in the Province before, introduced and not a word spoken to it; not even an opportunity for a Minister of the Crown to stand up and tell the people why the bill made sense. It was done after 10 o'clock when the cameras were off. In the last five or six minutes - I do not expect this to happen tonight - before 10 o'clock, members opposite, including some of the ministers, were actually getting excited about: Oh, don't worry about them talking because the cameras will shut off now in a minute and we can do what we like. So, I am not going to go back to that debate again, but I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we will take our opportunities, cameras on or cameras off, to make our points. Again, we expect, at a point in time, they will use their majority to pass the legislation as they see fit.

Let me make these comments with respect to the introductory comments just made by the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Education. Again, just as the minister did the other day when he introduced this a couple of nights ago at second reading, he said it was a minor little adjustment, sort of inconsequential and sort of, we do not need to pay much attention to it because it is just sort of routine. I made the point then that it is far from routine. The whole issue is far from routine. I know it is going to pass but I would have liked, at least at some point, for the government to give some acknowledgment to the significance of it and to acknowledge that it is far from routine.

Let me make these points, Mr. Chairman, with respect to that. The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education, again this evening said: Well, it had to be done because of student decline and savings. It has nothing to do with it, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is, in the Budget Speech the Minister of Education, and in documents they presented afterwards, they said: This would result in savings somewhere between $6 million and $7 million. I can see if it was ever discussed in the caucus, which you know my stand on that, Mr. Chairman. I doubt if it was discussed very much in the caucus at all. It was a decision taken and then they heard about it publicly, probably when it was read in the Budget Speech like everybody else. Let me make this point again, Mr. Chairman. Even the Minister of Education, a couple of days before the Budget was read, announcing this restructuring, was in Gander with the school boards saying: We don't plan to change the school boards. So, I doubt very much if there was much of a discussion of it in detail in the caucus.

The idea of the savings - just let me touch on that one, and I might need more than one intervention this evening and so on of the Committee to make the three or four points that I would like to make. On the savings, everybody could understand if we were going from eleven school boards to five in the final analysis, eleven to five, because the Francophone Board is going to stay unchanged, the Labrador Board is going to stay unchanged and the other nine on the Island will become three. Everybody could understand that if you were going to close the offices - we will use the Central case as an example. There is a full office structure in Gander for the board. There is a full office structure in Grand Falls-Windsor for the board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty-five minutes apart.

MR. GRIMES: Fifty-five minutes apart.

People could say: Well, the same as the health care. The same debate is going to be in health care. It has already started, by the way. The minister has not engaged yet, but the people in the region have already engaged in a debate about putting together the health board and where it might be located.

I know the Member for Windsor-Springdale - it is probably an omen, that you will probably be a minister sometime sooner than you think, I would expect, compared to some of the performances we have seen in the couple of months we have been here from those who are on the front benches now. I would say: Don't lose faith. Don't lose hope. There is a real chance we might get a voice in the Cabinet for Central Newfoundland, to stand up and fight for some of the things that we are doing, because we have a couple of people in there now who are sort of shut out, sitting there and not getting their voices really heard.

I digressed a little bit, Mr. Chairman. The point on the savings in Central - again, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education confirmed it again in the commentary. He said: Well, we are going to keep both offices open. The Member for Windsor-Springdale actually has been in the media locally, to his credit, saying: I fought for that. I didn't get to keep the full office in part of my district, but I am glad, at least, we are keeping the office structure, and every service is going to stay there. Every service is going to stay there except the director and three or four senior people. Everybody else is staying. So, you see, now the savings are gone. Everybody could have seen $6 million or $7 million in savings if those board offices closed and all those staff were subsumed someplace or disappeared, but in Central Newfoundland what you are going to have is the full cost of two offices anyway. You are going to have about five positions eliminated at the senior level. Everybody else is staying. The ones who leave have to be paid their severance. So there is going to be hardly any savings this year. Those who are going to be in Gander have to travel to Grand Falls-Windsor and west into the Member for Windsor-Springdale, into his district, to service the district. They are going to have to travel further, greater costs. The Member for Baie Verte, he is so far to the west he must think he represents the West Coast instead of Central Newfoundland, the central part of the Island.

In any event, I even think now, as a matter of fact, that the Minister of Education has already downgraded his savings potential. He is not saying $6 million or $7 million now. I think the last time he addressed it publicly he said we might save around $3 million. So, this great thing about saving money, in the first year there will be none. By the time a bit of severance comes out of it for some of the senior executives and extra savings and keeping all of the offices open - because the initial concept, you see, was to close the office in Central, to close one of the two right down. Then you would not have the rent in - because they have decided to go to Gander. That decision is taken. Then you would not have that facility in Grand Falls. You would not have the rent. You would not have to pay for it. You would not have snow clearing. You would not have heat and light. So, you could see some real savings, but they have backed off from some pressure from some of their own members and from the area. Now they are keeping all of the offices open.

He just listed off - and the Parliamentary Secretary might remind me again - the itinerant teachers, the transportation people and all of the other special services. He said they are all staying. They are all staying there. They are all staying in Grand Falls-Windsor and they are all staying in Gander. The only thing that is going to leave Grand Falls-Windsor is there will not be a Director of Education. There will not be an Assistant Director for Personnel. There will not be an Assistant Director for Administration. There will not be an Assistant Director for Programs. Just about everybody else who is there now is going to stay there and keep their jobs. As a matter of fact, they have already been notified. They are going to run a full operation, just like it was before. The only savings in that region, in Central Newfoundland, are about five senior staff. Their severance this year is almost equivalent to their salary. So, in this fiscal year, no savings.

Savings and student decline; it has nothing to do with student decline. The fact of the matter is by doing this, what is going to happen - the board structure has very little to do with how many students are out there. The board offers an opportunity for parents, on behalf of students, to have some real say and input into the education decisions in a region. All it does is it eliminates the opportunity for local involvement in decision making about education. It does not matter if you have fifty schools in the region or if the student decline has brought it down to forty schools in a region, if you make the regions so much bigger and you are still only going to have a dozen or so people on the board, it just means that more and more communities have no hope of having a representative on the board, and there is no savings in it in any event. So, all you have done is, under the guise of savings, you have moved decision making further and further away from the people impacted.

Take the Avalon one in particular, the one right here, the Eastern one. People in the remote, almost still isolated communities on the Burin Peninsula where they have enough trouble trying to get into Marystown and those kind of things. Do you know where their point of contact is now? St. John's. They felt that they were ignored enough and left out enough and considered well down the list enough before when their board office was on the Burin Peninsula, because they were distant from it in their own minds. They thought they were not favoured in the decision making. They had minimized input. Now their input is going to be practically nil, but they are going to keep an office down there on the Peninsula. They are going to take out the director. They are going to take out those senior staff again, and going to keep all the rest of them, the people who handle the transportation, the itinerant teachers, the special programs. They are all going to stay, but there is no input in terms of decision making on the Burin Peninsula from all the communities, because now even three or four communities might have members on a board on the Burin Peninsula. Do you think they are going to have input on a board that is sitting in St. John's? Not a chance in the world.

There is no savings, and it has nothing really to do with the number of students at all. When the reform was done in 1997 it used to be twenty-seven school boards, but it was taken down to eleven. The consideration that everybody in the Legislature at the time voted on, unanimously, is that it was kind of hard to do fewer than that because you wanted local input. We were electing boards for the first time and we wanted people to run, thinking they would still have a real say in the new system. You are going to encourage people to run now, when there are three boards, knowing that their chances of getting elected are practically nil. They will have the districts and the zones that are there.

So, it is a very serious issue, but the rationale being presented, I contend, Mr. Chairman, is not the legitimate rationale. The rationale is this: They made an ill-founded decision, because there is somebody in that government who will repeatedly take the view that you do not need these administrative structures because they believe you can do it all in St. John's.

We are seeing it in education first, with only three boards for the whole of the Island. We are going to see it in health care; we know that. It is not official yet, but it is going to happen in health care. Guess where the strangest one of all is going to be? It is going to be in regional economic development, because there are already plans afoot to take the twenty regional boards, where you have local input for people who might have a real say about what might work in this region, and they are going to bring it down to five, maybe three. Maybe three. So, why don't they give it all to Doug House and have none?

There is a very pervasive mentality here that says you do not need local involvement, and the bit of money you do spend to allow for the local involvement is a waste of money. That is message that is in this bill, that the money that is there to allow ten boards, to allow for local input for people into the fundamental structure of the decision-making process in their region, is a waste of money. That is why one of my colleagues calls it an affront and an assault on democracy, because you have a government that believes that putting in place structures that allow local input, people who want to run for office so that they can have a say, is a waste of money. That is a very telling commentary, a very telling commentary.

The other thing was this: The Parliamentary Secretary said we have to put in this new section 57 because this was sort of overlooked in the bill in 1997.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inadvertently.

MR. GRIMES: Inadvertently overlooked, he clarifies. Well, I can tell the member, even if he reads the minister's own bill, it is not that you are putting in a section 57 on successor rights because it was not there. It says, by the way, section 57 of the Schools Act, 1997, which exists, is repealed and replaced by this one. There is a full successor section right here, Mr. Chairman, already in the current Schools Act. The same kind of provisions that are in this one already exist. It was contemplated in 1997 that the eleven boards that exist today, one or more of them over time might lapse, might dissolve, might want to change. There was no concept that the eleven would become three because the government decreed it. There was a concept that people, themselves, might come to the conclusion, in a certain region, that they might be better off in another arrangement.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will come back to that point at another opportunity in the Committee debate.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak for a minute on An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. As I mentioned the other night when the TV cameras were off and the House was still operating and this legislation was brought in, this is legislation that is anti-democratic. It is anti-democratic because we had school board elections that elected people for a term of four years. Their term does not expire until the fall of 2005. This Cabinet, this government, has basically cut them off and said you are no longer elected. Your school board is actually dissolved. So, people who ran for public office - and we do not have very many, as I said - were told that their term of office is going to be over. For what, Mr. Chairman? For what? Because they were misbehaving? Because they were acting contrary to the Schools Act? Because they were doing - in some councils - operating illegally, where the Minister of Municipal Affairs can dissolve a council and appoint somebody else? No. None of these reasons had anything to do with it. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody over there, aside from the Minister of Finance and perhaps the Premier, knew this was going to happen. It happened for, supposedly, budgetary reasons.

There are an awful lot of problems being associated with this. We found out the other day, a few of the members from the St. John's area had a meeting with the school trustees. The Member for Mount Pearl was there, the Member for St. John's Centre was there, and the Member for CBS was there for part of the meeting. He had another obligation. We heard some pretty serious concerns being raised by the elected - by the elected - school trustees for the Avalon East Board as to what is going to happen. They did not get into the politics of why it happened or why it did not happen. They were there to say, we have these concerns.

The concerns were about the quality of education. The concerns were about what is going to happen to the new structure, what is going to happen to the pupil-teacher ratio, what is going to happen to teacher allocations, what is going to happen, for example, to the $80 per pupil that the school boards were given. Because, from the Avalon East Board, the $80 per pupil that is passed over to the school board for the classroom instruction, $65 of that goes to the schools and to the pupil. That is not the case in the other elements of that board, and there are reasons for it. The reasons are for geographic reasons; it is more expensive to deliver programs in the other board areas.

The Member for Mount Pearl was there. I am sure he was equally surprised by the concerns that were being raised. The $80 a year that the Avalon East spends directly on the pupil in other areas, because of the way the budgets work, some spend $40; some spends $35. Now we are going to see this board, this overall super board, the 56,000 student super board, with responsibility for three-quarters of the students in the Province, one board from the Bonavista Peninsula to the Burin Peninsula to Port de Grave, Cape St. Francis, Baccalieu, all of that in one school board, 127 schools, Mr. Chairman, instead of having to (inaudible) - they were just getting to the matured level of having the elected boards, sorting through the policy issues, sorting through the school closures that go on for awhile, and now getting to the point where they were ready to start focusing - this is what we were told: We are just getting ready to focus, as an elected school board, on the quality of education and what the school boards could do, and the school board members could do, to have some influence over the quality of education in the schools.

Now what do we have? We have a total disruption of that for no good reason, because the same people who told us the other night they were concerned that there was going to be a decrease in the quality of education - that is what they said; they were concerned that there was going to be, in fact, a decrease in the quality of education overall as a result of this change - they said: You are not going to save. By the way, folks, you are not going to save $6 million. There is no possibility of saving $6 million.

So, what is it for? Nobody on that side of the House has given a sensible, reasonable cogent answer as to what this is for, other than the two lines in the Budget that suggest they are going to save over $6 million, which nobody outside of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board believes. Nobody believes it. I do not think they even did a consultation or analysis or assessment on it. They just made some assumptions. They obviously did not consult because nobody knew they were doing it.

If it was for educational reasons, if it was for the advancement of education, if somebody had a theory that this was for the advancement of education, and for the betterment of the delivery of education in this whole area of the Avalon, Bonavista, and Burin Peninsulas in the case of the Eastern Board, then there would have been a process of consultation. The Parliamentary Secretary might have even been consulted. He might have been consulted. I do not think he can get up in this House today and say that he was consulted about this. He was a school principal in the Avalon West district. He knows the struggles that people went through to try and deal with the school closure issue over the last number of years, because he was involved. He knows that took up an awful lot of time of board trustees, board members, in trying to deal with the realities of budgets and the realities of decisions that were coming down from Confederation Building. He knows that the school boards, the elected school boards, were just getting to the level of maturity that they felt, first of all, that they had some say, and that they were over the hump of government imposed decision making, so they could get down to the brass tacks of working within the structure to try and improve things for their students.

You know, having some meaningful say at the school board level is a fundamental aspect of public education. Someone calls it the fourth leg. I am not sure what the other three are. Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us the other three. The fourth leg of public education is supposed to be a school board which is accessible to the local community so that the parents and the community can have some say. That is what is absent from this mega board situation that we are talking about.

I am going to use the largest board as an example. I am sure I heard the Opposition Leader talk about the Central Board, and we have gone from eleven to five boards. One for Labrador, one for the entire Province, the Francophone Board.

MS JONES: Part of Labrador.

MR. HARRIS: One for part of Labrador. I stand corrected by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who is always ready to ensure that I do not make any mistakes when I speak in the House, and I thank her for it.

Part of Labrador, her part of Labrador, is put in with Western Newfoundland, but effectively for the Island and the southern part of Labrador there are three boards, three mega boards, and the level of local input has diminished tremendously as a result of this change. We already had concerns from parent groups in small communities about decisions that were being made about school closures. We had it from Brownsdale and that area in the Avalon West Board, we had it from St. Brendan's down in the Burin Peninsula Board, and we had them all over the area because they did not feel they had enough access to decision making. Well, Mr. Chairman, we just made it ten times worse because now somebody from Brownsdale - in what was Conception Bay North and what was the Avalon West Board - is in the same school board district, the same school district, as someone from Elliston, up on the Bonavista Peninsula, or someone from Trepassey or St. Shotts. There is no way that those community residents, those parents, can have an effective say in what is going on, let alone even know what is going on and being able to attend board meetings.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has lapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess we will have another opportunity to speak. Hopefully, in the meantime, we might hear some explanation from government members as to what the purpose of this was, and what they hope to accomplish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the fellow that skittered out.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I say to the member across the way, I certainly did not skitter out.

I rise this evening, Mr. Chairman, to speak in support of Bill 31. In listening to some of the comments of members across the way, the Leader of the Opposition asked that we not lose sight of what is important in this process. I could not agree with him more. In the beginning, in this process, I spoke to the Education Minister and said, the thing that is number one in this entire process is children, and I do not think we should ever, ever lose sight of that.

Mr. Chairman, this bill will pass, and hopefully it will not be delayed. It is certainly not an inconsequential matter, and we hope that it will see on through to a smooth transition. I have just come from this system. I worked as a teacher, as a principal, and as a board program specialist. I worked on many committees across the Department of Education, so I can stand here and say that I have participated in the whole gamut of the education system.

I was with the boards when the restructuring took place in 1996 and 1997. I would like to have people reflect, as I will reflect, on the restructuring and the closure of schools. I stand in support of this bill, because if this process is going to take place then I would like to see that it takes place as smoothly as it possibly can, for I was in the school system and I was principal of a school that was closed. There was turmoil, I can assure you of that. There were protests. There were court cases. There were fundraisers to pay for court cases, and there was down time. I am certain that the ruling government at that time did not see these practices as favorable measures, but I assume they saw it as necessary actions, just as this government sees this move in restructuring as a necessary action.

Mr. Chairman, I have sat in discussions where people anticipated that board restructuring was about to come, they knew, and looked at it as possibly necessary in years to come. I guess this is the eventual reality.

Speaking to the members who are participating and having a say in how the new board will be restructured, I can tell members of this House that the two representatives who are on that committee from the Burin Peninsula are people who will certainly voice their opinion. They will not be rubber stampers and they will speak their piece.

So, Mr. Chair, I stand here this evening in support of this bill, recognizing whether you call it a deficiency or an omission or whatever in the Schools Act, 1997. It has made provision for the dissolution of school boards and the creation of new boards, but the legislation is flawed in that it has not identified the successor in law. Neither does it require that all agreements and contracts be assumed by the successor board, so this bill is necessary. I imagine it may have been an oversight, because the former consolidation of boards took place under the 1990 and 1996 Schools Act in which there was a provision made, but the Schools Act, 1997, which was enacted, for some reason, whether it be an oversight or whatnot, this was omitted.

It is clear that this successor in law is necessary from a legal standpoint. If we are going to have this board move forward in September, we need issues of this matter resolved. The proposed amendment that is happening in Bill 31 would correct this deficiency and allow section 57 of the Schools Act to be enacted as it was clearly intended. I do see this as a necessary bill, a housekeeping matter. It is certainly something that needs to progress rapidly so that the transition to the new board can take place.

With regard to the restructuring, and the number of boards, I go back to the Williams-Sparkes ministerial report on educational delivery in 2000, which suggested that boards would need further consolidation. As I have already alluded to, I have sat in discussions where people anticipated and expected it would come.

As well, Mr. Chairman, and as much as some people would say that numbers may not be important in this, I do not think any of us can realistically think that it would not. When I look at numbers such as the enrolment, which has decreased by 23 per cent, we must expect that schools will consolidate and boards will consolidate. The schools in our Province have reduced by 29 per cent. On the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Chair, when I arrived there in 1975, there were three boards, and I may be corrected on this but I would say that there were probably in the vicinity of seventy to seventy-five schools. Today, on the Burin Peninsula, there are sixteen. I would say that the Vista Board, the Clarenville area, in 1975, would probably have had very similar numbers. Today, I believe, they stand at seventeen. So, with school numbers declining in that regard, consolidation is necessary.

Mr. Chair, going back to the enrolment figures, here is the trend that I have seen in the schools: For the last eight to ten years we have Kindergarten classes that are coming in to some of our rural schools with as low numbers as ten. We have graduating classes in these smaller schools leaving with numbers as high as twenty to twenty-five. Look to centres such as Marystown and you see that the same type of trend is happening. Therefore, our numbers are decreasing, our schools are decreasing, and likewise, Mr. Chair, our teachers are decreasing. They have decreased by 17 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I go back to Bill 31 and I go back to how I started out in this address. This amendment is to the Schools Act, 1997, and I go back to: This is a necessary amendment so that we can ensure a smooth transition. We have, right now, the Department of Education, the existing boards and the interim committees working together so that we can have these new boards ready for September.

Mr. Chair, I stand in support of this bill so that we can see a smooth transition, so that our schools can be ready for September to receive students, and that we will have a progressive beginning year.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Tonight I am standing and I am speaking in response to Bill 31. It is interesting, when I heard the government members opposite. The buzz words they were using were: Savings; they were going to find savings in this school board consolidation. This bill was just a housekeeping item. This bill was necessary. Now, this is what they call this bill, that it is housekeeping, necessary, and they are going to have savings. Well, I can tell you, one member, and I know all the members on this side of the House, will be voting about this unnecessary bill.

When you talk about reasons, you haven't got a reason. You cannot support any rationale because there is none. You haven't got enough evidence to go in a matchbox. You have not. You haven't got enough evidence to go in a matchbox, as to why you are doing it. You are going to be consolidating eleven school boards down to five. You are going the route of Dr. Doug House in trying to gut rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is about what you are trying to do. Out here on Avalon East you are going to have 45,000 students under one board. Now, what kind of a say can somebody from Broad Cove have, or Northern Bay, or the Burin Peninsula? How can they have any say that is going to be heard with a big, gigantic, mega board in Avalon East?

Brian Shortall was on Rogers Cable awhile ago. He is the Director of Education for Avalon East as it stands today. I heard him, I watched him, and he said that during school reform in 1996, it took about three years to make the transition of school board consolidation at that time, and during that period of settling in there was absolutely no time that could be spent on the most important things, and they were the student initiatives and developing curriculum. So you are going to react like a flash in the pan and make this work by September? I do not think you have the main users of the system in mind at all, who are the students. It is clear that you do not.

I heard Mr. Fred Douglas, the President of the NLTA. He was on the media, April 27, and this was about, at that particular time, public sector workers who were on strike. One of the quotes that he said was, what he has seen of this Premier is all about winning. He has to win.

What I see about this school board consolidation, it is all about winning. It is making sure that the control will be right here from Confederation Building. You will have less people to deal with, and right now these people will not be elected. You are taking away their democratic right. They were elected. As volunteers, people had genuine interest in making sure that local voices were heard in the running of the school system in their particular district. Right now, you are taking away that right of elected individuals who volunteered to help. You are taking that away.

When you look at the fact that - and Mr. Fred Douglas said this: He was concerned, and he still is, about increased class sizes, program cuts, and the students who will be the losers. He also said that, through school board restructuring, they will lose eighteen program specialists, and the ones who are left will be travelling over a larger geographical area. What about the other specialists at the boards even now? In fact, they feel now that they do not have adequate staff to deal with all the situations that are out there today. What will happen when there are fewer of them?

It has been said that even the Minister of Education, himself, did not know what was going to appear in the Budget. He was just as shocked as any member of the caucus that he represents when he, on Budget Day, found out that the schools boards, yes, indeed, were going to be consolidated. There was no evidence. I asked the Minister of Education, myself, because I come from the District of Grand Falls-Buchans where there is currently a school board. The school board office is located in the district of the Member for Windsor-Springdale, and there was not a whimper from the Member for Windsor-Springdale. He let this happen. It is clear that he has no clout. He has no clout with his caucus colleagues. He has no clout with his Cabinet colleagues. He has no clout with the Premier. He let that happen, when Grand Falls-Windsor had the best case and it has been shown so on television. During the NTV news, they showed the two facilities. Gander had an older facility; Grand Falls-Windsor had a brand new one. Grand Falls-Windsor was right in the middle of the district, from Baie Verte to Carmanville. It was completely wired and ready to go, and being used for professional development for all teachers throughout the Central area. A brand new school, a brick school, a one-storey school, totally, completely, accessible for disabled persons. It had been used for professional development far and wide, and had every facility there and could accommodate the joining of the two boards at absolutely no renovation cost to government and no rent to pay for. It had a huge, big parking lot, and all the factors were there as to why Grand Falls-Windsor should have been chosen. So, when I asked the Minister of Education, how did he make that decision? - he could not stand and substantiate his very own argument.

As I said when I started, there was not enough evidence to fill a matchbox, as to why this should have been done. They said they were doing it, on Budget day, to achieve savings. It has already been outlined here tonight that there is no saving to be achieved because the travelling will be greater. Specialists now, who travel from one area to another, will have to travel further. There will be longer waiting times for students who really need the services of specialists. There will be more people spending nights in hotels. There will be more wear and tear on cars; that will cost the board more. There will be more money spent in travel claims and gas and dinners and suppers and incidentals, and everything else connected with it.

Who will be representing the children? We have often heard the phrase: Who will fight for us? We have heard that phrase over and over and over. It is on the airwaves every day; we hear it. Now, who will fight for the children? Who do you think has a chance to be elected to a mega board? Do you think the concerns of the school in Buchans, the school in King's Point, the school that just burned down in Carmanville, do you think any of the small schools down in Cottrell's Cove, all of the Northern Peninsula, the school in La Scie, the one in Baie Verte, do you think they will have the same opportunity to make their concerns known to a mega board?

When a government is new and they make decisions, the first step to happen would be to go out and consult. I did not see that. If anybody around this Province can tell me if they did any consultation, I would like for them to stand on their feet. Make no wonder the polls are showing what they did, because those polls that came out a couple of days ago show a very arrogant government. They show a very arrogant government that pays no attention to the people who elected them and had great hopes for a new change, a change of government, a new approach.

What we are seeing now is a government that is going to be top-heavy. It is going to be all the control on the eighth floor of the Confederation Building. It is not going to be filtered down to the Cabinet. It is not going to be filtered down to the caucus. It is not going to be filtered down to the boards and agencies that represent people on a local level. We are seeing that now.

There is a great concern happening, and I speak to it almost every day in the House, and the same matter is going to come by for the consolidation of health care boards. What criteria will be used? I asked it repeatedly. I got no answers. It is a looming question in my district, and it should be in Windsor-Springdale, but I am not hearing any intense lobbying by the Member for Windsor-Springdale. He stepped on his feet yesterday after being shamed into it by myself. He figured he did his job. He presented a petition.

Let me tell you, your job - the Member for Windsor-Springdale - is with your Cabinet and with your Premier. You have to let them know that what they are planning to do is a mistake. It is a mistake. There is no evidence to support it. They are running roughshod over the people. As I said many times when I stood on my feet, the greatest casualty of this new government is the truth. They were elected on false pretense. They were elected on a new approach, a new way of handling the affairs of our Province, but what we see now is betrayal of trust, and broken promises.

CHAIR (Harding): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time is up.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

I will have another opportunity, I am sure, to speak to this bill.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I make any comments about Bill 31, I just want to respond to something that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans just said. She talked about the decision-making process and the arrogance of this government. I sat all through this session and listened to members opposite talk about how there is no consultation on this side, how members of this caucus do not participate in decision making, and how all decisions are made up on the eighth floor.

Mr. Chairman, I have probably, in my short political career of four years, sat in caucus with more premiers than anybody else in this room. I have sat in a caucus with four different premiers, and I tell this House, and I tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the caucus that I sit in today, with the Premier of this party today, and the Premier of this Province today, is the most open caucus that I have ever sat in, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is, the member is apparently saying that he was consulted on this amalgamation before it happened. If he was, it was him and not the Minister of Education. Perhaps he can confirm the fact that he was consulted on this amalgamation before it happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: What I had said, Mr. Chairman, was that the caucus that I now sit in is the most open caucus that I have ever been a part of. The leader, who is a part of this party, this government, the current Premier, has the most open discussions in caucus, more open discussion than any other caucus that I have ever been a part of, and any of the three previous premiers that I have been associated with as well, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to set that record straight, as someone who is probably more qualified in this House to make a comparison across four different premiers, and I say that with strong conviction and in all honesty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Now, to get to the merits of this bill, many of the comments that have been made tonight, Mr. Chairman, have been made about the decision itself that gave rise to the introduction of this bill in the first place, because this bill talks about an amendment to the Schools Act. I just want to read the Explanatory Note that is there. It says, "This Bill would amend the Schools Act, 1997 to clarify that a school board established as the successor of a dissolved board...". That is the nature of the bill, I say, Mr. Chairman, but the debate tonight is centered much around the decision to consolidate school boards themselves.

I want to make a couple of comments about that process, because there have been many things said by members opposite about that particular decision itself. We heard members talk about: How do school trustees get an opportunity to make some major contribution to decisions with such large boards? There have been many comparisons made about the past consolidations that have occurred in 1997.

I say, Mr. Chairman, once again with some experience, I was a school trustee - in fact, a school board chair - during that last set of consolidation of school boards. One of the things that makes - there is a big distinction between this process we are going through now and the process we went through back in 1997, I say, Mr. Chairman, because back in 1997 we will all remember that, yes, there was a consolidation of school boards; but, more importantly, we had, at that particular point, a period where we were eliminating the church involvement in the education system of this Province. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that particular aspect of that consolidation is what consumed a lot of boards' time and energy. It is what consumed the attention and focus of a lot of board chairs and directors.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans referenced comments made by Brian Shortall and, in fact, his preoccupation in the first three years was the consolidation. I say, Mr. Chairman, and I say to the member, I suggest and I contend that Mr. Shortall's preoccupation was in and around having brought together two school boards run by two different church groups. That was his preoccupation, I say.

One of the things, too, I can say, Mr. Chairman, that as a former trustee and as a member who represents a district that is within the new eastern boundaries, I do not share some of the same concerns about the opportunity for participation and opportunity for involvement because I have a tremendous amount of confidence and a tremendous amount of respect for the two individuals who represent the former Vista district boundaries within this new school board. I have a tremendous amount of confidence in their ability. I am certain, when they attend that board meeting, they will represent the interests of not just the students in the former Vista school district but they will represent the best interests of every single student in the entire eastern region. That is their role as a trustee, I say, Mr. Chairman. That is their role. They come representing a particular region of the Province but they represent the entire student population within that district.

With respect to the acknowledgment, and it has been - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in particular, talked about the geography of the eastern region. One of the things that I am extremely proud of is this government's acknowledgment and the notion that there is a difference, acknowledging the notion that there is a distinction between rural Newfoundland and urban Newfoundland. We have, in this particular part of the Province, in the eastern part of the region, the eastern region of this new structure, a new dedicated position, an Assistant Director of Education-Rural Schools. I think, Mr. Chairman, that fundamentally speaks to the notion that there is a distinction. Yes, there are different issues which are facing small, all-grade rural schools versus the large 800 and 900 student populations in some of the larger schools in St John's. We acknowledge that exists, Mr. Chairman. However, the structure of this new board with board representation from throughout the Eastern region, the administrative structure, particularly with the appointment of an Assistant Director of Education-Rural Schools. I am proud to say that individual will be housed in Clarenville, which is in my district. That individual's sole responsibility is to ensure that the rural school perspective is brought to the table and brought to the discussion and brought to the decision-making process.

Mr. Chairman, I am confident. I feel comfortable as a parent, as an MHA, as a former trustee, as a former school board Chair. In any of those capacities I feel confident, very comfortable standing here tonight and saying that when September rolls around the students in the school in my district, in districts in Eastern Newfoundland and Central and Western, they will find that they still have the same quality of education starting in September of this year as they are having today, in June of 2004, under the old board structure. I say that with confidence, Mr. Chairman, and I say it with some experience in being a part of that system from a number of different perspectives. If I did not have that level of confidence I could not stand here tonight. I could not stand here in previous debates and pass the Budget that in fact proposes this new structure. I could never, in all honesty, stand and support if I did not genuinely believe that. I would never have supported it if I did not have an opportunity to contribute to the debate and the discussion in and around the decision.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other points that have been raised tonight. There has been a reference to savings. I agree with the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans in that this is not an exercise about savings. This is an exercise of realizing that the population of Newfoundland is changing. The entire population is changing. The student population is changing. I was looking at some data today in my particular neck of the woods and I noticed that in Clarenville in the last ten years there has been a reduction of some 300-and-some-odd students in that period. I looked at data from the Member for Bonavista South. In the greater Bonavista-Catalina area there has been a reduction of some 900 students in the last ten years. We can go around the Province and pick out pockets of communities and make that same observation.

I think, Mr. Chairman, we have come to realize that in Newfoundland the population is shifting. There has been an out-migration. There has been some movement within the Province. The population is shifting. The demographics of the Province is changing. We need to be looking at our education system. We need to be looking at our health system, because what we did yesterday and what we did ten years ago is not the reality of today. We have to make fundamental decisions today about the kind of system we want, the kind of structures we need to put in place to position ourselves today to make sure that we have an effective running education system, effective health system into the future and that we are getting good value for the money that we spend, and that the people who were there to serve, and in this case the students of Newfoundland and Labrador, these are the people that the education is intended to serve. We need to assure - all members in this House have a responsibility to pass legislation that creates the framework to allow us to have a quality education system, to allow us to ensure that the students of this Province have the best opportunities to prepare themselves as they go forward into the future.

I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that this particular announced change of the structure of education gives us the foundation. It gives us the foundation to make sure we have an effective running system and that we have quality instruction going on in the classroom, because we will be able to now deploy resources where they should be. Resources that we deploy in education does not need to be in board offices. It is not in this building up in the Department of Education, it is in the classroom. That is where real learning takes place. That is where the recipients of the benefits need to be. The students of this Province, the70,000 students in our K to 12 system, they are the people we need to be focusing on.

As soon as we start talking in this House about political decisions, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, all she is able to be concerned about -

MS THISTLE: Grand Falls-Buchans.

MR. WISEMAN: Grand Falls-Buchans, I am sorry.

All she is concerned about is whether the board office is going to be in her town or not. She has not once - I have never heard her once stand in House and talk about what is going on in the classroom. She has ignored it altogether -

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - and that is irresponsible on her part, I say, Mr. Chairman. When she stands in future she should focus on the real issue.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Trinity North that his time has expired.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I cannot say that I take any pleasure in speaking to this bill and I will tell you right up front, I will be voting against it. The Member for Harbour Main introduced it in the absence of the Minister of Education tonight. Bill 31, the Education Act, he said minor changes that he is making in the bill. Absolutely housekeeping. I guess what he calls sweeping the school boards, six school boards out of the Province, out through the door, he calls it housekeeping.

Mr. Chairman, I have to laugh. They stand in the House and they talk about minor bills with little impact and what this bill is going to do. What they need this bill for tonight is to give them permission to enable them, under law, to eliminate six school boards in the Province. I must say, six elected school boards. What they are doing, this great democracy, this new democracy that the Premier talked about so eloquently in the Throne Speech, or after the Throne Speech, is a different approach to government. He did not mention, I suppose, that he was trying to eliminate democracy in our Province. What this bill is going to do is eliminate six schools boards. They are going to take it from eleven down to five.

Mr. Chairman, in actual fact, if you take the Francophone Board out of it, which only has roughly 200 students, you are going to be left with four school boards in this Province with a geography the size of this Province, unmatched anywhere in the country, I suppose, except for maybe Quebec. I doubt very much if they will reduce theirs to four school boards. Not only did they reduce them, what they did is under the old act, that we set up in 1997 - these boards were elected because we wanted to give parents and people around this Province a chance to influence the education that their children have. These individuals come in and say: No, they are not qualified to do that because we know better. It reminds me of the show Father Knows Best or daddy knows best, but I know what it is now: Danny knows best. That is what it is. Danny knows best, Mr. Chairman.

I watched the minister the other day when he first introduced this insignificant bill, which eliminates six school boards. He never once told us why he was doing it. His colleague tonight, the Member for Harbour Main, got up and talked about the bill and called it insignificant. He never told us why he was doing it.

The one that really galled me tonight, Mr. Chairman, is the Member for Marystown, when he got up tonight and talked - waxed eloquently on this bill and never mentioned why they were doing it. He even had the gall to go on and talk about how he went through the whole gamut of the education profession.

AN HON. MEMBER: Burin-Placentia West.

MR. REID: Alright, Burin-Placentia West. Marystown is in that district, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, it is. Oh, yes.

MR. REID: Anyway, the Member for Marystown - yes, the Member from Marystown -

AN HON. MEMBER: And Harbour Grace.

MR. REID: Okay, I am sorry.

Anyway, he got up and said that he went through the whole gamut of education, starting with being a student, a teacher, a principal and he got to the board office. I bet you, Mr. Chairman, if he were here right now he would say that he worked hard in every stage of the education system that he went through and he worked hard at every position that he occupied in the education system. I bet he worked hard as a student because he is an educated individual, I think. I bet you he worked hard as a teacher because he got promoted to be a principal. I bet you he worked hard as a principal because he got to be an employee of the school board in Marystown, and I understand he was a program coordinator.

AN HON. MEMBER: Program specialist.

MR. REID: Program specialist.

Anyway, he became a program coordinator. I bet you, Mr. Chairman, that if I visited him eight months ago prior to the election, and he was working in the board office in Marystown, and I asked him: How is your job? He would have told me it was a good job. How are you doing with it? It is good. Are you underworked? He would have said no. Are you overpaid? He would have said no. Do you think that we could do away with your position and it would not have an impact on the students of this region? He would have said: Definitively not. There is no doubt in my mind he would have told me that. That member tonight, a member of a school board eight months ago, an employee of a school board, a program coordinator with a school board eight months ago, would have told me: No, Mr. Minister, you shouldn't cut program coordinators in school boards, you should add to them. Just like the Member for Harbour Main, if they had told him they were eliminating all the principals' jobs out in his area, he would have said: No, Mr. Minister, you are doing the wrong thing, you should add.

The member got up and talked so eloquently about how he was so much involved in education, but did he ever once mention why this bill is before the House? Why they are eliminating six school boards? But, more importantly, as an educator himself - who, I would imagine, every function he attended since the time he left university with his teaching degree - he would have said: what comes first in education are the students in the Province. Did he once tell me tonight what positive impact the elimination of six elected school boards and all the employees therein, what positive impact the firing of these people is going to have on the education of the youth, especially in his region?

MR. GRIMES: You could even understand it if they would take any savings (inaudible).

MR. REID: Exactly! If they were going to take any savings and put it back into education it might be something different because the students would have benefitted. At least, I say to the Member for Harbour Main, when they eliminate these positions they would be putting the money into the education of the students, but they did not do it, and I have not heard an answer as to why they did it. The only answer that came for why they did it came in the Budget. It was a blanket statement about why they have done everything in this Budget. They want to save money.

If you look at the Budget and you look at the Budget Speech, and you listen to the Minister of Finance, he told us he was going to save $7 million by eliminating these six school boards. Mr. Chairman, that is about as true as everything else that minister has said over there since he became the Finance Minister, because to save that $7 million - and I know what I am talking about. I was the Minister of Education. I had a breakdown given to me after you did it. I had the proposal that was sent up to Cabinet. I had the proposal that was sent up to Cabinet and the breakdown of where the money was going to be saved. But I tell you, they are not saving it by what they are doing now. They are leaving all the board offices in place. They are laying off thirty-five employees of six boards. That is what they are doing. There is no one in this building tonight who can tell me that by the elimination of thirty-five board employees you are saving $7 million, because if they were, if those thirty-five employees were getting $7 million between them, I would say fire them, too. But that is not what is happening, Mr. Chairman, and I do not want to see these people fired. I think, if anything, we should have added a few. I think we should have added a few.

I told the School Boards Association last April, when I went to their association meeting in Gander, what was going to happen. I gave them my commitment. I gave them our government's commitment that we would not eliminate school boards because we believe in participatory democracy, something that you people should look up the definition of. You do not want participatory democracy. You want to rule. The Premier said that he does not govern. He rules. He controls. He does not govern. He is in the wrong country. That is what he is. He is in the wrong country. He should not be in a democracy. You do not rule. You do not control when you are the leader of a party in this country. You govern. But it is about power. It is about power, that is all this is about.

The Member for Harbour Main can get up and say what he likes tonight. He cannot tell me how the elimination of six school boards is going to positively impact the lives of one student in this Province. You cannot do it! If you say you can, I will sit down and give you my time to explain it. Neither can the member from Marystown, who sat on a school board, was an employee of a school board, tell me one way this can possibly impact a student in this Province, because he cannot do it. I will sit down for him if he wants to tell me how he can.

The Minister of Finance, who was a teacher, himself, for twenty or twenty-five years, tell me that by eliminating school boards that you are going to have a positive impact, how you are going to have a positive impact on the education of the youth in this Province. You can talk about declining enrolment until the cows come home. Some of them may have come home, but I tell you, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, we had a declining enrolment last year when we took about one-quarter of the teachers you are taking out of the system in the next two years. What did you say to me? You said to me, taking one teacher out of a classroom is one too many. Now, you are up tonight talking about we have a declining enrolment. There is no problem with eliminating 475 teachers, and the Minister of Finance has no problem with it, and the member for Marystown who worked at - I would like for the member for Marystown to go back to the very board office that he left in October and tell the people he worked with, his colleagues who he attended meetings with, who he socialized with, I would like for him to go back and tell them that, by eliminating them, their job was no good, that they were redundant, there was no need to have them there, and that they were a waste of money, and that the government was going to save money by laying them off, and that, by so doing, they were going to improve the lot of the students in that area. I bet you he has not done that. Then to have the gall to come on, to go in the media down in Marystown and say that the people of Marystown can live with the cuts to the education system; they can live with the cuts to the number of teachers in the area. I think he has had to withdraw his statements, retract his statements since then, because the people in that area are not going to live with that. It is not something that they voted for that man for. On the contrary. If you would vote for a man who was an employee of a school board, there is one thing that you would hope that he would stand and fight for, and that is the education of their youth.

Just like the Minister of Fisheries, I was listening to a gentleman the other day on the Fisheries Broadcast. He said: We were hoping that the current Minister of Fisheries was going to become the Minister of Fisheries because he was a fisherman himself and he was going to look out for us. He was going to do something for us, that had not been done before, and now they are saying they cannot find him. They cannot find him anywhere; he has done nothing for them. I am not lying. Listen to an Open Line show. Listen to the Fisheries Broadcast, when day after day they are asking: Where is he?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up but I will rise again to talk to this bill.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I get up in response to some of the commentary, debate, that is coming from the other side, just to remind the members on the other side that this bill is not one of permission. Basically, the Schools Act does contain a section in it that allows for the dissolution of boards. This particular amendment to the Schools Act is certainly there to make sure that the new school boards are successors in law, and that is the whole intent of this particular bill. It is a bill to make sure that there is a smooth progression into the move from eleven school boards to five.

In hearing the members speak from the other side, I guess they are selective in their memories, because I can go back as well to the last time that school boards were consolidated in this Province, from twenty-seven to eleven. They were brought down from twenty-seven to eleven, and during that particular time, as well, there was a transition period, a transition period that called for the realignment of the boards, and transitional boards put in place. Trustees that had been elected were asked to step aside, so it is not something new at this particular time, to again ask that the same thing happen, because it is important that there be a smooth transition.

With regard to the school board consolidation, again just a reminder to the members on the other side who certainly through the 1990s were guided by a report - it would have been the Williams report in the early 1990s, and the Williams-Sparkes in the early 2000-2001 - just a reminder to the members, that particular document contained a lot of the recommendations that have been actioned over the decade of the 1990s and on into this century, 2000 up to this present time. In looking at that particular one, we understand that it was a blueprint for educational reform; educational reform that is not new only to this Province but is going throughout not only Canada but the United States.

In any type of educational reform you have to have a plan. That plan was put in place by a great deal of consultation back in the early 1990s, where all sorts of various groups, stakeholders in education, were asked to put forth what they considered - not midway through - but that put the blueprint for the first restructuring largely taking place from 1993 up until 1999. Then there was a need brought about by the call for more equity in teacher allocation for the Williams and the Sparkes, Ron Sparkes, to put forth yet another consultation.

I would draw the attention of the members to the recommendation with regard to the school boards. It said, just about four years after the 1996-1997 reorganization, the Sparkes-Williams report considered recommending further school board consideration. It did state in 2000 that some $13.8 million is dedicated to the operation of school board offices, and efforts to achieve efficiency through future board consolidation would seem achievable and necessary within the next several years. Yet, having said that, we still get members up on the other side as if this was something new. The Leader of the Opposition knows, when he goes back - because he was the Minister of Education at the beginning of all of this - he knows that the plan was, basically, to consider to continue board consolidation to a point that it would be the most efficient governance of this particular Province.

The questions have come across as to: What difference is this going to make in the classroom? How is it going to help the students of this Province? Well, the very fact that it is not touching the classrooms in a direct way certainly indicates that this restructuring through consolidation is not going to have a negative effect on the classroom; that the choices that were made, were made to ensure that we were further away from the classroom than the restructuring that took place not so long ago. In looking at it, it is very, very important that we certainly consider the reasons behind it, as following through on a report that is based on a consultation of the stakeholders in this Province three or, at the most, four years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, when you consider (inaudible) getting a rise.

In addressing some of the concerns of the people on the other side, let me just again indicate that this plan is a continuation of a plan that was put in place back in 1992-1993, with full consultation throughout this Province. It was again looked at in 2000-2001, with recommendations. These recommendations are being acted upon and, in being acted upon, certainly point to a better governance, a governance that is going to be able to respond more effectively to, I guess, the needs of our education system, and again an indication that, when we talk about housekeeping or amendments, that is what this is. It is not the permission. The permission to do what is being done right now, with the dissolution of boards, is one which is already contained in the act, and this is to basically make sure that the school boards remain successors in law, that the school boards they replace, that they have been dissolved, that the new school boards will certainly be the successors in law.

With regard to savings, we know that there have to be savings, that there are savings. It is interesting to hear, again, the members on the other side talk about, I guess, the savings that are necessary in order to move us forward in education and also to, when they look back over the years that have been there, we see - and I already referenced what the Ministerial Panel on the Delivery of Education in the Classroom in 2000 said. The figure that they talked about, about school board operations, would have been somewhere around $14 million, whereas today we are talking something in the tune of $17 million.

Again, even though we took the school boards from twenty-seven to eleven, and streamlined it back in 1996-1997, I do not think anyone would disagree with me in saying that over the next - from 1996 up until this present time - over those next few years, we have gotten back up to the number of personnel, certainly the amount of money that is needed to operate these boards, and it is a time, during this particular time, that we would look at consolidating the boards in efforts to make savings.

On those words, Mr. Chairman, I will just sit down and allow the debate to continue.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am just going to have a few comments with regard to Bill 31.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member, the Parliamentary Secretary for Education in the Province, and he talked about this cut in boards in the Province is a continuation of a plan. I can tell you that the only plan that is being presented through Bill 31 is a plan that has been devised by the members opposite, either by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and the Premier, because I am not yet entirely convinced that the Minister of Education had a whole lot to do with devising this particular plan, because I believe the Minister of Education, I should say, to be a very honorable gentleman. In the week leading up to the Budget being presented in this House, the gentleman was out in Central Newfoundland meeting with school boards in the Province, saying to them there will be no change in board structure this year.

I believe that at that time, when the Minister of Education said that, he believed it to be true. So I am not really sure that the plan that is being presented here was even devised with a whole lot of input from the Minister of Education. I think it was more planned, it was devised, by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and by the Premier, because they thought there were going to be savings in reducing the number of school boards in the Province from eleven down to five. What we are learning at this juncture in the debate is that there was never really any full analysis done of what cost savings might be achieved as a result of this downsizing of boards. I do not think there ever was any particular analysis, any particular documentation, that would have outlined that this particular change in policy, this reform of education boards around the Province, was going to actually achieve anything in cost savings.

So, Mr. Chairman, you are left to ask yourself the question: What can be accomplished by introducing Bill 31? If we cannot see improvements to the standard of education that is going to be delivered in schools in the Province, and the quality and the availability of curriculum to our children in the classroom, and we have not yet determined if there are cost savings, my God, it begs to ask the question why we are even standing here debating Bill 31. It really does, because I see absolutely no real reason that government would have to be forced to the brink of bringing in a bill of this nature at this time, other than the fact that they feel the number of boards were not even necessary in terms of the administration of education in the Province, whether there were cost savings or not, whether there was going to be a diminished quality of education. It did not make a difference. Therefore, they were just going to proceed full speed ahead.

Mr. Chairman, do you know the problem that I have with it? There are a couple of problems. One, first of all, is that this particular decision was made with no consultation with boards around this Province. It was done with no discussion and it was done with no notice being given; absolutely no notice being given to school boards, to parent-teacher committees, to anyone in this Province. It was just taken right out of the blue. Notification was probably given the day of the Budget, or within a day of the Budget, and the public knew absolutely nothing about this until it was announced on Budget Day in the House of Assembly. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is wrong. That is not democracy. That is not the way you govern. Mr. Chairman, you go out and you consult with people. You talk to people in the classrooms. You get an idea of how decisions like this will impact upon the education system of our children in this Province, and that did not happen.

Mr. Chairman, I have a huge problem with that. A huge problem, because politicians and governments are elected to govern but they are elected to do so on behalf of people and what is in the best interest of people. If you do not talk to them, how do you know that? This is the situation with regard to Bill 31. A week before the Budget came down and this announcement was made, the Minister of Education was out across the Province telling people that there was going to be no change in the school board structures at this time. Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe the man was speaking the truth when he said that, but I think he came back to Confederation Building to find out that the axe had already been dropped on school boards in this Province and he, as the minister, was probably one of the last ones to be consulted. Now, there is the problem. If you are not going to go out and consult with teachers and parents and school boards on an important decision like this, and not even going to bring the minister into the loop a week before the decision is made and announced, there is a huge problem. Mr. Chairman, we will see this problem. We are going to see it quite clearly come September, you mark my words. You cannot take the number of school boards from eleven down to five in this Province and expect to maintain a quality of education. It cannot happen.

Mr. Chairman, in the Eastern Board area you will have 127 schools and 44,756 students. You have to ask yourself: How manageable is that in this Province, where we have such a diverse population, such geographic challenges, in terms of delivering all programs, including education programs? You really have to ask: Is the quality of education that will reach the classroom going to be compromised?

Mr. Chairman, I look at the Western Board, because a large part of my district will now come under the Western Board. The Northern Peninsula/Labrador South School Board has been dissolved. Everyone in the board office have been given their layoffs. Notice has been served that the doors will be shut and that there will be no more Northern Peninsula/Labrador South School Board. Did anyone consult with the people in my district? Indeed they did not, Mr. Chairman. The board members themselves found out the same time that I found out, the day of the Budget. The day of the Budget. That is the kind of consultation that occurred. Absolutely none!

Now you are going to have all the schools in the Northern Peninsula and Labrador South Board area locked into the Western Board, which will be eighty-two schools under that jurisdiction with an enrollment of 14,807 students. Probably not the number that is in the St. John's region, where you have over 44,000, but still you have 14,000 students being served by this board in one of the most remotely challenged areas in this Province. It takes in everything in Western Newfoundland right down to Burgeo, Ramea, all of that area, Port aux Basques, all of the Port au Port Peninsula, all of the Bay St. George area, Stephenville, right into the Bay of Islands, Corner Brook, the Humber Valley, and right on out to Deer Lake, up the Northern Peninsula to Rocky Harbour, Parsons Pond, Port au Choix, right on up to Flowers Cove, Green Island Brook, across to Englee, Roddickton, right on up to St. Anthony, right on down to Goose Cove. Then you cross the Strait of Belle Isle and you get into the Labrador Straits and right on up to Mary's Harbour into Port Hope Simpson, up as far as Norman Bay.

The Member for the Straits & White Bay North might be over there cackling tonight but I guarantee you, he would not be cackling up in the board office in Green Island Cove when they all got their layoff slips up there and twenty-three of them were hove out without a job. The member was not up there cackling that day was he? I guarantee you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: No, he was not, Mr. Chairman. Indeed he was not. He did not show his face, that is what happened. He did not show his face, the hon. member did not because I guarantee you, he did not have the face to go up and tell them that your board is going to close, that all of you are going to get laid off and that every school up here is going to be put in under the Western Board with eighty-two other schools in that jurisdiction to be served. Probably, I do not know, but if you take out the geographics of the Labrador region from Goose Bay-Labrador West up the North Coast, I would say, geographically, this is the largest school board area in the Province that stretches all that region.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we have the largest (inaudible).

MS JONES: Now, I stand to be corrected, Mr. Chairman, because I do not have the map in front of me. I cannot give you the full geographical dimensions at the present time but, I can guarantee you, it is a huge, huge board area to be serviced.

I have talked to the people in that board office. I have talked to a number of them in those board offices and I asked them what their views of this was. Do you know what they said? They said: It can't be done with any quality attached to it. That is what they told me. They said: Look, you can serve any area but how do you want it served? What is the quality of service that you want to give the schools, that you want to give to the education system in the Province? That is where the challenge is going to be. That is where the challenge is going to be.

It is unfortunate that the members opposite and the government, itself, did not see the importance of the school boards operating in those jurisdictions. They did not see the quality that was involved with the delivery of education through these board sizes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly have a lot to add to the debate and I will do so at a later time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I said I would be back again for a few more words on this bill. The more I listen to the members opposite, the more I have to get up.

Just a few minutes ago, actually about eleven minutes ago, I asked the Member for Harbour Main what positive impact could the closing of six school boards in the Province have on the students in these boards. I asked him four or five times: What positive impact would the closing of these boards have on students in the Province? The member for Clarenville says he gave me the answer. Yes, he did give me the answer. He did give me the answer, and I will read it to him. Here is what he said. Here is the positive impact, I say to the Leader of the NDP. Here is the positive impact he said it was going to have on the students of the Province. Here is what he said about the positive impact: Well, I guess the fact that it is not having a negative impact on them is a positive impact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Now, there is a bright statement! All I can say to the Member for Harbour Main, there is only lucky thing about that in his quest to get into Cabinet, the Premier was not here to hear him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Now, Mr. Chairman, there is your logic. He obviously did not do the logic course at university. I know he was the principal of a school, but he certainly did not deal in logic. The only positive impact that the closing of school boards was going to have on a student in this Province it was not going to have a negative impact.

That leads me to say that the member for Marystown, all those years he spent with the board office down there, he had no positive impact on education even though he waxed eloquently here tonight about how he went all the way up through the education system until he became a coordinator with the board down in Marystown. He talked about the students, the board and everything else. Then his colleague stands and says: Well, the fact that he is gone and all of his colleagues, at least they are not going to have a negative impact on the education of our youth. Now, there is logic! There is how much that individual, who was a teacher, a principal himself, knows about the education system. There it is! If it is not going to positively impact the student - and it is not, because there is no money from savings going back into the education of the youth in our Province - why are they doing it? I have asked them all and that is the best answer I had. What positive impact? Why are you doing it? A positive impact on the students. Well, it is not going to have a negative one. That is what they are saying here tonight.

Why are they doing it? It has nothing to do with a better education, the member confirmed that. It has nothing to do with a better education for our youth. The Member for Harbour Main said that. It has nothing to do with participatory democracy that my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, was talking about the other night. It has nothing to do with that because they are eliminating participatory democracy in the Province. They are eliminating - what did you call it, I say to the Leader of the NDP? The fourth level of democracy in our Province - behind the federal, provincial, municipal - is elected school boards. We do not elect anybody else. They are eliminating that level. They are eliminating the level of the elected school board and they are appointing their cronies to run the government. They are appointing their cronies to run these new school boards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: I say, like the lady from Corner Brook who never dealt with the education system before, like Mr. Bruce Peckford, an hon. man who never taught in a classroom before, is deputy minister of social services or something. Another political hack who was up on the eighth floor there, or up on the fifth floor, with two or three leaders of the Opposition giving him advice. They didn't give much good advice to the Minister of Finance. They didn't give much good advice to the Government House Leader. They could not get themselves elected as Premier.

I say to the member for Clarenville, he talked about all of his knowledge about premiers. He had more knowledge about premiers than anyone else in the Province. I will tell you what he does not have any knowledge about and that is the word trust, I can guarantee you that. If he wants to heckle, we can get into that as well.

So, they are not doing it for the betterment of the students in the Province. They are not doing it for participatory democracy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - and they are not doing it for money, like the Minister of Finance did when he said they were going to save $7 million. If he can tell me how he is going to save $7 million in this, this year, I would gladly sit down and let him get up and explain it to me, how eliminating thirty-five positions is going to save $7 million. If he can show me that, I will sit down and I will not stand up talk about this bill anymore.

If it is not about the education of our youth, it is not about participatory democracy and it is not about money, what is it about? I will tell you what it is about. It is the ego of the Premier, that is what it is about. The quest for power, the quest for control, the pursuit of control, the pursuit of the ability to rule, not govern. That is what it is all about, Mr. Chairman. I think it is called the Napoleonic syndrome. That is what I think it is called. I think he knows what I am talking about. He has the Napoleonic syndrome. That is what his problem is. He has this quest to rule, that is what it is. That is the reason he is eliminating school boards. He is reducing from eleven to four, effectively. He is going to reduce the hospital boards. The Minister of Health does not know that it is happening yet. He is going to reduce the REDBs, the Regional Economic Development Boards. What is there left for them to do? What he wants to do is, he wants to move everything out of rural Newfoundland into the corridor along the Trans-Canada Highway, so that eventually he can shove them all in a transport truck, I suppose, and move them all to the Avalon. That is his plan. He was born and raised here; that is his plan. He does not think that anyone should exist outside of the Avalon Peninsula; that, if you live out there and you are provided with a service from the government, it is a waste of money. It is a waste of money.

I will guarantee you this, Mr. Chairman, he will not be on Fogo Island, at the Fogo Island festival in his Winnibago his summer. I will guarantee you that. I will guarantee you that he will not be there, because I will tell you what. The chassis will be busted out of it going down through the roads in - the Member for Bonavista North, where the ducks are landing in the potholes. He will not be down there this year. He went out with his little carrot, his little touchy-feely stuff, and told them all everything that they wanted to hear. Like the Minister of Fisheries said earlier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - he wanted the big stick, and that is what he gave the people in the Province, the big stick, and he clubbed them over the heads when he fired them. When he fired them, when he slashed hospitals, when he cut hospital beds. The last thing he did is, he sent his officials to Fogo Island to steal ten hospital beds under the cloak of darkness. Just imagine. How low can you get? How low can a government get, when they sneak in under the cover of darkness to steal ten hospital beds? Ten hospital beds in a brand new building that the Minister of Health - I hope she has the courage to go out and open it, because it is supposed to be open now, but it is being delayed and delayed and delayed until she builds up the courage to go out there and open it. I hope the Premier is there, and I invite you tonight, Premier. I invite you tonight to come to the opening of the Fogo Island hospital, and I hope you are there. I hope you are there, and I hope the Minister of Health is there as well, because I was asked today, by Robinson-Blackmore, the local paper, to put an ad, a congratulatory ad, on the opening of the Fogo Island hospital. Can you imagine? My assistant came in and she said: Do you want to buy an ad, a congratulatory ad, on the opening of the hospital? I said to her: What kind of a hypocrite would I have to be, to congratulate a government on opening half a hospital and stealing ten beds?

Just imagine. I had to phone back the local newspaper and say: No disrespect, not that I do not want to give you a bit of business from time to time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: - but I honestly cannot buy an ad to congratulate a government for stealing ten beds out of a hospital of which they are only opening half.

That is what it is about, total disrespect for the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the quest for power. That is all this man talks - that is all he wants, a quest of power, to be able to rule, the Napoleonic syndrome. I ask those opposite, who do not know what the Napoleonic syndrome is, to look it up and you have your Premier. You have your Premier. That is what it is.

MR. DENINE: How do you spell Napoleonic?

MR. REID: I say to the Member for Mount Pearl, I have not heard him speak in the House yet, and the most he can offer in this House is: Spell Napoleonic.

You don't know how to look it up because you can't spell it. Is that it? Mr. Chairman, it is about power and it is about the destruction of rural Newfoundland. It is about the destruction of rural Newfoundland and Labrador that we grew up in, that we have come to know, that we have tried to protect, that we listened to the Premier and the members of the Opposition when they sat over here and condemned us for destroying it, and we were going to rebuild, revitalize, rural Newfoundland and Labrador. How many times did I hear the Premier and the rest of them talk about, we are going to be the saviours of the Northern Peninsula. They used that as an example, an economical wasteland, and then the Premier goes up there and says: Trust me. Trust me, he said in the by-elections, I won't forget you. I doubt he has been up there since. I doubt he has been up there since. I doubt it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo that his time has expired.

MR. REID: I will be back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few more words about the changes that are being made to the education system as a result of this bill. I am not sure I am going to get as worked up as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, but I share some of his sentiments about what is happening to the democratic tradition of this Province when this government can turn around, as a Cabinet decision, and take away elected representatives, who have been elected for a four-year term, and dissolve school boards, and change from an elected school board system to an appointed school board system after we have just gone through the process of creating, for the first time in our history, a fully elected school board system as a result of the changes that were brought about in 1997 and the act is now being amended.

We only had two elections, Mr. Chairman, and the role of elected school board members was starting to mature. Now, somebody is yawning over there. Maybe I should get his exercise, the Member for Fogo, because they might at least stop yawning. Maybe I will just sit down and let the Member for Fogo get up again. It will perhaps wake up some of the members opposite, but this is a very important point.

Maybe democracy is boring, Mr. Chairman, but people actually went out and got themselves elected to represent the interests of their communities on school boards because they thought they had something to contribute and they were going to have some say in the education of their children. What we are doing now - and I think the word I used the other night was the fourth order of elections. We do not elect very many people. We elect our federal Members of Parliament, and we are about to do that in a few weeks. We elect Members to the House of Assembly. We elect town councils or city councils around the Province, and we elect school board members. That is it. So, we are taking that fourth order of elected representatives and we are saying the Cabinet can dissolve their term of office. If this was about improving education, Mr. Chairman, we would have heard an announcement from the Minister of Education: We are seeking to improve the education system. We believe there is something to be gained from amalgamation. This is the same crowd over there who said: We do not believe in forced amalgamation on towns. Well, what is this?

MR. SKINNER: Who said that?

MR. HARRIS: Oh, I am sorry. The Member for St. John's Centre now does believe in forced amalgamation in towns.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. HARRIS: Who said that? They have an owl over there, Mr. Chairman. Who said that? If I recall, when somebody questioned the fact that the Member for St. John's Centre and a few others were trying to get involved in amalgamation of St. John's and Mount Pearl and Paradise, the crowd over there were up in arms: Oh, no, we don't believe in forced amalgamation. We don't believe in forced amalgamation. The Premier said it, the member said it, and various other people said it. What I would like to know is, I would like to know how this principle of not believing in forced amalgamation works when it comes to the dissolution of school boards, elected people in school boards, during their term of office? This is a crowd that says they do not believe in forced amalgamation. Not only did they not bring it to the House for approval; they did it in the Cabinet.

The Member for Twillingate & Fogo was talking about coming in, in the dark of night, and stealing hospital beds from the Town of Fogo, or off Fogo Island. This crowd did this in a secret Cabinet meeting. In a secret Cabinet meeting, they dissolved seven of eleven school boards, and some of the Cabinet members did not know about it.

We had the Member for Trinity North get up and talk about consultation, but he did not say that he was consulted about this, did he? When I got up and interrupted him, pretty rudely, probably, on a false point of order that really was not really a point of order, to ask him to confirm whether he had been consulted on this issue, he went back to his speech. He did not say, yes, he was consulted on this issue. He went back to tell us how he got more consultation from the current Premier then he got from the three, four or five other premiers that he followed in his previous life on the other side of the House.

We have a situation here, Mr. Chairman, where we are talking about a group of people who profess to believe in democracy when it suits them, and when somebody challenges the fact that amalgamation of - perhaps necessary amalgamation of - St. John's, Mount Pearl and Paradise, when you have three communities sending people down to Houston to compete with each other to drive the taxes down, to race to the bottom to please the oil companies, instead of working together in one area, when you have the school system being distorted to the point now where the fastest growing town in Atlantic Canada cannot manage the school system because people are building out in Paradise because there is some advantage from the taxes, instead of having a proper planning system for the whole region. Now we have schools closing down in some places and not enough schools in Paradise. All of this is going on all in a little area of ten or twenty square miles, competing with one another, distorting development, instead of working together and having a good system.

We have all of that going on, but when you talk about trying to rationalize that for good public policy reasons, people opposite say: Oh, we do not believe in forced amalgamation. But, when you have a school system that is working, that people are finally getting the hang of having elected representatives and playing a role in organizing the schools and now getting down to brass tax in terms of improving the quality of education, what does this government do? I am talking about fully elected school boards, based on the public school system that we introduced, a finally maturing system. What does this government do? Dissolve them in mid-term, take away their right to represent people who elected them for a four-year term.

We have a lot of hypocrisy on the go over here, Mr. Chairman, a lot of hypocrisy on the go. Yet, tonight, we have not one explanation from anybody opposite as to why they are doing this, what the benefit is, how it is going to improve the school system, and how it is going to make things better for our students. The reason we have not heard that is because there isn't any. There is no benefit to the students in this maneuver and, in fact, there is no significant benefit to the Treasury either. In fact, there are a whole series of problems.

The Member for St. John's Centre knows, because he called a meeting, or he invited some school trustees to a meeting, the other day and they came and told us all of the concerns that they had about this amalgamation and how it would affect the program that the Avalon East School Board had been trying to implement over the past number of years. There were no answers there, and I did not expect there to be answers, but we had the concerns laid on the table. We had the concerns laid upon the table and no answers given as to how they were going to be resolved in a manner that was satisfactory to the schoolchildren who attend the schools that are there.

MR. SKINNER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Chairman, the hon member referred to myself calling a meeting. Just for the record, I did not call the meeting. I was called by the trustees of the school board and asked if I would be able to have some of the MHAs present at a meeting that they wanted to have so they could present some points of view to the MHAs. As a facilitator, I attempted to try and get some people to attend the meeting that I was requested, by the trustees, to try and get together.

CHAIR: There is no point of order, just a point of clarification.

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

MR. HARRIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what kind of meeting it was. I was kind of wondering at the meeting what kind of meeting it was. All I know is that I got an e-mail from the hon. member inviting me to come to a meeting that he was organizing, and I was happy enough to attend and was very interested in what the school board trustees had to say about their concerns of how this new school board was going to work in relation to their programs. Whether it was called by him or them, I do not know. I know I was invited by the hon. member and I was pleased to have an invitation to be included in the presentation.

Mr. Chairman, that is not the point. I do not know how that is particular relevant, but the point is that the trustees, themselves, were concerned enough to want to tell Members of the House of Assembly that they had significant concerns arising from this government's plan to build a school board that had 127 schools in it with a significantly different mix, different approach and different configuration, different programs than the Avalon East Board had managed to construct over the past number of years. No positive reason has been presented as to why this is being done, and for that this government has to answer.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak for a few moments on this piece of legislation, or the bill that is before the House.

The whole idea of how I see this heads into the larger picture of the things that have been happening over the last seven months. The government had a new mandate back in October where the people had an opportunity to participate in the political process, and people did participate and gave the government the right to govern for the next four years for the Province. People put their trust in the government, in the people led by the then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier Williams. However, since that particular time there have been a lot of things that have happened; a lot of things have happened.

I have said in the House, probably half-a-dozen times in the number of times that I have spoken here, that the people of the Province are not very happy with the things that this government has done over the last number of months. When I said that I believe it was with conviction, and I said that it was from the heart, I believe it more today than I ever did before. The poll that came out - the Premier called it a glitch, it could very well be, but I do not think it is because the people in the Province as a whole have seen, so many times, things that have been done which they have not liked. I am telling you, the mood of the people out there - they are angry. They are angry at the things that are happening in this particular Province. It is from the closing of the HRE offices, where services in the area that I represent on the South Coast - probably the most isolated in the Province, apart from the Coast of Labrador. We lost a driver examiner in Harbour Breton. We did not get the necessary funding to do the clinic in the Bay d'Espoir region, which was so vitally needed for the people in that area.

When I think of the people that I know - in this case what we are talking about here, the education bill - the people who have given their lives to the region, to the community, for the school board, people who have volunteered, have been diligent in providing what they thought was the best program for the people that they represent and their students so that at the end of the day these students would have a good education, they would be able to compete - and they have raised money because they were a part of it. What has happened now is these people who were duly elected by the people in the region, with the stroke of a pen they are gone. They never had an opportunity to be informed that this was going to happen. It just happened, and they have no - you know, they were duly elected the same as I was, or the people in the council, and they are gone. They are saying: This is not right. We should not be doing this. This government should not do it, but it is done.

Many of the things that people are saying is: You know, we here who have worked so hard in the local regions - as I said - it seems to us that we do not know anything. That we do not have the ability, we do not have the education, we do not have the know-how to be able to do the things in our communities. The government does not believe it, because when you look at the school boards and you look at the health care boards that is about to happen and so on, there is a lot of apprehension out there. There is not one member in this House who represents a rural riding in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who does not feel it. There is nobody who is isolated from it. It permeates the whole Province and I am telling you, it is getting worse all the time.

People are upset about this particular situation, because it goes down to - and I mentioned in one of the speeches that I made earlier in this House, where I heard a documentary that was done by the CBC. It had to do with the time of Commission of Government, when Newfoundland lost its democracy, when it lost its right to vote, when it lost its right to govern itself. The comment was made by, I think it was a fellow Bowring, who said that the people in the rural part of the Province do not know anything. They cannot make decisions for themselves, so it does not need to be a participatory democracy. We will make the decision for them.

I sat and listened to that a couple of mornings on the CBC radio, and in my own mind I started to put it together. That is what is happening here and this is how people are feeling, that they are no longer contributory to the agencies, school boards and health care boards, and all the other organizations that are in the community. That is sad! That is very, very sad! Because what happens in many of our rural communities is that - you know, the communities themselves, the people are aging and there is not a lot of young people around. Some of these young people who are there have taken the initiative to be involved in the school councils, to be on the school board, to be involved with their councils, to be involved with their churches. They have been involved because they want to make their community sustainable and they want to see it survive. Out from under their feet they are seeing all of these things just cut out. They do not have a chance to be able to react or a chance to do anything about it. This is what is happening. I am telling you that everyone of you - I am not poking fingers. I am not saying anything to anybody that you, yourselves, who represent a rural area, are not finding out there. It is going to be more pronounced because I am telling you, there is a feeling out there that they do not matter. It is all being done by a group of people and the government. They see it as a city government. The communities that we represent, the smaller communities off the Trans-Canada, off the ribbon of the Trans-Canada is really, in a sense, not mattering.

Let me just quote for you the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Renewal. It was at a conference in Stephenville. This was written by Frank Gale. I just want you to think about some of the comments that he made. I will just read it. I am telling you, it gives you a lot of food for fodder and a lot of food for thought. This is what he said: Too many of our people, such as having the right to unemployment insurance. Too many of our people thinking about having the right to unemployment insurance. Can you just imagine that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that? Harper? Harper said that, did he?

MR. LANGDON: No, he did not. It was Dr. House who said it, the Deputy Minister of Innovation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? Dr. House?

MR. LANGDON: Just think about that. The people in the rural parts of the Province, too many of them look at the right for unemployment insurance. I am telling you, in the area that I represent we do not have too many full-time jobs. The full-time jobs we have are teachers and a few of the doctors and nurses who are there. Fishermen are not full-time. They do not work fifty-two weeks a year. They cannot work fifty-two weeks of the year. They have a right to unemployment insurance when they are not working. It is their right. It is given to them. They pay into the system. They have a right. It is a social program, and to somehow suggest that too many of them have the right to have unemployment insurance.

The other thing he said: Job creation money. The other thing, just think about this, he says: Too many of our people, such as having the right to unemployment insurance, job creation money and sick leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. LANGDON: Too many of our people think that they have the right to sick leave. Can you imagine saying a thing like that? I mean, there is something wrong with that. I do not think that there is one person in this House who thinks that. Overall, we do not. Our people who work for us as teachers, nurses, LPNs and people who work in the food industry in the nursing homes or in any of the institutions, that they somehow expect too much to have sick leave. That bothers me. I will tell you why it bothers me, because we have people in the rural parts of the Province, a lot of them cannot do without having unemployment insurance. They cannot do without some of the job creation money. Some of these people do not have the wherewithal to do it. They do not have all of the education. They are not engineers. They are not business consultants. They are not LPNs. These are people who find it very difficult to make ends meet, and without the creation money they would have a problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with education?

MR. LANGDON: It has a lot to do with education, because I tell you - I will tell you what it means. It all boils into this particular situation here. It is the mentality and philosophy of government to take away services from people. People who are in the area - and to have the mentality that people in the rural parts of the Province have these types of problems, such as services, and they are not due to it. There is something wrong with it. It is the same thing with the school board. He says: Pay increases such as the Province can't afford; asking too much. Just think about that.

I am telling you, it is alright for us because in here we make a good salary. We are privileged to be able to do it, but I tell you, there are a lot of people, single parents who do not make a quarter of what I make and I wonder how they do it. These are the people who are the volunteers for the school breakfasts. These are people who are volunteers for the school committees. These are the people who volunteer for the school boards. These are the people who are concerned about the communities, and without any say whatsoever, without any consultation, without giving them anything they are just given the right to cut it off and amalgamate or dissolve the board and say that it is just something minor. There is something major about it, Mr. Chairman.

I will have an opportunity I am sure later to be able to continue the line of thought that I have expounded on for the last few minutes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate an opportunity for a few comments on Bill 31. It seems like there are a lot of questions getting asked but there do not seem to be too many answers coming back from the other side tonight. It was always my understanding that the purpose of Committee was to ask questions. If someone had questions on this side that you would hopefully get some answers back to questions that might be asked. I have heard a lot of questions, sitting here tonight. This is the first time I have been up to speak in Committee on this particular bill. I have certainly heard a lot of questions asked but I have not heard too many answers back. I think therein lies one of the major problems that the people are having in the Province, that the questions are being asked but there are no answers forthcoming.

That is what makes it difficult and that is what makes it frustrating. I think the people of this Province are well aware that a government, an Administration, particularly a government that is in its infancy, only been on the job six, seven or eight months, probably do not have all the answers, probably not totally organized like they would like to be, probably going to make some mistakes as they start out down the road to governance and administration. That is understood, that is acceptable, but there must be at least an attempt to give some answers to some of these questions. Maybe all the questions are not legitimate either. Maybe all the questions are not probing questions to which easy answers can be given, but we have had absolutely zero answers forthcoming that have been raised by members on this side tonight. Maybe they do not like the questions, or maybe they do not want to give an answer, but I would submit that there is an obligation as part of governing. There is an obligation if you are going to put these bills into law, want them to become laws, and you are going to do things. Someone ought to stand up and explain it.

Earlier tonight we debated Bill 26. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was on his feet. He came to his feet in response. Almost every time someone on this side stood up and asked a question, he got up and gave a response. We did not always agree with his response. As a matter of fact, we vehemently disagree with some of this responses, but at least he tried to explain, and at least he tried to respond, and that makes the system, I would submit, work a lot better; because, if you do not give a response, which we have not had so far in Committee on this education piece, people come to the conclusion that you do not have an answer.

Now, it has been suggested and it seems obvious that this Administration - for example, this particular bill here on education, one of the boards that is getting cut is the board that I represent, Cormack. It takes in Southwestern Newfoundland. It is going to become one big board on the West Coast, taking in the South Coast of the Province, Burgeo, Ramea, Grey River, François, McCallum, also going out as far west as Port aux Basques, Rose Blanche and Burnt Islands, into Deer Lake, Corner Brook, right up to the Northern Peninsula, a massive board. I believe it is actually going to take in the southern part of Labrador as well. I am not quite sure about that, but I think it is going to go up the Northern Peninsula and take in part of Labrador.

That is a pretty massive undertaking. As a result of doing this, which this bill will do, Cormack gets thrown into a pot which takes in the Stephenville area, and Corner Brook gets thrown into the pot. Now, none of this was known to anybody in October. They might have suspected it. They might have thought that if the Conservative Party became the government it might happen at some time, but nobody knew in Western and Southern Newfoundland, in October or in November or December or January or February or March, that this was going to happen. In fact, the first indication it was going to happen, I believe, might have even been March 27, the morning the Budget was delivered in this House by the Minister of Finance. I believe the Minister of Education called in the Director of Education from the Cormack Board and said: We just want to let you know that it is going to be announced today, in the Budget, that this is going to happen.

Now, the plan was announced - that was on March 27, the morning of the Budget. You talk about planning, and why questions are being asked. Surely if that decision was made - and, by the way, nobody knew that. I spoke to the Director of Education for the Cormack Trail School Board. He did not know until March 26, when he got a phone call summonsing him to a meeting here in St. John's, in Confederation Building, on the morning of March 27. That is the first time he had a whiff that this was going to happen. Now, it is not only him. He is only one person. That is when he got the whiff of it. Now, all of a sudden, that is one person in one board who controls thousands of students and hundreds of teachers. You talk about shock treatment. Where did this come from? So, he comes in and he is told about it. Then you talk about planning. That was on March 27. This bill received first reading in this House on May 27. Two months after the decision is made that you are going to make this move, dissolve these boards, amalgamate these boards, two months after you do it, we see a bill come into this House on May 27 saying we need to change the act. The Schools Act has to be changed in order for us to do that.

MR. GRIMES: Not legally able to do it.

MR. PARSONS: Not legally able to do it without bringing the bill in. Yet, they did not mind going out, in a rush, unprepared, and telling these eleven boards, all these administrators, all these Directors of Education - as a matter of fact, I believe they gave them all pink slips the same day - and said: Eleven of you, because there are eleven boards, we are going to amalgamate some of you. By the way, here are your pink slips. You are all welcome to compete and we will see who ends up with the jobs at the end of the day.

That is just the head honchoes in the school boards, not talking about all the other people, the administrators involved, the staff involved, who do not know: Are we going to close the boards or not close the boards? None of the planning was done at that time, when they were told we are going to go from eleven to five. Now, I call that a good reason for people to be upset. I would be very upset if I am a Director of Education and I do not have a clue about this until March 27, and then I am given my pink slip at the same time. What do I go back and tell the teachers in my district? What do I tell the staff in my district?

They could not tell them anything, because the Minister of Education could not tell the Directors of Education on March 27 when he said, here is your pink slip because we are going to reduce the number of boards from eleven to five, he could not go back and tell the staff or tell the pupils or tell the parents or tell the teachers because they did not now. The only thing he could take back to his district in Stephenville, where we were headquartered for the Cormack Board, was: All I can tell you is that we are not going to exist any more as a board. We are going to be going in with Corner Brook. What does that mean for us? Cannot tell you. What happens to the busing schedules? Don't know. What happens to the classroom size? Don't know. Where is the board going to be? What about visits from the specialists who do visits? Don't know. Could not tell them anything. Now, that is a government that is prepared, and you wonder why there is a level of frustration on this side of the House and out in the public when they are looking for answers.

To come back to my opening statement, I think the problem is: You do not have any answers. This is a stumbling Administration. It is like a car with a bad clutch. You make a decision, you pick a direction in which you are going to go, but you have not figured out how you are going to get there. Do not know how you are going to get there. God forbid, do not suggest that is the first example of this. Only two weeks ago we had the Minister of Government Services in here telling us we are going to get rid of the pricing commissioner. He is gone. He is out the door. Now, meanwhile, that is not a headhunting job. We didn't go out to axe him for any political reasons, but he is going to go. Made the decisions, gave the instructions, thanked him very much for his work, and said: You are out the door.

What did we get today in this House? Bill 32. Oh, we just thought about it. We just realized that we have to come into the House to get some changes made in the Petroleum Pricing Commission Act, because we did that and we told you that the PUB was going to look after it, Mr. Noseworthy was going to be the Commissioner, and the Premier's office puts out a press release, a week later, and says: By the way, we have this other guy now who is going to be the director. Two weeks after that, they say: Sorry, we made a mistake. Sorry, we did not have authority to do that. We have to go back and fix that now. So, today, the Government House Leader, the Minister of Government Services, gives us Bill 32, I believe it is, Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products Act, because again you made a rash decision and you did not have it figured out how you were going to get there. It is going to be very interesting to find out now, when all of this hits the fan some time. What about the rollbacks that PUB made last week? I am looking forward to this. If you did not legally have the right and have transferred the petroleum piece to the PUB piece, it is going to be very interesting to find out who justified it and how you legally made the rollback, or how you increased the prices up in Labrador last week. That is going to be a nice one to figure out. You have had the people in Labrador paying for increased oil prices, gas prices, and not doing it legally. I am sure the Minister of Justice got his legal beagles working on that one upstairs, because that is a good question to be asked which has not even hit the fan yet.

I am going to be back again to ask some questions about the actual bill, but I am just trying to express at this point that we have gotten no answers. Maybe someone on the other side - there are no cameras. You do not have to worry about being shy; there are no cameras. The people in TV land will not see you and you would be embarrassed or anything, but certainly Cabinet ministers here have been party to these discussions, I am sure. You have had it all thoroughly explained to you in Cabinet meetings, as to why this was done and why it was done in the manner in which it is being done. You made a decision and two months later you drop a bill. I am sure you all have some enlightening information to give us as to why it was done this way, and we look forward to it.

For example, what does it mean in section 57.(2), I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education? What does it mean in this section 57.(2) when you say, "Where a board is dissolved under subsection (1) and there is no successor board..."? How does that work? What are you referring to in that circumstance, when you are saying you get rid of a board and there is no successor board? What kind of circumstance does that happen in? I would like somebody to explain that to me. Tell me, what happens when you have dissolved a board and there is no successor board? What situations in this Province do you envisage that happening in with this bill?

We know you are going from eleven to five. Could you please tell me which one you have abolished, which one you have dissolved, that there is no successor board for? I would like to know the answer to that, because there was a section 57 already, definitely. In the current Schools Act there is a section 57. Now you have a new section 57, and I would like to know why you had to change that subsection 2 of the old section 57?

Those are the kinds of answers we would like to get, because I cannot explain it to people. People are asking. If I cannot explain it, I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education, who is with us here tonight, and principally responsible for explaining this in Committee stage, will take it upon himself to get up and give an answer. Do not get up and give a diatribe about how good you are being to educators and the education system in this Province, and all this stuff. Answer the specific question.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader that his time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity and I will certainly be back with some more probing questions for the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister in due course.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to get back to a couple of points I was making the last time I spoke in Committee with respect to this bill. As I have listened to some of the attempts to provide information and answers by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, rather than becoming more enlightened and understanding, what is happening is, it is getting more confusing and, in my view, much less believable as to what this is all about, or at least what it is all about from the perspective of the government members who are speaking to us and trying to give explanations, because the explanations given do not make any sense.

Now, again, one of the red hearings that have been put in this - there were a couple of red hearings - had something to do with student enrolment. It has nothing to do with student enrolment, nothing whatsoever. There is nothing more distant and removed from students, the number of students, how many classrooms, how many school buildings you need, than the organization of a school board, how many school boards you need. There is about as much direct link and connection between the two of them as there is between myself and the moon, and I am sure people would suggest there is very little direct connection and link between myself and the moon. The links are so far removed in terms of, if you have fewer students you therefore must have fewer boards. That is not any kind of a logical connection that makes any sense in education at all.

The other part is: Well, we do it for savings. They are already admitting that the savings now are half, or less than half, of what they predicted. The strangest thing, Mr. Chairman, is this: When the reorganization was done before, there was a huge issue and a huge debate about whether or not the savings would be reinvested in education, and the Opposition, in particular, I guess, pretty well made the point pretty clearly, almost demanded, if they could demand it, that if they were going to support it, they would support it in principle, they were going to support the reorganization and the new education system, they would almost like it to be a condition, I suppose, that it be done provided that the money saved from the organizational restructuring would stay there for the benefit of the students, would stay in the system. We did that, by the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: The Liberal government did that, and not only did that but put that money back in and more. The Member for Trinity North, says: Oh, you did not do that. Well, obviously he does not know much about education. He has not studied the books very much, because the record will show - and now they turn around and try to say: You people frittered away money, you wasted money. Because what we did is, we took the money and we put it back into education, every cent of it and more, because we believed in education. We made investments in education. We established an Education Investment Corporation that spent more money on school infrastructure in the last six years than in the twenty years before that, and they turn around now and say that was a waste of money, because they were willing to leave people on the North Coast of Labrador in schools - I will describe one to you - in schools where, in order to get to the music home ec room, you had to go down over a single ladder, a homemade ladder, into a dirt floor basement, go past the water boiler, go past the furnace room, into a single door, into a room with no windows in it, not even a window up in the top of the basement, and that is where they taught home economics, with stoves and a kitchen facility, and that is where they taught music, and the students were into a potential death trap. I visited that school and I said I could not believe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was it?

MR. GRIMES: In Rigolet, if you would like to know.

You could not believe it. If that school was out in a district in Trinity North, where the member said: I served on school boards and so on, he would have been ashamed - he would not stand for it. They would not exist. It did not exist anywhere on the Island, but it was in Rigolet and it had been there for years. Because of the denominational system, because it was an integrated school, they did not have enough money in the integrated system to fix that school in Rigolet, but when it was done on a provincial priority basis after the reform, it become number one on the list because the fire commissioner would have shut it down. You were putting people's lives at risk. They turn around then and say: Of course you did not invest the money in education. The numbers show - the Auditor General traced it and showed - that every single cent saved in administration, and then some, was invested in education, and rightfully so.

Now, where is the same group that insisted on that a few short years ago? Oh, we think we can save $6 million, $7 million. Now they are down to saying, maybe three. Guess what? Are we going to put it back into the system for the benefit of the students? Not a chance. Not one cent of it going back in, Sir, not a penny, not a copper.

The Opposition today says: Why don't you reinvest the administrative savings? Why don't you leave it in the system for the betterment of students, because there are still class sizes, in and around the capital city region, that are too big. There are still program offerings in rural Newfoundland that do not exist, that should. No, what is the priority for this group? Keep the money. Keep the money. Now, it does not matter about students. It does not matter about investment. Let's get down to three school boards for the Island because somebody thinks you can run it all from the education office anyway. The minister can run all of that. I do not know why they even bother with three. Why didn't they take the New Brunswick route a few years ago and abolish school boards? Because, as I said before, at least the former leader of the Conservative Party, the now Government House Leader, the Member for Kilbride, when he was the leader running in an election, he signed his name, not on school boards but to a document saying, if you elect us, we will abolish health boards because we do not need them. We will provide health services and we will do it from the Ministry of Health under the direction of the minister and a deputy minister and his staff, and you do not need boards.

Now, the philosophy is there in education. What they are saying is, you do not need school boards. So, why stop at three? Because there is going to be as much chance for real participation, real democratic participation by parents and the public on behalf of students, in these three monstrous, big geographic boards as if you had none. It will be tokenism at its very best. The savings are minimal, but even whatever few pennies there are, are not staying in education. Then you get to the point of saying: Oh, it is a continuation of a plan the last time the Parliamentary Secretary was up. A continuation of a plan, he said, that started in 1992. I have never heard such hogwash in all my life. There was no plan ever put forward in 1992 or otherwise, saying that you should start down the road to end up with three school boards on the Island; never, ever there. Now, that is the impression he would like to give, that this is only the continuation of a plan. There were twenty-seven. We got it down to eleven. The plan says you should eventually get - never such a plan.

Every time they stand up to try to convince us why this is something that we should support, it gets less believable. The problem with it, Mr. Chairman, is this: It is ill-conceived. It has no educational value. It has no organizational value. It has no administrative value. There is no benefit for the students. There is no benefit for the education system. There might be a few shekels of change that the Finance Minister can keep in the Treasury instead of spending on students and schools and opportunities for the future for our youth, because that is what he believes in, because he believes. He believes. He is one of them. He is one of them, and the Premier is one, that believes, by right, and if there is a plan that the Parliamentary Secretary says this is just a step down the road, well, the next step is: these three are gone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: No, not even one. Some members are saying it will be down to one. No, no, the real plan is: Look, let the minister do it. Let the minister run the whole thing out of St. John's. Appoint a deputy and run the education system. What do you need to have input from parents for, out there? Why would you bother to elect school boards? Why bother with three? Because, that is where it is going next. That is where it will end up next, because having involvement from parents who are democratically elected is considered to be a nuisance by this government. It is a nuisance, and the cost associated with it is considered a waste of money.

That is a philosophic problem. That is a philosophic bent from the leader of this government, concurred in by the Minister of Finance, for sure, and maybe by some others, but certainly not by most in that caucus. Not by most in that caucus. At least I will tell you one thing: If they do believe that, they are not going to stand up and make a speech about it. They are not going to go out and talk to their constituents about saying I do not think that we should have any school boards. I do not think we should have any of you people having a real say in education. There are not very many of them going to stand up and make a speech saying that we should do that from the department and the Ministry of Education in St. John's. The Premier is willing to make that speech. The Minister of Finance is willing to make that speech, because he believes that even if we had surpluses - keep this in the back of your minds, now - even if we had surpluses, we have too many public employees anyway. The government is providing too many services. The public service is too big.

That is what he believes. He believes that, because he is a one rank Tory. Now, there is nothing wrong with being a rank Tory, if that is what you are going to be, and tell the world and defend it and be proud of it and everything else. It does not appeal to me. It does not appeal to a lot of people, but I can tell you there are a couple of them over there, and the Premier and the Minister of Finance are two of them, peas in a pod.

In the meantime, did they make those speeches trying to get elected? No, because that does not appeal to people. Did they talk about reorganizing and downsizing school boards in the Blue Book? No. I talked about it before, a little error of omission there, sin of omission, do not talk about that. Have it in the back of your mind, now, and if you ever elected and get a chance, do it. So, where are we now? I am amazed at why the government stopped at three. We will see where they stop with the Regional Economic Development Boards in the next little while.

Maybe the minister is going to say it is going to stay at twenty. We will see. We will see. I tell you, it will be a shock to myself and this Opposition, and many people in the Province, if that is the answer. If it is, I would be proud of it because it means that at least in one part of the government they are going to have an avenue and a mechanism for local people to have a real input in the regions, because there is not going to be any way to have any input in the regions for education any more. We already know there is not going to be any avenue to have any real input in health care any more, because they are going close to what the Member for Kilbride proposed, that there should not be any health boards anyway. There might keep a handful. There might be four or five health boards, and that will be it, because you do not need, you see - if you are the government and you are ruling the Province instead of governing on behalf of the people, if you are ruling, just like you are running your own company, having to put up with local input is only a nuisance. It gets in your way. It takes too much time. You actually have to consult with people. You actually have to let them have their say, and you might even have to spend a bit of money to legitimize it, and that is a waste. So, the philosophic bent, the idea then that it was a continuation of a plan in 1992, I cannot believe that. I have been involved in education since 1969.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be back to finish that point a little later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to stand tonight and have a few words about this piece of undemocratic legislation that we are debating here tonight.

I am sure that some of the comments that I will make will register with the Member for Burin- Placentia West, and the Member for Harbour-Main Whitbourne, the member and the hon. Speaker, and some of the people who have been involved in education in this Province for a long, long time, but I think most of us who did our training in education many, many years ago are well aware in terms of philosophy of education, and where we should be going in education. I guess one of the most notable educators who ever lived in this world was an educator called Malcolm Knowles. Malcolm Knowles wrote a book, and one of his basic philosophies, and I guess it is a philosophy that education has been operating under in Newfoundland and Labrador every since Confederation and before Confederation, is that the decision-making process in education should be as close to the learners as possible. I am sure the Member for Burin-Placentia West is well aware how important the decision-making process is, and should be as close to the learners as possible, because we all see what happened in Newfoundland and Labrador.

At one time in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, just about every community in Newfoundland had a school board. First, when I started teaching in Port Blandford in 1966, there was one board, one school board, and each religion had its own school board at that particular time. As a matter of fact, the boards were operated directly by the people within the communities themselves. All the renovations and repairs on the building were done by the fantastic volunteers within the community. If you were in the school and you needed a lock replaced, or you needed a window replaced, or some other thing done on the school, one of the faithful volunteers in the community would come and replace the lock or do other things to the school.

Of course we graduated in Newfoundland and Labrador, as population and students started to decline, and I guess in 1966-1967 we started the first integration. The first system started with a joint system, a joint system of the Anglican, United Church and Salvation Army. That is when they came together and decided to operate joint schools in this Province. How did they operate, hon. members? How did they operate in the Province? They operated under elected school boards. School boards that operated within these communities had great input in terms of the facilities, great input in terms of the programs within the communities, and we carried on a fantastic education system within the Province.

Then, of course, later on, in a couple of years, within two years, when I started teaching and went principal of the school in Point Leamington, in Notre Dame Bay, in 1969, I taught in the integrated school system, the integrated school system, which was a more formal system. First it started off as a joint system and then it started off as an integrated school system: the Anglican, the United Church and the Salvation Army within those communities and in Central Newfoundland, and it constituted the Exploits Valley Integrated School Board. It covered communities from Leading Tickles, in Notre Dame Bay, to Buchans, and all of these communities in that particular area there constituted the Exploits Valley Integrated School Board. Of course, we also had the parallel Exploits Valley Roman Catholic School Board which operated the Roman Catholic schools in that same area, in that same geographical area.

Then, of course, one of the other religious organizations within Central Newfoundland that had a very, very successful school, a very, very great school with local input and had schools within that area, was the Pentecostal Assemblies. They operated a big school up in the Grand Falls area. As a matter of fact, the Pentecostal students from Point Leamington and those areas were bused to Grand Falls over a dirt road everyday up to Grand Falls to attend school.

The thing about all these systems - and that is the system I am most familiar with. One of the basic philosophies of that system was that the decision-making process in education should be as close to the learners as possible. You felt part of a system. Of course, I was in this House of Assembly when we started the major reform of education in this Province and when we brought all the religions together and formed one education system within this Province. What we did, at that particular time, was we identified areas of regional interest. This is very, very important. We recognized areas of geographical, regional interests for our school boards which would identify the Burin Peninsula as one geographical, regional, social area where people on that peninsula have a lot of things in common and are used to working together on various organizations, whether it is in Lions' Clubs or all the church groups. These people on the Burin Peninsula are used to working with each other. As a matter of fact, in the area of the Burin Peninsula that I represent, in the Fortune Bay East part of it, sometimes they felt a little bit left out. The Member for Burin-Placentia West well knows what I am talking about, that sometimes they did not seem to be part of the Marystown-Burin metropolis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: It is no joking matter, I say to the Member for Burin-Placentia West. I am talking about the people in my district and how they felt sometimes, in that they seemed to be left out in terms of the educational process. I have some schools in my district, some very, very small schools and very, very effective schools. I am talking about the Fortune Bay Academy in St. Bernard's.

I recently attended a Student Leadership Conference in St. Bernard's, a year or so ago, where these young people put on a provincial conference. I sat in that audience and, I tell you, it would send the thrills down your backbone to see these students, from that community and those small communities, on how they performed and how they conducted themselves and the fantastic job they did. It was fantastic! That was on a Friday night, and on a Saturday night I was in Swift Current, which is probably one of the smallest all-grade schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. They hosted the Students Against Drunk Driving conference, a provincial conference. These students were on the stage and chaired the sessions. To me, hon members, that is what we call education. That is what we call education.

Do you know why these students were performing so well? The history of the school boards on the Burin Peninsula, in Clarenville and in Carbonear-Bay Roberts area, these boards had local control, local input. The decision-making process was as close to the learners as possible. These students are some of the best students in the world. Some of these students are the best students in the world. These people have a great participation rate in their schools. What do we have now? We have that massive geography of area of the Burin Peninsula, we have the Bonavista Peninsula and we have the Avalon Peninsula, and now we are going to have it controlled from Atlantic Place in St. John's, Newfoundland. We are going to have the decision-making process be as close to the learners as possible from the Atlantic Place in St. John's, Newfoundland, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Member for Burin-Placentia West to stand up: What kind of input is there going to be from the people from the Burin Peninsula? What kind of input?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bellevue that his time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: I will come back. I will be back before 4:00 o'clock.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I would like to continue on with a few comments with respect to this particular bill, Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Schools Act, 1997.

I certainly appreciate the participation of my colleagues in the debate, as well as members of the government side, because I was making the point that from - I pointed out when I spoke at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, that there were a few questions and comments that I would like to put forward, knowing that at some point this will pass because we do not expect to change anyone's mind. Obviously, they do not have open minds on the matter. It does not matter what we say, but it is not going to stop us from making our points.

The fact of the matter is this, I was hoping that we would get some enlightenment as to why it is really necessary at all, but there has been none. As I was saying the last time, Mr. Chairman, the more someone tries to explain why Bill 31 is necessary, the more it becomes obvious that it is not necessary at all. That there was just a big rush job on trying to do something to satisfy the Minister of Finance who wanted to try to save $7 million. It is now down to maybe $3 million. There is going to be nothing this year after he pays out severance. So, that will all be verified when - as he likes to say - the public accounts come out that shows what really happened with respect to this, there will be no savings.

Then you get the issue again, that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to say that this started in 1992. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point I was making the last time, is that I too have been involved, pretty intimately in the education system, since 1969 and all through the 1980s and early 1990s. In the early 1990s I was in the government, already in the Cabinet, and I can tell you for a fact that having chaired the Social Policy Committee - that was even when I was not the Minister of Education - that there was no plan which started in 1992 that talked about getting the number of boards down from what they were at the time, because there used to be a school board in every community for every denomination. Every school was its own board, much like hospital boards years ago.

Then we had the denominational boards. By the time we were into the 1990s it was down to twenty-seven boards. That was down, by the way. It used to be a lot more than that. It used to be a whole lot more than that because in 1969 the integration movement - because all the separate Protestant denominations had their own boards; the Anglicans, the Salvation Army, the United Church and all the rest. So, 1969 was a watershed thing with the Warren Commission report. Then there were attempts by the Wells Administration that went so far, that was finally concluded with the Tobin Administration with the support of the Opposition, because it was unanimous in this House.

In the former reorganization there were significant savings, every cent of which was reinvested into education. The claim of the Finance Minister this time is that it has already been downgraded to three, which will be none at the end.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Again, I invite the Member for Mount Pearl, if he wants to get up and speak for ten minutes, go ahead, anytime. It is always a pleasure to listen to him; always a pleasure to listen to him. It is always a pleasure to find out what he really feels about certain issues.

Mr. Chairman, I understand it is getting a bit late and our friend from Lake Melville shows up once in awhile to make a few really intelligent comments and add to the debate. I am sure we will see him standing to do a ten minute representation.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I know you are not listening to me. That is why I said we are going to say our piece knowing that you do not listen and we do not expect to change your mind. Let me say it again, we are not fooling ourselves. We are making our points and we know that we could not change your mind even if you had an open mind. I know you have a closed mind on the matter, I know you have instructions as to what will happen with this bill, but we are going to make our points.

Mr. Chairman, he can say what he like. He can participate in the debate if he wants to and talk about what he really feels about the new school in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and whether that was a waste of money. He might want to get up and talk about whether that investment was a good investment or whether that was a squandering and waste of money by the previous Administration. That would be interesting to have that put on the record. I am willing to say that we will not hear, out of his lips in this debate - it will not be in Hansard. He will not stand up - I will make that prediction, that he will not stand in this debate and have it recorded for historic record in Hansard what he really felt and what he lobbied for about the investment in the new school facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Right now he is part of a government that wants everyone to believe that the money the Liberals spent was a waste. It was all squandered. You left us in a mess. You made crazy, foolish mad-scheme investments. You threw the money down a drain. Whereas a little while ago he was mayor of a community lobbying for the kind of improved educational facilities that are absolutely necessary in Labrador, in a community like Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and he cannot bring himself, for whatever reason, to stand up and at least admit that was a right and proper and sensible thing to do; a good investment, because it is an investment in young people. It is an investment in the youth. It is an investment in the future. It is an investment in the community. It is an investment in the region and it is the right thing to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: If he wants to say something, get up, I say, for ten minutes and have your voice and your real feelings recorded because you are an elected member and I am sure the people would like to know, in the Lake Melville region, what you said when you are an elected member on their behalf in the Legislature. They have not found very much of it yet, I can tell you that. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, this is too serious to get sidetracked by people who do not want to participate in the debate.

So, we had the notion of a 1992 plan. It did not exist. We had the notion that section 57 is necessary to deal with succession. Well, let me tell you what the current section 57 says and let me make this assertion again, and I am convinced that I am right. I bet you will all read this part of section 57 that exists now and there are members of that caucus - again, let me use this phrase, who will hear it for the first time. Because, you see, they have been convinced that there isn't a provision for succession in the current legislation, so we have to bring in this to facilitate it. Well, the current section 57 - because if they are going to make a decision as a Cabinet and a caucus that says you are going to take nine school boards on the Island and change them into three, the first thing somebody must have looked in the act and said: Do we have the legal authority to do that? The answer is yes, you have the legal authority under the 1997 Schools Act to do that. You can dissolve school boards. It says so right in the act.

It says in section 57.(1) - you do not need Bill 31 for this now. This is not the new legislation that we are told must be passed in order to do this for September. This is already the law of the land. It is the law today. We can stop this debate right now, go home for the summer. Here is what the law of the land says the government is allowed to do. It says: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet - it does not even need the caucus, by the way. You know the rest of you caucus members, do not even have to tell you; don't need to tell the rest of you. So, by the way, nothing new about that, right? Nothing new about that. We do not have to tell you a word about it. "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order dissolve a board on a specified date and the board shall be considered to be dissolved on that date."

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Thank you for that, Member for Lake Melville. I appreciate your vote of confidence, and I appreciate your wonderful, positive, contribution to this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I really do appreciate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I must say, I am sure that your constituents would be very, very proud of you if they could see your performance in this Legislature. That is all I need to say with respect to that.

So, Mr. Chairman, never mind the closed minds. They have open mouths but closed minds. The fact of the matter is this, why do we need - we have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary, you have to be able to dissolve the boards and put some new ones in place. What did I just read? What does the law already say? We have been here debating this for hours. The decision was already announced in the Budget two months ago; we are going to have three boards. Did the government have the right to say there are going to be three boards? Yes, they did, no more than that to it.

Let me read it again: The Cabinet may dissolve a board on a specified date and that board shall be considered to be dissolved on that date. It is already done, by the way. The Minister of Education has done the dissolution, has announced a date, and he said there will be new boards in place by September. We do not need to have the debate to do that. So, the government has already acted within its current level of authority. We do not need to have this debate.

Now, if you are going to dissolve a board, and if there is going to be a new board to replace it - because the government has not decided not to have any boards. I think that is where they are going in a few years. I think that is where it will end up. That is my own speculation. Now you have to say there is going to be an new board, which is then called a successor board. So, what happens? Is there a provision in here already? Does it already say something about successor boards? Yes, it does. Yes, it does, so we do not need a new Bill 31. We do not need a new Bill 31. The current piece of legislation already says: all debts and liabilities of a board that has been dissolved shall be paid and discharged before that dissolution by the Cabinet, and they may direct that all debts and liabilities of the board that was dissolved will be assumed by the successor board.

Now, the successor boards are already named. The Member for Windsor-Springdale, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the Member for Baie Verte, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, and myself as the Member for Exploits, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the Member for Gander, we all know what the new board is in Central Newfoundland.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I will come back to that issue and continue in a few minutes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is the bewitching hour. It is 12:00 midnight. It is the bewitching hour and we are here tonight discussing Bill 31.

When I look at that particular bill, I think about all of the volunteers who have gone through so much, putting in time and energy and commitment to school boards. I know them. In fact, when people in my particular district ran for school boards, it was just as intense as us running for provincial politics. They took it that serious.

I remember, there was a great lot of competition for the seats on the school board. People were coming by and willing to put their name forward as a volunteer, no money, as a volunteer. They had such a genuine interest and commitment in the young people of our districts that they were willing to put their name on a nomination paper to be considered and voted on as an elected member of a school board.

Of course, when you think about it, I represent, or I suppose I represent the former Baie Verte/Central/Connaigre School Board, District #5. Now it is going to be called the Central Board. There has been so much change in the reformation of school and education in our Province. We had people willing to give up of their free time, their leisure, and be on the road and travel and talk to people within their particular districts, and prior to the movement now and the combination of both boards we had people from Baie Verte in the west to Ramea, I guess, on the South Coast, and right to the beginning of Lewisporte, that huge area.

I know the Director of School Board District #5, Debbie Armstrong, and a terrific woman she is. A terrific woman, Debbie Armstrong is, and she has - also, her predecessor, Domino Wilkins, when he was the school board director as well. They have done such tremendous work, and all the people on the particular board. They have covered - and there is no denying that they had the largest geographic area within the Province. I cannot speak for Labrador, because my colleagues would know the district in Labrador much better than I.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) been actually there?

MS THISTLE: Many times, I have been to Labrador. I have been all over Labrador many times, but I do not know Labrador as intimately as I would my own district. That is the reason I would not compare the geographic distance in miles or kilometers, because I would leave that to somebody else.

Talking about Island school board districts, I know for certain that we had the greatest geographic challenge. In fact, out of the seventy-five schools that are between those two boards - seventy schools, rather - forty-five of them belonged in District #5, which is my district. The Baie Verte/Central/Connaigre School Board looked after forty-five schools in that particular district, forty-five out of seventy. That is a huge challenge, particularly when you look at the distance that people, the school board officials, had to travel.

We had volunteers, and I am sure other people represent districts with school boards in them previously to the consolidation. They would also say that their members were dedicated, they were committed, they were volunteers, and they believed in what they were doing.

I met Terry Brown, who is still serving on the board. I met Terry two or three weeks ago at the Irving station in Clarenville. I ran in on my way home to Grand Falls-Windsor go get a bowl of soup on my way along, and Terry was there. I said: Terry, we are in the midst of a lot of chaos. Yes, he said, some people say to me: What in the world are you doing, still staying on that board system? He said: You know, I still believe that I have a purpose to serve and I will be there as long as I can.

That is the kind of commitment. Even throughout the upheaval of the consolidation of the school boards there are people, there are more Terry Brown's out there all over our Province and we are grateful to have them. We are grateful that people volunteer of their personal time and commit to the young people of our Province.

I have a lot of problems with this bill, and I cannot avoid saying it, because when a government is elected to govern the people and the affairs of a province it is a huge responsibility. It is a very serious responsibility, and people who get elected take it quite seriously. If a government moves ahead quickly and makes decisions based on a whim, it is very hard to swallow, and when you do not involve the very people who will be using the system that you are trying to gut, destroy, it is natural for people to get their backs up and say: Tell me what rationale, what evidence, did you use in coming to this decision?

That is normal, for people to ask questions. When there is no evidence, no way to substantiate an argument, no reason, it does not hold water, how do you expect people to believe it? I mean, it is no trouble to sell a message if you are a government, if you do the right things. Your message will sell itself. If it is the right message and you have involved the people who are going to be dealing with that situation, and you can prove to people that you are making the right move for the right reasons, people will accept what you are doing and they will understand. If you cannot provide any kind of evidence, any kind of reason, any kind of argument that can stand up and pass scrutiny, then you know people are going to question what you have done, and that is the right thing for them to do. They are the taxpayers of this Province, and you are only sitting in those seats by the good will of people who put you there. If you do not perform the way that they expected you to perform, and do a good job of the public purse and the social programs that people have come to use and believe in and need, then, of course, they are going to let you know that, and they have already let you know that a few days ago. It appears that you are not going to take any value in people's opinion because you are not changing course, not even after getting those sorry results two or three days ago. You are still determined to plough on as if nothing else mattered.

You are making a big decision here, and it is a decision that will affect not only the young people but it will affect the future of young people in our Province. You are intending to have it your way or no way, and your way comes from the eighth floor in the Confederation Building. You do not care if anyone else's opinion matters. You do not care about that. Your idea of consolidating school boards is for one reason. You will only have five school boards, but really, in essence, you will have four school boards because the other one is the Francophone Board which involves, currently, 204 students. So, the Premier, in his office on the eighth floor, will be able to look out the window and he can have those four school board numbers programmed into his telephone. He only has to deal with four individuals to carry out whatever decisions he wants made in this Province. He is only going to have to deal with four people, and he is going to pick up the phone some day and say: This is what I want done. This is what I want done, and I can do that here because I am only dealing with four individuals and I am appointing them. That is the only reason we are consolidating school boards today, so that the power will be left here in this building and it will be taken from local people where it matters the most.

CHAIR (Harding): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise again to speak to this insignificant bill that the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Education spoke first on tonight. I have to admit, and I have complimented the minister before, the Minister of Fisheries, on other issues and I compliment him again today. We do not see eye to eye. We have our spats in the House, as well as outside, but at least he is the first minister, or the first one on that side of the floor, I have heard yet get up and address a bill and answer the questions that were presented to him during debate in this House, in the first session of a brand new government, a government that had all the ideas and all of the answers; because he sat in the Legislature all day today and, as each one of us spoke here on the Official Opposition and the NDP, after we spoke he got up and if we had a question he answered it. We did not agree with his answers at all times but, I must say, he answered the questions.

We have this bill here. The minister who is responsible for the bill has his Parliamentary Secretary sitting in for him tonight. He turns back on and makes out that he is not listening when we are all up speaking because he knows that he does not have the answers, therefore he is pretending that he does not hear the question.

Mr. Chairman, my assistant sent me down an interesting quote yesterday. It applies to most of the members opposite. It said: It is not the answer that enlightens but the question. How true is that? How true is that in this session, the first session of this new government? Because the only way that the people of this Province, as the polls reflect, the first poll that we have had since the people had a chance to look at these individuals, because they got elected in October and we never heard from one of them, except for the Premier when he made that fatal announcement back in January about laying off or a wage freeze. We did not hear from one of them until this House of Assembly opened in March; not from one of them. The reason they stayed relatively high in the polls is because people did not know anything about them. They had not heard them speak.

There is an old saying, as I said to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development tonight, there is an old proverb that says: Open your mouth so I may know you. I think it says, actually: Open your mouth so I may know thee. The more some of these people open their mouths the more the people of this Province realize the mistake they made in October. They realize now the mistake they made in October.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development let me know tonight some of what she is, by the comments that she directed towards my colleague, the Member for Bellevue. I am not going to repeat it here but she knows what I am talking about, and others heard it. At least I know, because it is the first real time that I heard her speak in the House. She did not say it very loud but loud enough for us opposite here to hear it.

Again, like I said, it is not the answer that enlightens, it is the question. I honestly believe the reason that we went up in the polls is by asking the questions that the people in the Province wanted us to ask. Asking the questions, like I am asking the Minister of Fisheries, because I have had calls come to my office day in, day out, at home. When I go home in the evening I hear them. When I visit my district I hear them. They want me to ask the questions. You might not like them but I have an obligation to my constituents - like most of you had when you were in Opposition, but you seem to forget that obligation - to ask questions and get answers. I do not think that the people of the Province would know exactly what this government is doing to them if we were not asking the questions, even though you are not answering them.

These people are becoming more enlightened everyday as to whom they elected. Believe me, you all know. Deep inside you all know what I am saying is correct, because I cannot believe that any of you, especially - maybe with the exception of some in St. John's who have not witnessed the cuts and the slashing and the burning of the public services around this Province because it is not happening in the greater St. John's area. I did not hear of any hospital beds closing in St. John's. I did not hear of transportation workers losing their jobs. I did not hear of school boards being dissolved in St. John's. I did not hear a lot of things. I did not see any signs come down on proposed cancer clinics. I did not see any bulldozers moving around the streets of St. John's heading for footings and steel on a new hospital that was about to be erected. I did not see any of that here in St. John's, but for those members who live outside of St. John's, believe me, I know what they are witnessing because their constituents tell me. I drive through Central Newfoundland. I know a lot of people in Gander. I know a lot of people in Grand Falls, Grand Falls-Windsor and Buchans, Springdale. I have friends in these communities and they tell me. I have friends on the Bonavista Peninsula. I have friends in the Clarenville region. That is where my family comes from. They tell me what they are saying.

They tell me what the talk is in Clarenville about the member for Clarenville. He had a mouth, but someone taped it up. That is the word they are saying. I do not go to Goose Bay but the word comes out of Goose Bay and they say: Did you hear the member talk about the auditorium not going ahead? That is the word in the cafeterias, in the coffee shops down there. Did you hear our member for Goose Bay talk about the auditorium not going ahead? Do you know what the response is? Guess what happens then, they say no, because you will not. He does not speak anymore, and I cannot believe it. I never met the man until I went to the Joint Councils meeting down there last February, but I heard him everyday or at least two or three times a week here in the media in St. John's. I heard him. I knew him, or I thought I knew him. I went to the Joint Councils meeting and he was going around like a bluebottle fly tearing around in through the one session and out through the other with a cellphone up to the ear. I saw him. I said: Boy, he is an important character. Buddy, he is more important that I am. I am only the minister.

He had more on the ball - I mean all of you people opposite know. Any of you in the Cabinet know that if you have a cellphone on your hip it never stops ringing. I was in the Cabinet, mind was not ringing but his was. He was always, constantly tearing around, flat out. Just like you see him here in the Confederation Building. Wherever you see him now he is in a constant rush with the phone up to the ear, but no one in his district hears him say anything. I am beginning to wonder if there are any batteries in that phone. That is a prop, Mr. Chairman! That is a prop!

What I am trying to say, Mr. Chairman - no personal attacks. What I am trying to say is that the people realize - I know the Minister of Fisheries realizes because he represents a district like mine. When you close the plant, it was not his fault. That causes problems in that community. Whether it is his fault or not the people want it open. If you close the school, people do not want a school closed. I do not care - the minister said in the House here some time ago: You know, maybe we don't need the school. In fact, his words were: I know my constituents are not going to be happy but we don't need the school in this community. Well, I will tell you now, they are not going to be happy. I am not aware that we have closed one school in this Province where the residents of that community were happy. On the contrary, Mr .Chairman, I think they fought it every step of the way in every community.

MR. SULLIVAN: Can you give me an example?

MR. REID: Alright, never mind, I am not talking to him. We do not talk to you. We do not listen to you, I say to the Minister of Finance, because we never get the truth out of you. Even if you told me I do not think I would believe it. I do not think I would believe it. I have no evidence to suggest that anything you have told me in the last two months was the truth. So, it is no good for you to tell me because I would have to doubt it.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that you are here tonight and you are debating a bill that is insignificant, I think. I think that the educator himself, the Minister of Education wannabe, because he certainly was. He was critic over here for a couple of years. He thought for sure he was in, because the current Minister of Education used to be the Justice critic. Remember that? He used to be the Justice critic, so he figured he was a shoo-in. So, the minister wannabe gets up tonight and talks about: We want to make a minor adjustment to the Education Act; very minor. We want to dissolve six school boards. Fire them! Kick them out! Never mind that they were elected. Never mind that the people all around this Province want them there. Never mind that. Throw them out! Kick them out! A minor adjustment!

When asked the point I started out with by complimenting my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries - at least he had the intestinal fortitude and the conviction in what he was trying to do, to be able to stand up and answer the questions that we asked him, unlike the minister wannabe, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education. He is still down there, right now as we speak, with his head turned pretending he is talking to that other great parliamentarian who left the school board. It was only twenty-five minutes ago when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education was telling us, in the House, that what the member for Marystown was doing for the last fifteen years of his life was worthless. You should be insulted rather than be smiling at him down there because, basically, what he said to me was by firing people like you it is not going to have any impact whatsoever on education. It was not going to negatively impact the education of our youth. I will give you leave, I say to the member for Marystown, to get up and tell me what you think of that. Tell me: What have you been doing for the last twenty years of your life that did not have an impact on the youth that you were supposed to be impacting?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo that his time has expired.

MR. REID: You did not have an impact on education. Tell me that, would you please?

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to talk, for a few minutes, about the impact that the dissolution of school boards have had on certain people. The certain people that I am talking about here are school board members. The ones who - along with the school boards - were dissolved. Their terms of office were dissolved. Some of them were appointed. Some of the elected ones were appointed. The handpicked ones were appointed to continue on in the appointed boards, but there were others who were not included. I want to tell you how they feel because some of them have spoken to me, Mr. Chairman, and they feel insulted. They feel rejected. They feel like they were told that their work - they are volunteers. They worked hundreds and hundreds of hours over the last several years, working their guts out, doing, in some cases, the dirty work for this government and the previous government in terms of closing down schools.

The hard slog of what the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is talking about, when decisions have been made - in some cases decisions were made by the previous appointed boards or motions were made and the new elected board had to implement them, or deal with them, and then another round, second time around. So, these people worked long and hard, struggling with these issues, trying to find some principle way in which to operate. They were doing it because they thought they were creating a system that the community, through the elected school boards, was having some control over. Now, they feel like they are being tossed on the heap, that this government has no respect for the effort that they put in, no respect for the fact that they went and got themselves elected to do a job. They went and did that job in good faith, based on being elected officials, with some pride in what they were doing. Many of them had a big affiliation with the schools. They had children in the schools or they were former teachers and educators. They had a big concern about what was happening in their communities so they ran for office. They feel that somehow or other this government thinks that what they did was worthless, just as the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that what the Member for Burin-Placentia West has been doing for the last ten years was worthless, too.

If what the Member for Burin-Placentia West was doing for the last fifteen years was useless and what the school board members who were elected was useless, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, what respect this government has for people who do put in the time and effort as elected officials and try to do the best that they can for the communities in which they come from and live in, and for the school children of this generation and the next? This is why there is a growing sense around this Province, Mr. Chairman, that this government is totally out of touch with the people in this Province and the things they want and desire.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) polls.

MR. HARRIS: Someone said that is why they are down in the polls. Well, they are down in the polls, Mr. Chairman, because all we have heard from this government is all negatives and no positives. What little vision they had is turned into a blur, Mr. Chairman, and all the people of the Province see is negative, negative, negative; no positive at all, and no reason, no justification, nobody getting up in this House and saying why it is a good thing to have three school boards on the Island, not counting the French board. Why is that a good thing, especially when one of those boards has the whole Avalon Peninsula, the whole Bonavista Peninsula, and the whole Burin Peninsula, 127 schools, 56,000 students?

Now, I suppose you could have a Toronto school board with 56,000 students but that might take in about ten blocks. That might take in about ten blocks, or four or five square miles.

AN HON. MEMBER: About the size of your district.

MR. HARRIS: Something about the size of my district, I suppose. What do we have here? We have a school district that probably takes up about 20,000 square miles. I might be off by 3,000 or 4,000 square miles, but not far. They are taking in all the Burin Peninsula, all the Bonavista Peninsula, all the Avalon Peninsula, and 56,000 students in 127 schools spread out from one end of the country to the next, with no hope, no sense of community involving all of those people, no opportunity for participation, no opportunity to even attend a school board meeting if there is an issue of concern. So, those people who had problems down in St. Brendan's or - we know all the places; we have heard all the debates. The Member for Burin-Placentia West told us about one of them. At least they had a chance to go to a school board meeting and make their case. At least they had that chance.

The Member for Bellevue talked about an awful lot of involvement - and the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune - an awful lot of involvement by ordinary people in an effort to make the school system work on a volunteer basis at the school board level, at the school lunch level, the school meal program level, all of that stuff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sports programs.

MR. HARRIS: The sports programs, all organized through the school board and the school board effort. They are basically saying that does not count for anything because we are going to run everything from St. John's now. Forgive me for talking about this particular neck of the woods, but this neck of the woods is after getting an awful lot bigger under this Administration, because this neck of the woods is now the whole Avalon Peninsula and Burin Peninsula and Bonavista Peninsula, and it is all going to be operated out of Atlantic Place.

If you think that ordinary folks are intimidated by going to a school board meeting down in Marystown, they will not feel very comfortable coming into Atlantic Place for a school board meeting and expect that they are going to be able to have some influence on what goes on. Those school board members who were there, who committed themselves, who put in the volunteer hours, they feel like they are being treated like trash by this government. That is a shame, Mr. Chairman, because it discourages the kind of volunteer effort and voluntarism that is required to make communities work and to make this Province work.

Who is going to run for the school board? This is a very interesting question. It was raised at this meeting the other day, the meeting that the Member for St. John's Centre did not call. They said: Who is going to be involved in the school boards? It can only be people who have lots of time on their hands. It can only be people who can spend a couple of days going to a meeting, travelling to a meeting. They have to come from Bonavista to come to a meeting in St. John's, spend the time at the meeting and then go back the next day. It is two days to attend a board meeting. Who can do that? The only people who can do that are people who have nothing else to do, or they have lots of money; they do not need to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ordinary working people.

MR. HARRIS: You cannot have ordinary working people who have a job and have to go to work every day. They can be part of a school board now. They can go to a meeting at night. They can participate in the activities of the school board. They can be people who have ordinary working lives and have children in school, families who are interested in education. Now the only people who can apply or are going to be involved are people who are retired, people who have time on their hands, people who do not necessarily have children directly involved in the school system because they are beyond that age themselves, so it diminishes the pool of people who are being able to be participating in this exercise of democracy. It is so far away from ordinary people that it cannot be reflective of their interests and their desire to have some influence on the system.

There are all sorts of things that are wrong with this, Mr. Chairman, all sorts of things that are wrong, but we have not had anybody over there tell us what is right with it. Not one. Not one. Maybe the Member for Conception Bay South can tell us what is right about it, or the Member for Trinity North. All he told us about it is that there is more consultation over there than ever before, than there ever was with the other crowd, but he did not tell us he was consulted on this. He did not tell us what was good about it. He did not tell us what the advantages were. Nobody over there has told us what the advantages were, and yet they want us to approve it.

Well, I am opposed to it, Mr. Chairman. I am opposed to it, not going to approve it. That is why we are here tonight. We are here because nobody seems to be able to try - not even try to convince us, let alone convince us. Nobody is even trying to convince us that this is a good measure. I am waiting for the Member for Lake Melville to get up and convince us, or try to convince us, or give us a rationalization or anything. Even a feeble attempt will do, but we are not even getting that. We are not even getting a feeble attempt to justify the amalgamation - and let's call it the forced amalgamation, because that is what it is - the forced amalgamation of a number of school boards by dissolving the whole lot of them and creating three more. There was no attempt -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be happy to sit down and have someone opposite get up and make an attempt to justify why they are doing this.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to continue a point I was making the last time with respect to section 57. In Bill 31 we are told, and make this point to finish the point, that, "This Bill would amend the Schools Act, 1997 to clarify that a school board established as the successor of a dissolved board is the successor in law to the dissolved board."

The point I was making, Mr. Chairman, for any of the members opposite who would have ever taken the time to look at the current legislation, which I know they have not, they could not possibly have or we would not be here having this debate, because the current legislation, as I was saying, gives the Cabinet the authority to dissolve a board on a specified date and that the board shall be considered to be dissolved on that date - already done. Now, the things people in the Province do know about this are the following: that there are currently eleven boards and that there will be, in fact, five boards instead of the eleven by September, and that the government already had the legal authority to do that. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that the notice has already been given to the current boards, other than the Labrador Board and the Francophone Board, for the other nine, that they are dissolved, because they have let go their staff. They are out there applying now for the directorships and assistant directorships and so on that are being advertised, and they are applying to be employed by the three new boards on the Island, so the dissolution has already occurred.

As I was saying before, the people I know in the region where I represent, a district and a riding in Exploits, they are fairly well aware, those who follow the school and school boards matters, of the boundaries of the successor board. It has already been determined, already announced by the government, already publicized. Because the current school board has been dissolved, there is already an interim board in place. By the way, the same piece of legislation gives the government - that is legal, by the way. They did not need to change the law for that. There is a provision that says that if a board is dissolved, that the government already, under the current Schools Act, the existing law, has the right to appoint school board members, which they have done, because we have Miss Borden as the Chair, and I saw a listing somewhere the other day in a press release of the rest of the members of the interim board for Western Newfoundland, the Western part of the Island, which covers right from the Southwest Coast right up to the tip of the Northern Peninsula and part of the Southern Straits of Labrador.

I believe the interim board - I do not remember the exact number - I believe it is ten or eleven people; people like Miss Alteen, who is a current Chair of a board in the Corner Brook area, the Western Board there. She is a member of the interim board, and there are others. The list that I saw had certain people designated with a C after them and, when you read the bottom, it says: current chairs.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Thank you for that clarification, I say to the Minister of Finance. All the current chairs have been invited and given an opportunity to sit on one of the interim boards.

So they have that done and they did not need to change the law for that; because if they did, of course, they could not have done it. They made away with the nine boards because the law that is already on the books contemplated that might happen - not to this degree - so we do not need to be here debating Bill 31 to make away with the nine. We do not need to be here debating Bill 31 to give the government the authority to appoint - never mind elections, because the act says there have to be elected boards, but in the interim the government has the legitimate right to appoint these people until a new election can occur, and they have done that already, so we do not need Bill 31 for that. What do we need Bill 31 for? We are told that we need Bill 31 to clarify that a school board established as a successor of a dissolved board is the successor in law. Sure, it already is!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible)..

MR. GRIMES: You would like to believe that, wouldn't you?

The whole point is, if it is that insignificant, why do we have it at all? I say to the Minister of Finance, his interjection, Mr. Chairman, because, of course, in Hansard when it records this some time over the summer, if we ever take a break from here, they will record this. It will be there for the record. Just so the people - because some people do actually take the time. They have an interest in this and they read Hansard as an interest to see what people said and what their views were. The Minister of Finance, when I was making my point showing that really we do not need to be doing this, he said if it is that insignificant why don't you sit down and we will just pass it? My point is, we do not need it at all. We do not even need to be having this debate. The government is already fully empowered and authorized under the existing law to do what they have done so far, but we are led to believe - this is why we are just asking for the explanation. What is it about the current law that is lacking? What is it that is lacking, that we need this?

The minister - the Member for Trinity North - that was a bad Freudian slip; because I say to friend from Windsor-Springdale: Stick around because when I mistakenly called the member a minister earlier on, I believe in my heart and soul it might happen. I just said the minister for Trinity North. I believe in my heart and soul it will never happen. I would not bank anything on that, but I would say to my friend from Windsor-Springdale, as the Minister of Justice says: Stay tuned. Stay tuned, I say to the Member for Windsor-Springdale. I would not give the same advice to the Member for Trinity North.

Why do we need it? The Minister of Finance says it is routine, nothing to it, just pass it. I said we do not need it at all, which is the whole point. What we are trying to get from the Minister of Education when he introduced it and said it was a routine matter, he did not explain it at all. He spent three or four minutes introducing it. By the way, he was entitled to one hour as the Minister of Education to explain to this Legislature why this was important and why we should do it. He took three of four minutes to say it was a routine little matter, nothing really here, just vote for this and we will get on with our business.

We decided to ask a few questions about it. The Parliamentary Secretary stood in his place, in the minister's stead tonight, and on three occasions, I think, tonight tried to explain to us - four occasions tonight, I am corrected, I stand corrected and glad to be so; I would rather be right than wrong - tried to give us some elucidation as to why this was important. He made up a few red herring stories, something to do with enrolments declining, something to do with saving some money - neither one of them has anything to do with this at all, nothing to do with this - something to do with a study that was started in 1992. This is just a continuation. Every time you ask him, he makes up a different story. The fact of the matter is, everything that the government has done so far, they are already totally empowered and have the authority to do.

If I read it again, because I would like to understand it - we are going to vote against it, out of principle. We all understand that I said that the first time I stood, because we do not believe any of it is necessary, including the change from the current eleven boards down to three, so just out of principle we vote against it, but we would be glad to hear the real reasons why we should even have the bill in the first place.

We are told in the Explanatory Note that it will make sure that the successor board is the successor in law. You go to the current legislation and it says, even if there might be a dispute, where there is a dispute as to which board is the successor to a board - I do not think there is any dispute in the Province today; the three successor boards have already been named and I have not heard a dissenting voice with respect to that. People know they do not have any choice in it. The three successor boards have been named, but suppose someone did dissent, Mr. Chairman, suppose that were to happen, it is already covered. The current law says, in section 57.(6) "Where there is a dispute as to which board is the successor to a board that has been dissolved ...." - guess what can happen today, even without any of this debate? Guess what can happen? Does the Parliamentary Secretary want to tell us what can happen?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Okay, thank you.

He concurs with what I am about to say. He says: The minister - now, remember before; remember what I said before - the Cabinet - so you do not need the full caucus anyway - the Cabinet can dissolve the boards, and the Cabinet did it. The Cabinet did it, and the Minister of Education read it in the Budget Speech, fully empowered to do so.

If there is any kind of dispute, none of which exists - I have not heard a single dissenting voice in the Province with respect to what the three new boards are going to be on the Island. There are people who disagree with the principle of it, and the whole philosophy behind it, but if you are going to have the three geographic structures - the government has told people what they are; they have interim boards appointed - but, even if there was a dispute, guess how you would resolve it? There is no possible downside for the government. Guess how it is resolved by law today? By the existing law it says the minister - not even the Cabinet this time, not even the Cabinet - the Minister of Education does not even have to consult with the Minister of Finance, does not even have to ask the Premier, does not have to ask the House Leader, does not have to ask the Minister of Justice, does not have to ask the Minister of Health and Community Services. It says, the minister. So, if anyone comes out and says we do not like the three new boards and we do not think they should be the successor boards, guess how it gets fixed? The minister makes an order. The minister shall make an order determining the matter. The people might say: Oh, well, that might be okay, but then people might go to court or something. They might take the government to court.

It goes further, Mr. Chairman. It says, "...the minister shall make an order determining the matter and that order shall be final." The Minister of Justice knows what that means. That means that you cannot appeal it anywhere else. You cannot go anywhere and appeal that; there is no other place to go. So, the Minister of Education has the authority today, if anybody disputes any part of this. The minister already has the authority. Now, would somebody please tell any of us, would somebody like to please stand and tell us, with that level of authority already existing - the Cabinet can dissolve the boards. Already done.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will come back again and maybe get an answer to those couple of questions a little later.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few more words. I think we have had, since the last time I stood up, about an hour or an hour-and-a-half ago, maybe eight or ten speakers. I issued an invitation the last time I was up, because I had some questions, and I think I asked a very pointed question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education is here. No response. In an hour-and-a-half he has not taken it upon himself to stand in this House and answer what was a very serious question, and a sincere question: Could the minister explain to me again what is meant by section 57. (2)? Now, that is pretty straightforward, legitimate question to ask someone. I would think that is the role of someone in government, if you enter a piece of legislation. On the front of this paper is says: Honourable John Ottenheimer, Minister of Education.

Now, if the minister cannot be here for some reason to do this, my understanding is that in Committee it is the responsibility of someone - the Parliamentary Secretary, I would think, who is carrying the extra baggage, carrying the responsibility, and gets paid for it - to get up and give an answer. Yet, I have asked that question an hour-and-a-half ago and do you think we had anybody on the other side stand up here and give a response?

I am at a loss to explain that. That is what the troubling piece to the public is. You are making moves, you are doing things, you are affecting people's lives, mostly negatively, and yet you do not have the gumption to stand up and explain yourselves. You had the gumption to go out and ask people to vote for you and support you, and they did that, but you are over there now and you have to explain your actions to people. You cannot operate behind some kind of veil, and in the darkness, and don't let the sun and the truth and the sunlight shine on what it is you are doing.

Maybe the Minister of Justice would stand up and explain what this means, because the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Education is certainly not making any move to do it. He has had an hour or an hour-and-a-half to explain it. When do we ask these questions? When do we do this? In third reading when there is no opportunity if, because of a dialogue back and forth, we determine that: Well, maybe that does not make sense. It would not be the first time.

We asked this government very legitimate questions when the Student Loan bill came in. The Minister of Education was here and he brought in the Student Loan bill. It was explained that he wanted the bill, needed it done for certain purposes, by, I believe it was, April 30.

MR. GRIMES: March.

MR. PARSONS: March 30. The minister stood on his feet and said: This is why we need it. We said: Well, we disagree with you. We do not think this is necessary.

We also pointed out to the Minister of Education at the time that we think there is a little flaw in your bill, the student loan piece. We think there was a flaw, because you were giving the authority to this new corporation to possibly tamper with terms and conditions of loan agreements that students had entered into previously. What did the Minister of Education do? He said he agreed with that. He accepted that, and he came back here the next day with an amendment, entered the amendment, and the thing moved on from Committee to third reading, got passed and done.

Now, that is how this system is supposed to work. I thought that was how it was supposed to work, and that is an example where it has worked in this very session, the Student Loan Act, from this very same minister, the Minister of Education. Yet, we ask a question tonight on this bill and we are not getting an explanation.

We are not being frivolous. We have a question. Please, somebody answer the question. People are asking questions besides here in this House, by the way. This is not the only place, and this is my second attempt tonight to try and get an answer. People are asking all kinds of questions like: What is the agenda? They certainly cannot take much stock in what you have printed as your plan. I mean, we only need to go back over the last very legitimate question, why they need to ask the questions. They only need to go back over what was your pronounced, published, acknowledge plan in your Blue Book, to find out that is not a plan anymore. That was some kind of bait or something, because it certainly wasn't a plan. It might have been a plan up to October 21, but it went on the shelf or out the window or out somewhere after October 21. We have had lots of examples in seven months, everywhere from the health care to the school boards, to the no layoffs to the no ferry rate increases, to we are going to put more teachers in, to no fees - yet, we raise 153 different kinds of fees - to giving you a cap, to now calling it a deductible. So, we have very legitimate reasons for asking these questions.

The question, for example, I say to the Parliamentary Secretary again, asked by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo: Could you explain what this Bill 31 does to the students of the Province? Does it have any impacts upon the students of the Province, the fact that this bill is going to reduce the number of school boards from eleven down to four?

Now, I am being told that it has a lot of impacts. I am sure regionalization in any way has impacts. We thought, first when this amalgamation took place, there were actually going to be places, physical infrastructure, going to be closed down and eradicated. For example, in Central, there is a place in Grand Falls-Windsor, there is a place in Gander. The assumption was that one of them has to close and it is going to be set up in one of these two centres. That did not happen. They are going to now, apparently, keep both places working. So, people are saying: What is the plan? Why is this changing from day to day?

People out in my district, for example - we had a couple of school board members from the Southwest Coast who used to go to Stephenville. The Cormack Board now is gone into Corner Brook. People are asking questions. How many school board representatives, now that you are going to make this move which you already could have done under the old bill anyway, under the old law, how many board members are going to be allowed or permitted on the new West Coast Board? A legitimate question. We had two representatives on the Cormack Board. There is no more Cormack Board. We are going to have a Corner Brook Board or a West Coast Board. How many representatives are we going to be allowed in Southwestern Newfoundland? Nobody will give us an answer. We have not been told.

What is the consequence to the school board staff? We have twenty-two employees, I believe it is, in the Stephenville office, including a director of education who already has gone. He told me he has gotten his pink slip and he is going to go in a pile and compete for one of the jobs that is left. What happens to the other twenty-two people in the Cormack Board in Stephenville? They do not know. They do not know. As of this day, the twenty-two workers left in the Stephenville Board in Cormack do not know where they are going to go. This is giving you probably a technical authority, a comfort letter, the Member for Trinity North said. Maybe this gives you some comfort in doing what you are doing. Maybe the former article fifty-seven or clause 57 was not clear enough and you are giving a clarity on that.

I look forward to the explanation. I look forward to the explanation because, as the Leader of the Opposition said, clause 57 in the old Schools Act looks fairly clear to us. What is it exactly that makes this different from that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, I will gladly sit down and have the Parliamentary Secretary explain it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to respond to the intent of this particular bill. I started off explaining it to those who wanted to listen, but obviously someone missed it somewhere along the way.

There is basically a deficiency in the Schools Act of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Calgary won.

MR. HEDDERSON: Calgary won.

Again, to look at it, there is a deficiency in the Schools Act of 1997 in that the present legislation does not include a comprehensive provision making new school boards successors in law when they replace school boards that have been dissolved. It is necessary, we feel, to amend the Schools Act of 1997 to enable the new school boards which come into effect in September, 2004, to be legal successors to the currently existing boards.

Again, the act - and the Leader of the Opposition has alluded to this - the Schools Act of 1997 contemplates dissolution of school boards and the creation of new school boards, and provides that all debts and liabilities of the dissolved boards will be assumed by the new board. However, the legislation does not identify the new board as successor in law. That is the key point, successor in law. Neither does it address assumption of agreements and contracts by a successor board or vesting of properties in these successor boards. So, it extends on the act of 1997.

During the present consolidation of school boards, the Schools Act was amended and a Schools Act in 1996, and subsequently a Schools Act in 1997, was enacted. The Schools Act of 1996 included provisions which made the new board successors in law, requiring all agreements, contracts, obligations, debts and liabilities to be assumed by the successor board. That was in 1996. For some reason, it was not included in the act of 1997. The pure intent of this tonight is not to dissolve school boards. That is already covered in the act. It is simply to make sure that, basically, the new board is a successor in law. That is basically what it is. I said it at the beginning, I said it in the middle. It goes on to say something about - it is just as well to read. It appears the Schools Act of 1997 did not include a reference - and I will say again - did not include a reference to contracts or to personnel. Very key points. That is where we want to make sure that the transition - I guess, that everything goes rather smoothly.

I say again, we feel that it was an inadvertent omission. It is not a matter of blame here or anything. Again, in 1997, for whatever reason, the language which would have made the new board a successor in law does not exist. It is not there. It is corrected and it will now allow us to move forward in a manner which makes sure that the new boards are on an even keel and moving forward.

I hope that answers the intent of this bill and any questions that people, who are asking the questions - certainly, I hope that it would answer their inquiry.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I will tell the Member for Mount Pearl, I probably understands a lot more about it than he does. I do not think this is a joking matter because I think this is very, very important. This is very important for the people of the Burin Peninsula, the people of the Bonavista Peninsula, and the people on the Avalon West area.

The question I have for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education, in terms of the numbers that are going to be on the school board: How many people are going to be on the school board? Twelve? Fifteen?

MR. HEDDERSON: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Fifteen on the school board, the same that is on the school board now. That has not changed. Okay.

The other question I have for the Parliamentary Secretary is: Is the board broken up into zones? Are there zones? Will there be guaranteed representation from different zones within the board?

MR. HEDDERSON: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No, but didn't you decide that before you decided to do the board of amalgamations? Didn't you decide that before you decided the board of amalgamations? How many zones are going to be within the board? What is the physical make up of the school board itself? How are the small communities in the area going to be represented? How are these people going to be elected?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes, okay. If you are going to do it based on the Burin Peninsula - for example, if you are going to have two representatives from the Burin Peninsula, the big population base is in Marystown-Burin, so what chance is somebody from Jacques Fontaine or some of those areas, or St. Bernard's, or Grand Le Pierre, or English Harbour East, what chance are they going to have to get elected to the school board? What chance are they going to have to get elected to the school board? You know, there is a lot of concern about this particular piece of legislation and what is happening with this reorganization.

The Member for Trinity North, how many members from the board are going to be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: He said there are going to be fifteen members on the board. Fifteen members from St. John's to Bonavista going to be represented on this board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Marystown.

MR. BARRETT: No, Burin Peninsula, the Bonavista Peninsula, all the Avalon Peninsula is going to have fifteen representatives on this board. Right? So what impact are the small rural communities going to have on this school board?

The other question is: Why was St. John's chosen as the headquarters for this particular school board?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Well, it does. It has a lot to do with this bill. It has to do with the reorganization of education on the Avalon, Burin, and Bonavista Peninsulas. I am asking these questions as an elected representative. People sent me here to ask these questions.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: To the Minister of Finance, this is no joking matter. You might joke about everything else, but this is no joking matter. People are very, very concerned. People are very, very concerned about what is happening with this school board.

Why was St. John's chosen as the centre? It is at the end of the school board. Right? In terms of cost effectiveness, would you put the centre for this school board in St. John's?

MR. GRIMES: In rented space.

MR. BARRETT: In rented space in Atlantic Place, where probably the rent is $22 an hour, $22 a square foot?

MR. GRIMES: The most expensive rental property anywhere.

MR. BARRETT: The most expensive rental property anywhere on the Avalon, Burin and Bonavista Peninsulas.

I will ask the Member for Trinity North: Why wasn't the centre for this school board put in Clarenville, a central location? Right now if somebody gets elected from Lamaline or Lawn on the Burin Peninsula they have a four-hour drive to come to St. John's for a school board meeting. A four-hour drive!

The other question is: Who is going to serve on these school boards? It is not going to be the ordinary working person. Why not? How many people, I ask the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, working men and women, can give up two or three days for school board meetings? If you are in Lamaline or Lawn -

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible) up in Labrador.

MR. BARRETT: The Member for Lake Melville, I wish you would be quiet. This is important. I am asking some questions here and I am trying to get some answers for the people that I represent. When you get an opportunity to get up, you ask about the people that you represent. I am concerned about this.

The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, you will get an opportunity to speak. Get up and speak. It is only 1:05 a.m. You will get an opportunity. We will probably be here until 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock, or 2:00 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, but I am asking some questions that people in my district are asking.

Why was the headquarters put in St. John's? Why wasn't it put in Clarenville and why wasn't it put in Whitbourne? If you are looking for a central location for the school board, Whitbourne would have been a good location. As a matter of fact, they could have gotten space in Whitbourne; very, very cheap space in Whitbourne. There is a vacant school in Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Yes there is! There is a vacant school in Whitbourne. There is a vacant high school portion of the school there that could be easily renovated. As a matter of fact, there was space to accommodate the school board in Clarenville that was recently - I just visited there and just had a meeting in a beautiful facility in Clarenville. In Bay Roberts, a beautiful facility. Spaniard's Bay, no paying of rent because they own the facility. The board owns the facility. The board owns the facility in Clarenville. The board owns the facility in Burin-Marystown. If you are talking about rural Newfoundland and Labrador, when you are talking about trying to put jobs and economic activity, it was the perfect opportunity to take a school board and the administration of a school board and put it in one of the rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. What did they do? They put it in Atlantic Place, downtown St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Look, there are lots of other government offices, and what have you, that probably could have moved in there.

We put in a long-term lease because we were going to keep the boards in place. That is the reason we did it. That is the reason we put a long-term lease on it, because we had no intentions of dissolving the school boards. So, there are all kinds of questions.

MR. GRIMES: The school board signed that, smartass.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Everybody heard the Leader of the Opposition call one of the members over here a smartass. I would think that is unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw the comment.

CHAIR: Yes, I did hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition make that comment. So, I ask him -

MR. GRIMES: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for making such a comment after 1:00 o'clock in the morning here in the midst of a totally unnecessary debate.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I would like for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education, when he gets up, to answer this question: What was the logic and what was the reasoning for putting the headquarters in St. John's? What was the logic and the criteria? There must have been - I mean, when you all sat around the table, the caucus and the Cabinet, and what have you, and made these decisions, you must have come up with a criteria. What was the criteria? Why did you put the headquarters in St. John's? Was it cost effective? No. Was it because it was centrally located? No. There must be some other reason why you did it.

The other question is: How is the representation on this school board going to be determined? How many representatives, for example, will there be from the Burin Peninsula? How many people are going to be represented from the Bonavista and the Clarenville region? How many people are going to be there from Conception Bay, Trinity Bay, Trinity-Bay de Verde, all that area there, how many representations are going to be on the school board? How many people are going to be from the hon. the Minister of Finance? How many people are going to be from down the Cape Shore, the Southern Shore, Placentia & St. Mary's, and all of that area?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No, no I am asking - you are not the minister. I am asking the question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No, no. I am just saying the question, but those questions are directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education. I want some reasoning why this is being done and how much money is going to be saved. How much money is going to be saved? The Minister of Finance said there was going to be $7 million saved. Seven million in the Budget.

MR. SULLIVAN: When did I say that?

MR. BARRETT: You said it in the Budget. It is in the Budget. You said that by amalgamating the boards you were going to save $7 million.

Okay, so now you have space rented down in Atlantic Place. We still have the building in Spaniard's Bay. We still have the building in Burin. We still have the building in Clarenville. Now, when a school board member has to go to a board meeting -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bellevue that his time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: I will be back.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to resume the debate. I appreciate the explanation that was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education regarding the purpose of this particular piece of legislation that we are dealing with. I applaud him for at least making an effort to give an explanation, and that is what I think the debate is all about. Notwithstanding that, I am still not clear, and I will give my reasons why I am not clear. I listened to your comments, which, no doubt, was from a prepared script. I guess it is easy to read from a prepared script without necessarily understanding what it is we are reading.

For example, I do not know - and I discussed this matter with the Leader of the NDP, who is also a lawyer, and as a lawyer, I certainly do not know everything. We cannot figure out a distinction between a successor and a successor in law that you refer to. Your explanation of it from your sheet does nothing to clarify it, absolutely nothing, because it raises a lot of questions again. If that is the explanation, that we have just changed the word successor to successor in law, we have a couple of problems, besides the fact that we certainly do not understand what adding, in law, has to do with changing the legal definition of it.

The reason it raises a problem is, if you are now changing the word from successor to successor in law because it has some particular legal connotation, what happened to the boards that were amalgamated under the old section 57? Was that all illegal? Was that illegal? Because, under the old section 57, which you are amending and repealing, all of these boards were amalgamated. They just used the word successor. Was that done improperly? That is one question that we have with it.

Number two is: What about the effectiveness or the validity of the order that you gave on March 27, or whenever about, in 2004, that you are going to dissolve from eleven down to four? Is that illegal? Was that improper notice? Have we given pink slips to eleven directors of education based upon a clause 57 in the Schools Act that is still the law tonight? We are still not into the new law, so does that make the reduction from twenty-seven to eleven a nullity and done improperly? Does it make the notice that this government gave on March 27 an improper action, an illegal act? That is why, I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister, your explanation of simply changing from the word successor to successor in law does not answer the question.

This is not questioning your motives, but somebody in the Department of Justice, and maybe it is the Minister of Justice, can give us the answer. The answer to simply say we went from successor to successor in law does not give the explanation.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Maybe he said much more than that, I say to the Government House Leader, but I have listened intently. The explanation that he gave does not answer the questions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Because the member does not understand it does not mean that an adequate explanation was not provided. The fact of the matter is this. This is the opinion that has been given. The explanation has been provided that there was an exception in 1996 when school boards changed. There was a successor in law provision provided so that everything was covered: contracts, personnel, property, holdings, et cetera. This is what this bill is about.

In 1997, when we amended the Schools Act in this House while the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Education at the time, that amendment was not in there. It was an omission. That is the undertaking. The fact now that the current piece of legislation is correcting that and giving certainty, particularly when it comes to transfer of holdings and property from the current school board, personnel, et cetera, to the new school board, it brings certainty to it. There is a question and a liability question there.

That is the biggest reason. Whether that explanation is acceptable to you and the remainder of the Opposition, that is for you to decide, but that is the explanation. Whether you accept it or not, or buy into it or not, that is the only thing this bill is about; because everything else that has been decided, from dissolving school boards from eleven to five and the policy decisions that were taken around that, we already have the absolute right to do in the piece of legislation. It is already done.

This is an amendment to the Schools Act, by the way, which, when you were in government - not the current Opposition House Leader, because he was elected in 1999, but the Leader of the Opposition, who was the Minister of Education - in 1996 the Schools Act provided for this certainty. In 1997, there was an omission that did not provide for it. You should know the answer to this yourselves. You have debated and passed legislation like this in the past.

That is the explanation. That is the only thing that the bill is about. I do not know what else we can say. Every time someone stands up in the Opposition and continues to ask the question, we can stand up and give you the same answer, but, really, what is the point of that? We have given a legitimate, bona fide explanation to the members of the House, and through the members of the House to the people of the public, what this particular piece of legislation is about. There it is. If you do not accept it, there is not much we can do about that. We believe it is necessary and that is why we are proceeding with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If that is the case, maybe we should all accept that and go home out of this.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, I accept that and I have no difficulty with that. It is still not clear to me, when I am told that the change of a word from successor to successor in law was the only thing that was required. I think it must be deeper than this. There must be some other words.

Maybe the explanation is that in the old section 57, maybe in the old section 57 it only referred to debts and liabilities, whereas in this new act it talks about agreements, contracts, debts, liabilities, and other obligations. Maybe it is because we have expanded - I can buy into that somewhat - that it is not the change from successor to successor in law that was the crucial piece of this. It is that we expanded what the new boards would take in, from simply being debts and liabilities under the old act to being debts, liabilities, obligations, contracts and agreements.

That is not what the Parliamentary Secretary explained that the substantial change was. You said it was the change of the wording from successor to successors in law. If we are missing something there, we would like to know, because myself and the Leader of the NDP certainly do not know what the impact of that would be; because, using that rationale, we have a lot of problems created in the past from the twenty-seven to eleven reduction and now going from eleven to four, if that is the case, or going from eleven to five.

The other issue again is: How does this impact the validity of what was done? It does not say anywhere in this bill - and I would like to be informed again, and educated. This says that section 57 is being repealed and being replaced by this section 57. It does not say anything in this bill about when this becomes effective. It does not say anything about when it becomes effective, so I am assuming that it would become effective on the date that it would be passed through this House, given Royal Assent, and proclaimed.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That is right. That is exactly my problem, I say to the Minister of Finance. Unless we have something in here - if what we are trying to do is give comfort from step one to what this government has done, and step one to me would be when you give the notice that you are going to go from eleven to five, if that is what we are trying to do, we need to have this legislation, if that is the rationale -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: All I am saying is, if we are going to be clear and if we are trying to fix a problem, if we gave -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Sure.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I think it is important that we not try to make something out of nothing here. I will try to provide as legitimate an explanation as I can.

In 1996, when the former Administration was in government, we passed amendments to the Schools Act. In that piece of legislation, the very thing that we are debating now was included in that act, successor in law, which covered everything: liabilities, contracts, property holdings, et cetera, covered everything. When further amendments were made in 1997, by members in the Legislature, that provision was not included. It was not included in the 1997 act. It was seen as being an omission; not intentional, just an omission.

Since 1997, up until this point, there was no reason to amend it because school boards were as they were in 1997, eleven. The current government took a decision to reduce school boards from a public policy perspective. Some people may agree with it, some may disagree with it, that is all fair enough, but we made that decision under the current act, which gives us the power to do it. In so doing that, the omission that was made in 1997 becomes glaring today. So, to bring certainty, all we are asking for is an amendment that this House, in 1996, dealt with, that brings certainty from contracts, personnel, property holdings, from the old board, on August 31, which dissolves, essentially, and a new board takes power on the first. That is all that this amendment is about, nothing more, nothing less.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The concern I raise now, I moved on past the successor to successor in law piece. I have acknowledged that this is wider in terms of, we have gone from merely debts and liabilities to a situation where we have debts, liabilities, other obligations, agreements and contracts. My next question is: If we pass this tonight, we have been operating in law, and as of right now - because this is not a law - as of right now we are operating under section 57. We all know, and we are saying here, that for some reason section 57 was not as strong as we wanted it to be. It did not give the comfort that we wanted. It was not as broad as we wanted. That is what we are saying. We had it in 1996, we screwed up and did not put it in, in 1997, and now that we are doing the amalgamations again we want to make sure that we fix it so we have that comfort level in doing it.

What I am saying is: There were actions undertaken by this government on, say, March 27. I do not know the exact date, but on March 27 or sometime this government gave instructions to somebody, saying: Your board is being dissolved into another board. Your school board is going to be dissolved, and we are going to have an interim and a transition team.

Given that those instructions have been given, and you gave them under section 57, which is the law as of tonight - that was done, say, on March 27, under the old section 57 - if we pass this law tonight, and get Royal Assent tonight, that old section 57, which was defective, which you did on March 27 and was defective, if we pass this law tonight, on June 3, the new section 57 is only effective tonight. That does not remedy the problem and the decision that you made back on March 27.

What I am saying is, at least if we are going to be cautious and protective, why can't we put an amendment in there - assuming everything else you are saying is correct - to say that the new section 57, once passed, is retroactive to the date that government made these decisions? Then you have the ultimate comfort. That is all I am saying. You do not still need a gap between that period and now.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate the issue that the Opposition House Leader has raised. I think it is also important to understand that what we are talking about are successor rights, and we understand that, and that this is moving on a go-forward basis. We do not feel, at least based upon the advice that has been provided, that the issue you raise, that we have exposed ourselves, or we are somehow exposed, or the decisions that we have made somewhat expose us. What we are attempting to do, we believe that the decisions we have made thus far, at this point, we have the complete and absolute right to do so within the current act. This is more so, so that when August 31 at 12 o'clock rolls into September 1, that the new board has all the powers that it should have.

That is all we are trying to do: to correct, on a go-forward basis, the issue dealing with successor rights beginning September 1, 2004. All we are trying to do is to ensure that the decisions that we are taking move forward as smoothly as they can move forward. It does not have anything do to with the decisions that were currently taken. Nor does it have any impact on employment contracts that were currently taken; but, on a go-forward basis, when the clock rolls from August 31 to September 1, that what should be done in law is done, and that is what this piece of legislation is about for them. We do not anticipate the Legislature being open at that time; nor would it be, normally, open at that time.

While I appreciate the concern, the advice that we have been provided, based upon the questions that you have asked, is that we need not be concerned about that. This is about, on a go-forward basis, when the old school board actually becomes defunct and the new school board as it is currently defined or will currently define and take its powers in law on September 1. That is what this piece of legislation is about, nothing more, nothing less.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the explanation. I believe we are actually getting a little bit more productive work done as we move along. I might suggest, out loud, something that I suggested across the floor some time ago. It being 1:30, if we want to accomplish some real work today, why don't we - we have had lots of chances to say some pieces, because the more we talk, by the way, there are other questions that could be raised that we could talk about until the cows come home, to use an expression, for a long time. I could give a couple of examples.

If we knew the real intent of the government tonight - because there was a debate earlier about who decides what time we close and open, and whether the cameras are on, and I understand the point made by the House Leader, that the cameras are decided by the Speaker and there is some notice that has to be given and so on. The fact of the matter is, if you know enough in advance that you are going to be here at 1 o'clock in the morning, the Speaker can make arrangements for the cameras to be on.

The only reason we are here at 1:27 a.m., continuing on, in the final analysis, is because the Government House Leader -

MR. WISEMAN: You won't sit down.

MR. GRIMES: The Member for Trinity North might say because I will not sit down and I will not be sat down unless I do it of my own volution when I am satisfied that I have had my opportunity to speak. I will say that every single time while I am in this Legislature, and I know people can get a bit testy at 1:30 in the morning.

The point I am trying to make is this. If the Government House Leader wants to indicate to us that we have done a piece of committee work and that we have had lots of chances to ask questions, we have been given an explanation and that we will put the vote - they will vote for it, we will likely vote against it - he will have this particular piece of legislation moved on past the Committee stage and then we are going to rise the Committee, report progress, and go home at 1:30 a.m. Then, I can tell you, as one member in the Opposition I am willing to sit down, even though there are some other questions I could ask. We will accept the explanation and we can go home out of it. But, if the intent is for us to now move on to this Committee and at 1:30 a.m. think we are going to be productive by calling another bill at Committee stage at 1:30 in the morning, in a family, friendly House, and expect to be really productive if we now go back to the Fisheries Collective Bargaining Act or if we go to the other legislation that is before us - because there is only one other piece in Committee - and we are expected to start a brand new series of questions at 1:30 in the morning, having been here since 1:30 in the afternoon, twelve hours, and people on either side expect to be really productive and to be really making a good contribution on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We can have a decision made. We can decide that we have done some work and have accomplished some things and we can go home. Or, I can start saying: I just heard some things to raise some more questions, because we do know that we have the right to have the current boards dissolved at a date determined by the government. The government has decided they are dissolved as of the end of August. What we have in the meantime then, is now we have two lots of boards in existence at the same time. That raises a brand new question - the Government House Leader knows where I am going - because now if we are changing and amending this, could somebody tell me - because I am not sure I can find it right away, and my name was on this bill when it was offered, the current schools act. I am not sure I can find a provision - because I have looked for it in the last little while - which says that the government has the right to have two lots of school boards operating in the Province at the same time, because the current eleven boards have not been told that they are dissolved until the end of August. In the meantime, we have three interim boards that are making some decisions. Under what authority?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: My whole point is this - now, I have heard the answer is under the Schools Act. Someone is going to tell us now, on behalf of the government, that you can have eleven elected boards still empowered to make all the decisions that they are entitled to under the powers and duties and responsibilities of a board under the sections of the act, and you can have three appointed interim boards given the same authority to make decisions at the same time in the same time frame in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would believe, if that were challenged, that I cannot imagine the circumstance - maybe the Minister of Justice would like to enlighten us - where that could possibly occur, because if the current school boards are not dissolved, by the way, than they still have the authority to hire teachers for next September. Are they doing it? Yes, they are. The advertisements are in the newspapers. They are not in the newspapers, by the way, from the three interim boards but there are advertisements in the newspaper from the three interim boards looking for directors of education and assistant directors of education, but not for teachers.

That gives rise to another question. Under what authority, and who made the decision? The question that my colleague, the Member for Bellevue was asking: Who made the decision on the headquarters?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I understand that, but the government does not have any decision-making power under the Schools Act to make those decisions. The government can only do what the law permits. Do you understand the point I am making? We can stay and we can raise a whole series of other questions that come to mind, that that is not a satisfactory answer to, that the government did it. The government can only do what is legal.

If you have, in fact, eleven school boards still in place, one of the responsibilities that they have, one of the authorities that they have, one of the duties that they have and one of the powers that they have is to establish school boards offices, and to decide what buildings they need and for what purposes. How many schools? Do you need a head office? Do you have regional offices? Because of them do now. So, can you have two lots of totally empowered school boards existing in the same province, in the same jurisdiction, at the same time? Do we want to complicate the whole debate by moving into those issues tonight? Because we will stay here and do it, until daylight, until noon tomorrow, until the cows come home, we will do it. Or, we can say: Let's put that aside and let's not bother to raise those other issues - which might be a bit tangly, by the way. They might be a bit tangly, to say: Okay, the government - under what piece of legislation, where, did the government take upon itself the authority to say that the head office for a school board that is not yet even legally in place - because if the two school boards in Central are still in place until August 31 with all of their powers and authorities still vested by the Schools Act - what authority does this interim board have, other than to make some suggestions and recommendations? Because it is the next board.

It is the successor board that actually gets to hire the director. Under what authority is this interim board - what piece of law says this interim board has the right to hire the director? A school board, by law, can hire a director. How can you have two school boards in the same jurisdiction at the same time? So, again, I have made that point.

I will come back to some questions further, or we could hear from the House Leader about what his preferences are, because otherwise we might as well start - because there are several other questions, questions raised about leases, when, again, some people who blurt some things out at 1:34 in the morning, raise more questions than give answers, showing their lack of knowledge of the Schools Act and suggesting that the government itself, that the former government might have actually entered into a lease for a school board office. The government does not have any authority to enter into a lease for a school board office. Just because you get elected as the government does not mean that you have the right to do everything. The Schools Act, under a section of the law right now, the 1997 act, says that school boards have the right to determine if they lease offices or not, not the elected government. So, there are very serious questions raised and I would contend that the longer and later we stay the worse it is going to get, rather than be more clarified and get better and pass the bill. We are quite willing to stay because it is getting more confusing rather than being more enlightening.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Interesting. I mean, in a nutshell -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) thirty-five years. Some people do not know you as well as I do.

MR. SULLIVAN: So, it is not a secret anymore. They all know it now.

MR. GRIMES: Oh, they all know it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

In a nutshell, I guess, what I can take from the Leader of the Opposition is that we will pass this in Committee, even though we have lots of serious questions, and then we will go home. But if we, as government, are not intent on going home right now then we are going to hold up and ask all of our serious questions. It begs the question of the how serious the serious questions really are, if you are willing to give it all in Committee now because then we will all go home? If you have serious questions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Who is that? How is that? That is what he said to me. That is essentially what was said. If you have serious questions, I mean, we will provide - you have the opportunity to ask those serious questions.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move Order 2. Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance. (Bill 30)

CHAIR: We are starting debate now on, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance. (Bill 30)

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have a few words. I guess we move from education to insurance, in short order. I appreciate an opportunity to have a few comments.

The first comments I would like to make is that this is an issue certainly debated quite heavily in the public in the last few days. Again, leading to answers to some of the sections in this particular bill, and that is the issue of how we moved from a cap, which was the expressed written undertaking of this Administration back in August of 2003, to the point where - when Bill 30 gets entered, or on March 17 actually, when we were first notified, that we were told we were going to have a deductible situation.

Now, there have been a lot of questions asked by this member in this House. I think on three successive Question Periods I have asked the question of how we move from a cap to a deductible or why we moved from a cap to a deductible, and for a number of reasons. I think they were very legitimate questions of why we asked why we moved. We haven't gotten any satisfactory answers so the question is still valid. We would certainly like to have some answers and look forward to the minister giving us some answers.

For example, I do not think a cap was discussed by the Progressive Conservative Party, initially. I believe the first position that was publicly announced was of the Liberal Party last year when they said they would like to have an option system of keep what was or use a system whereby you restrict your rights to recover but the government in legislation would guarantee you a 30 per cent reduction in your public liability premiums. The NDP, I believe, announced second last year that they would want a public insurance system. Then, thirdly, the announcement was made by the Premier and by the Member for Conception Bay South - I guess it was in late August last year - saying that the third proposal which came out publicly from the third party would be a system whereby a cap would be used, a $2,500 cap.

That is the background of where we all stood as political parties and different people who were going to go in certain directions. In play, behind all of that of what was happening here in this Province, was the issue of what was happening in the rest of Atlantic Canada. The then Premier, the current Leader of the Opposition, was in discussions with Premier Lord, the Premier of P.E.I., as well and the Premier of Nova Scotia, Premier Hamm, in saying: What are we going to do to harmonize the insurance industry in Atlantic Canada? Or can we harmonize in certain areas, if not all, but let's identify what areas we can harmonize in. So that was in play. What are we going to do to reduce insurance rates and premiums for everybody in Atlantic Canada? So, we knew the provincial positions here and we know what was trying to be done on an Atlantic-wide basis to do something that we might have some kind of uniform or standard system.

We have moved from that point of last year to where we have an election and the Administration changes. The harmonization piece in that regard, we have three of the four Atlantic Provinces that have adopted a cap. That was harmonization from those other three provinces. In fact, everybody back, I am sure, in the latter stages and latter months of 2003, assumed that we would have an Atlantic standard, because three of them were going to the cap: New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, I believe, is about to get theirs started right now.

The Progressive Conservative Party, who formed the government here in October, were on record as saying in August that we are going to have a cap. So, the understanding was that everyone was going to have a cap system. All of a sudden, what was well-intentioned and everybody thought we were going to have, we did not have any more come March 17. St. Paddy's Day had a big surprise for everybody, a big surprise. We are no longer going to have a cap system.

Now, I think it is acknowledged by every jurisdiction in Canada, other than Newfoundland - every single jurisdiction has acknowledged - that the only way, or the major way, you are going to get any reductions in premiums is to have some kind of limitation on the claims. How do you do that? It might be under a no fault system. It might be under a public system. It might be under a cap way, but there have to be some restrictions if you are going to get the premiums to come down.

The deductible has never been acknowledged by any jurisdiction. There is no jurisdiction in Canada that has ever used this deductible, or has ever been studied and determined to be a way to lower the premiums. It has never been done.

I say to the minister, there is nothing wrong with being different, but it should be thought out. I do not think we need to go there in terms of this Administration having thought things out, because this deductible came out of the blue. I believe when you were first asked -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: It was not out of the Blue Book either. In fact, the Blue Book talked about caps, I say to the Minister of Finance, so it did not pop out of that Blue Book. I say out of the blue, because when the Minister of Government Services was first asked where it came from, she said: Oh, we sat around at a meeting. We sat around a Cabinet meeting, or sat around at some meeting and we came up with it. I asked her: Do you mind telling me who was there, what heads had input into this great scheme? I have not received an answer to date. I have not been told once about where this came from.

So we look under section 39. (1), this famous cap that pops up in this Bill 30. I said to the minister again - because it is not even in here - what is the deductible? If you read section 39. (1), it does not say anywhere in section 39. (1) what the amount of the deductible is going to be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. PARSONS: Yes, the minister answered in Question Period and the minister told me it was in the legislation. That is what the Minister of Government Services told me first when I asked her in Question Period. She said it was in the legislation what the amount of the cap was, and nowhere in this legislation does it say what the cap is.

AN HON. MEMBER: She answered.

MR. PARSONS: She answered. She was confused, I would say to the Minister of Finance. She did not know it was in here because she did not understand it. Where it was, the $2,500 reference was in a press release that the minister had sent out. What the minister had said in her press release is that when we get this law passed it is going to provide for a deductible, a deductible which will be determined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council by way of regulation, but nowhere in here - and even now, Minister, we just have a press release from yourself saying that the intention today, as we speak, is $2,500. That is the intention.

I will not even get into it now, but can people take you at your word or what is written down or what is expressed? Because we have already seen fifteen or twenty examples since October about what was in writing from you and where you ended up today. So, telling us in a press release that you are going to have a deductible of $2,500 does not cut it very much. It does not cut it very much with the public of this Province. They have seen lots of examples from this Administration of saying one thing and doing another. So, please forgive us for being somewhat incredulous about your intentions and your motivations and where we are going to end up.

We would not want, for God's sake, and heaven forbid, to have you tell us that it is a $2,500 deductible only to find out, after we pass this, and after Cabinet has a meeting, that you pass a regulation saying that it is a twenty-five cent deductible. We do not know that, and that is why the question was asked: If you are going to go with the deductible even, why didn't you have it determined by somebody who was independent, what the amount of the deductible should be? Why are we leaving the calculation of the deductible to Cabinet? Is Cabinet independent in this case? The minister says yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, I say to the Minister of Finance, I think there are other ways of doing it. I think this issue is of such importance to the people of this Province that if you are fair and if you are open and if you are transparent and if you are accountable - and I am sure you have used those words a lot in the last seven months - I am sure that we can find somewhere to have a deductible determined, other than in the hands of Cabinet who may or may not have vested interests, who may or may not -

MR. SULLIVAN: So you agree with (inaudible)?

MR. PARSONS: No, no, don't go that far. Never, for God's sake, don't go so far as to think that I agree with the deductible. I am just showing here now that -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, no, no. I will say to the minister, you will have your opportunity. I look forward to you getting on your feet, instead of interfering and interjecting to my comments. I have no question responding to anything you have to say, but I think all opportunities - get on your feet and explain your position when you get an opportunity. My time will soon be up, and you will certainly be allowed to stand up and say whatever you want in support of this legislation. That is the way the system works.

Back to my comments again about the deductible, the deductible that I certainly do not agree with, a deductible system, where did the figure of $2,500 come from? Who came up with the $2,500 figure, Minister? Who decided that $2,500 was a fair amount? Who had input into that $2,500 figure? It has not been to Cabinet yet, I take it, because, according to this bill, Cabinet cannot even make the decision until this becomes law. When this becomes law, Cabinet will be entitled to make a decision, then, by regulation, of what the amount of the deductible is going to be. So, are you telling us that you have already had a Cabinet meeting and made that decision? You made a decision on the amount of the deductible and you do not even have the law passed yet as to what it is going to be. I would appreciate some explanation of that, where that came from. Now, again, I ask: Why would it be Cabinet making this decision on a deductible in any case? Why would it not be some arm's-length, independent body that would decide? Even if we are going to have a deductible, why would we not take it out of the hands of government? Why would we not have some arbitrary, independent, arm's-length body? If we are going to end up with a deductible anyway, why wouldn't we have such a group as that to decide what the deductible would be?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, that would certainly, I would suggest, be a step better than having Cabinet do it. That would certainly be a step better than having Cabinet do it. If we are going to allow the Public Utilities Board to conduct - which they have always been doing - the hearings into the rates in this Province, and if we are going to allow the Public Utilities Board to have a full-scale hearing now to decide, and interview, and discuss issues such as a public insurance system, and to discuss such things as to whether we should or should not have the discrimination clauses in or out, if we are going to do that with the Public Utilities Board, and if we are going to have, and we do have, the Public Utilities Board oversee the rates that are now decided under auto insurance in this Province, I would certainly suggest that they are a far more fair, equitable, just group to decide what the deductible would be, rather than Cabinet.

I do not think that is unreasonable to suggest, that if what we are trying to show here, to everybody in this Province, if it is decided - and this government can impose its will whatever. If it is going to be a deductible, it is going to be a deductible. That is not an issue. There are all kinds of rules here in the House. We all know that, at the end of the day, we can stand up here and scream and shout all we want, but at the end of this day this piece of legislation is going to become law. The question is, at the end of the day, once it is passed - and you can do it either by us ranting and raving for ten hours or ten days, but it gets done - somebody is going to have to account for what was done; and, if you cannot answer the reasonable questions and give reasonable explanations to them, somebody is going to have to answer for it some time. Why is Cabinet doing this rather than an independent agency? I think that is a legitimate question. Let's not have anybody say that -

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We couldn't wait for eight months to have a closed-claim study done, and wait for eight years, like you guys waited. That is why, because we had (inaudible) immediate release.

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Premier, he will get his opportunity to speak.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I certainly will.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, and I look forward to hearing you speak. I look forward to hearing you speak, very much so, because we have heard very little from you on this issue in this House so far. I look forward to you entering into the debate, because we have gotten very little answers from your Minister of Government Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) eight years.

MR. PARSONS: Well, maybe the Premier does not want to answer the questions, I say. Maybe the Premier does have vested interests or whatever. Maybe the Premier does have a reason for wanting to have a deductible.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I look forward to the Premier telling us why he wants the deductible rather than the cap.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Don't talk to me about conflict of interest.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I look forward to the Premier telling us. I look forward to the Premier explaining to the people of this Province why we go, in August of 2003, to a system where we have a cap announced by the Premier, with his Member for Conception Bay South, and, all of a sudden, here on March 17, the Premier has moved to a deductible. I am sure the people of this Province would love to know the reason for that. Maybe the Premier was at that meeting that the Minister of Government Service talked about. Maybe he can -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader that his time has expired.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words on Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, and the various other pieces of legislation; basically, a reform package put forth by the government. In doing so, Mr. Chairman, I think what we have here is a situation where the measures that the government have taken have really created a little bit of a crisis in the industry.

I know that the Premier suggested, a little earlier today, that it is not real, that they are not serious. I do not know if they are serious or not, but the latest piece of information that I have is that there is another insurance company, according to Tom Hickey, that is going to cease doing business in the Province immediately, one who wrote $10 million worth of premiums last year, according to Tom Hickey of the Insurance Brokers Association.

I have a letter here - it looks like it was written to the Member for St. John's North - from an insurance broker. He says: I am attaching a couple of interesting reports I think you should read before voting on Bill 30. If the government continues on its current course of action with respect to Bill 30, I can guarantee you that there will be tremendous layoffs in the insurance brokerage industry in Newfoundland. It is alright for Minister Whalen to say that the companies pulling out will have no adverse effect on brokers but, to be quite honest, if a broker loses their markets they will have no products to sell, resulting in loss of jobs. There are also other countless economic losses that would occur as a result of this Bill 30. I must point out that the current bill very much favors the legal community. I have a great deal of experience in the claims industry and can see how the quantum of injury awards has skyrocketed over the past number of years despite the fact that the quantity of claims has decreased - I do not necessarily agree with all of this, by the way; I am just reading out what the industry is saying.

It continues: The other problem is, when other insurers do pull out of Newfoundland, I can guarantee that no new players are going to come into an environment where they are almost certain to lose money. If you were a business, would you sell your products at below cost? I don't think you would be in business for too long, doing this. This is how insurers such as Aviva and Dominion of Canada are feeling. Currently, only two insurers have made their intentions clear; however, I have heard rumors of others taking the same line - I guess this was before Federated made an announcement - and I also heard rumors of others taking the same line. I have even heard rumors regarding the Facility Association, et cetera, et cetera.

This is the kind of reaction the insurance industry is having. Another message that has been passed along, attached to this message, is about Saskatchewan government insurance expanding all over Canada but not considering Newfoundland because they say if the other companies cannot make a profit then SGI cannot either. They are going to Alberta, they said, but they are not giving the Saskatchewan rates in Alberta; they are using the Alberta private rates. They are expanding outside of Saskatchewan.

There is another letter that I have addressed to the Premier - a copy was sent to me - dated June 3, from the president of - I do not see the organization's name here; it is blocked out. Our not-for-profit organization represents 8,400 risk and insurance professionals in over 100 chapters in North America and around the world - this is from Craig Rowe, in Mount Pearl, who is the president of this organization - and locally we are the only professional insurance consumer group in the Province. They are expressing concerns as well.

We have another letter here from the Newfoundland and Labrador Insurance Adjusters Association talking about their concerns that the fallout from insurance companies pulling out of Newfoundland and Labrador means the loss of hundreds of jobs that will never be replaced.

So, we have a bit of a situation here. The government is promising a 25 per cent reduction in rates. If that is successful then people, I guess, will be - if this legislation passes, whenever it does pass next week, I am assuming that consumers are going to expect to see a 25 per cent reduction in their renewals when they come up in June, July, August and September. That is what the government is promising. I do not think the insurance industry believes it is possible to deliver that or achieve that, and I think the freeze that was put into effect, or is effective March 17, is not going to result in these renewals being down; the renewals are going to go up. I think we are going to have a lot of disappointed consumers, and they are going to be knocking on the minister's door and saying: Madam Minister, I saw you stand up in the House and promise us a 25 per cent reduction due to your reforms.

MS WHALEN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You said 25 per cent.

MS WHALEN: If you're going to quote me, quote me right, Sir.

MR. HARRIS: You can bafflegab it as much as you want, and talk about an average of 25 per cent.

MS WHALEN: I didn't say (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You didn't say an average of...? I guess the minister is going speak in this debate, because every time I have heard her speak she had talked about the consumers going to save an average of 25 per cent.

MS WHALEN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, that is what I heard. If there is something different than that -

MS WHALEN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I guess we will hear what the real number is now. I heard 25 per cent. They said an average of 25 per cent, whatever that means. Twenty-five per cent is 25 per cent. Maybe the minister can explain why it is not 25 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I will tell the minister this: Whatever she said - and she can clarify it when she gets up to speak - whatever she said, she gave consumers the impression that they are going to save 25 per cent as a result of her measures. What I am telling her is that consumers are going to be looking at their insurance bill and they are going to be wondering where the 25 per cent is, because they are not going to get it. That is my concern. They are not going to get it because it is not there. It is not there to be had.

I think this needs to be clarified, and maybe it should be clarified even if it is 2 o'clock in the morning; even if it is 2 o'clock in the morning and the consumers cannot see it. When the minister answers questions in the daylight hours, when it is on TV, it is 25 per cent. Maybe it will be something else tonight, at 2 o'clock in the morning. I do not know what we are doing here, by the way. That is just an aside. I am not sure what we are doing here at 2 o'clock in the morning, debating this.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a contingency fee, Jack, (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh, is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: That is the Ed Roberts contingency fee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: That must be the Ed Roberts contingency fee, is it?

Mr. Chairman, I expect that the minister is going to speak tonight. Maybe she will, and maybe she will explain to us that it is not 25 per cent, but if she going to explain it to us then she had better get on the radio tomorrow, she had better call up Bill Rowe tomorrow morning, and say: By the way, Bill, all those people in the Province who think that they are going to get a 25 per cent reduction because of what I have been saying in the House, they are mistaken. They are not going to get it. They are going to get something else.

She had better get her PR right, because there are going to be a lot of unhappy customers. There re going to be a very lot of unhappy campers, camping out this summer, and before long they are going to be camping out on the minister's doorstep because they are going to be getting their renewal notices pretty soon. When this legislation passes next week and when they get their renewal notice in the middle of June and it says we are not getting 25 per cent, they are going to be phoning up Bill Rowe and saying: Bill, this legislation passed. I am not getting my 25 per cent. I want to know where it is.

She had better correct the impression that she gave. If it is wrong, you had better correct it and you had better correct it on Bill Rowe tomorrow, because when the consumers phone up and say, Bill, I never got my 25 per cent, Bill will say: You had better call your MHA. You had better call your MHA and find out why, because the minister has told everybody they are going to get a 25 per cent reduction. Maybe they are getting a little frightened over there now. Maybe they are getting a little frightened that their policy is falling apart. The insurance companies are getting lost. The minister is now changing her story; we are not going to get 25 per cent any more. We need to clarify some of these things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I don't now. We are not dealing with a zero-sum gain here. I do not know where it is going, but the consumers do not seem to get getting it because every consumer that calls me say they are getting rooked; we are getting increases. I have not heard any consumers say, well, I am really glad that the companies are losing money because I am saving it. I have not heard a consumer yet who has phoned up and said: I just got a 25 per cent decrease in my insurance premium. Maybe they are calling you -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) savings.

MR. HARRIS: I do not think they are getting savings. The Member for Ferryland is saying that they must be saving money because the companies are losing it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: I am glad my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we will hear what the real truth is, from the minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just thought, as I was sitting here, it is a good job we are not being televised to the people of the Province, because this is a serious problem that we have for the consumers and the motorists in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It really is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask that the member be heard.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a problem. It is a problem for a lot of people. All of us who come here to represent the people from whatever district it is, nobody in this House can tell me that they have not had representation from their district, from people, who do not have problems with insurance. They all do. As I said earlier, for a lot of the people who are in this Province, who are working for $6 an hour, $8 an hour, $9 an hour, single parents, it takes a lot of dollars to be able to put insurance - they only thing they can afford on the car is the public liability, the essential part. I would be surprised to find 60 per cent of the motoring public in Newfoundland and Labrador having full coverage on their cars. I would be surprised. They probably do not. It is a problem that has to be fixed. It is a problem that has to be dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: It is not going to be done in this, I can say to the member. It is just not going to happen. This is not going to fix the problem. I am not saying that it (inaudible). I think that the President or CEO of Aviva is going to be meeting with the Premier tomorrow. I hope that they do find some resolution to it, I really do; because, when you talk about the insurance companies, they could be from Ontario. They could be from anywhere. You look at a firm - and I heard about the news where I think there was a guy from MUNN that did an interview tonight and I think the person said they have about 100 people employed and they have no underwriting company to write for, now that Aviva is gone. These are 100 people who work right across in their offices. They have an office in Grand Falls, I believe and I think they might have an office in Gander. I am not sure, but they might even have one in Stephenville.

Then you have TP Hickey Insurance; they have people who are employed here. I was talking to my good friend from Burin-Placentia West earlier. I heard a guy, I think his name might have been Don, from Marystown, who said: I have nineteen people in Marystown working with me as a broker. We write our policies for Aviva, and I cannot write any more. We will have to put them into Facility.

Well, we all know what Facility is. Facility is about three times the cost of what you would find with Aviva. It is a company, and all of us realize that Facility is where you would put people who have had bad records, driving records. Whether it is imprudent driving, whether it has been impaired, or having a number of accidents. I would not want to go there, and I hope and pray that I do not. The thing is, there are a lot of people who are there.

I think of my own father, who is eighty years of age and still drives his automobile, and is lucky that he is. If he wanted tomorrow to leave, say, if he was insured with RC Anthony as a broker - I am not sure where he is insured; I would have to go back and check with him - the point is, tomorrow, if he wanted to go from a brokerage into RC Anthony, wanted to go to Baine Johnson, he cannot do it. He is stuck where he is. If he were to leave the company, he would end up into Facility and he would have to pay three times as much. My father and my mother, the only income they have is pension. My father worked as a logger for all of his life, retired when he was sixty-five years of age, and the day that he retired he never had a penny of insurance from the company. Now the company looks after the people in the mill but not him.

He only worked part time all of his lifetime, so they have to survive on the fact of old age pension plus, I think, special assistance or whatever is added to that. They just have that much money to survive on. They have nothing else. So the insurance for him, for his car, this year, as a small car, is about $1,300. That is a lot of money. That is more than one month's payment of income that they get to live on for one full month. It does mean something for a lot of the people who are out there. At the end of the day, we have to be cognizant of that, when we do it.

I guess the whole idea that we are looking at is, what is best? Is it the cap that is best? Is it the deductible that is best? With a deductible, there is no way in the world for the cost to be maintained, because what will happen is, the lawyers and the people who would do the soft tissue or whatever the case might be, they will automatically tack it on. When it goes to the Public Utilities Board the following year, then you will be paying even more than you did before. That is the problem that we find ourselves in. It is something that I hear a lot about when I go back to the area that I represent. It is a serious problem.

I had a guy tell me not too long ago that he wanted to buy a car for his son to get back and forth to university, and he managed to find a car that was about $3,000. He said: Okay, we can do that. He went to put just public liability on the vehicle, and the public liability cost $5,000. He could not have it, the liability - not full coverage, just the public liability itself, 5,000 bucks - so he could not have it. He could not do that. There has to be something that we have to address for age. There has to be something that we address for gender. However it is done, it has to be. There has to be some relief. There has to be some relief for the seniors, and there have to be some very strict guidelines for people moving into Facility.

I had a call from another person who called me only recently, within the last day or so, and said: I have been driving for twenty years, my wife and I. We have two vehicles - I think I mentioned it the other day - and over the last year we had two accidents, and the two accidents cost a total of $5,000, two of them combined, to the insurance company. I got my renewal coming, and it had gone from I think it was about $1,700 to just about $4,000. He said: I called the company and said: What has happened here? He said: You are into Facility. He said: What is Facility? I don't understand what it is all about. Then, the person at the company said: Because you had two accidents, you are placed into Facility, and you have to be there for six years before you can get out. Just imagine, all of these years. Sure, you will pay three to four times as much back to the companies as was the accident. It was probably better to have paid the $5,000, took out a loan, paid for it, and paid it out monthly.

These are things that have to be addressed, things that are out there that the people are aware of, and there has to be some action to rectify it and to bring it into line.

The other thing with the three companies that are there, if a person tomorrow had his licence and went to buy insurance, there is a possibility that you cannot buy it from any of the other brokers. Now you have about 40 per cent of the people who underwrite insurance, who write it for the different brokers, are no longer writing new business. That would mean, then, as a person who is legitimate, who has no accidents, that tomorrow they would have to go into the group called Facility, which is an insurance company that all of the brokers get together and put the high risk drivers in, and instead of paying $2,000 you would probably end up paying $5,000 for the insurance. That is very, very important for people in the Province in which we live. It is a major problem. It is not going to go away. It has to be fixed.

When we talk about all of these things, it makes us aware of it even more. Sometimes, when you talk about all of these things, obviously I do not know about all of the things involved with insurance, but I know enough to realize that this particular piece of legislation can be tightened, can be done more than it is now, to give protection to the consumer. Most of the people who are out there, as I said, are finding it difficult to make two ends meet. As the cost of living increases, and insurance and everything else with it, then it is difficult.

I saw in my mailbox yesterday, talking about increases, it is not only insurance. It was from Rogers Cable, where insurance had increased for the basic rate to the consumer.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I advise the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune that his time has expired.

MR. LANGDON: Just to conclude a minute?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Yes, just to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is important for us to recognize these things and make some adjustments for the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This particular bill can be improved upon, and the legislation here. Really, from what I have seen and from what I have heard, obviously the deductible, I do not think, will do the thing for it. A cap would be much better so that it could bring some relief to the consumers, and I guess the insurance companies or the people who are writing the business here would reconsider so that at the end of the day, with more competition, then obviously there would be a better price for the consumer because they could shop around into a market system and get the best price, providing, of course, that they have a clear record over the last number of years.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to rise to correct myself from my last speech. I think I did. This must be the hour. It is after 2 o'clock in the morning and I got up at 6 o'clock this morning, so I have been awake since then. I did say 25 per cent, but I think 15 per cent. Is it 15 per cent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Good. Twenty-five must be the contingency fee, right. Nine to twenty-five or twenty-seven, an average of fifteen, okay, the 15 per cent. The same points have to be made about the 15 per cent, because this is what the consumers know. They have heard 15 per cent. In other words, if my insurance bill last year was $1,000, once this legislation - and the Premier is right; the legislation has not been passed yet. I suspect that if we keep on going here all night, people get fed up enough, then the minister or the House Leader might call for a closure motion for next week and it will pass next week.

AN HON. MEMBER: After Sunday (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: After Sunday or Monday, whatever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Regatta Day.

MR. HARRIS: Regatta Day.

I will tell you something: If you keep this up it will never pass, because we will not get beyond the Committee stage. If that is what members opposite want to do, keep her going until the Regatta, we will be going until the Regatta and there will be nothing else get done because once you are in Committee you cannot get out. We will see what happens.

Let's say it passes next week, through some maneuver of the Government House Leader, but after next week the renewals that are coming up, so somebody whose insurance expires in the middle of June are going to get their renewal notice. The legislation is passed, the Lieutenant-Governor comes in and gives his imprimatur to the bill and it is now law.

What I am saying to members opposite is that the expectation that they have created is that if next week somebody gets their insurance bill and last year it was $1,000, they are expecting that it is going to be $850. That is the expectation that they have created, and I do not think there is a single person in this Province going to have that experience. That is going to be the problem for members opposite, because I do not think there is going to be a single person in the Province that is going to have that experience: that, starting the middle of June, their $1,000 insurance bill from last year is going to turn into $850.

The consumers are going to start to wonder what is going on, and they are going to be asking the minister what is going on, and they are going to be saying: Hey, this government said that I was going to get a 15 per cent savings. Where is it? Because their $1,000 bill from last year, depending on who they are insured with, will be going up by as much as 30 per cent, based on - despite the freeze, because rate increases have already been approved and they could be going up by 15 per cent or 20 per cent or 25 per cent, based on the approval, based on the freeze, and they are not going to go down the 15 per cent that the minister is giving the expectation of people to have. That is going to be a problem for members opposite, because while the insurance companies are leaving, and the Premier can say they are only bluffing, and he is going to call their bluff, I guess, you had better have a Plan B. This is where I think it is important.

AN HON. MEMBER: Public insurance.

MR. HARRIS: Public insurance, Plan B.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then you are going to come over here and join us (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, no.

MR. COLLINS: You will have to come and join us; it was our idea.

MR. HARRIS: There has to be a Plan B.

I did not see the Premier on TV tonight, but I understand the Premier said: Well, if they all leave we will set up our own, and I like that approach. The Premier is a bold individual; he is prepared to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He also said you can't beat MUNN's, bye.

MR. HARRIS: No, that was Bas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: That was Bas who said that.

What I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, and I suggested earlier today, is that we should be prepared for that eventuality because, according to the latest figures, up to 40 per cent of the industry, of the premium industry, is now leaving town, is now leaving the Province. If what the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune is saying, that the people out there who have been writing for Aviva - at least Aviva - are sending people to Facility, you are going to have a lot more people complaining. We had better have Plan B ready as quickly as we can.

I think we really should start thinking seriously about devising the kind of public plan that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador might want, and that is why I have suggested that we look at what was done in New Brunswick.

I do not think the Public Utilities Board is a policy-making body. I think they can conduct a review of rates, for example. They are not bad at that. If somebody says, here is my actuarial report, here is what the actuary says, here is what this study shows, tell us what the rates are, what the fair rates are, they can do that, but they are not really a policy-making body. That is my point, I say to the Premier. The Public Utilities Board can examine a set of books and say, well, this is the rate you would get if you did this, but they are not really a policy-making body.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You take the facts (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Premier says that you take the facts and you make the policy, but someone has to make the policy and someone has to go at this with an approach that says that we want to decide what kind of system would work best for the people of this Province, and that involves a fair degree of policy consideration.

What I would suggest to the Premier is that he have a look at the terms of reference that was given to the select committee in New Brunswick. They were given a set of recommendations and a mandate to look at the most suitable model of public automobile insurance that would ensure fair, affordable and accessible public automobile insurance for all New Brunswickers, including - and here is the stuff that was in it - the type of public automobile insurance system to be recommended; for example: tort, full no fault, partial no fault, choice, or hybrid systems, and we have had people promoting various systems like that in the past year.

The Liberals, when they were in government, promoted some sort of a hybrid system. We proposed a B.C. style system. Some people think the Saskatchewan system is good, et cetera, et cetera, but they have to examine those systems. The types of coverage and benefits to be offered, the proper risk system that would be established, the method of distribution, whether you would go through brokers or whether you would have the public corporation, these are all policy considerations, I would say to the Premier, not something you would expect the Public Utilities Board to deal with.

The start-up costs for establishing the purposed model, including infrastructure, office equipment, payroll, initial provisions of losses, et cetera, the fixed and recurring costs, the legal and trade implications, the impact on provincial finances with respect to various levies and premium taxes, the cost recovery of the Public Utilities Board and superintendent, impact on medicare, these are all considerations, I would submit, Mr. Chairman - the benefits of interprovincial and regional approaches, the creation of a basic automobile insurance policy within the public system, and any other matters referred to it.

It is a fairly comprehensive mandate, but when you look at their report, the report is also extremely detailed. They talked about the start-up costs. They set up a rate system that they would propose. What they said was, basically, if we had a system, here is what it would like, here is what it would cost, here is what the premiums would be, here is what the benefits would be, and this is something that the committee came up with after their consultations and they said: This is the best that we think we can do if the mandate is to provide an accessible, affordable system of public insurance, and if the government decided to go with public insurance here is the system that this all-party committee said: This is the one that is best for New Brunswick.

Now, it may not be the one that is best for here because there are all sorts of variations on that theme. I would not expect the Public Utilities Board, who really are not attuned to what the public wants - they might be attuned to what costs are, and facts and figures and stuff like that, and I do not mind them doing a study. I am not saying, stay away from the Public Utilities Board. Let them do their study, but maybe we should have another look from a different perspective in saying - and here is the if - if we go to a public system, what kind of public system would it be? That is the question, and I would urge the Premier to have a look at the motion - I have given a copy to the Government House Leader - that was passed in New Brunswick, to see if that is something that he would consider doing, saying, okay, if we are going down the road where the Premier is willing to recognize that we may either have to go to a public system because we will have no alternative because people are leaving, or we are willing to seriously consider the public system as an alternative, there are still lots of issues that have to be decided. There is a B.C. public model that I happen to like. I happen to like it because -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that is time has lapsed.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I happen to favour the B.C. model because the B.C. model keeps the tort remedies. There are a couple of things about the B.C. model. It keeps the tort remedies and it also has a role for the private brokers. The private brokers in B.C., in fact, like the system. When the Liberals decided they were going to change it, the brokers came out and said: No, no, you cannot change that; this system works. The brokers are selling the ICBC policies, plus they are selling the optional coverage themselves.

I like the B.C. system because it maintains the tort model - and there was a lot of debate about that in the Province - and the question is this: Can we have a B.C. model here? Will the numbers allow it? What are the costs? What kind of rates will we end up having? What are the factors that would go into that? Or, do we have to look at some other type of partial system or choice system in order to be able to keep the tort remedies?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Okay, this is very interesting. The Premier says you can make that case to the Public Utilities Board. The answer, is, no, I cannot make that case to the Public Utilities Board because, when you look at what they did in New Brunswick, they - the all-party committee and all three parties in New Brunswick House were represented on this committee - they had access to a set of consultants. They hired consultants to advise them and to do studies for them and to advise the committee on the various models. There were people who knew how the public system worked. They were not predisposed to one system or the other, but they understood how the public system worked, and they were able to undertake studies at the request of the committee and say, what would this part cost? What would that part cost? Because, there were policy considerations that had to be made. It was not just, give us all the facts in a big grid and we will pick and chose, but say, look, okay, if we had this element, what would that cost or what do the people want? If lower rates are the most important thing, then what can you get for $1,000 average rate? - that sort of detailed study that they came up with.

I can go to the Public Utilities Board and I can make a pitch. I can say to these people that I think this is the best system because it can offer this and that and the other thing, but I do not have an actuary and I do not have a consultant and I do not have the expertise that would be required to make that kind of a case. I can only do what an ordinary citizen can do, and say: Look, we want lower rates and we want a fairer system.

The fair system that people want and they get in the public system is no discrimination on the basis of age, no discrimination on the basis of marital status, no discrimination on the basis of issues such as gender. They want a system that does not have those things. Now, that may end up costing some people more money; it may cost some people less money. We have issues in this Province about the territories, and that territory system, I think, is there for political reasons. It may not be there for good public policy reasons; it is there for political reasons. We may have to consider: What would it cost to get rid of that and have one system for everybody?

These are all issues of, I guess, policy considerations that you cannot really expect the Public Utilities Board to make, but you can expect an all–party committee - a committee that is not acting on partisan issues with instructions from their parties - who are going to say: Okay, here is the story. If we had a public system, what would it look like? What is the consensus from all three parties of the House that a public system would look like, that would be the best one that we can come up with, that we think would meet the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? If there was a consensus, then at least the option would be there. So, if we had all of these guys walking because they did not like the attitude of the government or they did not like the rules or they did not like what we were trying to achieve here, then there would be an option. It would already be thought out, there would be a consensus and we would be able to move to it.

What we see happening in New Brunswick, for example, like yesterday there was announcement by the insurance companies that they are going to drop all the rates in New Brunswick by 12 per cent. Now, they say it is because of the changes that have taken place, but when I read The Globe and Mail, The Globe and Mail say we really think it is because they are afraid that the government is going to introduce a system that they have already decided is the best one. So, the insurance companies are doing that to avoid the public system.

I have also heard it said that, during the deliberations of this committee, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the insurer spent about $10 million in advertising in New Brunswick to try and dissuade the public from the benefits of the public system. Now, why are they doing that? Well, they are doing it, obviously, because they want to keep the business. So they obviously think that they can make lots of money in New Brunswick and in Newfoundland and elsewhere, and we think, I think, there is a benefit to the public system because you have a couple of things that are in your favour: the profit, for example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Not the threat. The 10 per cent or 12 per cent profit that they make, plus whatever else they make, that is something that can go into rate reduction. Apparently - and this is not my study. The Nova Scotia board of public utilities or public commission, whatever they call them, Public Utilities Commission in Nova Scotia, they studied the overheads in the public versus the private systems. The overheads in the private system are: between 27 per cent and 29 per cent of the premium dollar goes in overhead, in running the system. In the public system in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it is around 6 per cent or 7 per cent. In B.C. it is a little higher, probably 14 per cent, because they give out 7 per cent in commissions to the brokers. Even then, the difference between 15 per cent and 27 per cent is another 12 per cent. So, you have 22 per cent there in terms of savings based on running a non-profit system versus a private system. There is obviously room for significant savings, in theory, in going from the private to public system. There may be other ways of organizing this.

Another one that is significant - when I gave a speech the other day on the benefits and why the public system is cheaper, I left one out - an important one, too, because the minister, in her bill, has a very punitive approach to uninsured drivers. They are going to make it more and more of a penalty for uninsured drivers. I think that is counterproductive.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is my point.

The point I am about to make is, if you get them insured there are big savings. The experience in the private system across the country is, there is between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of uninsured drivers on the road. In the public systems it is way down, and it is way down for two reasons. It is way down, first of all, because the insurance is cheaper and is more accessible so people have - that is one reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am just telling you what I am told from the people who are involved in it. It is down for two reasons. One is because it is cheaper and is more accessible, and the second reason - and I am using the B.C. model - is that there is much more control over the issuance of plates, that you do not get your plates unless you get your insurance.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible) do that here.

MR. HARRIS: You can do that here. You do not get your plates unless you get your insurance, and the cost of the motor registration system is actually paid for by the insurance system as well.

We have a problem here, and this has not been fixed by this government, and I have not heard anyone talk about it. People can go and get insurance now and cancel it a month later. They have their insurance, they have their plates and they have their registration. There is no easy method of undoing that, but under the B.C. system you get your plates, you buy your registration and you buy your insurance at the same time. You get your plates, and if your insurance lapses you have to bring back the plates or they come looking for them, so you have very, very few uninsured drivers on the roads in British Columbia. That is an important factor, because all of those people who would otherwise be uninsured drivers are contributing - they are paying premiums. They are paying premiums and they are contributing to the system, and therefore there is a cost reduction. These are a whole series of factors that can work.

What I am saying to the Premier and to members opposite is that if you put this package of issues together and said, okay - and whether the Premier wants to use it as a carrot-and-stick approach with the insurance companies, I do not mind. It does not matter to me. I understand the way the system works, and they are dealing with ten or twelve companies or twenty-five companies of insurance and they have their approach. He is going to find out from them tomorrow what they are really going to say, but if we can design a system that the public of Newfoundland and Labrador generally feel is acceptable, and one that we can move to if there is a political will on the part of the government, if the public wants it then we can move to it, or if we have to, by default, because the insurance companies leave, we have something that we have a consensus on that the public has listened to and the public likes.

I am not looking for political credit here, by the way. We are looking for the best system for the Province, and if it turns out that the best system cannot be achieved through the public system, or cannot be achieved without no fault, and if we want to have a fault system - because the people of the Province have pretty well said they want a tort model. They have not yet said that they are prepared to give that up. Now, whether they give it up in a public insurance system, I do not know. They are not prepared to give it up and let the insurance companies have their profits and have their way. They are not prepared to do that. They may be prepared to give it up in a public system if they knew that it was all going back into the system, going back to them. I do not know the answer to that question, and I am not looking for credit for this, but last summer everybody had to have a go at this issue because it was on the front burner. The government had a go at it. They put out their best effort of the day, and you guys put out your best effort of the day, and you have had to change it since - and they are faulting you for it; I am not faulting you for that. You changed it because circumstances changed. We put out our system and people seemed to like it, and we were happy that they liked it, so we are prepared to promote it, and continue to promote it, but what I would really like to do, if we can give it some legitimacy, for the sake of implementing it if it makes sense to do that, for the sake of saying to insurers: Look, if you guys say we are private model guys and if you guys can produce the same results as we think we can achieve in a public system, then tell them. Tell them. Say: Look, we have had a committee and we think we can produce a system that can deliver an insurance product for this kind of money. If you guys can do it, do it. If you cannot, we are going with this.

I am not fussy. I think I have an ideological, I suppose, bias, because I am looking at what the Consumers' Association of Canada has said. They said: Well, we looked back at all these systems going back fifteen or twenty years, and consistently, consistently, the public systems have delivered the lowest prices and the fairest system.

When you see the studies that were done - I was referring to one the other day - over 50 per cent of the people in the public system provinces say that they are satisfied and that they like the system. When you go to the private models, you are down to about 25 per cent who say: Yes, I am satisfied with the system. So, there has to be something to it. There has to be something to it.

I know the Premier and the members opposite are practical people. I am not trying to shove something down anyone's throat here, but if that is the case, if those are the facts, if the Consumers' Association of Canada, who are not New Democrats - their buddy was here last fall during the election and he was happy to have a platform. He said: We did this study and here is what the numbers show. It was an independent study. They commissioned it, and they were producing the numbers. They said, consistently across the country, the public systems are a lot cheaper than the private and that is consistent across the systems and it is consistent over time, and people like them and they think they are fair.

Well, if that is the case, we really should have a good hard look at it. I do not think the Public Utilities Board is the forum for devising a model that we think works best for the Province. I think that takes some political input, and I think it takes some serious study, and I think it takes a bit of resources for a committee, perhaps a budget for consulting. If you look at the final report of what New Brunswick did, you will see how they did it. They had specific consultants who put out a call for proposals, or whatever it is called, expressions of interest, and they have asked people to say, okay, who is going to do the study, and they listened to what people had to say and they made their choices. The committee chose, we want this person, we do not want that person, and they went ahead and they decided what questions they wanted answers to, and they put together a model.

I think the way that they talked about it, and I think this is fair, they called it a made in New Brunswick model. It wasn't the Saskatchewan model. It wasn't the Manitoba model. It wasn't the B.C. model. It was something that they devised themselves, that they felt was best for the people of New Brunswick, and we can do the same thing here. What we would come up with, I would think, would be different from what they have in New Brunswick, and it may be different from what they have in B.C. or Manitoba or Saskatchewan, but these are models to look at. What the committee was asked to do, was to look at the existing public models and to see what features of them would be of interest to the people of New Brunswick.

When I say of interest to the people of New Brunswick, of interest to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are the ones who ultimately decide - when I say we collectively, the government has the final say but we collectively are the ones who speak for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we and an all-party committee come to a consensus and say this is the one we like, this is what we like, or this is what is achievable under a public system, this is the best we can do, here it is, folks, report it back to the House, then the government has the decision making, it is still in the government's hand; because, what they say here, this is being done - and I can read out to the members what the executive summary says: The Select Committee on Public Automobile Insurance was asked to look at the various public automobile insurance systems in Canada and identify the most suitable model of public automobile insurance to ensure fair, accessible and affordable automobile insurance for all New Brunswickers in the event - and this is key - a decision is made to move to a public system. What is the best system in the event a decision is made to move to a public system, so this was not done after a decision was made to have a public system; but, in the event we move to a public system, what would the public system be? I think that is very worthy of consideration by members opposite and I urge the Premier - I am quite happy to discuss it with him privately as to how it might work. When this was done in New Brunswick, it was done with all-party consent. You have made it clear to the people of the Province that this is an interim measure. That has been made clear, that this is an interim measure. There is more to come, but the more to come is very complicated. The more to come is that the Public Utilities Board is going to review automobile insurance, home insurance, commercial insurance and marine insurance. They are going to have a field day. Do we really think that they are in a position to give fair consideration to the various options that might be available in a pure tort system, a pure no fault, a partial no fault, a partial tort system, a choice system, and all the options, and what the bells and whistles will be, how it will be set up? When you look at this select committee report, they even said: Well, we would have five claim centres in New Brunswick. Where would they be? They looked at the cost-benefit analysis. How many jobs would be lost in the private industry? How many jobs would be created in the public industry? What kind of jobs would they be? What kind of salaries would they be? They had it all figured out. How much would you make in year one, two, three and four? What would be your cost? What are the start-up costs? All of those very practical, pragmatic things are spelled out in the report of this committee, the business model, the ratings system, so people could see what they would be in for if there was a public system.

I think that exercise - and I do not know how much it costs. I can find out, if someone wants to know. It probably costs a couple of hundred grand, I would guess, but I would say that it would be worth it when we are dealing with a $250 million-a-year industry that is very important to the people of the Province, when people are calling up members of this House and the radio stations every day, saying: What is going on here? Someone wants $500 so my daughter can drive the car for a month or two in the summer, when she comes home from Grenfell. What is going on? Someone else says: How come I have to pay $2,500 for insurance when last year it was only $800?

There is a real sense of unfairness here, and people being taken advantage of, and nobody seems to be able to explain why that is. I know why the problems are there. The minister talked about a freeze, and a freeze was announced. The freeze is March 17; but, you know, the big problem is, the freeze may be March 17 but the freeze does not cover the fact that on February 1 a certain insurance company's renewals start and they have approval for a 15 per cent increase that is going to happen in March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December and January of next year, even though the freeze is in effect.

That is the problem, a credibility problem that is there. I know you cannot put the freeze and then take contracts away. I suppose you could, but that is what you have chosen to do and a lot of people out there are confused, so you have a real problem and the problem is not going to go away. In fact, when this bill passes and people are saying, well, at least I will get a 15 per cent reduction, they are going to open up their bills and say, where is it? Because it is not going to be there. It is not going to be there in June, is not going to be there in July, is not going to be there in September, is not going to be there in October, and by the time the Public Utilities Board start their hearings, people are going to be as mad as hell, and they are not going to be mad at us. They are not going to be mad at us, and they are not going to mad at the PUB. They are going to be mad at you guys, and we are going to be back in the same mess that we were in last summer with the previous government.

I think there is a Plan B. There has to be a Plan B, and I know the Premier has acknowledged there has to be a Plan B, so why don't we devise a Plan B so that it is ready to go if we decide to go that route or if it is necessary to go that route? There are two choices: Either we decide to, for public policy reasons, because we want to go there because it is the best way to go, or we decide to go that route because we have to because, instead of 40 per cent of the industry being gone, we have 50 per cent or 60 per cent gone. Those are the options we are going to be left with.

I think, despite the hour, it is worthy of consideration, it is worthy to put this on the table, because I think it is an option that we would certainly be happy to participate in. I believe the members in the Liberal caucus would be happy to participate in, and I am sure members opposite would be keen to understand how the public system works and to try and figure out what would be the best public system if the decision was made to go that route, either because we want it to or because we have to.

We could be in a situation where there is not much choice, and that could come pretty soon if the Premier is wrong - and he is not always right. If the Premier is wrong, and they are not bluffing, and they are gone, we had better be ready next January, because if 40 per cent or 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the industry is gone and the only thing left is to send people to Facility, we had better be ready with a public system that has already passed muster, that people have thought through, that the public already understands a little bit, and we should have that ready to go. If we have the benefit of everybody having considered it, there will not be a debate. There will not be a debate. There will be a system on the shelf ready to put in place if we decide we want to, or if you decide you want to, because you are going to control it, or, if we have to because the situation deteriorates to the point where that is the only option that we have.

I urge members opposite - and I would be happy to talk to the Premier privately about this and show him what they did in New Brunswick. We do not have to do exactly the same as there, but I would be happy to show it to him. I think it is worthy of consideration. I think it is an important strategy for the government to consider in dealing with this issue, because it is a very volatile issue and it is hard to control private enterprise. The New Democrats always get the blame for wanting to regulate everything. Well, you know, the government has just found out what happens when you try to regulate private industry. They threaten to leave or they do leave. You have to have a strategy that is going to work with them, if you plan to keep them, or replace them if you have to because it makes sense to do so or you need to.

Those are some of my comments, Mr. Chairman. We are getting on to 3 o'clock. I suppose we could go all night. I could probably go for another hour or so, but I would not want to bore everybody. Maybe other people have something to say about that, but I think it is really worthy of consideration.

I am saying to the minister, and I am saying in all sincerity, I made a mistake on 25 per cent. Fifteen per cent - you tell people to expect 15 per cent and they are going to open up their bill and they are not going to see 15 per cent, and they are going to be mad at you. They are going to be mad at you and everybody else over there. They are going to be madder and madder and madder as the summer wears on, and by October they are going to be really mad. If it happens, I am not going to cry about it but I am going to say that we told you so, and I am going to say that we had better have a good hard look at the public system and what kind of public system we would want, in order to be able to say to the industry: If you want to go, we are ready with something that is going to work for us. Or, we have decided that we have something that is going to work better than what you have to offer in any event and we are going down this road.

I just put that on the table as a sensible approach and a good strategy. You can still pass your legislation and hope that it works, and go through the exercise with the Public Utilities Board. There are a lot of issues on marine insurance that are pretty important. There are a lot of issues on marine insurance, a lot of issues on home insurance that have to be looked at. Again, I do not know if the Public Utilities Board is the best body to do that. I really do not know. I frankly do not think that they are equipped. I have seen how they operate on rate hearings, and they are equipped to do that, but I know that what happens in rate hearings, you put the actuaries and the lawyers and all of that crowd on one side and you put the ordinary consumer standing up, saying, I want cheaper electricity, or I want a cheaper phone bill, it does not happen, because all they are doing is following the rules and regulations guaranteeing a profit, guaranteeing a rate of return to the phone company or the electrical company, and that is what they are there to do to. They will guarantee the rate. They will design a rate that guarantees them a rate of return. They are not designed to consider public policy options from a political and acceptability perspective amongst the consumers. We are. The people who are elected here are. They are here to be sensitive to what the people want, to be sensitive to what is acceptable, to be sensitive to what is fair. We are the ones - I do not mean me in particular - we, collectively and individually, come to this House with a lot of understanding of the people who elected us and a lot of ways of finding out what is fair, what is reasonable and what is acceptable. We can bring this - there is always partisan stuff going on, but you can say: Here is the mandate. Let's do the serious thing. If we had a public system, what should it look like, what could it look like, and what could it deliver to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? I think it is a good approach.

I can go away and just talk about the public system on the open lines, on the radio and everything else, and see what happens, but I would think that we would all be better off if we had a good hard look, collectively, at what kind of public system might work for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 25 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to, again, take an opportunity to make a few comments with respect to this next piece of legislation that we are now dealing with at the Committee stage, the third one today and again just to make some points for the written record that will show people what actually transpired here on this parliamentary day, which is now into its thirteenth hour. We have, for the record, because this is becoming known in the Province, a government breaking a commitment to the people that was in the Blue Book, that they would arrange for a family- friendly Legislature because they wanted to encourage more women candidates to run. They wanted to have respect for family commitments for all members, that we would treat each other decently and that we would work sort of regular hours and you could plan your life, and why wouldn't we do that? Why wouldn't we treat ourselves with some respect and decency as Members of the House of Assembly? It is right in the Blue Book.

We have a government that is completely in charge of when this House opens and when it closes, who has been decided today, for some reason, on this Thursday - which is now into a Friday, but for the parliamentary calendar is still a Thursday - deciding that it is somehow important or necessary to have this particular debate happen at 3:00 in the morning, and that it is supposed to be some kind of a positive, constructive contribution that we are all making to very important, public policy that will impact and affect consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: And the Premier, Mr. Chairman, who chooses to snipe a bit from a chair other than his own, decided to come into the Legislature at 2:30 a.m. or so to make a guest appearance. I would suggest he would probably better serve the people of the Province if he went home and got some rest in preparation for his big meeting with the Prime Minister tomorrow in which he has laid down an ultimatum on behalf of the people of the Province, that it is tomorrow or else.

He is making a great contribution now again by breaking another commitment. The record is already very long, and people of the Province are beginning to understand that. Again, I made this point at second reading and I will make it several times again throughout the rest of the evening, Mr. Chairman, that with many of the other commitments that have been broken - and it is a long, long, long list by this government - at least they had some kind of excuse that they could offer, albeit, not a good one and not a legitimate one, but they would always say: Well, the previous government did not leave us with any money so we could not really do the hospital things and the other things that we promised to do and the infrastructure things because it is the Provincial Treasury. This particular issue has nothing to do with the Provincial Treasury; unless, of course, they decide to take the 15 per cent tax off insurance, which is not part of their plan, then that would impact on the Provincial Treasury.

It is going to have some unexpected adverse impacts if the companies do what they say and if the people, like the business in Marystown that were speaking in the public today saying: We think we will have to close our office that we just renovated and then we will have to layoff twenty people. That might have some longer term, bigger, negative, adverse impact on the economy and on the Provincial Treasury, but the actual bill that we are being asked to debate really is talking about the strangest circumstance, a broken commitment having us here 3 o'clock in the morning supposedly being productive and making really intelligent, articulate contributions to good legislation, a good public policy and we are doing it because the government is trying to use its majority to wear down the minority. That is very telling in itself, how majorities treat minorities, not only in Legislatures but in society generally because you are always measured by how you treat the minorities. Here it is, again, just lording the power that they have by virtue of numbers over people, saying: We can do this, so we are going to do it. Never mind the merits of the debate or doing it at a sensible pace or a sensible time and those kinds of issues, but we are here breaking a promise about a family-friendly atmosphere so that they can legislate another broken promise.

They want to legislate a broken promise that is their own because the promise in the Blue Book - and I have it here - was that there would be insurance reform. It would contain a cap - they had already decided that - on soft tissue injuries and it would guarantee - and here is the other part - a minimum saving to the consumer of 20 per cent and it could be as high as 30 per cent. That is the Blue Book. That is right from the Blue Book which they all ran to get elected on. That has nothing to do with the Treasury or those kinds of things. This is creating law that gives a break to the consumer. They said: elect us and we will bring in a reform that will have a cap. It will guarantee you that you will have, at least, a 20 per cent saving and it could be as much as 30 per cent. The Blue Book.

Now, what are we being asked to do at 3 o'clock in the morning? We are being asked by the government, that is already breaking its commitment about a user family-friendly Legislature - for no good reason that anybody on this side can see. They are breaking that commitment so they can, at the earliest opportunity, break their own commitment in law. So, they made a commitment for 20 per cent.

There was a little discussion earlier when the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was speaking. He tried to say that the minister suggested that this legislation, which is before us, was going to bring in - I think he used the number - an average of a 25 per cent saving. It was disputed. He said: No, it was an average of 15 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Now remember, it is an average of 15 per cent. On the mandatory third party coverage the legislation says we are going to get you 9 per cent and because of other coverages you might average 15 per cent.

On the one that they promised 20 per cent on, all by itself, the promise in the Blue Book, the commitment was a minimum of 20 per cent on third party liability mandatory coverage, not the other coverages. That would be additional if there were some savings, but the consumer in the Blue Book was promised that this group elected would get a 20 per cent minimum saving on third party liability. What the minister is saying now is that they think the legislation that they are breaking a commitment to try and pass through the Legislature at 3 o'clock in the morning, to try that maybe might guarantee a 9 per cent saving on the same coverage. If you happen to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian who carries some other coverages, some comprehensive things or collision and so on, then you might get up to an average of 15 per cent. Even that is 5 per cent below the minimum that they promised in the Blue Book. So, the oddity - there is one of the oddities - breaking a commitment to bring in legislation to break a commitment. Now that will be in the written record, because I said it. By the way, I did not make it up.

I say to the Minister of Government Service, it does not always make it right but if she read the Blue Book, that she was part of a group, she will know that that is right because she will verify the 9 per cent that is in her legislation. All she has to do is pick up the Blue Book and she will see: Minimum twenty, could be thirty. So, that happens to be correct this time. I know the minister is getting tired. Maybe she could go take a break for a few hours and come back because she is not participating in the debate in any event, Mr. Chairman. I do not know what purpose she served, other than filling a seat over there.

The Premier seems to make a few comments about the substance of the bill from some other seat every now and then. I would gladly have him - I would sit down now if he wants to come down and suggest that what I am saying about the 9 per cent, and the 20 per cent, and the 30 per cent - if he wants to come down now and suggest that I am wrong - he is here in the Legislature, Mr. Chairman, he can have it put on the written record of the Legislature that the Leader of the Opposition just said something that is wrong. I would like for him to stand up, with some credibility, and suggest that the guaranteed 9 per cent on third party liability is wrong. That is right in the bill. It is before us. That is right in there, their own documents, that what they can guarantee on third party liability, according to their bill, is a 9 per cent saving.

I would like for them to produce the Blue Book and stand up in this Legislature - take the page that I am looking at - and say that it is does not say that they promised a 20 per cent minimum saving, maybe thirty. I am almost willing to make a wager - I do not bet much, it is not my nature, but I am almost willing to make a wager that he will not stand up and refute those two statements. The minister might say: Because I say it doesn't make it true. But if she thinks it is not true - if she thinks either one of those statements is not true maybe she would like to stand up so that the written record will show that I said something that was in error.

When the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said 25 per cent, there were catcalls. A whole group of them said: No, no you can't say 25 per cent. You are an honourable man, you must tell the truth. He looked at it and said: Oh, it says average of this and average of fifteen. Then they were satisfied and said: Okay, the average is fifteen but third party liability is nine.

The whole issue then is this. We are here breaking a commitment, completely - and no pressure from anybody. There is nothing, not one single thing, Mr. Chairman, that anybody on this side of this House could do to have us here at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, because at any point and time today the House Leader could have gotten recognized, move to rise the Committee, and move adjournment. The majority would have voted for it, if he moved it, and we would be gone home. We cannot -

CHAIR (Harding): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be back in a little while.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move that we move to Order 3. Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act to Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31)

CHAIR: We will debate, An Act to Amend the Schools Act, 1997. ( Bill 31)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, Mr. Chairman, as I lead into some comments with respect to this particular bill on the amendment to the Schools Act, there are some serious issues that have been raised as we have engaged in the debate, in Committee in particular, on Bill 31.

The circumstance in the Province today, and we have received the explanations and they are willing to accept them, that for greater certainty - I have actually checked with the Table with respect to the 1996 legislation and the 1997 legislation, and there is no question - and it is acknowledged by us, as the Opposition - that the amendments in Bill 31 and the amendments to section 57 do incorporate more specific, detailed and more thorough legislation with respect to the successor board and the assumption of all liabilities and debts, including contracts, agreements and other arrangements. In fact, the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education and by the Government House Leader, in fact, do ring true with respect to that, because the 1996 provisions did contain a more detailed description of the successor circumstance that very much reflects and is similar to Bill 31, as compared to what is in the 1997 act.

We are willing to acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, quite readily, that the amendment, if passed, will give greater clarity to it. We are not sure if there is a real issue, in any event, because there was no real, substantive dispute about the successor issue when we went from twenty-seven to eleven, but if you want to cover it off, and you can cover it off with greater certainty, than I can understand the sense of that.

Again, the other part of it though, Mr. Chairman, because I would admit right now that - as I understand it, I have not had any advice that the House Leaders have talked about what is happening, but anyone who would follow this, even in Hansard - which is the only place they are going to be able to follow it in several months time - you would have to raise a question again as to why we are here now at 3:08 a.m. What kind of a game is being played when we are trying to do some productive parliamentary work? Because we have had days before where we did tremendous parliamentary work, because there was some understanding and agreement between the House Leaders as to what was trying to be accomplished and why.

Since we have been in Committee, Mr. Chairman, we have spent some time talking about the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. There have been two amendments actually, both by the government, even since the Committee stage has started. There was second reading a couple of nights ago. The government brought in an amendment, itself, before the debate and Committee really started. As a result, I think because of some of the debate and some of the interaction, there has been another proposed amendment by the government with respect to a sunset clause. That makes some sense to us and we are glad to see. It has been circulated. I understand that is the intent of the government to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Yes.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, we spent some time at that today. We did not conclude the work. We spent some time then on Bill 31, a considerable amount of time on Bill 31. Then we left that without concluding it. We went to the insurance issue and had some debate about that. Without concluding anything on that, now we are back to the schools issue again.

If anyone were to look at this, who is not a parliamentarian, and trying to pick some sense in it, they would say: Did they know what they were doing in there? These people - what was going on? Why were they doing all of that? If you were serious about getting the fishing industry collective - why didn't you do it? Why didn't you deal with it and finish it, or whatever you were going to do, and stick with it? Then if you were going to move to the Schools Act one, why didn't you finish that? Or if you decided the insurance one was the one you were going to do, why didn't you do that? We are in Committee and, I tell you, I do not think it makes a big lot of sense. I understand what is going on, and I will not bother to describe it to everybody else. I do not think it makes a big lot of sense to people sitting in the Chamber, but for those who will try to follow this historically as it is recorded, it will make no sense.

With that being said, by way of introduction - because I need to speak to this several more times, Mr. Chairman. There have been some issues raised now with respect to Bill 31, because I have acknowledged that we have had enough clarification that the actual amendments which we are trying to seek here makes some kind of sense, but it has given rise to some other very serious concerns that we have, that maybe now would require further amendments or further clarification so that we do not cause more difficulties than they already have.

The issue is this, because in the intervening time I have searched the Schools Act high and low - I am not a lawyer, but I have read and studied legislation for fifteen years, had it explained to me and those kinds of things, and I have some sense that I can read it and follow it and understand what it means. There may be some legalese in it but you have to sort out what it means in English. I cannot seem to find a circumstance - and unless we were given some misinformation, because the information in the debate is that the current school boards are still authorized and are still in existence until the end of August. If the Parliamentary Secretary or someone else would like to suggest that is in error then I would accept and understand that because I would not want to go too far out on the road with a premise if that is a mistake. A person who makes very few mistakes, or at least admits to very few, the Minister of Finance said it so it must be true, I guess, if you buy his argument. His caucus certainly believes that. We do not believe it over here but his caucus is willing to believe it.

The Minister of Finance has said that the current school boards are all duly constituted until the end of August. The legislation says that the government has the right to establish school boards. The right that they have is already fulfilled because the eleven school boards are in existence until the end of August.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the point and just keep going.

MR. GRIMES: I am glad he is listening.

In the meantime - then it lays out duties and responsibilities of those boards. One of them, by the way, is that the boards, not the government - and the Parliamentary Secretary would know this very well because it is a big issue in the Department of Education. The school boards have the authority to hire personnel and staff, including and starting with the director, because there is a huge debate - and I am sure that the Minister of Finance has been involved in it - as to whether or not the government should take back onto itself the right to hire and fire the directors rather than the department, but the law says the boards have the right to hire the personnel, not the Department of Education on behalf of the boards.

The other thing that the law says is that the school boards have the right and the authority to determine what property they need to run the board, including, by the way: school board offices, how many schools they need, how many schools they are going to operate, whether they need buses or not, and whether or not and where they are going to have a school board office. It does not say that the Department of Education can do that. As a matter of fact, when the reform did occur in 1997, the new boards were put in place. By the way, the government has the right to establish the boards but then it says once you establish them, they have to be elected. The government's responsibility is to provide for the election; not to set them up but to provide for the election. Say how many, set the boundaries and provide then for the election. Then that board goes and gets a director and other staff that they need because that is what the law says. That board decides if it wants to run one school board office or two in the boundaries.

What we have in the Province today, Mr. Chairman, is a circumstance where the Minister of Education has made all these announcements and pronouncements that there are three interim boards. We do not see any provision in the Schools Act that empowers the government to establish interim boards other than on an advisory basis, an advisory capacity to help with some transition, but not to have any authority.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We will come back to the issue.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Just for the sake of the record, I suppose, the Leader of the Opposition contends: What are we doing here tonight? We spent some time on the Fisheries Collective Bargaining Act and why didn't we finish that, people would ask? We did not finish it because your critic said that we are going to have to invoke closure if we want to get it. That is why we did not finish it, because your critic talked all day on it, which is fair enough, and we gave everyone the opportunity to do it.

We went into Committee work on the insurance bill. Why didn't we finish that? Because you still have issues to talk about with it. That is why we are still here. It is not because we decide when you finish or when you do not.

Mr. Chairman, if we can, from what I understand of it - if I can the attention of the Opposition House Leader. We have reached some sort of consensus that what we are going to do is move to vote on this section right away, right now, rise the Committee, report progress and then we are going to do third reading. When all of that is done, then we are going to go home.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997." (Bill 31)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, passed without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, has been passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

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

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

I move that the bill, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, Bill 31, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded the said bill be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper." (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Before we move to adjourn, just a couple of motions. One, according to Standing Order 11, I give notice that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. I give further notice, according to Standing Order 11, that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we will need it or not but the Fisheries critic has asked for it. He tells us that we are not going to get the Fisheries Collective Bargaining Act until we bring in closure. So I want to give notice that I will on tomorrow move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that the debate on Bill 26, entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, standing in the name of the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, shall not be further adjourned, and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, schedule or schedules, preamble or preambles, title or titles or whatever else might be related to debate in Committee of the Whole respecting Bill 26, shall be the first business of the Committee or next called by the House and shall not be further postponed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do move now that the House adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it moved that the House do adjourn until Monday, June 7, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Monday, June 7, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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