December 14, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 61


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before the Chair calls the routine business, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today, His Excellency Bienvenido Garcia Negrin, Ambassador of Cuba to Canada, along with Mr. David Dempster, the Chief of Protocol.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to welcome to the gallery 100 senior high Canadian Issues students, from the Queen Elizabeth Regional High School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Trevor Rowe and Mr. Murray Park.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to update my hon. colleagues on the developing trade relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador and Cuba. I, too, would like to recognize His Excellency in the Speaker's gallery.

The Ambassador will be visiting Newfoundland and Labrador for the next two days. During the visit, we will meet to discuss our growing trade relationship.

I recently participated in a mission to Cuba to attend the Havana International Trade Fair. The mission was organized by the Gander and Area Chamber of Commerce, and attended by companies and organizations from Newfoundland and Labrador. Design Management Group, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland Styro, Terra Nova Trading and NewTel Enterprises participated in the Chamber of Commerce initiative. Several other companies travelled to Cuba on their own initiative, namely Urecon Limited, Stratos Mobile Networks, and Nautical Data International.

Mr. Speaker, this was an excellent opportunity to develop our export market in Cuba. It was also a positive follow-up mission for the Gander and Area Chamber of Commerce, which organized a similar mission last year.

There was considerable interest generated in the Newfoundland and Labrador companies that attended the trade fair, one of the largest of its kind in the world.

As my honourable colleagues realize, increasing our export base is a key to developing a strong economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The mission to Cuba provided yet another opportunity to promote our Province at an international venue. It was a chance for Newfoundland and Labrador companies to showcase their ability to provide quality products and services.

During the mission, a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Gander and Area Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Commerce of Cuba. This is an important agreement which will provide Newfoundland and Labrador with access to the business community in Cuba. The MOU will enable both sides to share very relevant and important information.

During the visit I met with Ricardo Cabrisas, Minister of Foreign Trade, and Vice Ministers of the Departments of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Agriculture and Forestry, Public Health, Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation and Basic Industry. I also had several meetings with Canadian Ambassador Keith Christie to discuss opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador.

There were positive indications from both the Cuban officials and the businesses that they would be planning visits to Newfoundland and Labrador to follow up on business opportunities.

There are also a number of other companies that have successfully broken into the Cuban market. Seacom Consulting Inc. in St. John's has been exploring this market for the past year.

They travelled to Cuba in November, and signed a deal with a Cuban government enterprise to provide environmental and emergency response software. The company will also offer consulting services for the oil and the gas industry, as well as drilling operations and training in this field. This deal will include similar contracts in Mexico, Columbia, Argentina and Spain.

Clearly, Seacom was able to work the Cuban relationship to launch their business in Latin America.

While in Cuba, Seacom was invited by a Cuban ministry to put together a contingency of environmentally technology-based companies from Newfoundland and Labrador to travel to Cuba for technology transfer sessions.

These are very positive developments that show there are indeed opportunities available in the Cuban market.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of the Gander and Area Chamber of Commerce for recognizing an opportunity and moving to capitalize on it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I welcome the Ambassador of Cuba. I would like to say that we indeed in this Province have many companies with expertise in many fields, and hopefully they will gain entrance into the Cuban marketplace.

I would say, however, that as we export from this Province we would like to see the export of finished products more so than the export of raw materials. In order to sustain a vibrant economy here in this Province, and to create employment in this Province, and to stop the out-migration of people from this Province, we have to start concentrating more on the finished product than the raw resource.

We have many companies in this Province, Mr. Ambassador, and I am sure that they will have valuable trade experiences with companies from your country. I hope that trade experience will be mutual for both companies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to join with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in welcoming Ambassador Garcia to the House of Assembly. It is a sign of the growing friendship between the Cuban people and the Canadian people and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that he is here.

The examples that the minister has given of Newfoundland business operations which have something to offer to the people of Cuba is a good sign of future friendship and work that we can do together. There is much we have to offer to the Cuban people, and much the Cuban people have to offer us. I hope that this relationship develops and continues and, in fact, could be expanded to other Caribbean nations, and our former trading partners in the salt fish trade could also be involved in this development of our international trade.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning the Premier and I had the opportunity to join my federal counterpart, Transport Minister David Collenette, and Veterans Affairs Minister Fred Mifflin, for the official transfer of the St. John's Airport to the St. John's International Airport Authority.

Today's transfer is part of the federal government's National Airport Policy announced in July of 1994. It provides local interest with the opportunity to assume ownership of regional and local airports or to operate the national airports such as St. John's.

We congratulate Chairman Rex Ledrew and the board members for their efforts, and we wish them future success in the operation of the St. John's International Airport.

St. John's is the fourth airport to be transferred in the Province. Other airports that have already been turned over to a local authority include Stephenville, Goose Bay and, just last week, Deer Lake.

These transfers will place more autonomy in the hands of local authorities so that they can be more creative and more competitive regarding the daily operations of the airport as a business. Users of the airport will soon see modernization and improvements taking place at the airport as a result of an approximately $30 million redesign project that was marked by today's ceremony.

Today, I also jointly announced with Minister Collenette, eighteen new highway improvement projects worth $54 million for the Province under existing Canada-Newfoundland highway initiative. This year's initiative will create 900 direct and indirect jobs and will provide contractors with the benefit of early tendering for the coming year. These projects are part of the Newfoundland Transportation Initiative Agreement signed by the federal and provincial governments in 1988.

These projects are important and as part of the overall strategy by both the provincial and federal governments to improve transportation infrastructure in the Province.

Today's announcement was the first of three major road construction programs for the Province. We will soon have an announcement for work associated with continuation of the Trans-Labrador Highway, followed by the provincial roads program, which will be announced as part of the provincial budget for the coming year.

With $118 million spent on road construction in the Province, this year marked our busiest year ever. Today's announcement, coupled with other major projects to come, provides strong evidence that trend will continue again next year.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the minister for a copy of his statement before the House sat today. I appreciate it.

I would also like to wish Mr. Ledrew and his Committee Board Members well and every success in the future, and hopefully we will see some improvements in the airport and the services at the airport. Also, the $30 million to be spent obviously will create a few jobs. The minister must be learning something. He is kind of making it hard for me to criticize him here, but I did find something.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Roads for Rail Agreement and the work that is going to be spent in the Province on the roads in 1999, it is good to see that the work is being put out early. Not put out, but at least announced earlier in the year to give people time to set up and get ready for it. Also, I would expect that the minister, each night when he goes to bed, says his prayers and thanks former Minister Crosbie and the federal government and the former premier Peckford for the Roads for Rail Agreement for the money that is going through each year in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: He sincerely thanks them, I would think, Mr. Speaker. Good news here today, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not here to celebrate the transfer of the responsibility to the St. John's International Airport Authority. As the Premier well knows, local autonomy, even in areas of health care, is not always the answer if the dollars are not available to do a proper job.

Thirty million dollars to re-design the airport is long overdue. This airport has been put on the back burner by the Government of Canada for many years, and the money that is coming now really just a sweetener to the sloughing off of federal responsibility for airport management. It remains to be seen how secure the jobs of the people working there at the airport, good federal jobs, will be after the new Airport Authority get a few years under its belt.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have one question for the Premier today. It is with respect to events that took place in the House last week.

The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women have written the Member for St. John's West outlining their concern and their disgust of what took place in the House last week, and they have indicated in their letter that have sent correspondence to the Premier as well, indicating that the response from government to date has been inadequate. In the letter to the Premier, which I have as well, they have outlined the same concerns and are looking for a response. I wonder if the Premier today has any response to the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women with respect to what events took place here last week.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I am happy to have this first opportunity back in the House, having been on road last week, to indicate on behalf of all of the member of the government - and I know I speak on behalf of all of the Members of the House - in saying that the comments attributed to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs last week were unacceptable and were hurtful to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I share in the views expressed by the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women in saying that these comments have no place in the Legislature of the House of Assembly, and I share as well in her view that the apology offered last week by the minister was sincere and heartfelt. It is time now, in that circumstance, for the public policy of the Province to resume in this place.

I took the time this morning to call the President of the Status of Women, Ms Joyce Hancock, to share with her my sense of disappointment and anger, quite frankly, last week of the comments that were issued by the minister, and to share with her my conviction that the minister has sincerely apologized for those remarks. Ms Hancock will have to speak for herself, but she accepted the position I have now taken.

When I came into the House I took the trouble as well to indicate to the Member for St. John's West formally on behalf of this government my apology, on behalf of government, for the remarks that were directed towards her and, through her, to women generally in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am proud to be in this Legislature at a time when the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have elected more women than at any other time in our history. I am proud to lead a party that has more women as part of its caucus and part of its Cabinet than at any other time in our history. I am proud to acknowledge the presence of women on the other side of the House, both in the Official Opposition and as an Independent member.

This government, and indeed I believe this Legislature, is committed to seeing the full participation by women in every role, in every area of responsibility in our society. To the extent that the comments of a member of the Cabinet has been regressive in that regard, he has apologized and by extension, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the cause which has been pursued so genuinely by so many has been hindered, I apologize.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. In a recent edition of the Canadian Emergency News the Newfoundland government is lambasted over its ambulance service. Our system in that article is described as the most backward, disorganized, and ill-managed emergency medical service in the Western world. We are described as "[v]irtually the only jurisdiction in the Industrial World to remain without any EMS (i.e., ambulance) legislation."

I quote: "...the Newfoundland Government, in their own medical ignorance... has taken virtually every ill-informed step imaginable to avoid accepting or exercising responsibility for their citizens in prehospital medical emergencies."

The article states that the lack of a province-wide standard of emergency medical service "makes it perilous to be a resident and a major deterrent from being a visitor" -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that the minister is accused of being remiss in failing to take the time to make the effort to see the problem and to stand firm in directing a resolution, I ask the minister: What has she done as minister over the past year and a half to allow rural Newfoundland adequate access to emergency medical services as a result of a centralization of hospitals here, and the closing down of ones in rural areas of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

Over the last year and a half we have been quite busy doing a number of initiatives, as a government, particularly looking at how we deliver services. We have done a line by line budget analysis of all of our institutional boards. We have put our Strategic Social Plan in place. We have released child welfare legislation, the first one in fifty-four years, and the member also knows that we have done extensive research, and have now finished a report on the ambulance services in this Province. We do have a number of issues that need to be addressed. We have a number of issues that have been brought to our attention, both on the service itself and on the ability of the boards to deliver those services as opposed to private and community operators. We are looking at the whole operation.

Yes, we do have to make some changes, Mr. Speaker. That is why we did the report. We involved all of the parties, including the institutional boards, so that they could look at the ambulance operators and how they are providing the service. We will be making that information available to all of the parties, and we will also be making the decisions we believe we are able to make, not only with respect to our financial ability, but also in maintaining adequate services for the Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister must be speaking on behalf of a different province than the one I am living in. Minister, you are shutting down rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that is what you are doing. You are crucifying people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who need emergency medical service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You recanted on the commitment you gave to increase the grants to private ambulance operators by $7,000, and $3,000 to community ambulance operators. You promised in a letter over three months ago that you would do a complete review and an action plan within sixty days.

I ask the minister: Where is that sixty-day review and action plan you promised over ninety days ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

The report is completed, and it was completed within the sixty days. We are in a process, as we committed to the people involved that we would meet with them and go through the final recommendations before I would bring those recommendations forward to my colleagues and to Cabinet for a decision on how we go forward from here.

The report is completed, and we are meeting with the various groups responsible. We would prefer to deal with the people who are delivering the service than deal in here through the media and through the public again until we have a chance to make the proper decisions with the people who are delivering the services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Further, I would also like to say that I do not know where the member is getting his information. We have not made any decision to reduce any grants. It is another clear example of his famous fearmongering. I would say that if you really want to fearmonger, and if the member opposite feels obliged and compelled to fearmonger, he should at least wait until the decisions are made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister does not hear very well. I did not accuse her of cutting grants. I accused her of not delivering on a letter I read from your department of giving $7,000 and $3,000 respectively.

Minister, your department is using strong-arm tactics on ambulance operators here by not paying invoices that go back as far as three months ago. The government's own financial audit - they allowed you to go in and do an audit by government auditors - reveals that many operators are at the point of going bankrupt. Why are you pushing them over the brink by breaking your own department policies, by not paying invoices within thirty days?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member opposite to refer back to Hansard when he asked the same questions - the last session and the session before.

When you do a review, you have to look at it. I also have to point out that some areas in this Province with ambulance services have four to five times the usage rate as other areas in the Province. There are questions that need to be asked. Some of them are very close to hospitals, and some of them are not very close to hospitals. The member, I am sure, is aware of some of the very regions to which I refer.

I will say that the information has been gathered. With respect to the financial analysis that we did earlier in the year, I have made it very clear in this House and in other places, we are not going to release the personal, privileged information of some of the operators. We will deal with the information in making our decisions and we will work with the people involved. That is what we are planning to do.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. She has not refuted that we have the worst ambulance service in the Western world.

Your government promised, when they shut down rural Newfoundland's hospitals, that they would increase centralization and provide better service in more centralized areas, and you promised to maintain emergency ambulance service in those areas.

I ask you now, Minister: Why have you reneged on your promise? Why are you turning your backs on rural Newfoundland and forgetting centralization, and now pulling the rug out from under them by taking away proper ambulance service?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I stand here proudly today and say that I am not crucifying rural Newfoundland. In fact, this government has made greater commitments to rural Newfoundland with respect to building new facilities and providing services. We never, ever agreed to centralize. We agreed to regionalize. The member should look back at what we are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, it is not about transition. It is about not accepting what is happening out there. We are very committed to how we deliver service. Every day in this House he will stand up and say: Give more money for ambulances, give more money for doctors, give more money for drugs, give more money for facilities, but when you are in government you choose. You have to govern and you have to choose. We will make the best decisions based on the best information we have, and we will continue to do that.

It is easy to stand up and say, give money everywhere. We do not have that luxury. We recognize the financial situation we are in, and we will make the best decisions we can with the money we have - every time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I ask the minister if his office receives regular activity reports of foreign fishing in NAFO area 3L, 3M, 3No, on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap?

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

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, there is significant foreign fishing activity presently occurring in NAFO regulatory areas 3L, 3M, and 3No. The minister must certainly be aware of this. The main species being fished is Greenland halibut and red fish. I ask the minister if he has made any recent representation to his federal cousins in Ottawa regarding the recent increase in this foreign fishing activity?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is not a meeting goes by... Any time I have the opportunity to talk with officials here in St. John's from DFO, or the minister's office here in St. John's, or when I have the opportunity to talk to the minister in Ottawa, we always talk about the fishing activity inside and outside the 200-mile limit.

All fishing activity is a concern to the Province as well as to Canada and DFO as a whole, and we have a concern of what is happening. There is a continual consultation process taking place about those activities. We know for a fact there are twenty-seven vessels, as of December 1, fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. That is an increase of only six vessels from last year at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, he must have his figures wrong. I say to the minister, there was an increase of 25 per cent in the week ending November 30 with foreign fishing activity in NAFO area 3L, 3M, 3No. That is not including the foreign vessels fishing shrimp. I ask the minister not only if he is aware of this increased fishing activity but more importantly what he, as the provincial Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, intends to do about it?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, an increase of 25 per cent is six boats. I don't know what the hon. member is trying to do. Last year, as of December 1: Spanish boats, 23; Portugal, 2; Russia, 2; Japanese, 1; Far East, 1; and non-contracting parties, 1. That was six more than last year. Now you can say six is 25 per cent of twenty-four, or it is six boats. Whichever way you take it, it is six boats; and whether it is twenty boats or thirty boats, they catch the same quota. There are quotas assigned and there were 85 per cent less infractions on the Grand Banks this year than the previous year, with the observer coverage aboard the boats.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in the week ending November 30, there were thirty vessels fishing in area 3L, 3M, 3No. The minister stands up and says it is only six vessels. I ask the minister if he considers a 25 per cent increase acceptable?

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

MR. EFFORD: When I went to school in Port de Grave, twenty-four and six were thirty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister is very simple: If he considers a 25 per cent increase of foreign activity on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, by foreign fishing, acceptable today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the question he asked me was very simple; twenty-four and six is thirty.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

Minister, is it fair to say that at present government's position regarding water export, based on comments that you have made, is that when the federal government develops a policy on bulk export of water that this Province will mirror that policy?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was asked to me of the member some time ago, last week I think it was, or the week before. Basically what I said to him at that particular time was that the federal government is presently reassessing and re-evaluating its export policy of water in bulk form. We will wait and see what the outcome of that proposal will be, and at that time will decide here if we want to mirror our legislation after that.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker: I will not allow any large water exports to take place as long as I am Prime Minister.

Minister, that is a statement from the Prime Minister of Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade said: The Government of Canada does not support bulk shipment of water.

That was a quote from Hansard from the House of Commons for Wednesday, December 9, just last week. The Minister of Environment in the House of Commons, on the same day, was quoted as saying -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Based on the comment of the Minister of Environment - This government is very concerned about the export of bulk water from this country. We do not want a wholesale export of bulk water. - I ask the minister: Wouldn't you agree that Ottawa has a firm policy in place on bulk export? When are you going to put in a strong policy for this Province, and ban the export of bulk water?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just said to the hon. member a few minutes ago that the federal government is presently assessing its policy on bulk water. Until that decision is made, our decision remains as I said in the House last week.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I think Ottawa's policy is pretty strong, based on the comments in the House of Commons last week. I ask the minister, based on the fact that the federal government says there could be very serious implications under NAFTA, and based on the fact that they have made very strong policy statements in the House of Commons last week, I ask the minister to reconsider and put in place now a ban on the bulk export of water before it is too late.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One minister's statement in a Cabinet does not make a policy on behalf of the government. The federal government is presently assessing its policy, and when they do then obviously we will act accordingly.

I want to say to the hon. member that the federal government is presently assessing that policy. It is a trade policy, and they will have the final say.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Minister, I have had the occasion to read the Sea Forest Quay Development proposal for the Cupids area. To proceed will require privately owned land, maybe the acquisition of upwards from fifteen land owners in the area. Will the minister tell the House if representatives of his department have done an investigation on the privately owned land in the area? And could he give us the results of that investigation?

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. speaker.

On the Cupids proposal, at the present time the department has taken that proposal and is dealing with it as it would deal with any proposal that is brought to government, and the assessment forms are being put out to the different agencies as required. Once those assessments are done, the department will then make a decision as to where to go with that application.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Minister, will you confirm that there has been a discussion paper prepared for Cabinet to investigate methods to seize privately owned land and turn it over to another private group?

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure where the hon. member is getting his questions. What we have done is, we have accepted an application from the Cupids Development Corporation for this particular project. Right now, the application is in the process of being farmed out to the assessment agencies and departments that are required to deal with the application. Until we get those back, we have no recourse but to sit and wait until we can determine what to do with that application. We do not do anything until we get the assessments back, and right now we are in the middle of that process.

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

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

I have had conversations with a number of people in the area with respect to this whole project. Will the minister confirm that there are pressure tactics being used by government on private property owners in the area? That the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and Crown Lands, are using extraordinary measures, such as stop work orders on individuals in the area, and being extended for sixty days beyond the term that they had for a stop work order? That the quieting of titles legislation is been used to require people to do quieting of titles of their own land in the area, and it is going to cost them thousand of dollars; and that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is out there measuring up land to try and show that the people do not own land in the area. Will the minister confirm that this is happening? Is government using these tactics to try and pave the way for (inaudible) people in the area - to make money basically?

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that this application is in the process of being assessed by the outside agencies.

There is no extraordinary action being taken against anybody in this particular area. Right now we are dealing with it as an application we get from a development corporation. When we are finished that assessment, we will deal with the application from then on.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question are to the Minister of Education.

About two months ago the Avalon East School Board had projected a deficit of $450,000 or $460,000. A week or so ago, they were talking about a deficit of $1 million. My latest information is that the deficit could be $1.2 million. I want to ask the minister what steps he is taking to assure the parents, the teachers, and the school board, that there will be no threat to instructional programs and support staff allocations in the Avalon East School Board as a consequence of this deficit?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nice today to see members opposite, in the Official Opposition, finally associating themselves with the former Progressive Conservative Administration in the Province, and with Premier Peckford, and people of that nature, who had a history over some seventeen-years of running the Province to the brink of absolute and total collapse and bankruptcy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Any other time there has been an issue raised where we have taken the occasion to suggest that some of the things that are happening in the Province today were actually put in place by a previous Adminstration that they supported, their normal answer is: We weren't here. Don't blame us. Don't talk to us about Peckford; he is living in British Columbia - and things of that nature.

The notion with respect to the school board and financing is that we are not aware at this point in time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: We were not aware at this point in time that there is any deficit with the school board in Avalon East. We have heard some media reports that I am sure the hon. member is now asking about. We have invited representatives of the school board to come and have a meeting with us and talk about the nature and extent of any difficulties they might be having.

The Avalon East School Board - the biggest school board in the Province, representing over one-third of the students in the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador - has a budget, for the purposes that the hon. member asked us about, of $23 million. They have total flexibility to handle the different components of that $23 million in a wide variety of ways. They are not restricted in terms of the categories that we give them the money for. We are looking forward to having a meeting with them to see if they in fact have a problem of the nature that the hon. member suggests.

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

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

The minister knows that part of the problem in the Avalon East School Board, as is the problem in School District No. 4, is that Treasury Board negotiated new contracts for unionized employees some months ago and the school boards are still waiting for these funds to be transferred to their accounts.

I want to ask the minister: Why are you dragging your heels? You have negotiated the 2 per cent increase. The money is not being transferred to the school board accounts, and this is part of the problem the school boards are having with their cash flow. When will you see to it that this money that was negotiated by your colleague to your left there is going to transfer that money to the school boards so they can pay their employees without having to draw on money that was allocated for something else?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I am surprised that the normal approach taken by the Opposition did not follow through on that question, because what we have witnessed in the House in the last couple of weeks is that if any group - no matter what the purpose - mentions anything about money, for any reason, the position of the Official Opposition is: Give them the money.

Mr. Speaker, that is what ran the Province into bankruptcy for seventeen years, to the point. We have had questions here in the Legislature asking us to put over $1 million back into the health care system. We have had repeated questions every day on every issue. We have had issues from the hon. member that totalled over $50 million in looking at monies they want to give to the school boards. Maybe some of it for good reason; but they hear a news report and their normal response is: Give them the money. Do not check any further than that.

We had the hon. Member for St. John's East last week basically up lobbing on behalf of a group of people, saying to the Minister of Finance: No matter what the consequences, just give them the money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: That is the approach we saw for years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stood up and in the first question suggested, based on some media report and so on because we have not had a meeting with the school board yet, that they might have a deficit or a debt problem. Then he stands up and talks about a cash flow issue. A cash flow issue is not necessarily in any way shape or form linked to a deficit or a debt. We all handle cash flow from day to day, and if the school board has a cash flow problem maybe that is what they will talk to us about in the meeting that we will have in the next few weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, time for one quick question and a very quick answer.

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

The Avalon East School Board has closed two schools that are directly involved in negotiations between the church authorities and the government. Yet, they must continue to operate those schools in terms of heating and basic essentials.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister: Will these school boards be compensated for the costs they are still incurring even though they are not using these schools, when the church and the government finally gets around to making a settlement on the ownership of property?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, two years ago in the budget the government gave a commitment that all of the school boards of the Province - not only Avalon East but all of the school boards of the Province - would continue to be funded for operational purposes on the same basis as they were two years ago. There were no reductions last year, there have been no reductions this year, so whether or not the school is open or closed makes no difference in terms of their budget. They get the money to run the school in any event. That is the commitment the government gave them.

The point I guess that the hon. member is trying to get at is the sooner they can dispose of the property and rid themselves of the operational cost of maintaining the building, the more money they will have to use in other buildings in other schools to improve the educational lot of their students; but there is absolutely - and should be - no suggestion that the government is in any way penalizing or handcuffing this board because we have given them the money to run those school as if they were full of students.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that the hon. Minister to take his seat.

Question Period has ended.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we will meet with the school board in the next little while and see if there is any substance to any of these issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that on tomorrow I ask leave to introduce the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS since 1995 the Government of Canada has provided to this Province approximately $150 million less under the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) than we received under the former Established Program Financing (EPF) and Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) programs, even though the need for funding on an annual basis has been increasing; and

WHEREAS these federal transfer cuts have had major consequences for Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly for our health care, post-secondary education and social assistance programs; and

WHEREAS the Government of Canada is now in a significant current account surplus situation and has the financial means to restore to provinces the funding it has cut from transfers for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance programs;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government of Canada to move immediately to restore all of the funding it has cut from transfer payments to Newfoundland and Labrador and to maintain funding in future at levels reflective of the annual increases in the costs of providing programs and services in health care, post-secondary education and social assistance.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS the provincial government has had in its hands, for more than a year, the report of the Statutory Review Commission on the Workers' Compensation system; and

WHEREAS the Commission laid out, in its report, numerous far-reaching recommendations for substantially improving the system to better serve workers, employers and the public generally; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has moved to implement only a few of the report's recommendations, ignoring or significantly delaying others; and

WHEREAS sound recommendations benefit no one if they are left on the shelf to gather dust;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House express to the provincial government its desire that the government move more expeditiously to implement all of the sound recommendations of the Statutory Review Commission on the Workers' Compensation system.

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the nonpartisan House of Assembly Select Committee on Children's Interests, after thorough investigation and careful consideration of the best way to protect vulnerable children in Newfoundland and Labrador, has recommended that the provincial government establish an Office of the Child Advocate; and

WHEREAS as the Select Committee determined there is in Newfoundland and Labrador today no office equivalent to an independent, Legislature-appointed Office of the Child Advocate empowered with special authority and resources to intervene on behalf of children and to make regular specific recommendations for actions to better respond to children's special needs; and

WHEREAS vulnerable children in many other jurisdictions - including six other provinces - are now realizing the benefits of a child advocate; and children in this Province are no less vulnerable, no less important and no less deserving of protection than children elsewhere; and

WHEREAS the Select Committee advises that the Office of the Child Advocate could be established for as little as $400,000 a year, which would represent a sound investment of public dollars in the well-being of the children of our Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House express its desire that the provincial government move expeditiously to establish an Office of the Child Advocate for the benefit of the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased once again to rise today on behalf of the Public Service Pensioners Association and present a petition to the House of Assembly, which I will review again for the benefit of all members:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the public service pensioners in this Province have not had an increase to their pensions since 1989; and

WHEREAS some 11,000 retired public service pensioners are directly affected; and

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime contributing to their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;

WHEREFORE your petitioners and those represented by the forms attached urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide adequate increases in benefits to public service pensioners which reflect the increases in the wages of public servants.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is signed by a number of pensioners in the Province and, as previously, there were a number of ballots attached, and these ballots indicate in very strong language the concerns of the pensioners of this Province. It states: I, the undersigned, am a member of the Newfoundland Public Service Pensioners Association. I strongly request the hon. Premier meet with his Cabinet to discuss and approve a pension increase for Newfoundland public service pensioners.

For months on end, Mr. Speaker, public service pensioners in this Province have sought, through this Legislature, through the media, through demonstrations, through letters and through a various variety of means to get the attention of this government in an effort to listen to their concerns. We have heard repeatedly that there are literally thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, all of whom who have not received an increase in benefits for almost ten years, who come asking this government to sincerely and genuinely consider the situation and the circumstances of their existence today.

The minister has repeatedly refused to listen to these concerns. What is most disconcerting, the minister has repeatedly refused to even sit down with representatives of the Public Service Pensioners' Association with a view to listening in detail to the problems they experience on a day-to-day basis to see if there is some way, if there is some mechanism available, to have their circumstances improved. The minister has shown nothing but contempt for the way in which he has responded to these concerns. Again, this organization, representing thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, is forced to continue in its campaign to have this government address, in a serious way, what their existence is on a day-to-day basis.

It is not good enough for the minister to simply use extreme examples of individuals who may in fact receive pensions of in excess of $100,000 a year. We know, and the public of this Province knows full well, that is not the situation concerning thousands. In fact, the average pension is in the range of some $11,000. That is the reality. This government has chosen to refuse to listen to their concerns and that is why they will continue their campaign. That is why we, as members of the Official Opposition, will stand when required and when asked by individuals representing this group to put forward their concerns in an effort to have the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board take a serious view as to what is happening with respect to the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Forget the excuses, I say. These are hard-working Newfoundlanders, these are dedicated people, who have given years of their lives to the public good, and now the government is simply turning their back on them. I say that is not good enough. To 11,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that is simply not good enough.

I will predict that one day soon the minister may see the light and may see that this is a genuine need. We have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who require to be heard, and one day soon it is hoped that the minister will come to his senses and do what is proper, do what is appropriate, do what is fair, and listen to the concerns of the thousands of Newfoundlanders who are saying: Give us a break. It has been ten years since any attention -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - has been given to us. Give us a break, give us what we deserve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague the Member for St. John's East. I note that this is the eighth time, I think, in this particular session that this member has stood in his place and presented petitions on behalf of the retired pensioners in the public service.

Last year, we on this side of the House, on behalf of our party, put forward a private member's resolution with the same purpose. We are again today calling upon the government to examine their position, to ask themselves a very basic question: Is their position reflective of the principles of fairness and balance? Is it reflective of an equal sharing that should occur for the people of this Province in terms of supporting people who have contributed many years in the public service? We say on this side of the House it isn't.

We acknowledge that the people who are asking for help are people who have given many years of service, and the average pension is a mere $11,000. That means that when the minister talks about people getting $100,000, in order for the average to be $11,000, that means that there have to be some people getting very low pensions. The minister talks about people getting over $100,000. When we start working on averages, we certainly know that if the average is $11,000 than a few people with pensions of $100,000 certainly distort the figure. It means that we have a lot of people living on very low pensions.

I can tell this House that in my district I can take members to households where people are dependent on the good will of societies like St. Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army, the food bank at Cochrane Street United Church, and other agencies who have to support people who are on pensions.

As a matter of fact, we have in this Province over 500 teachers who are retired, who have pensions that are under $8,000. Something needs to be done. Up until 1989 the government of the day looked at retirees and said they would consider transferring to them sums somewhat equal to the increases that were given to the public service who were in unionized contracts.

That has not happened. We have people now who got their last increase in their pensions nearly ten years ago. That is not fair, that is not just. While the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board can stand in his place and tell us all of the examples of the very high levels of pensions, he can give a rationale as to why he cannot do this and cannot do that, we on this side of the House call upon the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to re-examine his position, re-examine it with a sense of compassion, re-examine it with a willingness to understand the view point of those people who are retired civil servants in this Province. It is unreasonable to expect a person who has given thirty or more years to the public service to be retired today and be expected to live on an average of $11,000.

We ask to the minister: Where is his sense of compassion, where is his sense of willingness to reach out? Why will he not listen to the prayers of the petition put forward by my colleague and listen to the plea of the retirees in this Province who are saying: We want to have a little help, we want to be sure we can live adequately in our retirement years?

The public service retirees are asking for reconsideration. I got a glimmer of hope the other day from the minister that he might be willing to consider other proposals. We have not heard anything about that since then. I am not sure whether or not the government has a social policy which will address this, but if they do I think it is time for them to start sharing the information with the retirees in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have just a few brief words with respect to the petition presented with respect to public service pensions and the request for increases.

As was indicated by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, we do not have a particular difficulty with the notion of increases. However, as was indicated by, I guess, Mr. Fenwick in his column on the weekend, this government wants to have increases that we can afford to pay for. The unfortunate part is that the members opposite are not willing to tell the truth about the matter. They are not willing to come clean with the facts.

We have a letter in The Telegram today from a Mr. Arthur Downey from St. John's who tells part of the information - there is a much bigger story to it -, and it is information that the Member for St. John's East, in presenting the petition, referenced again that it is only a couple of million dollars a year to pay for it. The fact of the matter is that if you are going to pay $2 million out every year, you have to put significantly more than that into the fund and invest it so that it can sustain a payout of $2 million a year over time.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, just prior to his going to a new sentence, the Minister of Education said that members on this side of the House were not willing to tell the truth. That is doing through the back door what you will not do through the front door. It amounts to accusing the Opposition over here of unworthy motives and engaging in politics that would be unacceptable, and using language that certainly is unparliamentary. Mr. Speaker, I ask if you would use your good office to ask the minister to apologize for these inferences.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I note the hon. member has said something that is unparliamentary. The Chair did not pick it up at the time, but if he has I am sure the hon. member will apologize.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. If there was anything that I said that was unparliamentary I would gladly apologize and withdraw.

The point I was trying to make is that the Opposition will not tell the full story about the pension issue. The fact of the matter is that what they are proposing, and what is basically contained in the letter today, which is the kind of attitude they say they agree with, is that because we only pay out about $100 million a year in pension benefits, a 2 per cent increase is only $2 million. That is the history of seventeen years of Progressive Conservative administration that finally today they said they are proud to associate themselves with, because they normally run so far from it and suggest that they were not here and they had nothing to do with it. Because they were ashamed of what happened in the seventeen years, absolutely ashamed that they supported a group of politicians that ran the Province to the edge of absolute financial chaos and bankruptcy.

It is only ten years later, under the guidance of people like the current Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, that we are finally starting to see a little ray of light. What they are suggesting is: Now that you are starting to see a little ray of light, let's go back to the old practices and run her into the ground again.

The fact of the matter is, to pay for a 2 per cent increase in pensions a year you have to put $22 million into the fund. You do not pay the $2 million once, you pay it this year, you pay it next year, you pay it the year after, you pay it the year after that. The payout gets bigger than $2 million. It does not stay at $2 million. You cannot just spend $2 million. In the fund itself, to keep it stable, you have to invest over $20 million. The fact they say it is only $2 million - which is what the Opposition says - shows exactly how they ran the funds for seventeen years. It shows why they were in such dire straits. Public commentators, such as Mr. Fenwick in his comment on the weekend, said: Whatever the government does, do not go back to doing that.

We have said that we will find a way to assist those that are living with marginal incomes, whether they be public pensioners or not. We will do it in a budgeted, planned fashion, not with `ad hocery' that will lead to disastrous financial consequences for the taxpayers of the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I present the petition I would just like to say I wish I knew half as much as the Minister of Education. If I only knew half as much. I never met a man that knew so much about everything as the Minister of Education. He can stand in this House and he knows everything. The man has all the answers. He stands here and talks about all the bad things that were done and the wonderful things that he would do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. For the hon. member, I just want to let him know that I aspire to know just half as much as the hon. Member for Ferryland, your Opposition House Leader, who should still be the Leader of your party if people like yourself had not stabbed him in the back. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South I believe is going to present a petition.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, thank God for people like the Minister of Education. I do not know where we would be without them. Continue to believe it, I say to the minister.

I stand today to present a petition which reads:

To the Honourable House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislation session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Labrador City.

WHEREAS we the residents of Labrador City condemn the Provincial Government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador's resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse the decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one of many petitions that have been presented here since this session of the House convened back on November 18, I think it was, when a delegation from Labrador City visited the city and brought forward their concerns and their opinions with what is happening here.

I myself have received letters from councils in my district asking me to speak up and support the residents of Labrador City in their quest to see the expansion of the pelletizing plant and the extra benefits that will flow from that being allowed to happen in Labrador City.

Twenty-five or thirty years ago, if this particular event took place, where you would be taking an expansion of the pellet plant or any other construction project or manufacturing project from Labrador City, I don't think you would hear half the cries you are hearing today. Today you are hearing them because Labrador City has become a home to many residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a home where they have raised their families, where their families have been educated, and they have put down their roots there. They want to live and raise their families in Labrador City.

The people are crying out and asking: What is the difference in the government's approach to Labrador City and in its approach to Voisey's Bay? Where government have brought in legislation, and made it retroactive back to 1993. Where now they can say to Inco, the giant nickel producer: If you are going to come and mine nickel here, then you also have to refine it here and you have to smelt it here. We are not going to allow you, Inco, to take our minerals up to Sudbury, Ontario, and refine them.

The people in Labrador City ask: Why the double standard? Why now can't we have our iron ore that is being mined, milled and pelletized in Labrador City? God knows, even taking it to that stage, which is the primary stage we are taking it to, we are now still giving away thousands of jobs and thousands of employment opportunities.

I refer to an article that was on television there just a few weeks ago, where we saw carpenters being brought in from other provinces to work on the construction of the Sobey's complex here in St. John's. They were paying them $28 an hour, bringing them in, paying their room and board, paying their transportation costs to get here, and our own people unemployed, our own Newfoundland carpenters allowed to sit home and draw unemployment insurance, if they are fortunate enough to draw unemployment insurance.

Many of our construction workers today, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - are going to the Department of Human Resources and Employment to order to access an income.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people in Labrador City I present this petition today.

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

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

I rise again to support the petition so ably put forward by my colleague the Member for Bonavista South. The petitioners want this government to reconsider. They want them to think about what they have done, what messages they have sent to the people of Labrador West. These residents of Labrador City condemn the government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec. They want the government to answer the basic question: Where are your loyalties? Are your loyalties with the people of Labrador West or are they with the people of Quebec?

We saw the Premier of Quebec moving down to Sept-Iles to announce his re-election campaign. What a sad story, when we see the premier of a sister province moving down to Sept-Iles to launch his re-election campaign based on the development of resources that are in Newfoundland and Labrador. To make that happen, this government had to agree that North Limited would be able to move their pelletizing processes from the Labrador City area down to Sept-Iles, Quebec.

We know what has happened. The government has abandoned Labrador West, they have written it off. It is like the article that was in Maclean's magazine two weeks ago. It talked about the federal Liberal government and their approach to Atlantic Canada. The federal Liberals from Ontario are now saying they do not care about Atlantic Canada. In fact, in the Maclean's article it said that the federal Liberal Party has written off Atlantic Canada for generations to come. What a statement. The Liberal Government of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, had said they are prepared to write off Atlantic Canada for generations to come. What has happened in Labrador West is that this Liberal government has written Labrador West completely off. They said they are prepared to desert them completely. What a shameful thing to do! What a shameful thing for any government to do, of any party and at any time.

When we look at the letters that were written just last week by the Mayor of Labrador City, Mayor Darrel Brenton, when he calls upon the government to reconsider their position. Mayor Brenton is speaking for the ordinary people of Labrador City who are finding that they are seeing jobs being threatened. We know right now that North Limited has given a verbal commitment to this government, and the Premier has accepted that verbal commitment, on jobs in Labrador West, but they will not put anything in writing. We know that the production plants are now running at one-half capacity.

When will this government realize that their decision relative to the Iron Ore Company, relative to pelletizing the product at Sept-Iles as opposed to expanding the operations in Labrador City, when will they realize it is a bad decision? It is not just bad for Labrador West. It is a bad signal to be sending to the people who are developing the resources. We say to the government, isn't it about time you started standing up for the people of Labrador City and standing up for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, making sure our people get the jobs that come from our resources?

We have seen too much in our history of governments that have abandoned ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We know that the Premier of Quebec has great skill. He certainly was able to persuade North Limited that the best place to operate was in Sept-Iles. What was shameful is that this Premier and this government went along with Premier Lucien Bouchard. He said: We know it is going to cost a bit more and that kind of thing. That is okay with us. Give us your word that there will be no long-term job losses. When we asked for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - the word of North Limited in writing, it is nowhere to be found.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to reconsider its position and do the right thing for the people of Labrador West.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. DECKER: Order No. 33, Mr. Speaker, which is Bill No. 57.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act". (Bill No. 57)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this bill is pure, total housekeeping. The bill would amend the Public Utilities Act to reflect changes in the law and in administrative components of the PUB. References, for example, to telephone services are removed. At one time the PUB used to control telephone rates in this Province. That has since been taken over by the CRTC, so it is no longer relevant.

The penalties are increased to reflect the current monetary value. Some of the penalties have been in place for quite a number of years and they are much too small in today's dollars. Some of the administrative components of the Board - let me explain to hon. members. If a secretary of the PUB has some sick leave for a few weeks, a month, or whatever the case might be, the chairman has to come to Cabinet to get permission to replace a secretary for a month or whatever the case might be. A lot of these little technical things, administrative things, we feel (inaudible). There is no change in policy. It is simply a few housekeeping matters.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments with respect to Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act.

The Minister of Justice has indicated, and I agree largely with him, that it is legislation which deals with housekeeping and just streamlining, I guess, some of the present provisions of the act and the procedure which obviously ought to be improved from time to time.

However, there are a couple of points that I would just like to make specific reference to. I will begin with section 7 of bill 57, which states that: Section 18 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: The Board may publish an annual report regarding its proceedings.

I find it somewhat unusual that this amendment, or this Bill 57, which deals with the day-to-day activities of the Public Utilities Board in this Province, would in fact have a provision which simply states that the board may publish an annual report. It is somewhat unusual, I think, that there is no requirement, I say to the minister, to publish an annual report on a daily basis - I am sorry, on a yearly basis.

We are talking about significant procedures in the Province. It affects the public at large, I say to the minister. Why there is only discretion given to the board that it may or not, depending on, I suppose, the circumstances of that year or whatever, or depending on whether the board feels it is appropriate to do it, it seems to me there must be a requirement by government to say to the board, dealing with such important matters of public interest, and dealing with interests that affect all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - because any application before a public utility board does impact upon all Newfoundlanders and all Labradorians. I think it is somewhat unusual that there is no requirement by statute to have the review of these proceedings carried out and explained and provided to the people of the Province on a yearly basis.

It seems to me that the minister may want to reflect on that particular point and give some consideration to the possibility of simply amending - and one word is all it would require - instead of `may' publish, simply, `shall' publish. Then the people of the Province will know from year to year exactly what the board is doing on a yearly basis, and the people of the Province can be informed on an annual basis as to its activities.

Under section 11.(2) "(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), a public utility may, without the prior approval of the board, demand from its customers a contribution toward the cost of an improvement or an addition to its property where the demand for the contribution is approved under a policy of the board.".

It seems to me that there should be some follow-up. I do not have difficulty with the fact that there may be particular circumstances whereby approval is not required. It seems to me that once this event occurs there should then be an obligation on the public utility to advise the board of the fact that it did in fact proceed and make a decision and demand from its customers a contribution towards the cost of an improvement or addition to its property.

Notwithstanding the fact that approval may not be required, it seems to me that if in fact a public utility carries out its activities in this form and seeks compensation or contribution from the customers, there should then be an obligation to advise the board that this, in fact, is the case.

Under section 14 it states: Section 82 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: "82. Where the board believes that a rate or charge is unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory, or that a reasonable service is not supplied, or that an investigation of a matter relating to a public utility should be made, it may, of its own motion, summarily investigate the rate or charge or matter with or without notice.".

It seems to me that is a sound change, because I guess it puts all parties on notice that the board has control and has the ability to make decisions which again would impact so significantly on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The rest of the bill is largely, to use the minister's word, housekeeping. We see an increase in the penal provisions, for example, in section 18, the amount of $500 to reflect, I guess, a deterrent which is more reasonable today and the amount is increased to $2,500. Also, in section 16, "A full and complete record shall be kept of all proceedings held before the board on formal investigations and all testimony shall be recorded in the manner ordered by the board.".

I am not familiar with the prior section; however, it would seem to be unusual that that wouldn't be the case anyway. If there is a proceeding, as all hon. members know, a full official record of these proceedings with respect to any investigation, testimony, evidence, et cetera, would have to be recorded as ordered by the board.

Mr. Speaker, it is largely housekeeping, I agree with the minister; however, those couple of points with respect to the notice and with respect to the requirement, it seems to me, of an annual report. Again, in the interest of full disclosure and in the interest of a word commonly used these days, transparency, it is in the interest of all the people of this Province that a full report be provided so that it is available upon the request of a member of the public. Because this is what this act is all about. It is protecting the interests of all customers and it is protecting the interests of the public at large.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak briefly on Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act, here at second reading.

I support the changes outlined in the act, although some of them may have some far-reaching implications. I do not pretend to be an expert in public utilities matters, although I have appeared before the Pubic Utilities Board on a number of occasions in rate hearings with respect to telephone services as well as electricity rate hearings - most recently the current rate hearing before the board where I intervened for one specific purpose and that was to deal with what I perceived to be a discriminatory and unreasonable approach being taken by the utility in terms of its power of collection of arrears for light bills, which appears to me very draconian in its approach and resulting in some 1,800 cutoffs of electrical service each year for the past several years - in many cases for amounts far less than $500. In fact, for the year 1998, of about 1,600 or more cutoffs of electricity, about 40 per cent of them were for amounts less than $500, some even as low as slightly over $100.

Mr. Speaker, I intervened to ask the Public Utilities Board to review the approach and policies of Newfoundland Light and Power as it deals with the issue of collection of arrears, and ask them to implement a more reasonable policy which would give consumers an opportunity to pay off arrears - if they get caught in arrears for economic reasons, whether it be for the loss of a job or loss of income or a major illness. Many people get into financial trouble as a result of this sort of short-term or one-time event. They get faced with cutoff notices fairly quickly by the Public Utilities Board. The impression that everyone gets from the approach that Newfoundland Light and Power takes to its election policy in terms of dealing with the individuals is that if you do not pay up all of your money you are going to be cut off by a certain date. In fact, we have had people contacting my office who say that they have a bill of $150 or $200 and they have offered to pay $100 or $75 but the power company say they will not take it, and they are still going to cut us off. We have had to tell them to go in and make the payment and almost guarantee them, by force of logic, that they will not refuse it. That if money is brought to them that is owed to them, they are not going to turn it down. We have had to intervene on behalf of customers of Newfoundland Light and Power to try and avoid the consequence of having their power cut off.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the supply of electricity to a home is a major, major factor in the security of that home and habitability of that home. A threat to cut off electricity is a very serious one. The Public Utilities Board is charged with the responsibility of looking at these matters and acting in the public interest in them, and we have had some series of interventions in the last couple of years by an individual who has become known as the consumer advocate, Mr. Dennis Browne, who has been given considerable latitude by government in terms of his approach to the Public Utilities Board and has had very positive results for consumers; so it seems that this approach is working, that the Public Utilities Board is responding when given an opportunity to delve into the issues, and the evidence to back it up is able to place some control at least over the operations of these major utilities.

The minister has increased fines to $2,500 from $500, in some cases up to $5,000 as a deterrent. I do not know whether a company such as Newfoundland Light and Power, which takes in several hundred million dollars a year, is seriously deterred by a fine of $5,000; although I suppose at least the perception of increasing the fines shows that the Minister of Justice is wielding a big stick here and making it look like his get tough attitude is going to have them quaking in their boots over at Newfoundland Power, or any other body that is governed by the Public Utilities Board. You have to remember, it is not just Newfoundland Light and Power that is covered by public utilities. They have other duties outside of that.

I concur with the comments of my learned it friend, I say, from St. John's East, who talked about the requirement of an annual report. I think it should be required. We have reports in this House of Assembly from the Labour Relations Board and from other boards, and there is no reason why there should not be a requirement as opposed to - the way it is written here, it is certainly written as an option for the Public Utilities Board as opposed to a requirement.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are some serious implications of the... In clause 11 of the bill, changing section 41 to allow a public utility to act - it appears to allow it to act - on a policy of the board with respect to demanding a contribution from customers for the cost of capital improvements to its property.

To me, the grand weakness of the whole regulation of public utilities in this Province is the ability of a company such as Newfoundland Power to add to its revenues by adding to its capital base. If they go out and buy new suite of office chairs that cost $5,000, they are delighted because they can now earn a rate of return on that $5,000. The more they can spend, the better it is for them. There is something inherently wrong with that system unless there are very, very tight controls on it.

I do not know how it is possible to have someone look over their shoulder and say: Well, they replaced all of these chairs that were ten years old. They might have lasted another five years, so they go in and replace them all and increase their capital cost, increase their capital budget, and therefore their rate of return is now allowed to be earned on this additional capital that they are using in their operations.

I just use that as an example because you know the provision of office chairs is not directly related to the distribution of electricity, although obviously they have to have offices and they have to have management and they have to have furniture to operate out of, but it is an example of how a company such as Newfoundland Power or any regulated company can increase its capital base by going out and spending as much money as it can get away with spending, to justify an increase in its earnings.

The reason they do that, of course, is all about growth. From a corporate management point of view, if you cannot show your shareholders - (inaudible) shareholder at Newfoundland Power. Of course there is only one shareholder and that is Fortis. If you cannot please your shareholder by showing an increase in profit or increase in earnings then you are not doing a good job. So they are required - particularly now when we have a fairly flat demand for electricity in this Province - to find ways of increasing the revenues, and they do that by increasing capital expenditures.

Now they would certainly argue that everything they do is used and useful, I think is the phrase, in the provision of electrical services. That is the only test that can be used by the Public Utilities Commission to put a stop to or disallow particular capital expenditures, but it is a really unwieldy kind of measure, it is an unwieldy kind of approach, and I don't know if there are other solutions. There may be other solutions that can be looked at in terms of dealing with this, but in the meantime there is a need, a very important need, for the Public Utilities Commission to play a very strong role in keeping at bay, as it were, the voracious appetite for this type of corporation to increase its revenues, to increase its take of money from consumers, and increase its profits for its shareholder.

The process which they use to do that is to go to the Public Utilities Board, and the Public Utilities Commission is the only thing standing between the consumer and the company in terms of forcing it to behave in a somewhat reasonable fashion. It is difficult to do but the Public Utilities Commission has a very important role to play in doing that.

The company that we are talking about here, Newfoundland Power, will do essentially what it can get away with. It created Fortis Corporation, sold all of its shares to Fortis and created a separate holding company to own it, all without Public Utilities Board approval. They did not even go to ask them whether or not this was a permitted activity, whether or not the Public Utilities Board could do it. They have gone about doing whatever they can to increase their revenues.

For example, despite their talk about conservation, they have in the past even gotten rid of conservation measures that would have helped individual consumers but caused a reduction in sales. I will give you an example. There is a special kind of insert that can be put in your shower that saves water. It saves hot water and therefore saves electricity. It was something that was put in place as a result of exhortations to the public utility to get involved in what is called demand-side manage to reduce demand for electricity and thereby saving consumers money and saving the need for additional expansion.

Mr. Speaker, it was shown that this particular measure, which was being subsidized by Newfoundland Light in a special program, saved consumers about $24 a year. That is a lot of money to people who have a very low income. It makes a lot of difference in their income. It may not be to some other people, but that is a small reduction but an important reduction in savings.

Mr. Speaker, the company cut it out when it discovered that it was reducing their electricity sales and felt that it was counter to the company's desire to increase sales. Because it was reducing electricity sales they felt it was not meeting their needs in terms of demand-side management. On the other hand, it was meeting consumers' needs and yet the company cut it out.

This is one little example of the kind of thinking that goes on in a public utility like Newfoundland Light and Power, that on the one hand they are very desirous of spending lots of money on capital improvement and capital cost because they can get a return on their investment, a return on the rate base it's called, for that expenditure. On the other hand, an expenditure that saves consumers money, if it results in reduced sales to the company, they will not bother about at all.

So there is a bit of an inherent conflict at work there and there is a very strong need for a powerful regulatory body. As long as we have a private utility - which perhaps should be brought into question - of this nature, there has to be a strong regulatory body to try and keep it in check.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker, in support of Bill 57 at second reading.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's East raised a couple of points which I will certainly take under advisement. I suspect there is a reason why it is a "may." If there is no reason which satisfies me it will become a shall, I will tell the hon. member. He raised two excellent points. I will certainly get an answer to what they are. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 57).

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I was going to call the Provincial Court Act, but the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is back and we may not catch him any more. Let's call Order No. 32, which is Bill No. 52.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Imposition Of A Charge Related To The Provision Of Certain Government Services". (Bill No. 52).

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This arises out of a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. I tried to remember what the name was. It starts with a `u.' It is slightly unusual name. It was a case brought in Ontario questioning the validity of the imposition of estate fees when an estate was probated. The Supreme Court of Canada held that because of the size of the fee, it was not in the nature of a fee; it was in effect a tax. It decided that those impositions had to be by legislation, that they could not be by any other form, including regulation.

Another decision in the Supreme Court was that governments of the country - provincial governments, and I suspect federal governments - would be given a six-month period in which to bring in the necessary legislation to rectify this.

The Court did not say that the fee was unfair or undue, but did say the way it had to be imposed was through legislation, because it was in the nature of a tax. Since then the officials have surveyed the various taxes and fees imposed by the various government departments and have now settled on the fees set forth in this enactment. We are requesting the Legislature to have those now passed by the House as charges.

The various ones are set forth here, and I am sure members have had an opportunity to look over them. The notable one is section 4, which specifically address the matters of probate and also intestate fees. Land registration charges are provided for in clause 5, including mortgage registration costs and so forth. Clause 2 refers to various fees of the Sheriff's Office, and clause 3 covers the fees under the Condominium Act. They are now imposed as charges as opposed to being matters of regulation that often formed an appendix to each budget, and were sometimes regulated by the department.

I am sure members are aware of the decision, and this is to clear up what had been an incorrect imposition. Hopefully, it will clarify the legal situation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I accept what the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has indicated. I am familiar with the case. Like the minister, I cannot remember the name. It is a case which recently came down. I believe it originated in the Province of Ontario.

I remember an article recently in the newspaper that indicated that really what this was was a form of taxation, and it was being done simply arbitrarily by - we have the name.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was just informed by one of the staff that the name of the case was "Yorick." I think it comes from Hamlet: "Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio..."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the hon. minister, you are right.

Mr. Minister, although we now have an attempt simply to codify what has been the practice and what has been - either the Sheriff's Office, the Probate Registry or the Registry of Deeds, Companies and Securities, I am assuming with the different facts and figures there, Mr. Minister, that there are no increases. Is that the case? This simply reflects what the various assessments and charges are today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes. In view of that, Mr. Speaker - and as I say, I have some familiarity with the case to which the minister has referred - we are simply putting in legislation what in fact has been the practice over the years. As hon. members know, if for example an estate were to be probated or an estate were to be administered, there is a probate or an administration fee which is assessed by the registry of the Supreme Court. Likewise, if a mortgage, a release of mortgage, a debenture or deed of conveyance were registered at the Registry of Deeds, there is a prescribed fee which has to be assessed, and various fees, sundry fees, at the Sheriff's Office, for example.

According to the minister, we see no increase, and this is simply a matter of putting in the form of legislation a practice which has existed and continues to exist and, according to the minister again, with no increase in fees being attributed to the public in any way. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wish to speak briefly on this legislation and recognize, as do other hon. members, the necessity of legislation as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision. The Supreme Court of Canada decision, I guess, just goes to show you that there is always hope when it comes to taxes or charges made against you. I hope that my own discussion with city council about fees charged to me results in some positive outcome as well, in consideration.

As to the specifics of this, I understand we are not raising any fees here or changing any fees, merely changing the form and the legal basis on which they are collected. I hope the minister is able to confirm that. I think the intention here with respect to the land registration charges provided for in section 5 - there is a practice at the Registry of where there is a refinancing underway, where perhaps an individual has a mortgage of $50,000 and is increasing the amount of the mortgage from $50,000 to, say, $60,000, that the charge that is placed by the Registry is not on the full $60,000 but in fact on the difference between the existing security and the additional security.

I suppose one could be abundantly certain by talking about subclause 5(4) here that the amount shall be calculated on the amount of indebtedness, or further indebtedness secured by the mortgage. I am not sure if it is necessary. The Clerk at the Table has indicated it is not necessary, but that the intent is clear, that the existing practice of only charging on the excess indebtedness is still permitted under the legislation that we now have before us.

Perhaps the minister, in closing debate, can confirm that this is the intent of government with respect to this legislation.

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

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just reply to the hon. members. It is the case that these are the legislative embodiment of existing fees. There are no additional charges here.

What the hon. Leader of the NDP refers to is a practice in the registry. My recollection from practice was that the fees were always prescribed, but the registrar followed the practice that if an affidavit were filed to accept the value of the affidavit coming from being witnessed by a barrister or solicitor, as the case may be. I would not see the necessity to put it in the legislation, it might confuse matters, but the existing practice as I know it will continue.

I therefore move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Imposition Of A Charge Related To The Provision Of Certain Government Services," read a second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 52)

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

MR. DECKER: Order No. 28, Mr. Speaker, which is Bill No. 47.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991". (Bill No 47)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is being made at the request of Chief Justice Donald Luther and the Family Law Rules Committee at the Provincial Court. Up until now there has been no clear provision in the Provincial Court Act that would allow for procedural rules in civil matters that would have the status of subordinate legislation; in other words, procedural rules that would apply and be enforceable in all Provincial Court centres.

Recently, a Family Law Rules Committee of the Provincial Court constituted by the Chief Justice of the court requested this amendment to the act so that the rules recommended by the committee and approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could have the force of law.

Mr. Speaker, when that bill was made available to the Opposition Member for St. John's East, he raised some concerns which I had investigated and I have come to the conclusion that he was absolutely right. So he will probably take the opportunity to explain them and I certainly will allow for an amendment in committee stage.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments on Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act.

The minister and I had an opportunity last week, after the introduction of the bill, to discuss it somewhat informally. There were some concerns that were expressed, and the minister was kind enough, the next day, to indicate that some of the points that we discussed he had spoken with his officials and there was an agreement that the points that were raised had some legitimacy. As a result, we will be moving an amendment during committee stage with respect to two sections, pursuant to section 1 of the Provincial Court Act.

To put it simply, the legislation, the aim of this legislation, the intent of this legislation, is, of course, to be procedural in nature. What it does, and it is indicated in the explanatory note, is that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, make rules regarding procedure and the operation of the Provincial Court. I think the word `rule' is the key word here, because obviously the word `rule' denotes procedure.

The difficulty with a couple of the sections that we now see in the original form of the act is that we were getting outside the procedural aspect. We were getting outside the rules which one would ordinarily see in legislation of this nature. For example, in subsection (b), "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, upon the recommendation of the minister, make rules with respect to the procedure and operation of the court including rules..." under (b) "...regulating the means by which particular facts may be proved and the method in which evidence may be given on an application in proceeding...".

We can see quite clearly that this goes beyond a procedural component and, in fact, introduces into what is an attempt to be simply procedural, substantive law. We are talking about rules of evidence; we are talking about methodology in which evidence may be presented in a legal proceeding.

Also, under subsection (c), rules respecting the physical or metal examination of a party where the physical or mental condition of a party is an issue in a proceeding.

That sort of determination ought to be left to the trail judge, I say, Mr. Speaker. It is the trial court judge who, in his or her discretion, upon a variety of facts, upon submissions made by council, upon the rules of evidence, will then make a determination as to the rules or the procedures with respect to the physical or mental examination of a party.

Simply, it would be inappropriate to have the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, upon recommendation of a minister, to make determinations in legislation which would impact matters of law, matters of fact, matters of evidence. So, as the hon. minister indicated, during committee stage we will be presenting an amendment to delete these two sections.

When we read the continuation of this legislation, we see that what is now there is simply a matter of procedure. It deals, for example, with the service of documents, the duties of court officials, the cost of proceedings, the format of orders, transfer proceedings, how in-chambers or pre-trial matters are to be conducted, the use of electronic telecommunications within a court, and rules governing pleading, practice and procedure generally, which we often see, for example, in rules of court.

With these two exceptions we certainly have no difficulty with the spirit of this legislation; give some guidance to Provincial Court Judges in terms of what ought to be done from a procedural point of view when proceedings are taking place within our Provincial Courts in this Province. Much of what we see here is similar to what Rules Committees themselves deal with.

It was only a number of years ago that the Supreme Court of this Province put together a Rules Committee to help it in dealing with these types of procedural and rules matters. We see a similar application, I guess, of this type of procedural component now being intergraded in the form of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak briefly on Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

First of all, let me say that I am very pleased that the Member for St. John's East pointed out the difficulties with some of the provisions of this legislation. It is quite appropriate to exclude the power over evidence and the means of proof of particular facts as a part of the rules in this particular situation that we are supposed to be dealing with, procedural matters, and matters which are properly the purview of rules.

I think it is an example of how we, as legislators, have to be vigilant when we are sitting here passing legislation, sometimes in a big hurry, and members are in a hurry to get it passed so that they can get out of here for Christmas, et cetera, et cetera. Sometimes people do not take the time to read and review and to study, as the Member for St. John's East did with this particular piece of legislation, and it clearly found that it was providing for inappropriate things.

I am in support certainly of the power to make rules of general application for Provincial Courts, although I do wonder, and perhaps the minister is going to explain to us, why this has to be the Lieutenant-Governor in Council making these rules upon the recommendation of the minister. If there is a Rules Committee amongst the Provincial Court Judges, why do we have the minister interposed in between the Rules Committee and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council? Perhaps reference should be made to the Rules Committee of the Provincial Court as the basis for these recommendations that the minister has made.

Perhaps another amendment might be appropriate. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, upon the recommendation of the minister, and add: upon the request of the Rules Committee of the Provincial Court, or perhaps upon consultation with the Rules Committee of the Provincial Court Judges, to indicate the source of those rules is not the minister but in fact the judges of the court itself who are, as in the Supreme Court, the ones charged with the responsibility of recommending rules.

I know that in the Supreme Court the judges have considerably more power with respect to putting rules into effect that become binding. I do not see any real problem with having these go through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

It might be appropriate to refer to the Rules Committee in this section of the legislation in order to ensure that we know what the source of these rules are and to ensure that the role of the Provincial Court Rules Committee is important to the process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 47)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 30, which is Bill No. 50.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act". (Bill No. 50)

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

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

I have just a few comments on the introduction of this bill. At this stage I am, as you would notice, as the alternate Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, standing in for the minister who is out of the House at this point.

This is basically a bill that accommodates and gives effect to a number of changes to the act that have been long-standing proposals by the federation of mayors and municipalities. In other words, the Federation that represents the municipalities as incorporated in the Province have, over the years, asked for a bunch of changes to the Municipalities Act to accommodate a variety of interests that they have.

This bill, I would say at the outset, has the support of the association. It does a number of things. I do not want to spend a lot of time outlining what it does because the notes are self-explanatory, but it deals with matters such as more latitude with respect to the borrowing limits of a municipality outside of the year in which the borrowing has taken place. It deals with the issue of donations that would now become a general budgetary issue, as opposed to the current way in which donations are categorized. It gives some more latitude to the municipalities with respect to the rate of interest they may charge on past due accounts. It gives more flexibility to the municipalities with respect to the discount rates they can charge or they can permit to be affixed to tax assessments, in the interest, I would suggest, of trying to encourage faster and more timely collections. It deals with the issue of minimum tax on real properties, as currently outlined under section 114 of the act. It deals with the issue of real property tax to a tenant of a non-taxable real property situation. It also clarifies issues with respect to residences of churches and that sort of thing that are owned and occupied by rabbis, priests or clergymen. The tax also deals with the issue of minimum amounts of business tax that can be assessed.

There are two or three other areas that are addressed in this bill, but they are mostly clarification issues. This bill also seeks to clarify the year which is referred to in terms of establishing a person's income under the Income Tax Act as being the previous taxation year for which the individual has filed a tax return.

These are the highlights of the bill. One other thing it does, though, is it permits a lien or an attachment on property for the securing of taxes, other than real property taxes. In other words, it extends the ability of the municipality to be able to lien property for purposes of collecting things like water and sewerage taxes. At the moment that type of flexibility or additional flexibility is not permitted under the current act.

Finally, clause 15 of the act is simply an increase from $25 to $50 in the fine or penalty that can be imposed where that situation gives rise.

These amendments are all amendments, as I have said earlier, that were long-standing proposals of the Federation. They have been brought together in a bunch of amendments that are represented by Bill 50. The effect of this, I believe, will do two or three things. It first of all will satisfy many of the outstanding demands for legislative change by the federation. Second, it will make for the more efficient operation of municipalities, in terms of the latitude they will have to make decisions that are really of a housekeeping or operational nature on an ongoing basis, such as fixing fines, levying taxes, deciding on donations, and a little more flexibility with their borrowing power. Thirdly, it will generally give effect to many of the aspirations of the municipalities that really, at the end of the day, allows them a little more autonomy, or probably a substantial amount more of autonomy, than they have now is carrying on with their business.

I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that this government recognizes the municipalities' level of government as important, legitimate, and as a level of government that is in many respects a partnership with the Province. We believe that to the maximum extent we can we should make the municipalities not only responsible but also accountable for what they do because, of course, they are mature political bodies and they should have the ability to do their own business without reference to undue regulation and legislation, as this series of amendments represents.

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

MR. FRENCH: I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if he is the acting minister or what he is, but he did a pretty good job there. Probably what he said we are probably going to say in a couple of minutes.

We do not have any real problems with this particular piece of legislation. We have been in conversation with the federation of mayors and municipalities. I think most of the items that are here are things the Federation wanted. We believe the Federation should certainly have the right to impose property taxes, and they should have the right to charge interest and so on.

I guess if there was one concern I would have at the end of the day is this. I know that with a lot of municipalities they set out a process whereby people can go in and make arrangements to pay off their taxes. If somebody takes five months, twelve months, whatever, to pay off their taxes, then they end up at the end of the year probably being charged a fair amount of interest. I am not so sure if that is a good thing or not.

By and large, we have absolutely no problem with this particular bill. At the end of the day when it comes forward for a vote our party will be supportive.

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

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do rise to close debate on this bill that was introduced only a minute or two ago. I appreciate the conciseness of the comments and the remarks, and the limited number of questions that were put forward by my colleague and friend, having treated me so well on the introduction of this bill. I will call him both of these descriptive words. I move second reading.

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

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

MR. DECKER: Order No. 31, Bill No. 51. Since the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation did such a good job on the previous bill I will ask him to introduce this one as well.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act". (Bill No. 51)

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is really a bill to give rise to a taxing arrangement that has been entered into and agreed upon between the City of St. John's and the hoteliers that operate in this city in terms of their industry. As Members of the House would know, the St. John's civic centre has I suppose four partners in terms of the funding arrangements under which it is being constructed. There is the substantial provincial contribution to that project, there is the federal contribution to that project, there is the city's contribution to that project, in light of their commitment of $4 million just before the deal was consummated, and then of course there is the fourth partner, but a very important partner in that project, and that is the hoteliers in the St. John's municipality boundaries.

The hoteliers essentially worked out an arrangement, or they agreed to an arrangement, with City Council that would allow City Council for a period of time to impose a tax on accommodations within the city for purposes of making their contribution to the civic centre and the convention centre. The hoteliers, it is no secret, have a significant interest in particularly seeing that the convention centre is constructed as part of this development. We have taken the position along with them, and all the stakeholders at the end of the day took the position, that the convention centre and the civic centre would become in effect one project that would be done, built, completed in a time schedule that saw the two done at the same time, which is in a two-year period A significant part of that project is the contribution of the hoteliers through this tax that they will make to City Hall, which in effect will form part of the city's and the hoteliers, as a partnership, funding contribution to the overall project.

There has been more than a suggestion, there have been some voices as members of the Hoteliers Association, that have suggested that the may not now be entirely happy with being a part of this taxing arrangement. I refer to the B&B operators. The fact of the matter is, and we say this quite honestly and quite openly, that from the Province's perspective what this legislation does is permit the city to levy a tax as was agreed between the Hoteliers Association and the city.

This does not in any way translate into a tax or an imposition of an assessment by the Province on anybody. This is not a piece of legislation that gives the Province any taxing authority or any taxing ability. This gives the city and the hoteliers the ability to be able to consummate the tax arrangement they agreed to at a rate of, I believe it is, 3 per cent when they made that agreement. At the end of the day it will be the City of St. John's, it will be the municipal council in St. John's, which will determine exactly who is and who is not taxed under this. Of course, that will be subject to the arrangements that are worked out by the city with the hoteliers.

The concept originally was that accommodations within the city that came under the auspices of the Hoteliers Association, plus some other accommodations such as commercial rentals entered into by places like Memorial University and Littledale, would be taxed at the rate that they agreed on. This legislation, without saying anything further, will really cause the city to have the ability to levy the tax that was mutually agreed upon at some point in time in the past between the Hoteliers Association and between the city of St. John's.

I do not think it needs any further explanation. However, we would be happy to answer any questions that might arise as a result of any speakers being put forward on the other side. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, we cannot give this bill the blessing we gave the previous bill. While agreeing on this side of the House to the construction and government involvement with the new civic centre for the City of St. John's, I do have some problems with it. I realize that the hoteliers in the City of St. John's are on side with this particular piece of legislation. I think that is good, and I think that the ultimate benefit coming from the centre will certainly go to the hoteliers.

I guess, and the minister alluded to this, the problem that I have with it is the fact that the B&Bs are going to be lumped in with this particular group. I do not think that there is any real benefit for that particular group to be gained if we allow the City of St. John's to tax the B&B groups in the city. We have had, some of us, representation made to us concerning B&B places in the City of St. John's. They have been very clear in their voice and very clear in what they have had to say. They are opposed to this. I even believe that members that they had serving on the committee - I do believe, and I stand to be corrected on this -, that the members they did have on this particular committee have resigned from the committee. I do believe it was mainly because of - I have to check with my colleague here - this particular tax. They were not part of the decision making.

I think that while the bill is a good bill, I think we should exempt the B&B locations in and around the City of St. John's from this particular piece of legislation. I should not say in and around St. John's, I should say within the City of St. John's. I think B&Bs should be eliminated from this. I think when we send it down I hope the city will do that.

I again agree with the minister. If this House passes this bill it is not a tax the government are imposing on anybody. The ultimate right to do this is left with the City of St. John's. We fully understand that but, again, I have to say that I have a problem, on behalf of the B&Bs in the City of St. John's. I want to state that for the record today. I would hope that when this eventually ends up at City Hall the B&Bs in the City of St. John's will be exempt from this particular piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few comments with respect to An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act, Bill 51. I understand what the minister is saying is that this legislation really gives the power of the city to enforce assessments and levy taxes or assessments as the city sees fit. However, there is a group - and my colleague the Member for Conception Bay South alluded to it just a few moments ago - that I, at least as one member, would like to go on record in supporting. Because this is a group that has felt throughout this whole process, and throughout this whole procedure, that it has been disenfranchised from day one. I am referring specifically to the owners of the B&B facilities in the city, and indeed probably for others in the Province. However, specifically, the owners in the city, because of course this act is An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Assessment Act.

I have had the opportunity to meet with several of the owners of B&B facilities in St. John's and I have also received some correspondence from them. They have expressed their disapproval with the fact that they have not been, as they put it, within the loop. They have not been part and parcel of the decision making with respect to the business of the hoteliers in this city, and the fact that whether or not there should be a 3 per cent room tax. There was an agreement, according to this particular group, signed by the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau. According to the B&B owners, they feel that this agreement is not valid with the majority of the stakeholders in the accommodation in the City. They feel that because the interests of the B&B owners are not being protected, and that their concerns were not addressed, they question the validity of this particular agreement.

They go on to say that the B&B and other small accommodation operators in St. John's have been totally disenfranchised in all of the decision making. They also say, in addition to that with the exception of one major city in our country, namely Vancouver, we will in effect be the only other major city, the only capital city in our country, that will in fact have a tax levied against this particular group.

Eighty-five per cent of the clients of B&B and small accommodation operators are other Newfoundlanders, people who have come to St. John's for medical treatment, for graduations, for shopping, or just to visit the capital city. Of course the question, and a very legitimate question, is being asked by this group. What is the possible rationale for having our fellow Newfoundlanders pay an additional 3 per cent for an activity which has a small base, is a small business, and has very limited revenue even at the very outset?

This particular group says that the tax is an onerous one. The owners of B&Bs in this City acknowledge they are marginal operations, and almost without exception require other income to survive.

These sorts of points that are being made by the owners of B&Bs are worthy of being put on record, I say, in this Chamber. I realize that the Province, and members opposite, may not be in a position to essentially deal with, in fact, who is assessed under the Assessment Act for the City of St. John's, but it is important that at least representation be made on behalf of the owners of B&Bs in this city, who feel that they have been left out of the decision making. In many cases their operations are marginal. As is indicated, 85 per cent - that is a significant majority - of the business of B&Bs in this city are fellow Newfoundlanders who come to this city to shop, do business, perhaps take in a sports activity, recreation, whatever.

What we are doing when we levy this tax against these small B&B operators, we are not only affecting them very directly, but we are also impacting upon ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who come to this city for a specific purpose, and another percentage of the cost is because of this particular assessment.

It is unfortunate that B&B owners feel that they have not been considered, that they have been left out of this overall agreement and arrangement that has taken place. I guess what we could ask here is that maybe, with some influence from the Province, and maybe some directive from the Province, the city could reconsider as to how this particular tax not apply to B&B owners, to allow these small and, as they acknowledge, marginal operations to continue without the further burden of a 3 per cent tax against the very people on whom they rely for their business on a day to day basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I do not have to elaborate too much on what has already been said because it has been put forward by my colleagues in a very concise manner. I do want to voice my support for the owners of the B&Bs. I have a number of them in my district, at least five that I can think of. They are a great source of employment. For new visitors to the city, tourists - who have absolutely nothing to do with the convention centre or the civic centre - who want to experience the flavour of old St. John's go to the B&Bs. Many of the people that stay at B&Bs, as put forward by my colleagues, are people coming in from other areas of the Province.

The partners with the city, in terms of the hoteliers, are willing partners. They have asked for this tax, they have agreed to it. They want to be a part of this process. The B&Bs, and the Bed and Breakfast Association, are not in favour of this. They do not want to be a part of this. It was put in place and levied against their will.

So again, I want to speak in favour of the owners of the B&Bs. I want to see the civic centre in St. John's, and I feel the City of St. John's needs a civic centre. I feel the willing partners in that who are willing to put a levy on the room charges, in terms of the larger hotels - and we are very appreciative of that, and we do not want to stand in the way of that process. I would like to see the Province, perhaps in consultation with the city, prior to this bill going through Committee and receiving final approval, I would like to see something put in place to protect and exclude the owners of the B&Bs from this particular levy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to Bill 51, An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act. This is second reading, and is being amended to provide for an additional assessment upon accommodations, an accommodation tax, to provide for the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau, and to allow them to contribute to the cost of a civic centre for St. John's by adding this tax.

I would like to say a few things about the civic centre. We haven't really had much of an opportunity to discuss or debate the civic centre and its merits in this House, other than seeking to find out from time to time what government's position was with respect to providing funding for a civic centre.

It has been a matter of great controversy in St. John's over the last number of years. There have been, I suppose, those camps pro and against from the beginning. Many who are opposed to the civic centre, of course, were concerned about the cost. There were others who were quite concerned about alternative proposals. The most long-lasting one, I suppose, and the most visionary one was the rock arena proposal. There are a lot of issues about process, about fairness, about whether or not all possible candidates were given due consideration for their proposals. In the end a decision had to be made and the project is a go.

A lot of people had to compromise along the way. I think it is a credit to those people who were able to put together this proposal and finally come up with a means of financing the civic centre and going ahead with something I think that this city needs. There will always be debate, I suppose, about whether there are better uses for the same amount of money. For a city of this size to be able to compete - I suppose that is the word - with other large cities for the conventions that don't come this way, for the trade shows that don't come this way, for some of the facilities that don't come this way because we don't have an adequate facility to host or to house them, this centre will be an important step forward for a city that wants to be recognized as an important place to do business and to conduct one's affairs, and to be recognized amongst other capitals as a vibrant and forward looking place.

I am not going to go into details of the economics on it. Sometimes, I suppose, when you look at the strict economics of it, it may not make sense. I suppose there is an element of civic pride associated with all of these things that is hard to put a particular dollar value on. There is certainly an effort here through this assessment to spread out the cost a little bit, more particulary to those who may benefit from the additional travel revenues associated with the civic centre.

The accommodation tax is not terribly onerous. It will have the affect not only of helping to pay the cost of the civic centre, but will continue as a means of financing the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau which can play a strong role in promoting the hotels and tourist and accommodation facilities in the Avalon region.

There is an issue that has arisen with respect to whether or not B&B operators ought to be taxed with this additional charge on their accommodations. I guess I have to say there are two views even amongst the B&B operators. I have a large number of B&Bs in my own constituency. I think I counted them last summer. There are probably in excess of twenty B&Bs in my own constituency. I know the Member for St. John's East has a number in his. I have not, to be fair, received much by way of representation on this issue, but I do note there is a division of opinion where some B&B operators are supportive of the tax and others are opposed to it. I think B&B accommodations are usually relatively cheap by hotel standards, and the tax may amount to a $1.50 or not much more than that per night for accommodation for B&Bs. That does not strike me as being a particularly onerous tax.

If it is a serious concern it ought to be given some fair consideration by government and by those involved with the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau as to whether or not some other arrangement can be made. There is certainly a question about the process by which this all took place. I do not think all these people were brought in on the process when it was being discussed, and that is unfair. If it cannot be changed, what I would suggest to those who are involved in the B&B industry is that they create a set of expectations for the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau that are specifically related to the B&B industry, where we have a recent proliferation, I guess, a recent multiplication of the number of B&B rooms or B&B operations in St. John's.

Perhaps there is a need for some coordinated advertising, a common brochure perhaps, to indicate all the B&Bs that are available. Perhaps some sort of central reservation agency that can be used to ensure that that kind of activity can be coordinated, perhaps with a 1-800 number. That type of thing could enhance the availability of B&B operations to visitors.

I know in other cities such as Boston there is a similar type of arrangements. There is a separate special booking agency related to that. They have their own brochures which outline in detail the type of accommodation available. I think that is something that perhaps the B&B operators should demand from the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau as part of the service they would expect from them if they are going to be included in this service. If they are going to be included in the tax then they should be included, as well, for other purposes. I think that is something they should look at. I think government should perhaps use its influence with this organization to urge them to accommodate the needs of the B&B operators within their operation.

I think the `big five' was the name that was used for the five major hotels in the City of St. John's. They seem to wield the power in this particular committee. Perhaps they were the ones who are going to derive the most benefit from the convention business that would be associated with the new civic centre.

I think they should also recognize that perhaps the B&B operators are not necessarily going to be the major beneficiaries of this. Ordinarily, conventions use hotels, and very few - I know there are always some - conventioneers stay at B&B accommodations. I know there are some who choose to because they want to do that, they want the more homey type of accommodation, even at a convention, but most conventioneers want to stay in hotels because that is where the convention action is. The meetings and the socializing that goes on with conventions usually take place in hotel accommodations. B&Bs are very much a second, if not last, option for people attending a convention, so they are not necessarily the major beneficiaries of this.

If accommodation cannot be made, then perhaps the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau should take it upon itself to provide special services to B&B operators who do not, let's face it, have the marketing budget that the hotels have, they do not have the marketing expertise that the major hotels have at their disposal, and it is not cost effective, necessarily, for them to provide a special reservation service. That is something I would certainly commend to the B&B operators, and also commend to the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau.

I support the legislation, Mr. Speaker, with that reservation, because I believe it is an important foundation for the financing of the civic centre, which I hope will prove to be a positive and beneficial step for the City of St. John's.

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

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

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

We have had good and vigorous, albeit limited, debate on this new bill. Mr. Speaker, without further ado, I move second reading in the interests of time and the sanity of my colleague the new House Leader.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 51)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of time, I move that this House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. I call Order No. 29, Bill No. 48. As soon as that one is clued up I will certainly adjourn, but we will not be here very long. I am well aware of other things that are happening, and there is no desire on my part to interfere with anything, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make sure everyone gets an opportunity to speak.

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

All in favour of the motion, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act". (Bill No. 48)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned debate some days ago, the last time we addressed this particular bill, and I just want to make three other brief points as a reminder as I introduce this particular Bill 48.

Fundamentally, this bill puts in place the recommendations made by Dr. Warren as a result of his public consultation with respect to this issue. I just wanted to point out again where there are some slight differences in the recommendations that Dr. Warren made and the bill itself.

Firstly, while the bill itself only lays out the ability to have bonding, and the actual bonding is spelled out in the regulations, there is a slight deviation. Dr. Warren recommended, basically, that we should reduce the period for forfeiture of a bond from the current two years to a period of thirty days. After further checking with Justice officials and looking at the administration of this, it was decided, and Dr. Warren concurs, that it is in the better interest of students to have the bond stay in place for a period of six months rather than just thirty days. Because it is different than the train-out fund that I spoke about in my last remarks, which allows for the continuation of training.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ministerial statement (inaudible) spoke on this before.

MR. GRIMES: No, no. We did speak to it for a period of time. Mr. Speaker, the whole notion is that in leaving the bond in place for some six months, the bond is to be called by a student at any time if they are trying to get their money back. So there is a slight change.

Secondly, there are some references to accreditation and quality control, and the regulations allow for that to be developed over a period of time, largely by the corporation, to be put in place to deal with the train-out fund and other issues that they can refer to the minister at any particular point in time.

The recommendation from Dr. Warren's report and the interim report asked for student aid designation to await a period of some two years before a new private training institution could be designated for student aid eligibility for its students. The recommendation in the regulations that are under this act is that it would be for one year. Because that is in line with the harmonization discussions that are going on across the country with respect to the Canada-Newfoundland student loans, the Nova Scotia and Canada student loans and so on, where every jurisdiction in the country has indicated that they will have a wait period of one year for student aid designation for private training institutions in the future.

It is a significant piece of legislation, a significant piece of work that we thank Dr. Warren for doing. We also thank all the members of the public and the Opposition parties and their representatives for their input into this process. Any detailed questions or commentary I will certainly make a note of during this debate in second reading, and would answer in detail during the Committee stage of Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act.

With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 48.

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

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

I preface my few remarks by the comments of the Government House Leader to the effect that we are going to keep the House going until we finish our debate here today. I am very disappointed in that because we on this side have been giving excellent cooperation to the Government House Leader and we view that kind of comment as being a breach of good faith.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government House Leader if he would reconsider it because we on this side want to have some discussion on this particular bill. I do understand that several of my colleagues will want to speak on it and it would be inappropriate for us to - on an afternoon when other activities are planned - put this kind of gag order on this particular debate. I ask the Government House Leader if he would consult with our House Leader so that we can give him our assurances that we will facilitate the debate but that we want to do so without having our time compromised.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister and I would have liked to have thanked him for his answers to his questions today. The minister writes down his notes the night in advance, or has someone write them down for him, and then when he gets up he rarely gets beyond page 1. It does not matter what the question is; he decides that he has to say what is on the note. Just like a few minutes ago, he got up and said: The last time I adjourned debate on this particular bill...

He did not adjourn debate. The bill had not come up before. So I wonder where he has been and who is writing his notes for him. Obviously he wrote the note on Thursday night because he thought he was going to be up on Friday, and he did not change his notes because in his statement on Friday he said: Later today I will introduce...

What you should have done, Mr. Minister, was realize that you did not introduce it, and that today you are doing it for the first time. We want to just remind you of that.

I do want to thank the minister because he has given me copies of not just Dr. Warren's report in advance - I got that in good time - but also all of the regulations. On Friday the minister was good enough to facilitate the communication of the regulations, the changes to my office. In fact, he brought them here to the House and we were able to do a comparison. There is a great deal of consistency between Dr. Warren's recommendations and the measures that the minister has taken.

I would like to point out to the minister, though, that there is a point where we probably have too many regulations. I get leery when all things are regulations. I understand why things have to be in regulations; it gives the minister a lot more flexibility in terms of being able to change things as time goes on. I think the act itself might have had some of the things that are now regulations contained in the act.

I wanted to also point out to the minister that there are a lot of people in the Province today who, having read Dr. Warren's report, are basically saying: Should we not now be going a little further? Should we not now look at all post-secondary education?

I want to make that point up front because a lot of educators, a lot of people who are connected to post-secondary education in the Province, are asking the minister if he would review all aspects of post-secondary, not just the private training schools. I know that is a big order to done so quickly and that the measures taken now by the minister in the aftermath of the Paralegal Training Institute and the Career Academy. Basically what Dr. Warren's interim report does is address those particular matters.

I put it to the minister that the time is going to be very soon when he is going to have to look at all aspects of post-secondary education in the Province.

We on this side are very cognisant of the need for the minister to take steps to address the issues that are contained in Dr. Warren's report. However, we want to point out that the trouble with the legislation, and the old legislation in particular, was not that the legislation did not permit things like bonding and these kinds of things, but there did not seem to be a willingness on behalf of government to enforce the laws that were there.

All of these changes contained in Bill 48 are absolutely useless unless the minister is going to go and take action where action is needed. In other words, the trouble was not so much the old act as it was the unwillingness of the government to apply the law as it existed.

Unless the minister is going to start applying the law and be proactive - because what has happened over the last ten years is that the private training institutions have simply expanded and expanded in a very deregulated way. What we saw happen in the last year in this Province is simply unacceptable. Certainly there should have been signals there that the minister should have recognized and he should have acted on them.

Really what we saw in the last year was a failure to government to adopt a rational strategic plan for private operating colleges in the post-secondary system. The haphazard evolution simply is what we are really talking about, when we look at the Paralegal Institute and the Career Academy.

I want to point out too that many of the current private colleges of this Province are very small colleges. In fact, about twenty of the current colleges have student enrolments of fewer than twenty students. We have to have concerns about that kind of small college being able to operate and able to provide a broad curriculum to a student body given the amount of resources they have in terms of finances, being able to finance the expertise that is needed.

One of the things we do not see contained in the legislation is that we have advocated for a change in philosophy. This particular piece of legislation still maintains the commodity driven approach. We heard the minister last spring in the House say there was no difference between operating a corner store and buying a loaf of bread than there was in terms of the philosophy applied to that than operating a private college. There is a big difference. There is a big difference between going to the store and buying a loaf of bread at Dominion than there is in running a college.

The students of this Province have no one to look to other than the government or the minister to bring in regulations that protect them in terms of the curriculum, in terms of their investment, and they look to the government for that kind of advice, for that kind of leadership. Caveat emptor may work very well as an economic theory in certain places, but it does not work well if we have a situation where we have students who have no recourse when they find themselves and their school in financial difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side caution the minister that there is still too much, what we say, of a philosophy here that shows that the student might still be more at risk than we would like to have it. We compliment the minister though for the initiatives on the train-out fund. We compliment him for the initiatives he has taken on such things as the bonding.

We also want to say to the government - and I want to make a couple of more points here - I don't see any interest expressed by the minister on developing private/public partnerships. In this Province there are only so many post-secondary students in the whole population. We are a small Province and I would like to hear the minister address the issue of public/private partnerships in the provision of education.

We have the private colleges out there in competition with the public colleges. Sometimes there can be an argument put forward that we have seen an increase in private colleges because the funding has not been allocated to the public colleges. What we are saying on this side is there should be room in this Province for both. We would like to say to the minister, we would like to see a policy developed whereby there would be more of a public/private partnership between the public colleges and the private colleges in the Province and a greater demarcation in terms of courses that would be offered in the private colleges and those offered in the public colleges and that we see an end to some of the duplication of effort, because this small Province cannot afford to have those two sets of institutions competing with each other, offering the same courses. It is not a wise use of our resources as a Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for one other moment on accreditation. The minister concluded his comments on accreditation and I want to speak about that for just a moment. I want to point out to the minister that there are two aspects to accreditation - and discuss this rather widely with some of the other provinces - and that is when you have an institution that is accredited as opposed to having courses accredited. I want to point out to the minister that he will go down the wrong road if he looks too heavily at having the schools accredited at the neglect of having the courses accredited. Courses are the things that need to be accredited. When we look at accreditation we have to be accrediting the programs and the courses, not necessarily focusing entirely on the college itself, so that when a student graduates from a particular college there can be a national accreditation applied. If a student graduates from a private college in Corner Brook, St. John's, Mount Pearl or Bonavista, that student can take that accreditation and he can market that accreditation anywhere in the country.

We want to ask the minister if he would look into that matter because that is where I think we have to have our focus. We have to have courses accredited rather than having the school itself necessarily the sole source of accreditation. Of course, we would maintain on this side that if your courses are accredited nationally then your school will automatically be accredited. It is insufficient to look at some of the national accreditation programs for a school, saying they have a good business plan - a good plan - but not necessarily are we focusing on the courses that are offered.

I want to point these things out to the minister. We on this side as well want to again address the whole issue of student aid. We have pointed out repeatedly that students in private colleges are not included in the Awards Program that this Province set up. That is totally unfair. Again, I want to ask the minister if he would give a commitment to begin a dialogue with the private college operators to make sure that the Awards Program and the Millennium Fund are adjusted so that students in post-secondary education in the private colleges can become eligible on the basis of need, on the basis of scholastic achievement in a level playing field, that they can become available for the scholarships and award programs that will be offered.

In the committee stage we will have some other question. I do believe there are some other speakers who wish to make a few comments before the afternoon is finished.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in second reading on this legislation, which is providing for changes to The Private Training Institutions Act, Bill 48.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this legislation needs overhaul, but what really needs overhaul is the policy of this government towards post-secondary education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: You have to espouse the vows of poverty, is it, boys? There is no hope for that (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, what really needs overhaul is not the legislation, it is the minister's and the government's policy with respect to post-secondary education, particularly as it relates to private education. Private education discriminates against people who are poor, because, Mr. Speaker, what happens in this Province is that people who go to university or people who go to the public college have their educations paid for, in large measure, by the taxpayer. People who are unable to go to university or don't want to go to university, and can't get into the public college, are forced to go to the private colleges and pay the full shot, pay for the full cost of instruction, the full cost of tuition, the full cost of the buildings, the full cost of books, the full cost of all the marketing that goes on to recruit them in the first place; and then, on top of that, to ensure that there is a profit for the owners.

Mr. Speaker, that is fundamentally wrong in a situation where we know that students, in order to have a fair chance at a decent occupation, an opportunity to make a livelihood for themselves and raise a family, need to have, as a basic, fundamental education, something beyond high school. Mr. Speaker, twenty years ago, a person with a high school education had a chance to go and get a job and make something of themselves, build a future for their family and even advance in a corporation.

I remember a few years ago you would hear about the president of some bank who started off as office boy, or the chairman of the post office corporation who started off sorting mail, or you would hear of a senior executive in some place who had worked their way up without the benefit of a post-secondary education. You don't hear that anymore, Mr. Speaker. They all have M.B.A.s, they all have graduate degrees or they all have specialized training. Now, Mr. Speaker, even for entry level positions employers are requiring something more than a high school education.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a massive change in a very short period of time in the expectations of employers, in the needs for basic education that people are required to have in order to get work; and what we have is them paying through the nose for it.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the first or the only person to talk about these issues. For the last couple of years Mr. Vince Withers, the former President of NewTel, and I think he is a friend of some people oppose, has been talking about the role of post-secondary education and training in this Province and the need for greater government support for individuals to be able to get a post-secondary education. He has recognized, and he has being preaching about this for some time, the vital nature of post-secondary education and training for the job market.

We are all talking about Newfoundland competing. We had the Ambassador from Cuba here today, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was very proudly reciting the companies which are doing business in Cuba, which are hoping to do business in Cuba, or which have visited and shown what they could do. All those people are people with qualifications that go beyond high school education. Because they need to have specialized training, whether it be in some of the companies specializing in computer hardware and software, specializing in communications, specializing in highly technical things that require a post-secondary education to even contemplate getting involved in. It is not something that one picks up through on-the-job training without the technical background or education that is going to enable them to participate.

It is of vital importance that we have a high-quality, accessible, affordable post-secondary education. I would like to see it free. I would like to see it free as part of a basic right. Instead this government regards it as a commodity that people can make profit on in the private marketplace. There is a place for some private training, but not the kind of private training we have in this Province as a wholesale replacement for what public colleges will be providing.

We have taken a fortune, an annual shortfall of some $25 million taken out of post-secondary education. What we have as a result is the proliferation of private colleges. It is all very well for the minister to try and blame it all on the Tories. It is the Tories' fault. It was their legislation. It is all their fault, say the government. They may have passed the legislation, but it took the Liberals to take advantage of that legislation, pull the money out of the public college system, and allow the system to proliferate at the expense of students. That is what this government has allowed to happen. They can look over on this side and try and find a Tory to blame. The only Tory that was ever in a government in this House is sitting in their back row. Not that it matters. What matters is that what has happened to the students in this Province today is that they are required to pay the costs of secondary education.

What does this bill do? This bill recognizes the inherent instability of these private colleges. Why else do we have a bond? Why else do we have a train-out fund if we don't expect these colleges to go under? That is the expectation. They expect that we will have more Career Academy situations, and that is why they are putting this in place. Instead what they should be doing is finding a way to ensure that post-secondary education in the public college system is restored and made accessible once again.

One of the excuses that was given for the development of the private college system, or the popularity of the private college system, was the fact that they could not get into a public college fast enough. That is because the place was underfunded, underfunded by this government because they refused to recognize the importance of public post-secondary education.

Now what are we doing? We are tinkering with a system that is fundamentally flawed and that is a failure in terms of delivering the kind of education that the students of this Province demand. We have seen the Career Academy go under. I suppose in some measure this was the flagship of the private colleges. Lorraine Lush was entrepreneur of the year. One of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: According to The Financial Post, one of the fifty best managed companies in Canada. Diane Francis, I think, is the editor of that organization, one of our favourite national commentators. Yes, Diane Francis, the editor of The Financial Post, was one of our favourite commentators. I think she had something to say about -

AN HON. MEMBER: She is NDP, isn't she?

MR. HARRIS: I don't think she is NDP. I doubt very much if she ever even contemplated joining the NDP. She probably thinks it means something else.

Mr. Speaker, Diane Francis I think is the one who thought the Liberals were socialists in Newfoundland because they were trying to confiscate the private property of Inco. That is how she views the world, that for Newfoundland to demand that we have some recompense for our resources, that the Newfoundland government must be - we are the greatest socialists on the face of the earth. That is where she is coming from, in terms of her understand of the world.

She also believed - her paper listed the Career Academy as one of the fifty best managed companies in Canada. Six months later, this best managed company showed how well it was able to operate within an environment where the students were paying a great deal of money, financing an incredible marketing plan that this college had, financing all of the extravaganza that was put on to recruit students and to make them loyal to the institution.

I found it kind of interesting that first when I raised this issue in this House, over a year ago, I was invited to go on CBC Radio. During the program - I was only on for forty minutes - almost all of the calls came from Career Academy students. They were singing the praises of the Career Academy, singing the praises of the program, singing the praises of Lorraine Lush, and talking about how wonderful the place was and how wonderful the instruction was. I found out afterwards that they were crowding out all the other colleges. What happened was, the day they announced on CBC that Jack Harris was going to go on and talk about private colleges, the owner of the Career Academy went around from classroom to classroom pulling people out of the classroom, getting them on the phone, saying: You had better get on those phones because Jack Harris is on the radio running us down.

So they tried their best to stifle the public criticism of the Career Academy, which some students were calling in to make and others were obviously suffering from. Mr. Speaker, what we had happen in the private college system - and they are not all tarred with the same brush, and I have to say that every time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) party.

MR. HARRIS: I am waiting for the Leader of the Opposition who wants to come down and speak on this debate.

I have to say this every time, Mr. Speaker, because not every private college is the same. I understand that there are some who are setting out for themselves a special niche where they will provide specific sets of training for specific jobs that they know are available in the marketplace and at which they are able to direct their students. I think that is a positive thing.

If we have a private college system proliferating at the expense of the public college system then we are in big trouble. We are in big trouble because we are discriminating against people who pay their taxes to support the public system and then have to go out and pay for themselves or their children to get a proper post-secondary education at the private system.

I obviously recognize that there are serious problems with the Private Training Institutions Act. That act needed and needs changes. I note that the minister - the very day that the report came out, the minister misinterpreted it. I do not know if it was deliberate, I am not about to say that, that he deliberately misinterpreted it, but the very day that the report of Dr. Warren came out there was a Ministerial Statement in which he misquoted it. He said they were going to implement the recommendation of Dr. Warren to have a one-year period of operation before they approved a private training institution for student loans. The very day that the report came out, the minister said they were going to implement that into a one-year period. The recommendation in the report says two years. The recommendation in the reports said two years, because obviously Dr. Warren believed that degree of stability was required in order to have a better confidence in the system.

Since all of this has happened, of course, we have the John Woodrow saga, the Paralegal Institute, another flagship enterprise supported by this government, given a fast track to licensing, special rule changes brought about hours before he was due to open, lots of dilly-dallying about various minsters' offices looking for favours and getting himself set up to operate. Another indication of how this idea of a private training institutional licence - in some cases a licence to get access to student loan money. That is what is going on in some quarters of the private training institutions, a licence to get access to student loan money for students who are desperate for an opportunity for some training in hopes to get a job so that they may be able to stay here and pursue an education and pursue a livelihood.

They were betrayed by this government, betrayed by lack of a strong policy by this government, by lack of warning students as to what to expect, a lack of effort by government, by the Department of Education -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lack of effort.

MR. HARRIS: A lack of effort.

- to ensure that these students were not taken advantage of, led down the garden path, put into a situation with enormous debt loads.

I will never forget the two young people who were in my office just before Christmas last year, who had their telephone taken out that day. They were on social assistance, a young man and a young woman. They had been married about a year and the young woman was pregnant and was going to have a baby in several months. Between the two of them they owed $57,000 in student loans, and not one of them had a diploma to show for it. They had done five programs; she had done two and he had done three, all at the Career Academy. They had nothing to show for it and they owed $57,000 in student loans.

While all of this was going on, your cousins up in Ottawa, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, were up there busy working on amendments to the Bankruptcy Act.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It was last Christmas when this happened, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Your cousins and your friends up in Ottawa were busy working on amendments to the bankruptcy legislation to prevent these young people from even going bankrupt so they could even start afresh. That is the amount of regard that this government has had for the needs of these young people, and young people in general in this Province who are desperate to have an opportunity to succeed in this world.

You cannot start from scratch, the way the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did, and work your way up any more. You cannot go out and sell mirrors and nylons and pantyhose, and work your way up, not any more Mr. Speaker. Society is a bit more complicated now and people expect more.

In saying that, I will close debate, or close my remarks. I know the Minister of Education, I am sure, will want to speak at some length in response. What needs amendment is the policy of this government and the attitude of this government towards post-secondary students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Education speaks now we will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the interventions made on this very important piece of legislation and we will deal with some of the details, I am sure, in Committee of the Whole.

I am pleased to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Private Training Institutions Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 48)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I commend hon. members. We have done an excellent day's work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: We have finished all the second readings that we are going to bring forward at this sitting; no more second readings. Tomorrow we will be asking that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and we will work our way down through the Order Paper.

I would ask all hon. members to be prepared to sit tomorrow evening. We will go into a late evening because there is quite a bit of work left on the Order Paper and we have to deal with it. Wednesday is Private Members' Day and we will be calling the Opposition motion which is on Private Members' Day. Then we are back on Thursday, Friday or Saturday, whatever time is required to finish off the Order Paper.

I move that the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow afternoon at 2:00 p.m.

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

******************************************************************************