November 20, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 34


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

It is my pleasure today to welcome to our gallery ten members from the WISE group from the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, in the rush to go before the camera yesterday, I am afraid we inadvertently neglected to introduce our new page, Mr. Christopher Hickey, to my right, a fourth-year political science student at Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very dear friend who recently became the first female inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Hall of Fame.

Joy Burt, with fourteen years of soccer experience and provincial awards, played with the Memorial University team and was a driving force behind the creation of the first women's soccer league in Corner Brook.

Many may remember Joy Burt for her outstanding ability in the sport of power lifting, breaking records and representing Canada at several world championships. However, she also has a history of involvement with soccer, being the first female Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Association.

Ms Burt's achievements include Corner Brook scoring titles and Most Valuable Player awards, Newfoundland's best female soccer player in 1970, and a fourth-time Female Athlete of the Year for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Joy Burt was a pioneer for ladies soccer and is a role model for young athletes and especially young women, and by being recognized by her achievements, the Soccer Hall of Fame has opened its doors to many deserving female athletes and also inspiring many young people to become involved in sports.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. JOYCE: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JOYCE: Joy is a Grade 5 teacher at North Shore Elementary in Meadows and she is definitely an inspiration to her students. Her daughter, Emily, was so proud of her mother that she completed the necessary information to have her mother nominated.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating Joy Burt on becoming the first female inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Soccer Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Wednesday evening, November 14, I had the honour of attending a very special function in my district. The event was the Annual Employer and Supporter Recognition Night sponsored by the Genesis Employment Corporation in partnership with the Argentia Area Chamber of Commerce.

The Genesis Employment Corporation is a non-profit organization which seeks and secures meaningful employment for persons with developmental disabilities. Genesis Employment Corporation is sponsored by the Labour Market Development Agreement and the Department of Human Resources and Employment. It was a night filled with the highlights of another successful year of operation for the Genesis Corporation.

Representatives of the Argentia Area Chamber of Commerce, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, the Department of Human Resources Canada and the Town of Placentia, along with myself, brought greetings and congratulations to the Board of Directors for their untiring commitment to creating opportunities for those in our society who are less fortunate than ourselves. Several businesses, employers, supporters and co-workers were recognized for their important role in ensuring the success of this organization.

The most important people involved, the clients themselves, were delighted with the opportunity to show how the Genesis Corporation has played a pivotal role in improving their standard of living. The gratitude was evident in the comments of one of the clients, Mr. Charles O'Keefe.

An important part of the evening was the presentation of the annual Employer Merit Award. This year's recipient was Jeremy's Redi-Chef, Placentia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: I would like to congratulate owner, Mr. Dan Meade, on the recognition of his involvement with Genesis and to also congratulate client Charmaine Hawco and support worker Brenda Dunphy, for a job well done.

In closing, let me congratulate the staff and Board of Directors for the Genesis Employment Corporation on fulfilling a need in our community and their passion and commitment to fulfilling the lives of many people with developmental disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of all members an event which took place in Marystown this past summer. During the month of July, approximately 1,500 athletes between the ages of ten and eighteen took part in the first Burin Peninsula Summer Games.

I had the privilege of attending these games and witnessing the sportsmanship and enthusiasm of those young athletes as they represented their communities. I was also especially touched by the enthusiasm so obviously displayed by the Special Olympics group. These Burin Peninsula Summer Games will certainly be the highlight of all summer activities on the Burin Peninsula as athletes and fans come together to enjoy and participate.

The Burin Peninsula has a long and proud history of achievement in sports and I am sure that many of these young athletes are well on their way to the Burin Peninsula Sports Hall of Fame and to maybe other honours as well.

I would like Members on the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating the sponsors, organizers and athletes on the success of the first year of the Burin Peninsula Summer Games and wish everyone well on next year's summer games which will be held in Fortune.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a pioneer and a lifelong friend of the Co-operative and Credit Union movement in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Wilfred George Dawe passed away at his residence in St. John's on September 9, 2001, at the age of eighty-eight.

He was born in Carbonear in 1913 and had a remarkable career with numerous and impressive achievements. In the mid-1930s Wilf Dawe worked at Ayre & Sons Limited, a department store, and was a founding member of the Ayreso Credit Union, one of the oldest in the Province. He was a founder of the Newfoundland Protective Association of Shop and Office Employees, later becoming the Retail Clerks Union, and was active in the early days of the federation of labour, including on its legislative committee.

In 1941, he became president of what became the Newfoundland Co-operative Credit Society Limited, which later formed a part of the current Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union. In 1950 he embarked on a career as a civil servant, becoming the inspector of co-operatives and credit unions. In 1954 he was appointed registrar of co-operatives and credit unions where he served until mandatory retirement in 1978.

In 1988 his lifelong commitment to the co-operative and credit union movement was recognized when, along with the famous Father Moses Coady of Antigonish, Wilf Dawe was given the distinguished co-operator award by the Atlantic Council of Co-operatives. Wilf Dawe's dedication to the principles of co-operation inspired many people and he deserves full recognition by the House of Assembly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the third weekend of October I had the opportunity to travel with a bunch of Aboriginal youth in the Province to attend an Aboriginal Youth Conference, in Edmonton. Aboriginal youth from every province, country, and territory attended. Our youth was represented by youth from the Federation of Indians, the Métis, Inuit, and the Innu.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to see our students stand before a microphone where there were over 400 delegates, and talk about their goals and their problems in such a manner that would certainly make any member or any person in this Province proud. It has been said that our youth are among the best in the Province, in this country, and the world. Mr. Speaker, at this Aboriginal Youth Conference our youth did exactly that. They proved to us that they are among the best.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We will take one more.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I rise today to offer my condolences to the family of the late Mayor Claude Ward, who passed away suddenly Monday morning, November 19.

Claude was a very active member of his community. He served for twenty years on the municipal council, twelve of those as mayor. As a matter of fact, this fall he returned as mayor again.

Mr. Speaker, for anybody in this House who has dealt with Mr. Ward - I know many ministers and members in this House know him quite well - know of his forthright attitude on approaching issues. As the member for the district, over the years I have certainly had opposing views and agreeing views with Mr. Ward. I can tell you that we did not always agree but I can say that Mr. Ward, no matter what the issue, always had the Town of La Scie at heart.

Recalling one of his prouder moments today - and it was suggested that I recall this on behalf of one of his brothers - is the day that the La Scie Jets won the Herder Memorial Hockey Championship. How proud he was the day that we paraded in through the Town of La Scie and into the stadium. That is the way I will always remember Claude Ward, as a very proud mayor of that particular community.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to pass on the condolences to his family: to his wife, Lorraine; his sons, Roy, Neil, Douglas and Terry; to his daughters, Lynette, Taffie, Michelle; and his brothers, relatives and many people on the Baie Verte Peninsula as well as the Community of La Scie.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide this House with a mid-year report on the economic and financial position of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the Budget Speech last March, I acknowledged that the Province would be facing different economic and fiscal realities than those of recent years. Government recognized that a slowing national economy would impact on federal transfers and own tax revenues, and the Budget reflected those changing circumstances.

Economic Update: Mr. Speaker, economic forecasts now project a significant slowdown in the United States and Canada for the last half of 2001 due to weakness in the manufacturing and information technology sectors, reduced consumer confidence and spending, and weak financial markets.

The provincial economy is still expected to experience growth in 2001, however, we will not be immune to the effects of a global economic slowdown. We cannot function or think of ourselves in isolation in light of our dependence on the federal government for a substantial portion of our revenue as well as our dependence on the U.S. economy as our major export partner. Real GDP, which had been forecast to grow at an annual rate of 2 per cent, is now expected to be 1.2 per cent. The impacts of the general economic slowdown and terrorist attacks have been forecast to grow at an annual rate of 2.0 per cent is now expected to be 1.2 per cent. The impacts of the general economic slowdown and terrorist attacks have been factored into the revised forecast.

The economic downturn has resulted in a weaker than expected market demand and lower prices for key provincial exports such as iron ore, newsprint, and fish products. Lumber exports will remain steady as expected.

Crude oil production from Hibernia is expected to be in line with the Budget forecast of 53 million barrels. Proponents for the Terra Nova project indicate that production should begin by the end of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the impacts of the economic downturn have been compounded by the September 11 terrorist attacks. This is expected to further impact on export-oriented industries such as the fishery, newsprint, and mining for the first half of 2002.

Weakness in export markets have not yet had an effect on employment, housing starts or retail trade in Newfoundland and Labrador. Generally speaking, there is a lag between changes in export markets and changes in local economic indicators.

Employment is on track to reach a record high of 211,000, surpassing the 1990 level of 207,400, and the unemployment rate, Mr. Speaker, should drop to16.4 per cent, the lowest since 1989.

Real disposable income is expected to grow by 2.8 per cent, which should help boost consumer confidence.

Mr. Speaker, while consumer activity declined somewhat in the days following September 11, consumer confidence remains strong. For the first eight months, retail trade is up by more that 8 per cent over the same period last year, driven by strong employment growth, wage increases, tax cuts and low interest rates. Some slowing of growth is expected in the last four months of 2001, which will result in annual retail sales growth of about 6.5 per cent.

Housing starts through the first three quarters are up by almost 18 per cent. Starts are expected to slow in the fourth quarter and. on an annual basis, are expected to grow by 8.7 per cent to almost 1,600, the best performance since 1997.

As projected in this year's Budget, capital investment is expected to decline by 3.5 per cent, due in large part to the winding up of the Terra Nova construction project, the one-time ferry purchased by Marine Atlantic in 2000, and the completion of several major health care facilities. Investment, however, should remain above $3 billion for the third straight year.

Preliminary population estimates indicate a decline of about 0.6 per cent in 2001 due to continuing net out-migration. The Province's population is now 533,761, down from about 580,200 in 1993.

Fiscal Update: Mr. Speaker, the Province's fiscal position depends greatly on federal transfers as well as our own resources. While government's own-source revenues are on target for this fiscal year, equalization and CHST transfers are expected to be lower. As I have previously reported, recent estimates indicate the Province will receive $13.4 million less in federal transfers than originally budgeted thus far. We will not know our final position for the current year until February, when further federal estimates are expected.

Mr. Speaker, government must continually balance pressures to spend with the need for sound financial management.

Our health care sector is grappling now with this challenge. This year's Budget added $50 million to the base budgets of the institutional and integrated health boards to stabilize board funding and allow them to operate within balanced budgets. This funding was on top of what government provided for inflation, funding for reclassification of health professionals, and on top of negotiated salary increases for public sector unions. Yet, as we have seen, the additional funding did not forestall operating deficits for many of those boards. We are now working with those boards to deal with these deficits.

Mr. Speaker, in the last six years, government has increased health care spending by 38 per cent, an investment of $381 million. We cannot maintain this level of unprecedented growth in funding given our Province's finite resources. In fact, no government could ever sustain this kind of growth, even those with much greater fiscal capacity than our own.

Collective agreements with our public sector unions also put some pressure on our Treasury. These agreements included a 15 per cent wage increase over three years. The additional cost associated with the public service salary increase this fiscal year will be around $30 million.

Government will honor the negotiated public sector wage increases. Public servants deserve the increase and government is proud of this agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the additional cost of the public service salary increase, the drop in federal transfers due to a slowing economy, as well as additional costs associated with servicing foreign currency debt, we now expect an $80 million deficit this fiscal year, up from the $30 million originally budgeted. Our final fiscal position will depend on maintaining effective control of our expenditures and our final revenue position, which we will assess in February.

We have undertaken certain measures to curb our deficit situation, including the implementation of a freeze on non-essential hiring and travel. In addition, government announced it would defer the third year of its personal income tax reduction strategy. As we said when we announced the initiative, reductions in personal income tax would be assessed annually. We assessed it annually and we concurred we would only do this if the Province could afford it.

Even though the third year of our program is being deferred, it is important for taxpayers to realize that there are continued savings as a result of the previous two years of tax reduction measures. Cumulative savings from provincial and federal tax reductions since the year 2000 will return $321 million to the provincial economy next year: $198 million which is from provincial measures, and $123 million through federal measures, Mr. Speaker.

Notwithstanding these responsible measures, we recognize that government is in a difficult position leading into years 2002-2003. We are in the process of reviewing options to address the challenges that are ahead of us as we prepare our next Budget.

Mr. Speaker, the global economic situation continues to be volatile and it is being monitored very closely. The recovery, anticipated in the second half of 2002, should allow production in export-oriented industries to recover.

Private sector forecasters predict real GDP growth for Newfoundland and Labrador to be at 4.5 per cent for 2002. This is consistent with our view and will mark the fourth year of strong growth since 1997.

Growth in 2002 will be concentrated in the oil industry. The combined production from Hibernia and Terra Nova should increase. We expect White Rose construction to begin, pending government approval, and offshore exploration should increase.

Voisey's Bay and the Lower Churchill are not factored into this forecast for 2002. Development of these projects would represent an incremental benefit to our Province's economy.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, the economy of the Province is more diversified now than at any point in our recent history. We believe consumer confidence and spending will remain strong, driven by gains in employment, new major project activity, increased capital investment and wage gains. Retail sales growth is expected to be somewhat lower than in recent years.

Employment growth of 0.7 per cent is projected for next year. Growth will be restrained by the winding down of construction activity related to the Terra Nova project and the impacts of the global economic slowdown.

Net out-migration will continue to decline in 2002, as it has for the past three years, slowing the rate of decline in the Province's population. Next year, however, the number of deaths in our Province is expected to exceed the number of births for the first time in our history, and this will contribute to a 2002 population decline in the range of 0.3-0.4 per cent.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Province is facing uncertainty heading into 2002.

We have taken appropriate actions to address our deficit situation this year. Government spending as an economic stimulus is not the answer to the short-term economic uncertainty; it will only add to any uncertainty. Pervious tax cuts will continue to benefit the Newfoundland and Labrador economy, as will our continued commitment to sound fiscal management.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to advise the people of the Province, as we have thus far, of any further new information on the Province's financial and economic position as it becomes available.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, government will again be seeking the views and advice of the people of our Province in how to best respond to the challenges ahead. I will be announcing soon the details of our pre-Budget consultations, which will be held in the coming weeks and months.

Government will continue to be responsible in how we manage the finances of this Province as we prepare our Budget for 2002.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our Province, we are proud of our governance, and we will proudly continue our fiscal prudence.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister makes reference to - her projections are off on growth for the Province, down to 1.2 per cent. I think the minister is still - in the budget she presented back in March - counting a little high. We may see a 1 per cent, or even slightly less than 1 per cent. She has to keep in mind that 60 per cent of our growth increase last year in GDP came from Hibernia. That is 60 per cent of our growth increase. We are expecting lower oil prices to occur and that should significantly impact in a reduction, accordingly, in GDP.

The minister has indicated here that - as the public probably knows full well, that the Terra Nova is not going to come on stream until the end of the year. The minister further indicated in the statement here that the September 11 terrorist attack is going to have an impact. I wish, when we are dealing with almost a $4 billion expenditure, that she would get on the same wavelength with the Premier of our Province.

The Premier said back in late October: Newfoundland's economy should not be adversely affected by terrorist attacks. It goes on to say: Grimes says he doesn't think the downturn, that is predicted elsewhere, will occur here. I wish the Premier of our Province and the minister, who is responsible for $4 billion in our economy, would get together and show the proper direction that we should be moving in, or at least say the same thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We all know there is going to be a lag in our Province in growth. This lag is not only going to help us marginally, in the remaining quarters of this year, the lag in the downturn in the economy is going to impact us more significantly next year because it is going to be later before we come out of that lag and the economy starts to rebound again.

The minister makes reference to an $80 million deficit. We know that $80 million deficit comes from a $30.5 million budget deficit that was brought down in March, and one month later, after that Budget, the minister presided over $30 million in public sector increases when she knew that when she budgeted at the time - when the Budget came down you should budget for a worst-case scenario, not a best case scenario. She budgeted for 3 per cent when she should have budgeted for 5 per cent, and give the people the truth upfront in the Budget. Therefore, we are stuck with $30 million that this minister did not allocate in this Budget. Now we have to feel pain over a short period that could have spread over a long period and have much less impact in a long term than in a short term. That is over $60 million.

The equalization shortfall that we are going to get is over $13 million because 50 per cent of our debt approximately is in foreign currency, U.S., and other currency; Swiss, franc and the Japanese yen. We are going to find that the devalued Canadian dollar is contributing another $7 million basically in extra costs. So that is over $80 million. What the minister is not telling us here today is that the health boards in our Province are over budget $20 million; $18 million in institutional boards; and an estimated $6 million to $7 million in community health boards. They cannot meet the services on the money that government gave them, and they are asked to cut. They are being told by some boards that they cannot find it. We are falling millions short. They are not also telling us that the accumulated debt, or deficit, over the past few years is $80 million. Boards are even starting to go out and convert that into long-term debt that requires more interest payments, more financing, less money for services, which means longer waiting lists, more pain and suffering by the people in our Province as a result. That is not prudent and responsible management of our economy, that is imprudent and fiscal mismanagement of the affairs of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister has indicated that we expect a 4.5 per cent growth next year. If you stay on target for a 4.5 per cent, then you will fall short. You have to be realistic, I say to the minister, in your projections. The IMF is telling us now that Canada's growth is going to go from 2.5 per cent next year down to 0.8 per cent. I think we should budget on a conservative basis. We should not go on a whim and a prayer, that the economy is going to get better. Now we find we have a big hole to fill in the dyke here and it cannot be done by ordinary means.

The minister said: our economy "...is more diversified than at any point in our recent history." I say to the minister, we are more dependent on primary commodity exports than we ever were in our history before. That is where the growth is occurring. It might be more primary export commodities but they are still primary and therefore, we are more dependent on it than ever before. We haven't diversified the economy. Could someone tell me where we are seeing the diversified economy in this Province for this administration? Because, I have not seen it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the sky is not falling but we have $100 million to deal with this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) health care.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask for protection from people here, and an opportunity to have my response. I have limited time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: On top of what this government has done, besides the almost $200 million she is talking about, this year we have spent - and will be spending before the end of the year - $196.8 million in deferred revenues that were collected last year and not used because it would have shown a surplus and carried to this year. We have to find in next year's budget $196.8 million, plus another $100 million - that is $300 million - and an estimated $80 million to $90 million for other public sector increases. We are in the $400 million range now, which we have to find to be able to produce a balanced budget in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: To me, that is far from fiscal and prudent management of our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the member have leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: Leave to finish my response?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave, I am sorry.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, could we find out who denied leave because I heard someone saying I have leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Four hundred million to find; the sky is falling. The sky is falling, I say to the minister.

We have a minister who is at the steering wheel of this Province and she has put it on automatic pilot. She has put it on automatic pilot, because we are making short-term decisions. This government has taken $160 million that we could have received under Term 29 - $8 million a year for $20 years. They spent that $130 million upfront in three years. They took $55 million on a South Coast ferry service, spent it all, and now we have to pay for that. They have taken $350 million out of the Trans-Labrador Highway, a very needed highway, in exchange for the ferry service. We still have to provide a very great service. What they have done in this Province is they have taken short-term solutions to long-term problems, and that is the fix we are in today in this Province, Mr. Speaker. It is about time someone took control of the wheel and put it back there to get this Province back on the road to recovery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to respond briefly to the minister's financial statement. First of all, let me say that I agree with her and not the Premier, that we cannot really be in isolation of the economic effects of what is happening in Canada and the rest of the world, but we are not an isolated country so I agree with her on that. I cannot disagree with her on the birth rate or the death rate. These are matters of fact, but what disturbs me about what the minister said here today when she patted her government on the back for having an unemployment rate of 16 per cent, she did not talk about the fact that this means, when we have a much lower unemployment rate in St. John's and the capital area, that we end up with a very much higher unemployment rate in areas of rural Newfoundland, two and three times that amount, Mr. Speaker, that this government has nothing to be proud about, and has done nothing to address in this fiscal statement.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that disturbs me about what the minister said today when she is talking about how we have addressed, and they have addressed, they say, the fiscal position and the budgetary position of the Province. It is what she is not saying; because while we were being delivered in our offices this fiscal statement of the minister, which says nothing about the following issue, we were receiving telephone calls from employees saying they received layoff notices this morning at 10:00 in Works, Services and Transportation, indicating that there are layoffs across the Province in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation of people who have never been laid off in twenty years.

What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is why the minister, in rising in her seat today to talk about the financial situation of the Province and the budget measures being taken, there is not mention of that. What else is she hiding from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? What else is this minister and this government hiding about measure that are being taken within government this very day, on the same day that we are receiving a financial statement? Who is telling the people of Newfoundland the whole truth here today? That is what disturbs me about this financial statement, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to provide my colleagues with an update on the series of regional health forums which I held throughout the Province during October.

As my colleagues are aware, since September government has engaged in the most extensive consultation process ever undertaken in this Province on our health and community services system. The purpose of this consultation is to reach a consensus on the key principles which will guide the decision-making on the future of the health system in this Province.

Following the release of a Province-wide discussion document entitled Reaching Consensus and Planning Ahead, I co-chaired with the regional Strategic Social Planning Committees seven regional forums throughout the Province. At these forums, we brought together approximately 400 health professionals, municipal leaders, community leaders, community service group representatives, advocates and so on. Their input on the strategic health issues facing the Province and the major health planning areas has been invaluable.

Mr. Speaker, I will not speak in detail today on the views which came forward during these forums; however, I will note some key areas:

First of all, there is overwhelming support for greater attention on health promotion and on the prevention of illness;

There is widespread consensus that the primary health care system needs to be changed in order to ensure better access to basic health and community services; and

There is strong consensus that ‘quality' needs to be maintained.

And the one message that underpinned all other issues discussed in this phase of the consultation was that indeed there is a need for fundamental change in our health system. People recognize that we cannot continue as we are, running deficits year after year. Nor can we continue to put more money into the system - frankly, this Province just does not have the resources to do so.

While people want the federal government to contribute more to health funding, participants rejected having the Province raise taxes, borrow, or take money from elsewhere in government. With forty-four cents of every dollar that government spends on programs and services going into the health system, there is a realization that we have to live within our means - that we can have a quality health system that will meet the needs of the people of this Province within our existing fiscal framework.

Mr. Speaker, this government faces many challenges in delivering the kind of health and community services and programs that the people of this Proline expect and demand. This is despite the tremendous amount of financial resources that government continues to invest into the health system. Approximately one-third, as the Minister of Finance has indicated, of this Province's global budget is spent on health and community services. In real terms, $1.4 billion of taxpayers' money is spent on health.

Rising costs, high public expectations, and recruitment and retention of health professionals are among those challenges which we share with other jurisdictions from all across this country. Not the least of these challenges is financial sustainability.

We are now facing the daunting task of improving our health system - making it one that meets the needs of the people of this Province - and accomplishing that within our current resources.

Of course, we have and will continue to make sure our voice is heard with the other provinces in asking the federal government to return its investment into health to 1994 levels, along with an appropriate escalator. Yet, while we know we need more funding from the federal level, we also know that money is not the only answer.

Mr. Speaker, next week, on November 27 and 28, I will bring together more stakeholders and representatives of this Province to take this consultation one step further. And I might indicate that I have extended an invitation to my colleagues, Mr. Jack Harris, the Leader of the NDP, and the two health critics, Ms Sheila Osborne and Mr. Ross Wiseman, to join me at this provincial forum, to also be able to take part in this and hear what has to be said.

Based on what I have heard throughout the regional forums, I look forward to a very productive session in which we will achieve a consensus on what the cornerstone of our heath system will be. It will be from those cornerstones that we will build a new model of health delivery.

It is our hope this model will ensure the people of this Province have access to appropriate, affordable, quality health programs and services. I look forward to the completion of this consultation process and proceeding to a strategic health plan for our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the use of the word extensive in the minister's statement, because it was the most extensive invitation list that ever existed in the Province. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, how we can say that we have had extensive consultation when it was by invitation only, it was a very restrictive process.

I want to pick a couple of words from the minister's statement, Mr. Speaker. The use of the word consensus: If we look at how those forums were structured, they were very structured, focused on twenty pre-orchestrated questions. At any given time we only have about 115 to 120 people bringing consensus around either one of those questions and there are 530,000 people in the Province. So are we going to have 115 to 120 people speaking on behalf of over 500,000 people in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that primary health care is the cornerstone of our system, but when we start talking about primary care reform and we start talking about how we are going to do that and building consensus, why is it that the minister has a ministerial appointed committee looking at primary care? There is no consultation around primary care, and primary health care is fundamental to every single person in this Province. That is very fundamental.

There is one other key thing, Mr. Speaker. I want to just read a portion of the minister's statement where she says, "that we can have a quality health system that will meet the needs of the people of this Province within our existing fiscal framework."

Is the minister suggesting that the existing fiscal framework that includes an operating deficit this year of somewhere in the range of $20 million, is she talking about the fiscal reality that says health boards have accumulated deficits and have long-term debts somewhere in the range of $80 million to $90 million, is that the reality?

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that if we had true public consultation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Could we listen to the member?

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: If we had true public consultation, what the minister would have been told is the same thing that Vision Research found out when they did a poll of Newfoundlanders on November 10-11.

Here is what 84.3 per cent of Newfoundlanders said on November 10-11: that they were very concerned with the integrity of the health system when you can take $18 million out.

Is that the fiscal reality that we are taking about, and is that living within our means?

Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing about which I am glad to see the minister has finally changed her mind. The minister has finally said that recruitment and retention of physicians is a challenge; because last week this government was running newspaper ads saying we had stability in our medical community. What she did not tell them was that we had a 35 per cent turnover of physicians in the last five years. That is what she did not tell people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If this debate is to continue, I would suggest that the members on both sides of the House pay attention to what is being said by the speakers.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North, by leave.

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

I will just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting that if the minister purely wants to get some solid input from the people of this Province, she needs to really open up the consultation process beyond a select few.

I would agree that primary care is the cornerstone of the health care system in this Province, and purely that is: every single person in the Province will access primary care. We may not access other levels but we will access primary care, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister really wants to know what people think, take the consultation process out into all the nooks and crannies of this Province and find out what the people are really saying when they cannot get the access to health services and they have to travel long distances, stay overnight, long waiting lists for physicians, and cannot get much-needed medical attention. If she wants to get that message, take it outside of seven communities and extend the invitation to 530,000 people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The health care forums that were held by the Minister of Health and Community Services are not something to which we can object. To have consultation throughout Newfoundland and Labrador is a good thing, but these particular consultation have been criticized as being by invitation only, in that only certain people whom the minister wished to invite were invited. Others had to seek invitations to be able to get to come. They had the element of being a consultation amongst the elites, and a lot of people felt that they were left out of these consultations. I do not want to criticize the minister for consulting, but the form of consultation left a lot of people out.

One of the other problems that I saw with it, Mr. Speaker, was that although the minister's documentation urged those involved in the consultation not to have any hidden agendas, what I saw in the questions that were being asked in the documents that were provided was a little bit of a hidden agenda of the minister's own. What I am worried about, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister may have an agenda to put forth the idea of user fees for health care in this Province.

I want to say here and now that if that is on the minister's agenda, they are going to be fought by this party and this member as long as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, we asked about the problems in health care. We know there are limits on the amount of money. When I asked yesterday about the cuts in home care, the minister tried to defend them, but today I am faced with a constituent who is in St. Clare's Hospital, who cannot go home. The doctors say she needs four hours more of home care, is medically able to be discharged, but she is still occupying an acute care hospital bed because her department will not provide four hours of home care which are recommended in letters by her doctors and her therapists at St. Clare's and are not accepted by her department.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: If the minister wants to save money and run a more efficient health care system, she will have support from me if she is going to do that by providing better home care services and having a more efficient system, but not by user fees on the consumers of health care in this Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize a very important day, that being National Child Day.

Prior to the opening of the House this afternoon, I was pleased to participate with children, their parents, educators and other care providers in the lobby here, in the celebration of National Child Day.

A day such as this demands that we take a moment away from other pressing issues, to celebrate the importance of children and to remind ourselves of their value and rights as individuals.

The adoption of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child was a momentous event in our country's history and one which has had an impact on those who work with children.

As part of the celebrations which were held earlier, the organizers took the opportunity to highlight the variety of programs which have been designed to meet the needs of children and their families within their communities. It is rewarding to realize that these programs assist in ensuring the rights of children.

Mr. Speaker, as a government we have been pleased to be able to provide significant support to children's programs over the past several years. The National Child Benefit Investment/Reinvestment Programs announced in 1998 have resulted in $18 million being available annually to support children's programs. These programs include family resource centres, increased child care subsidies, support infant care centres at three of our high schools in the Province, strengthen other child care services, and support community youth networks.

Our most recent announcement regarding the Early Childhood Development Initiatives, Stepping into the Future, will see an additional $36.6 million invested in children's programs over the next five years.

These programs, likewise, include additions to our family resource centre structures, child care services, establishing early literacy and transition to school programs, early intervention services including autism, and income support initiatives. In the very near future I will be providing further details on how we will invest $5.2 million through this initiative this year.

These programs are significant; yet, they are not able to provide all that children and families need in this Province. This can only be accomplished through effective partnerships with the community and we look forward to continuing the existing partnerships we have and establishing others.

This government realizes the importance of having effective and appropriate programs and services available to our children. That is why we are proceeding in this fall sitting of the Legislature with a bill to establish the Office of the Child Advocate. And, I am pleased that this office will further ensure the rights and interests of children and youth are protected.

The programs which are supported by this government foster the vision of the Strategic Social Plan. Our Strategic Social Plan recognizes that one of the best ways to improve the long-term outcomes for people is to focus on prevention and early intervention, particularly strengthening programs for children and reaching out to young people.

When we celebrate children today, I would also like to acknowledge their parents, their educators and their care providers. On a daily basis these are the people who have the greatest influence on the social, physical and intellectual development of our children.

Finally, in recognition of this day, I am asking my hon. colleagues to, with me, wear a blue ribbon. They will be distributed shortly, and let us all celebrate together children in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Once again we have a statement that sounds really good, but still -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: But still, one out of every four children in this Province today go to school hungry. Clap for that.

The act respecting Child Care Services, which was passed almost three years ago in this Province, mentioned children under the age of twenty-four months; still no regulations so that these children can avail of health care. The minister refers to the strategic social plan. She talks about the strategic social plan recognizing that one of the best ways to improve the long-term outcomes for people is to focus on prevention and early intervention, strengthening programs for the very young, and reaching out early. It sounds wonderful, but once again, no continuum of resources out into the community to see that this plan is put in place for the children out in the community.

The minister refers to a child advocate. Now, the government has been looking for policy - I would suggest to the minister, and to the government, to look at this if you want to talk about a child advocate. For the record, a PC government will immediately establish an Office of the Child Advocate. A PC government will immediately establish a child and youth secretariat which will function within the government as a coordinating body to integrate all services that affect the lives of children and young people, to ensure consistency, sensitivity and communication among the various agencies and departments working for children. How is that for policy? A PC government will put in place a family policy grid so that all legislation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: - so that all legislation, all regulations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS S. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: A PC government will put in place a family policy grid through which all legislation, all regulations, and all government policies will have to pass; and whose basic standards they will have to meet before becoming laws or regulations, or policy of our government. The family policy grid will ensure our decisions advance the interests of children and strengthen the integrity of family in our society. How is that for policy?

A PC government will affirm its commitment to family support services through programs that support family resource centres, child care, home care, services for the disabled, and other resources to help support the families of the working poor. You wanted policy; that was our policy.

Thank you for finally bringing a children's advocate before the House of Assembly for passing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to say that it is all well and good for the minister to rise here today and recognize National Child Day. So she should, Mr. Speaker, given the alarming statistics concerning children in this Province. Statistics such as: one in four children are living in poverty in this Province; 40 per cent of food bank users in this Province are children; one-quarter of our children are going to school hungry. A recent study shows in excess of seventy schools in this Province are in dire need of a meal program. Coupled with what I said yesterday, about a living wage and not a minimum wage, where people can still work hard and still remain in poverty and not be able to provide for their families.

I have to respond also, Mr. Speaker, to the previous speaker. I do not recall child poverty in this Province starting in 1989. I thing child poverty has been around for a long time. It has been around for much too long. I can guarantee you that the resolution that was adopted, unanimously, in our federal House of Commons to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000, still has not been acted upon. There are still more children today in poverty probably than there was when that resolution was enacted. Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has to do more than recognize National Child Day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: - and take definitive action, Mr. Speaker. The minister should be taking action to make sure that the children of this Province have a right to be free from hunger when they attend school and as they are living their lives.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This economic statement that was presented today is yet another sad milestone in the history of this government.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General for this Province has stated that she is extremely concerned about the current state of the finances in our Province. In the spring Budget which was presented in this hon. House, the government stated that $30.5 million would be a prudent and a fiscally manageable target. The Opposition told the people of this Province, at that time, that the numbers did not add up and that, in fact, the deficit would be significantly higher. Again, prior to September 11, the Opposition critic for Finance told the people of this Province again that the numbers did not add up and that the deficit would be significantly higher. Today, we are told that the deficit will increase nearly threefold, to $80 million.

My question is for the Premier. The people of this Province were asked to trust your judgement in the spring when you delivered your Budget and you were wrong. Should they trust it now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In following with the tactic from yesterday, in which I understand you would like yes or no answers, the answer to that is yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first answered question by the Premier. Thank you Mr. Premier.

Mr. Speaker, in fact the Auditor General has also said that she is concerned with the manner in which the government is calculating its surplus and its deficit. She further said that she is concerned that government can adjust its actual revenues and expenditures to achieve whatever number it desires; whatever number it desires. I ask the Premier again: Should the people of Newfoundland and Labrador trust these numbers when the Auditor General of this Province clearly does not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Leader of the Opposition check again with the commentary of the Auditor General. The Auditor General has confirmed that all of the documentation done by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is in accordance with accepted accounting practices under the Financial Administration Act of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: So, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that a lawyer and a businessman would not want to mislead anybody on a point as important and as clear as that, because it is a fact that standard accounting practices under the Financial Administration Act of Newfoundland and Labrador have always been used by this government, and that has been attested to and confirmed by the Auditor General.

Mr. Speaker, what is telling though, in the commentary of the Opposition from the very beginning, because the Finance Minister laid out the causes of the variation from $30 million to $80 million. Thirty million of it is a public sector raise - that we are very proud of - that you do not agree with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Now, come clean and acknowledge, first and foremost, and stand up and be a man and declare something for goodness sake, because you cannot turn around and condemn the $30 million and, at the same time, suggest that you support the long overdue increase for the public servants of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: We are proud of that, Mr. Speaker. We know it has added $30 million to the deficit. The Minister of Finance and myself, as the Premier, acknowledged that to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the very day that we signed the agreement. So if you would like to call that mismanagement, giving the people of the Province who work as public servants and provide the actual services a 15 per cent increase, than sobeit, we will test that in the court of public opinion any time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember using the word mismanagement. I think the Premier used the word mismanagement. I happen to use the exact words as the Auditor General used and I quoted her verbatim, directly word by word.

I understand that the Premier considers words to be very important. I noticed in the economic statement, which was read by the minister today, "...the impacts of the economic downturn have been compounded by the September 11 terrorist attacks." The Minister of Finance, some months ago, said: We would be silly and we would be foolish, and we would be irresponsible not to acknowledge the impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks on our economy.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Leader to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Subsequent to that statement, the Premier said: September 11 would have no affect on our economy. My question for the Premier: Who is silly, foolish, or irresponsible, the Premier or the Minister of Finance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition suggests he would never use the word mismanagement. Let me quote from a speech to the St. John's Board of Trade on November 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me quote, Mr. Speaker. A direct quote.

AN HON. MEMBER: It depends on the day does it, Danny?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: It does depend on the day, and every day is important in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Leader of the Opposition in speaking to the Board of Trade: You have heard our party position on fiscal mismanagement. A week before the September 11 tragedy our finance critic, Loyola Sullivan, was calling on Minister Aylward for a six month report card because we could see the Province was in a much deeper financial hole than it was telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Now, Mr. Speaker, the real answer is this: These people, the employees of the provincial government, the business community, the consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador, the bond raters and the lenders have all said that there is no fiscal mismanagement in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they have every confidence in what this government has done year over year, and again this year, in handling the finances of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the Premier that I did not use the word mismanagement today. Believe me, Premier, ministers, and Minister of Finance, you are going to hear the word mismanagement time and time and time again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve to get the truth. They do not want books that are cooked up, they need to get the cold, hard facts. They do not mind the truth. They do not need the books juggled; they do not need them cooked up.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, you and I know where this Province is headed financially. The Minister of Finance knows. I ask the Premier to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: What is the forecast for next year? Will the deficit be $100 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rain.

MR. WILLIAMS: Rain! Is that the comment? This is a very serious question. Did someone say rain?

Will the deficit be $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, or $400 million as suggested by the finance critic?

Tell us the truth, Premier, just give us the straight goods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the reputation of the Leader of the Opposition is that he likes to get things done and get on with life. Come back in March and we will give you all the information in next year's Budget, every bit of it, every single bit. That is when we present the Budget for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will do that, and we will present a Budget every bit as good as the Budget we presented this year, and it will show two things. It will show, as this year is showing, that those things that we control are completely and totally under control, which was my answer to the media, because the media said: Mr. Williams - because he was outside the Legislature at the time - has been saying that there is fiscal mismanagement and there is a crisis.

I was saying: No, that is not the case. For the things that we control, they are completely under control and there will not be negative impacts on the economic circumstance in Newfoundland and Labrador.

You have heard the numbers. The housing starts have not collapsed in Newfoundland and Labrador. All of the consumer confidence has not dissipated and disappeared in Newfoundland and Labrador. The parts where we raise money ourselves in this economy are strong. There are some adjustments that are happening throughout North America, happening with the Government of Canada, and now playing out in our Province; because we do, unfortunately, still get almost half of our revenue from another source, being the Government of Canada. We do not have control over that and the bond raters, the lenders, the business community, consumers, they understand that. We might hear mismanagement from the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly, but we will not hear it from the employees, we will not hear it from the business community, we will not hear it from the consumers, we will not hear it from the bond raters, and we will not hear it from the lenders, so his lonely voice -

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - can go ahead and continue on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has indicated that we will get the full story in March. We did not get it this past March. We are getting a different story today. Why should we expect the same story - a true one - next March?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: My question today is to the Minister of Finance.

Other Canadian provinces, and the Canadian government, are pursuing tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The same is true across the United States. In fact, economists tell us, and history has shown, that tax cuts increase consumer spending. In view of what is happening today, and all around us, I ask the minister: Has she changed her mind and will she bring in the scheduled personal income tax cuts that she had promised to bring in on January 1, 2000?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just delivered a statement on the economic status of the Province a few moments ago, and I announced for the second time that we would be deferring the tax cut this year for obvious reasons. I would like to take a moment to explain those.

I have spoken with economists at our last meeting with the federal Minister of Finance, who made a comment which I think is important for the people of the Province to hear: Unless you are prepared to put huge and significant amounts into the economy, you will not generate short-term growth in your economy.

Mr. Speaker, we have generated long-term growth in our economy. We have put $200 million back into our economy through two years of tax cuts and we will do that, as we have said, honestly, openly, to the people of the Province, when we can afford it. But, when every minute of every day you hear: more money for health care - and even yesterday the Member for Ferryland asking for more money for the roads to pave Ferryland road - we have to make choices. We are responsible, and I have to say it is easy to be irresponsible. It is easy when you do not have the courage to put forward your own policies, to ask for everything. We, Mr. Speaker, will be responsible and we will continue to prudently manage our finances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the short-term parochial thinking that got us into this problem in the first place. The minister just gave notice in the House yesterday that she is now getting rid of the Economic Advisory Council. That should tell us something, Minister, I might add. There is a bill before this House; you are going to get rid of it. Do you have bad advice, I ask the minister? All employment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: If she wants advice, we will give her good advice, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: All employment growth in the Province this year has been in the service sector, and that is a sector that responds to consumer spending. That is due to a stimulus given by lower interest rates and by tax cuts. In fact, it has also contributed to a reduction in expenditures on social assistance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member get to his question, please.

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister - tax cuts today reap benefits down the road. You have to look beyond your nose to get the economy moving. Why is the minister being penny-wise and pound foolish in dealing with our Province's fiscal situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, in fact the opposite is true from what the member has just said about being penny-wise and pound foolish. Mr. Speaker, we have not eliminated any cuts. Remember, we have injected over $200 million into the economy with the first two years of the tax cut. We have not eliminated those tax cuts. They will continue on and accumulate.

Further, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to implement the third year when we have said we will be able to afford it. We are not doing anything different than what we said. We said each year we would look at our own situation.

Mr. Speaker, being able to account for $25 million when these members every other day are saying: more money for drugs, more money for home care, more money for cardiac surgery, more money for roads being paved, and on and on it goes. Someone has to pay the bills and we are the responsible elected officials, as government, that must assume responsibility. We have our policies. They are here for everyone to see. It is easy, Mr. Speaker, to ask for everything when you are not responsible to anyone and you do not have the courage to put your policies down. Let us see where they would spend the money. Let us see what they would do. We are all anxiously waiting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, the minister just does not see the benefits of instituting cuts and getting a long-term result. I want to remind the minister that the first two years of the personal income tax cuts in this Province saw the Province take in $76 million more in income tax revenue than at the higher level. Why is the minister now trying to put a damper on consumer spending at a time when it is needed most?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, thank God we are not going to admit and believe and try to convince the people that the sky is falling, because it is not falling. Our consumer confidence remains strong, we have the best employment levels since 1989, our housing starts are up, consumer spending is strong. I am sorry, but we on this side of the House are not going to agree that the sky is falling. We have confidence in our Province, but we live in the real world.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Allow the minister to conclude her answer.

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

We live in the real world. We know that our finance, our economy, is depending on two components: our provincial economy and the federal economy. We are very dependent on that, Mr. Speaker, on both. We are confident in our provincial economy, and we remain optimistic, but we have to be realistic about what is happening in the country and the world. We are impacted by the federal government but, most importantly, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, we are impacted by what happens in the United States of America as our major export partner.

We remain confident, and we urge the members opposite to instill confidence and not instill ‘the sky is falling' mentality, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past year, Mr. Speaker, has been one of great uncertainty in the fishing industry. We have witnessed some consolidation in this industry. While there are many concerned about overcapacity and overcapitalization of this industry, we see the minister encouraging and licensing the building of more. Now, Mr. Speaker, it appears that Fishery Products International is in the process of acquiring ownership of a significant player in this industry, Quinlan's.

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture inform this House and the people of this Province what he knows about FPI's move to take over Quinlan's or any other operator in this Province, and how that fits into provincial fisheries policy?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question, and I also appreciate some of the things that he mentioned in the preamble about overcapacity. Just on Friday past, he criticized me for issuing a licence to the Town of Twillingate to do shrimp because, he said, there was an overcapacity in the shrimp processing sector. That same day, in the same press release, he said that I should issue a crab licence to St. Anthony. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the crab industry right now has thirty-two crab processing licences for 51,000 metric tons of crabs. There are eleven shrimp licences out there for 60,000 tons of shrimp. So he talks about overcapacity one day - and it seems to be a trend that has developed on the opposite side in the last couple of months, that they say one thing outside the House and say something totally different inside the House. So it is a bit difficult, Mr. Speaker, to react to a question that they ask.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there has been a rumor out there in the industry this year that FPI is looking at purchasing Quinlan Brothers. Right now all I know is that it is a rumor, and I would rather not speculate on rumors.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what the minister is talking about, a press release that I put out on Friday, because I certainly did not put out a press release on Friday. I did do an interview on Thursday with CBC.

Mr. Speaker, last winter the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite are not interested in hearing the questions I have to ask, the people of the Province are interested in having these questions answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last winter, Mr. Speaker, the minister announced plans for a review of the fish processing licence policy in this Province. Since I can see no evidence of this happening thus far, I would like for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to inform us if this review is taking place and how people in the industry can have input into this review.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I did say there was a review ongoing in the processing sector of the industry. I also appointed a panel to look at the corporate consolidation within the industry, and next week I hope to announce another panel to look at the shrimp processing sector of our industry.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been out around the Province. We have been consulting with all the stakeholders in the industry, and we will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, on a final supplementary.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask this question, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister explain - because I don't understand where he is going in this department, and he doesn't know where he is going with it either, by the way - will the minister explain how government policy apparently allows for the building of more capacity in an industry that is plagued by overcapacity, and allows consolidation in that same industry because he feels that consolidation needs to happen, and there is too much capacity in the industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I would like the gentleman opposite to answer for me is: What is his stand on this issue? One day in the same interview - I apologize, because I said it was a press release - but in the same interview on CBC Radio on Friday, the gentleman opposite condemned me for issuing a licence because he said there was too much capacity in the industry. In that same interview, Mr. Speaker, he asked for a licence for St. Anthony which would increase the capacity in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, he talks about not having a plan. The last plan that I heard from the members opposite was in their Blue Book of 1996, when they proposed to open seventy-five fishplants during a moratorium.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Government Services and Lands and concerns the proposed changes to automobile insurance in the Province.

The minister has stated that with the removal of the right to sue for most injuries from automobile accidents, the government would consider mandating an immediate reduction in third-party liability rates estimated at 35 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, at the same time we have the insurance industry going around the Province telling people that these changes would not reduce in any reduction of rates for consumers but rather might prevent increases. Who is providing the proper information to the people of the Province? Is the minister's department misleading the people of the Province, or are we getting the full truth from the insurance companies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the industry is saying is that if you restrict the right to sue you would reduce rates by approximately 35 per cent from what they would otherwise be. They are not saying that they would be reduced from what they are today because they might increase between now and the time that it would be brought in; if it were brought in. We are not saying we are going to bring that in. We are asking citizens if they want to do something like that in order to try to control interest rates. We are being told by the industry that rates are going to increase somewhere between 30 per cent and 50 per cent over the next several years, and our government wants to see if there are some options which we can suggest or bring in to ensure that insurance rates do not rise any more than necessary in our Province. The other side, Mr. Speaker, has no solutions. They have no suggestions. They have no options to present. All they are saying is do nothing. Well, if we do nothing people are going to have substantial increases in their insurance rates, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister's press release of November 14 says exactly: "If the restricted tort option were to be adopted, government could mandate an immediate reduction in third-party liability rates, estimated at 35 per cent."

That is a quote from the minister, Mr. Speaker. Not that they might not increase by 35 per cent, but that they will be reduced. Will the minister, if he wants to support this option, come out and say it and have people answer him instead of pretending to have no position and expecting the people of the Province to come up with the answer?

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province want to be able to sue if they have injuries, whether they are automobile drivers, whether they are passengers, whether they are bicyclists, whether they are third-parties. Why does this minister do the bidding of the insurance industry and issue information which is misleading to the public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the people of the Province want to continue to have the right to sue, they will continue to have the right to sue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: All we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is trying to find out if there any ways that we can do something to reduce the increases in insurance rates that the industry and our own regulators are telling us will occur. Now, I don't know what is wrong with the logic of the hon. member. What we are saying is that if we were to bring in this kind of system then we would legislate, at the time, to ensure that there will be a reduction at that time. That does not mean there will be a reduction from what the prices are now because we do not know what the prices might be at the time such a system would be brought; which would not happen until, at the earliest, about four to six months time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have time for one quick question and one quick answer.

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

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. The latest stats, released this past summer, show a dismal profile of child poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador. Child poverty rates for all provinces, except in Newfoundland and Labrador, have decreased in recent years. On National Child Day, Mr. Minister, can you inform the House as to what new initiatives your government is adopting to ensure that our children are not robbed of their basic birth right to adequate food, adequate shelter, and adequate clothing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome the question from the hon. member opposite, and I think it is a good day to raise this question. No doubt, of late, we have seen the reports that have been carried in the media pointing to the problems of child poverty. Nobody in this country is happy if we have one child who is hungry or one child living in poverty. Certainly we, within this government and within this Province, have been making tremendous efforts over the last number of years to introduce initiatives directly geared towards reducing, and eventually eliminating, child poverty. I look at things like the National Child Benefit, the Newfoundland Child Benefit. I look at the fact that we have extended drug card coverage to families of low income to enable them to get into the workforce, to increase their earning power.

The real solution, Mr. Speaker, is to get at the economic development in this Province and get to the point where everyone, who wants to, can have a meaningful job. That is the challenge that we face. That is the direction and the commitment of this government. I can say to the hon. member, just look at and pay attention to what is happening in the Province and you will see -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. SMITH: - that there are, in fact, some very significant initiatives that have been undertaken. This government is proud of what they have done, but we will not rest until child poverty is eliminated in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has now concluded.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I rise in my place today to move the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS the residents of dozens of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador rely on ferries for transportation; and

WHEREAS seven of the twelve government-owned vessels in the ferry fleet are older than twenty-five years of age; and

WHEREAS the normal life expectancy of a ferry vessel is about twenty-five years as reported by the Auditor General in her 2000 annual report; and

WHEREAS there has not been a significant upgrade of the Province's fleet of marine vessels since 1993, with the exception of the Captain Earl Winsor and the Ahelaid;and

WHEREAS the Captain Earl Winsor, purchased from the Government of Canada for $300,000 in October of 1997 when it was twenty-five years old, required refit to meet Canadian standards and departmental requirements at a total cost of $3.6 million to date; and

WHEREAS the Ahelaid, purchased from Estonia for $764,000 plus $166,000 in custom duties in May of 1999 when it was thirteen years old, also required refit, which is not yet complete and which will cost in excess of $4.1 million; and

WHEREAS many in the Province who rely on ferries are often deprived of acceptable ferry service or any ferry service at all because the vessels are broken down or unable to operate ; and

WHEREAS the provincial government in the 1980s, while following a policy of constructing ferries at the Marystown Shipyard, built the Gallipoli, the Beaumont Hamel and the Flanders and planned to build a sister ship to the Flanders, though that project was cancelled after the Liberal government was elected in 1989; and

WHEREAS constructing modern ferries at the Marystown Shipyard instead of purchasing old and derelict vessels would ensure the Province has a reliable fleet while also revitalizing the struggling local shipbuilding industry, stimulating spinoff economic activity, increasing employment and boosting provincial government revenues;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House call upon the provincial government to implement a vessel replacement policy of constructing new ferries at shipyards in Newfoundland and Labrador instead of purchasing vessels from outside the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I present in the House today a petition, the prayer of which reads:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to petition the House of Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of water from this Province.

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

Mr. Speaker, I fully support this petition. We have petitions today from a number of areas throughout the Province and we continue to receive these petitions on a daily basis, almost. The people of this Province do not want this resource shipped out in bulk. The people of this Province want this resource bottled and processed in this Province to give maximum benefit to the people of this Province, to provide the jobs in this Province, to provide the spinoffs, possibly bottling, manufacturing, transportation of the product, in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to continue to let our royal resources go out of this Province without maximum benefit to the people of this Province. That is what the people on this petition are asking for, Mr. Premier. No more, no less. They are asking that maximum benefits from our resources go to the people who own the resources, the people of this Province. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador own this resource. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are asking for their fair share of the resource, which is maximum benefits, jobs, royalties and whatever else comes with the resource.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move some first readings today.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teacher Training Act," carried. (Bill 21)

On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act." (Bill 28)

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Economic Advisory Council Act." (Bill 31)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 40)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2." (Bill 50)

On motion, Bills 28, 31, 40, and 50 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act." (Bill 22)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Farm Practices In The Province." (Bill 41)

On motion, Bills 22 and 41 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate." (Bill 46)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act." (Bill 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Care Association Act, Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical Nurses Act." (Bill 23)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Child Care Services Act." (Bill 53)

On motion, Bills 46, 26, 23, and 53 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act," carried. (Bill 42)

On motion, Bill 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act." (Bill 39)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law To Consider Same Sex Cohabiting Partners In The Same Manner As Opposite Sex Cohabiting Partners." (Bill 36)

On motion, Bills 39 and 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act," carried. (Bill 24)

On motion, Bill 24 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Endangered Species." (Bill 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act." (Bill 56)

On motion, Bills 33 and 56 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act," carried. (Bill 25)

On motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, that concludes first readings for today.

MR. SPEAKER: Are we now clear that all the bills that need first reading have received first reading?

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 7, continuing on with the debate of Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Dental Act.

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a couple of comments on this amendment. I think it is a bill that is long overdue. It provides an opportunity for dentists in the Province to operate in a business fashion, in a manner in which they would normally carry on their practices, and provides some excellent benefits for them in terms of maximizing their revenue potential.

Also, Mr. Speaker, one of the other significant things it does is, it provides a good opportunity for us to have a better access to recruitment strategies and also it is an excellent retention strategy for dentists in the Province. I commend the minister for introducing these amendments.

Just to make a couple of points for the minister's consideration, I appreciate her comments in the introduction with respect to not wanting to limit the liability and the ability for residents of the Province to be able to sue, should there be some malpractice charges against dentists. However, I am not really certain in section 25.7(2), whether or not it is actually clear, whether or not you would sue the corporation or you would sue the individual practitioner. That is a question on which I ask the minister for some clarification.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would just comment for the minister's clarification, whether or not there is a piece of companion legislation in the Medical Care Insurance Act, whether that needs to give some consideration to the ability of these corporations to be able to bill MCP in the same fashion as the physicians would. If you recall, last year there was an amendment to the act to provide for a professional medical corporation to, in fact, bill, and this is an entity that has a different legal name and I just question the minister whether or not there is that ability. I suggest you may want to consider whether that is an ability there to, in fact, bill under MCP in the same fashion as physicians might in the Province.

Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister for having introduced these amendments.

Thank you.

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

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

I, too, wish to stand and speak on this particular bill, An Act To Amend The Dental Act. I note that last year I was part of some consultations that led to a submission by the Newfoundland Dental Association on this particular matter. Mr. Speaker, this will assist the dental profession to become more competitive in comparison with their colleagues across the country. As was said yesterday, this will assist in the retention of medical specialists, dentists in particular, in our Province.

I am told that this will certainly help in the recruitment and will help in the retention of dental specialists, and anything that we can do to assist in that regard is to be commended and to be encouraged. It also puts this Province on a level playing field in comparison with the practice in other provinces, particularly in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba. I should say that most of the other provinces are now considering similar legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we commend the minister. She has consulted adequately with the dental profession and we, on this side, support this piece of legislation because it is very positive and because it will assist, in particular, with the retention and recruitment of dental specialists throughout all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

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

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated in my opening comments with this particular bill, this brings us much more in line with the rest of the provinces across the country. I believe there are eight other provinces that have this provision for incorporation for dentists.

As the Member for Waterford Valley indicated, this is intended to respond to the requests from the Newfoundland Dental Association and from dentists, and it will provide income tax relief, particularly for specialists who are very, very difficult to recruit, and this will be an added benefit for our health boards and for our communities in trying to attract dentists to our Province.

There are some questions which the Member for Trinity North had indicated. I am sure at the next level of debate I will be able to provide the responses to those particulars, but this is a well-developed piece of legislation, as has been indicated through considerable consultation, and I understand that it is well accepted by dentists throughout the Province as well as from all of the other stakeholders.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, " An Act To Amend The Dental Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. ( Bill 32)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Respect The Practice of Massage Therapy. (Bill 38)

Motion, second reading of a bill, " An Act Respecting The Practice of Massage Therapy." (Bill 38)

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Massage Therapy Act which we are bringing forward at this time.

The purpose of this piece of legislation is to govern the practice of massage therapy in this Province. Of course, the effects of this legislation would provide for self-regulation status for the Newfoundland and Labrador Massage Therapists Association.

This organization represents about seventy-five members in this Province, many of whom have voluntarily written exams in order to allow them to be registered in British Columbia or in Ontario. By doing so, they have proven that they possess the skills to work in these regulated areas, and they are very similar to the standards that we are trying to attain here.

The remaining members of the Association who have not actually achieved this particular level of credential have been required to pass an admission examination given by the organization, which is very similar in its level and standards.

Members of the Massage Therapists Association, by virtue of being part of that Association, have to adhere to standards of practice. They have to carry professional liability insurance, continue their education and so on; however, membership in the organization is voluntary and the most severe disciplinary action that the Association can take is simply to cancel a therapist's membership.

For a number of years, the Massage Therapists Association has been requesting of government to provide legislation to govern the practice of massage therapy in this Province. This is one of the most fast-growing areas of health in the Province. In fact, membership in the Massage Therapists Association has grown by 600 per cent in the past five years.

While government has approved a training program for the profession, at the current time it simply does not regulate it and graduates are able to begin practicing without the safeguard of an independent examination and therefore without having that level of public accountability.

Given that people, of course, refer themselves - it is a self-referral system - the provincial government and the Massage Therapists Association have strong concerns that patients may access therapists who do not have the proper qualifications. The legislation that I am bringing forward today will help to ensure that only qualified professionals are involved in this increasingly popular health care profession. It will also see that disciplinary actions are open to the Association and the licensing board should a massage therapist fail to comply within these guidelines.

What the legislation provides for is a tripartite committee which includes Government Services and Lands, Health and Community Services, and the Association. It has used the White Paper on new proposals for occupational regulations to assess this proposal from the Massage Therapists Association.

The paper that was brought forward relating to self-governance concluded that this particular profession certainly does warrant self-regulation. The association has received support for their request from a number of other self-regulated professionals, including the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This legislation, I might add, is quite consistent with our labor mobility provisions for the practice of massage therapy, which are being developed nationally in accordance with chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade. So this means that standards that are outlined by the association are consistent with those in other provinces and there will be no difficulty in complying with our standards around labour mobility and, for people who are trained and practicing here, to be able to move from one province to another.

Massage therapy is currently regulated in Ontario and British Columbia. The professional associations in a number of other provinces are also moving on this track to try, as well, to gain status and to become self-regulated. Therefore, I think this is a positive move that will provide something that the Massage Therapists' Association has certainly earned in terms of its approach to date and will provide a level of public protection to consumers and people in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I introduce it at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER ( M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have been speaking to a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Massage Therapists' Association re this bill and, as the minister said, they are extremely pleased that it is finally being brought before the House of Assembly. It has been a goal of theirs since their inception some eleven years ago when they began with just five massage therapists. Now, with the education of so many people in the massage therapy field, obviously there is certainly a need for greater regulation, which will give protection to the massage therapists as well as a great level of comfort to the consumers of massage therapy, who certainly realize the wonderful therapeutic effects of massage therapy.

I note that section 5, the board that will be established under this act, will examine all degrees, diplomas, licences and other credentials of an applicant; prescribe continuing education, examinations; approve registration and issue licences to persons who meet the requirements; and establish procedures to deal with the disciplinary requirements under the act.

It is nice to see that they will be self-regulated. It will certainly provide a protection for them, enhance their qualifications and, as I said before, provide a great level of comfort to the people out in the community.

As a protection to massage therapists and to consumers again, "A person other than a massage therapist registered and licenced under this Act shall not use the title "massage therapist" or an abbreviation or variation of that title." Once again, that is good. Once this bill has been passed and legislation is in order, any consumer who is using massage therapy will be protected. They will know that the person is, in fact, a licenced therapist.

Section 8 of the act - and I really like this part, "For the purposes of registration and the issuance of a licence under this Act, the board shall recognize and approve examinations and schools of or pertaining to massage therapy and shall make provisions for the holding of examinations as it may consider necessary for those purposes, but the standards of the examinations and schools recognized and approved and of the examinations held shall not be lower than the standards prescribed by the Canadian Massage Therapy Alliance." That is certainly good for the massage therapists and good for the consumers as well, because it puts the massage therapists of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on a par with their counterparts on the mainland.

Another part that I like to refer to is the grandfather clause, and that is for the protection of those people who have been practicing massage therapy prior to being educated formally. Section 9.(2), "A person shall not practice or perform massage therapy in the province after one year from the coming into force of this Act unless he or she is registered and licensed under section 8." Notwithstanding this subsection, a person who has "practiced massage therapy in the province for not fewer than 7 years immediately before the coming into force of this Act" shall be recognized as a massage therapist. If they have "been a member of the association; and have completed courses of instruction and have practical experience that the board considers to be equivalent to the requirements of paragraph 8" which lay down the requirements for being licensed as a massage therapist.

"The board shall appoint at least 3 members of the board, at least one of whom shall be a member of the board who was appointed to represent the public interest..." This is re complaints to the disciplinary panel which will be handled fairly by the appointment of a member who will represent the public interest.

I have no problem in speaking to this act and I am certainly sure that I will have no problem in voting.

Thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise and have a few words of support on Bill 38.

Madam Speaker, basically what this bill does is assists the Newfoundland and Labrador Massage Therapists' Association within our Province to basically streamline their organization and also to streamline the actual industry itself in terms of an overall association and licencing procurement process.

At the present time, Madam Speaker, as was already indicated by others who spoke on this bill, there is no regulation within the industry. It is very difficult to be able to track the number of massage therapists that are currently operating within our Province. No doubt, our statistics tell us that the Career Academy itself which offered a Massage Therapy course between 1995 and 1999 have graduated up to twenty-five people every six months. I think those are remarkable numbers.

The industry itself has grown by 600 per cent in membership in the last five years. That is certainly an indication of the caliber of service and business that is being offered throughout our Province within this particular sector.

Madam Speaker, this is an industry in which we have seen tremendous growth. We have seen great participation from the public in the use of these types of services across the Province. What the Newfoundland and Labrador Massage Therapists' Association is basically asking for is that they have an overall association that will allow them to put in place different licensing practices for their members and for the people that are operating. That is what government is doing in the passing of this bill. Basically, they are allowing them to set certain standards for the delivery of these types of services and those standards, no doubt, will fall in line with what is being done in other provinces at this particular time, in the Province of Ontario and the Province of British Columbia. Madam Speaker, there are other provinces across the country that are endeavoring to pass similar legislation or to put together similar legislation in order to have regulatory status for massage therapists in their provinces as well.

Because the massage therapy services in the Province are mostly self regulated, the request by professionals to have an actual association that would regulate and license them as an entire body, will certainly enhance the service to the public and also enhance them as an organization.

I certainly support this particular bill, especially in light of the growth that we have seen within this particular sector all across the Province. Certainly, I am sure many of us here, and around the Province, have availed of the services that are being provided by these particular businesses. We know how important it is that we have good licensed professional services and we take comfort in knowing, and the public takes comfort in knowing, that when they do avail of the services of this particular industry that they will be doing so knowing that all the safeguards have certainly been put in place and that what they are getting is no doubt a first-class service that has been regulated by those individuals themselves who are within the industry.

I guess, in order to ensure the safety of the public, the association will have elected professional members of their governing body or council, and they will certainly be responsible for overseeing and administering this particular organization. All the massage therapists who will be enrolled as members of this association, which will be all of them who operate within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, will have that level of comfort in knowing that any cases they had will certainly be heard by a peer review process of council that will make sure that they adhere to all the standards of practice.

So I think this is, no doubt, a very important bill and a bill that is required and has been requested by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Massage Therapists. I am pleased today to support the minister and government in the passage of this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Madam Speaker, I would just like to make a couple of comments about the bill. I welcome it's introduction. As we have heard several speakers comment on, it does provide for good public protection. I guess it raises the question, Madam Speaker, in terms of, we have a diverse number of people entering the health profession, and health providers, in recent years. I think it speaks to the notion that we need to be very careful in ensuring that we introduce legislation very quickly to make sure that we provide that kind of protection to the consumer.

This association has been in existence since the 1990s and, inasmuch as it is welcoming to see the legislation now, I guess it poses the question in and around how we license health providers and how we provide protection to the consumer.

I think, Madam Speaker, the minister might be advised to start looking at some umbrella legislation that protects consumers and ensures that, before anybody - because we are not certain what will be the next emerging profession providing health services and we need to have some umbrella piece of legislation to ensure that the consumer and the public is protected from anybody who may want to just hang a shingle and decide they are going to practice some form of medicine.

The other comment I would make is more in the form of, I guess, a query of the minister. The legislation does deal with the issue of registration and the issue of those people who are currently in practice, Madam Speaker. The other question that would arise I think, Madam Speaker, is for those people who may be registered outside of the Province. The legislation speaks to the issue of registration of those who are practicing in the Province and may be licensed with some other agency or some other jurisdiction. I think the issue here is one of what might be an issue of registration for those who might be in other jurisdictions.

Just a couple of comments or suggestions for the minister.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services. If the minister speaks now, she will close the debate.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am very pleased - oh, I am sorry!

MADAM SPEAKER: I am sorry! The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I don't think I was able to catch your eye before the minister closed debate inadvertently, and I thank her for taking her place and allowing me to speak to this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the legislation before the House respecting and regulating the practice of massage therapy is something that I think is important in this Province. I should say, I suppose, that the massage therapist professionals are very lucky in some respects. They are a relatively new health professional group in this Province, particularly in offering services to the public, and they are already receiving recognition through legislation, through this bill before the House.

I know that some other professionals who have been around for decades, Madam Speaker, such as the social workers, who probably for decades themselves were lobbying government and in some cases fighting with government - not this government but previous governments - to seek recognition as an independent group of professionals. We had many people who had a master's degree in social work, a bachelor of social work program at Memorial University for fifteen years or more. We had people acting in government with social work degrees, and yet they had great difficulty getting the government to recognize them as an independent professional group entitled to self-regulation, entitled to the exclusive use of the term social work, in their case, entitling them to be the ones who are in charge of the designation; in other words, able to establish the educational standards by which to give a designation of social worker.

As I say, Madam Speaker, there were other groups who had equal difficulty. The chiropractors, for example, had a great deal of difficulty getting recognition in the Province as professionals. The denturists were another group who had some difficulty, perhaps because there was fear by other professionals, such as the doctors and dentists in both of those last two cases, that there may be some turf wars going on or they did not want others to be recognized as professionals.

Here is a group, Madam Speaker, which I think has very good reasons for recognition as a separate professional group because it is an area where it would be easy for someone to hold themselves out as a massage therapist. It would be easy for someone to just say that they are offering massage services to the public without the necessary training, without the necessary expertise, and in a field, Madam Speaker, where it is quite possible to, in fact, inflict harm on a patient receiving massage therapy if the therapist is not well trained and does not know what they are doing. There have been cases, not in this Province thankfully, where the actions of a massage therapist, without knowing a medical or physical problem that the patient had, in fact caused very serious harm, and can cause very serious harm.

It is important that there be protection of the public, which is the purpose of the type of regulation and registration that we are talking about, but it is also important that we have a group that is going to be able to regulate internally the profession, respond to complaints from members of the public about quality of service or other ethical issues, and to establish standards of practice for the profession of massage therapy.

I should say, Madam Speaker, there has been some considerable debate in the past number of years about the profession of massage therapists. I recall four or five years ago, or not as long ago as that, when we had a course being offered by a private training institution which was offering a course in massage therapy, and when there was no registration in this Province they sent their students to Ontario to take the Ontario board exams. Many of them came back, Madam Speaker, having failed those exams, unable to qualify according to the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, and those practicing massage therapy in this Province would hold themselves out as RMTs or Registered Massage Therapists. They were registered, but not in this Province. They were registered in Ontario, because Ontario and British Columbia were the only provinces that had a designation, a registration system for Registered Massage Therapists.

There was a concern that this government's response to the crisis when the Career Academy went bankrupt as a result of the bankrupt policies of this government in promoting post-secondary education through the private sector without placing adequate controls and supervision, there was a great problem because the students who had paid in many cases as much as $22,000 or more to the Career Academy to get proper designation, there was a concern about the quality of education that they received.

Now, I have not had the kind of consultation with the registered massage therapy group or other interested stakeholders of this, as I would like to have, Madam Speaker. The reason that I have not and I suspect that most members have not is because this government has chosen not to use our Legislation Review Committee system that has been in place in this House for many years and in fact was in very widespread use a number of years ago.

I recall sitting on a committee, the Social Legislation Review Committee, when we looked at the Social Workers Registration Act. I recall sitting on a Legislation Review Committee when we looked at the Chiropractors Registration Act and we heard from the chiropractors, we heard from others, we heard from members of the public, and we had hearings where it was explained to us how this registration of the professional group would protect the public, and whether or not certain people would be grandfathered in or grandmothered in, as the case may be, because of their particular training that may or may not have met the standard that was being -

AN HON. MEMBER: Grandparenting.

MR. HARRIS: Grandparenting. The Member for Lake Melville has the generic term grandparented in. It is a rather awkward phrase, Madam Speaker, so I would rather use grandfathering or grandmothering. Just as I say Madam Speaker instead of the generic Speaker, I guess we could leave out madam or mister and just say Speaker.

Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, we have had in the past the Legislation Review Committees of this House so we are not faced with thirty or forty pieces of legislation in what will be, I believe, twelve sitting days in which we are able to deal with legislation in this House and committees will have had an opportunity to review the legislation clause by clause and help the House to make the legislation better.

My own experience on these committees, these Legislation Review Committees, is that there have been areas where the legislation is found to be deficient and the legislation has in fact been improved before it comes to the House, with recommendations for amendments that the government has seen the wisdom of because the act itself has been deficient in some way, or that there is something that the minister or the minister's officials had not thought of, or something that had not been fully considered.

I think, Madam Speaker, as time goes on I would hope that this government will see the wisdom of reconsidering the use of Legislation Review Committees. I did not hear all of the minister's speech because I was asked to answer some questions of the media outside of the House, but I understand the Registered Massage Therapists Association is satisfied with the legislation and I am sure that they are probably very grateful with the speed at which the department and the minister has responded to the request to have the massage therapy registration act put into place.

I do wish to commend the minister on responding to this group of health professionals in a much more timely fashion than some of those others who have been around a lot longer, such as the chiropractors and social workers who had to wait many, many years for the kind of recognition that the massage therapists have been given.

I do have some experience, Madam Speaker, in the use of massage therapy for aliments, and I do have to say that I am pleased with the quality of care that is provided by Registered Massage Therapists. I am speaking in particular of those who have achieved the registration standards that were in place. I guess, in default of having our own registration system, individuals who received training in massage therapy would advertise the fact or hold themselves out as being RMTs, which really means Registered Massage Therapist, but they were actually registered in Ontario. Ontario was, in fact, providing the standard for this Province and other provinces as well.

I would hope, and perhaps the minister can assure us in her closing remarks at second reading, that we will have no less of a standard in this Province through the education requirements that are being expected, that the licensing issued by the Registered Massage Therapist organization in this Province will adopt and will approve, and we will have no less of a high standard for Registered Massage Therapists in this Province as the Province of Ontario has had for many years. Perhaps the minister can tell us what dealings they may have with the College of Massage Therapists in Ontario, for example, who have been operating for many years, and other boards throughout the country, so we can be assured that we will not have a watering down of standards but rather a comparable standard, a standard that is based on consultation with other boards across the country who are establishing standards for massage therapists such as we do in the legal profession, for example, in the medical profession and others who have national bodies by which they have comparisons for mobility, for example, where a person who is registered in Ontario as a massage therapist may be recognized here. Will a massage therapist who is recognized in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, be recognized in the Province of Ontario? I would hope that would be the case, that we would reciprocal arrangements so that a person who is trained as a Registered Massage Therapist in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is registered by this organization. If that person decides to move to Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta, will there be and are there going to be reciprocal arrangements whereby massage therapists can practice their profession in these other provinces without undue restrictions on that practice? If the minister has not already dealt with that, I hope that she can deal with that in her closing remarks at second reading.

In summary, Madam Speaker, I would say that we support in principle the legislation and we look forward to examining it on a clause-by-clause basis, discussing it in Committee and at third reading in the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

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

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thank my colleagues from both sides of the House for their support for this piece of legislation.

As I have indicated in my opening comments, and others have reiterated, this, of course, is intended to provide for the protection of the public for what is becoming a very popular health service in this Province, but it also responds to the desires of the profession to be able to ensure, through their own efforts, that people who practice massage therapy in this Province have the appropriate credentials and the appropriate skills to be able to do that well.

Members have mentioned and have made reference to the fact that there are other professions which would likewise desire to have the ability to be self-regulating. We have, in fact, over the last couple of years, been attempting to work through a process of providing a means of doing umbrella legislation, because a number of the groups that are referenced in this context are very small. They have very few members, by comparison to this group, practicing, and would have great difficulty in having a body in and of themselves to regulate themselves. It would be costly for them and it would be difficult to do, so we are attempting to find an appropriate mechanism to provide that kind of umbrella legislation. It is proving to be more difficult than perhaps we would have thought in the beginning. Consequently, that is one of the reasons why we wished, at this time, to move forward the massage therapy legislation because this group is, in fact, large enough to be able to support a self-regulated environment, and where the other legislation is not at a point of readiness we felt it was appropriate.

A final comment that I would make in reaction to the recent comments from the Leader of the NDP, I do understand that with this legislation we will be meeting national standards, or I should rephrase that to say the standards that are in place in other provinces such as Ontario and British Columbia, and would comply with the labour mobility requirements, so in fact the best standard being if somebody who would be registered here and licensed here would be able to go to work and practice their profession in other provinces as well, as we are required to ensure through chapter 7 in the Labour Mobility Act.

With that, Madam Minister, I will conclude my comments and bring to a close this portion of the debate on second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Massage Therapy," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 38)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, the next item of business will be Order 9, second reading of Bill 34, An Act To Permit An Action By One Person On Behalf Of A Class Of Persons.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Permit An Action By One Person On Behalf Of A Class Of Persons." (Bill 34)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

On July 6 of this year, the Premier and I announced this government's initiative to draft class action legislation. Such legislation is required to remove a series of hurdles from our justice system which have denied access to justice to citizens of this Province. Class actions are law suits where the cases of many are brought forwarded and litigated by one or several representative plaintiffs. By litigating all of the matters at the one time, a great burden can be lifted from the court system and thousands of people can have their claim decided at a much lower cost than before. Class actions allow justice to be done on a large scale while maintaining the efficiency of the court system.

The great need for the creation of the new legislation was illustrated by a court action involving a St. John's resident, Mr. Bill Kelly. Before the introduction of this bill, it was possible to launch a class action in this Province but, as discovered by Mr. Kelly and the former customers of Hiland Insurance, it was very difficult to pursue.

As we all know, Mr. Kelly led the attempt to recover the unearned insurance premiums left when Hiland Insurance closed its doors. Mr. Kelly tried to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of the other former customers. Unfortunately, our law would not permit the case to proceed as a class action due to subtle differences between the claims of the former customers and due to the concern of the binding effect Mr. Kelly's action would have upon other former customers who were not taking part in that litigation.

As a result, I now have the privilege of introducing this government's new Class Actions Bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: This legislation will remove those hurdles existing under the old system while providing a clear set of rules and procedures for class actions to follow. This is a bill which will revolutionize the way the people of this Province can address their wrongs, while at the same time, it substantially increases the accessibility to our Justice system.

The government has received very favourable submissions from interest groups and the public with respect to it's plan to introduce this legislation. The Canadian Bar Association endorsed this government's initiatives in this area and our willingness to adopt The Uniform Law Conference Of Canada model act.

The Atlantic Trial Lawyers Association which has a substantial membership throughout Atlantic Canada, including forty members in Newfoundland and Labrador, supports the introduction of class action legislation. As well, the Law Society, the City of Mount Pearl and the Federation of Municipalities have all expressed their approval for the introduction of class action legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to the implementation of this bill. With the enactment of this legislation, we shall join those provinces in Canada on the forefront of providing our citizens with a level of access to justice heretofore unknown. This bill, along with the enactment of the Citizen Representative legislation and the upcoming Freedom of Information bill shows this government's commitment to empowering the people of this Province.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I do not know how I am going to get accustomed to saying Madam Speaker. I am not accustomed to seeing Your Honour in the Chair. I perhaps should begin by saying congratulations to Your Honour. It is a measured improvement over some others who occupy the Chair, a notable improvement over some others who occupy the Chair.

Madam Speaker, as I begin to have a few remarks on this bill on behalf of my colleagues in the official Opposition, let me begin by saying, first of all, how pleased I am to be in a position to compliment the government in general, and minister in particular, in bringing forward this piece of legislation. This is a major step forward in judicial reform in this Province. The government deserves, Madam Speaker, our full compliments for bringing forward this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: It is, perhaps, too often when we have to rise in this House and condemn the government for not going far enough or not doing enough or not providing enough leadership, but in this particular case the government, in relatively short notice, particularly this minister since July, has developed a major piece of legislation that will add significantly to the access to justice by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In that context, Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government deserve our support, which we will give them, and they deserve our compliments, which we give them. The people of the Province, I believe, are delighted that this legislation is finally before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for my invitation. I do not have the invitation and it has to be a gilt-edged invitation, it has to have gold around the edges, Madam Speaker, but it has to be an invitation. It is no good for members on the opposite side to say: come on over, come back home. It has to be in writing, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Speaker, it is the same invitation that the Minister of Mines and Energy had when he ran for the PC nomination here in St. Johns, in the east end of St. John's, in 1989; the same kind of invitation, with the same kind of commitment, I suspect, Madam Speaker. So that is the kind of invitation.

Now, coming back to the bill: I enjoy this back and forth, Madam Speaker. The minister is entertaining, he entertains us all. I do want to seriously have a couple of remarks on this bill. Madam Speaker, it should be noted that this bill did not appear magically because of the good grace of the minister and the government. This bill came before the Legislature, Madam Speaker, as a result of a lot of hard work, and as a result of a lot of sorrow, pain and anguish by a lot of people in this Province. There were about 17,000 policyholders who had insurance policies with a company called Hiland Insurance who found themselves in serious trouble when that company, I guess, went bankrupt. It was certainly a difficult time for the policyholders. As a result of that business failure, Bill Kelly, in particular, and a couple of other people in the Province who were affected, made a concerted effort to have legal redress. But as the minister explained in his remarks here today, because of the way our laws were worded at the time, they were not successful in doing so. Consequently, 17,000 policyholders - more than 17,000 people I suspect - several thousand of our citizens were barred from having redress and finding a remedy in law for the problems that the collapse of this insurance company caused. So, Mr. Kelly embarked on a crusade. A crusade that eventually, I believe, he took to the streets and the malls, and the villages and the towns all over Newfoundland and Labrador to persuade the government to bring in appropriate legislation so that this would never happen again. This is the result. What we have here today is the result of a crusade by this gentleman on behalf of 17,000 of his fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have a new law, an ambitious law, a law based on reform of the judicial system so that the hardship that those people faced, that he faced and his colleagues faced, would never happen again.

Madam Speaker, to the tenacity and the fortitude of Bill Kelly, and those who helped him, we owe him a great compliment for not giving up in the face of adversity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I mean it is not easy to exhaust all your rights under the judicial system and then find the will to fight on. That is not always easy to find the will to change the law so that we can get a new law in this Province that will give people the opportunity to be able to file a class action. One, a plaintiff representative to be able to fight the legal case on behalf of thousands perhaps, dozens perhaps, certainly as this law provides, any more than two. If there are any more than two people out there who feel that they need to redress before the law, then they can file a class action suit if they meet the criteria of this particular piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, that is the first point I want to make. I want to compliment Bill Kelly. I want to compliment those who fought the fight with him and in doing so, I want to compliment the government for listening because this could not be possible if the minister and the government did not take up where Bill Kelly and his people left off.

This is, I believe, good legislation. It is timely legislation. It is time that this type of legislation is before the House. Now, Madam Speaker, does that mean that it is perfect legislation? No, it is not perfect legislation. It is not legislation that perhaps does not come with some lumps, with some flaws, and I hope that the minister, being the open-minded minister that he is, will take advantage of the debate to perhaps improve a bit on the legislation as it goes through the process.

I know that there was consultation with the Canadian Bar Association, the Atlantic Trial Lawyers Association, with the Law Society, and with some municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the type of legislation, Madam Speaker, that perhaps could be improved on by having it referred to - not now, but in the beginning after it was drafted - the appropriate committee of this Legislature. We have not been using our legislative committees to review legislation in this Legislature for a long time. There was a time, after the legislative committees were brought forward, eight or ten years ago, when those committees were used quite extensively. As a result, I believe you seen an opportunity for the government to hear from the general public, and as a result, better legislation came out at the end of the day than started off.

I believe the testimony to that statement is the annual Anomalies and Statute law, a piece of legislation that comes before this House. There is one on the Order Paper to come forward again during this session. That piece of legislation, what it does is correct mistakes that were made in statutes, or in legislation, as it was passing through this House in previous sessions. Some of it might be only a T that was left uncrossed, some of it might be only an I that was left un-dotted, but some of it is quite significant. Sometimes there are significant errors in statute law as a result of perhaps going through quickly, perhaps not being scrutinized enough, perhaps not being sent to the appropriate legislative committee, and that would perhaps solve some of that.

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of sections of this bill that I want to refer the minister to, specifically. First of all, section 5. I notice section 5.(1) deals with when the court shall certify class action; and section 5.(2) deals with a number of factors that a court may consider in making the decision. Now the difference between the shall and the may in legislation is fairly significant. A court is bound to consider factors that the legislation says it shall consider, but it is not bound to consider factors that the legislation says it may consider. The significant difference between the shall and the may, particularly in legislation of this type, I think is something that the minister should give more consideration to.

Madam Speaker, I know some of my other colleagues are going to be referring to particular sections, but there are a couple of sections that I want to refer to. Section 11 deals with decertification. After an application for certification of a particular class action has been granted by the court there is also means for a decertification. Again, I think we have to be careful under what conditions we are allowing those decertification applications to proceed.

Section 37 of the bill has to do with costs, fees and disbursements. Under section 37.(4) it says: "Class members, other than the person appointed as representative plaintiff for the class, are not liable for costs except with respect to the determination of their own individual claims." Now, I am not certain that I understand, in totality, the implications of that particular section. Does that mean that if a class of people are certified and the action proceeds that one person, or the representative plaintiff, can actually be the person who is stuck with the cost? I think we need some explanation of what the minister has in mind in this particular section. It seems to be clear. The plain English of it seems to be clear, but perhaps there is something here in the nuances, in the whole section, that is not readily apparent and that has been missed.

Like I said, Madam Speaker, the legislation by and large is commendable. The legislation though also raises questions that people, like ourselves in the legal profession, are going to have to grapple with that we perhaps never had to grapple with before, and there is no direction in the legislation in terms of dealing with some of those ethical questions. For example, Madam Speaker, it is quite possible that a lawyer will be forced to share with other members of the class, in addition to the representative plaintiff, positions that otherwise would be confidential. The issue of confidentiality, the issue of lawyer or solicitor-client privilege takes on a whole new meaning, or certainly takes on a different meaning, in a class action when the lawyer will very likely have to meet with, gather evidence from, interview many, many people other than his or her client. The whole question of solicitor-client privilege, and the whole question of confidentiality is brought into play as a result of this type of legislation. The representative claimant, Madam Speaker, speaks on behalf of the whole class, the whole number of people that are involved in the class action. Once the representative plaintiff comes forward, is recognized and is certified, that person speaks on behalf of the entire class. A lawyer who is representing that representative claimant may very well, as a result of that, have obligations to the entire group of claimants rather than the person who you would normally look upon to be the lawyer's client; in this case it would be the representative plaintiff. So, there is an ethical consideration that is brought into play here.

I mentioned solicitor-client privilege, and whether or not there is an impact on the solicitor-client privilege as a result of this type of representation arising out of this type of legislation. What about a defendant lawyer who wishes to communicate with members of the class? How is that appropriately handled? Before certification I would not say it is a problem, but once certification comes down and the class is certified - I would assume that the only appropriate way for communication between the defendants and their lawyer, and the representative plaintiff and the rest of the claimants, would be through another lawyer through council, I would assume. These are questions, Madam Speaker, that come to mind that I think ought to be addressed as we proceed with the debate of this legislation.

I said in my opening remarks that this legislation, while great legislation, progressive legislation, legislation that moves in the right direction, it is legislation that we do not know where it is going to take us, in some regards. The new Ontario class action legislation was brought in in 1992, and as a result of court determinations some strange things, perhaps, have happened in class action actions in Ontario. For example, it was found that you could assert a claim to Aboriginal rights and standing would be granted to the chief and other members of an Indian band to sue, representing themselves and members of the entire band, under class action legislation.

The Attorney General of Ontario and the Bear Island Foundation; in that particular case it was found that the chief could have standing on behalf of himself and the whole Indian band. As a result, Aboriginal land claim issues, or other Aboriginal issues, could find themselves, through class action legislation, being litigated before the court. Is that what we want? That might very well be what we want, and it might be the right thing, but it is something we should address with our eyes open. It is something we should know that exists as a possibility of this particular legislation. A ratepayer in Ontario sued in his own name and on behalf of other ratepayers to enjoin an ultra virus action of a municipality, or other such authority.

In the matter of Hewitt and the Simcoe County Board of Education; I notice that the Federation of Municipalities were supporters of this particular legislation. What implications does this legislation have - if it is (inaudible), as it appears to be - for ratepayers in municipalities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Is it a positive implication? It there a possibility of it being negative? What implications does it have for the municipalities? This legislation may, indeed, open more doors. That might very well be good, but it may very well open more doors than we might, perhaps, be led to believe in a cursory reading of the legislation.

In the case of (inaudible) and the Metro Toronto Police Commission; just listen to what happened as a result of a class action suit. Two policemen were permitted to maintain a class action for a declaration that they, and certain other members of their force, retain their former ranks following reorganization of the force. The consent of all members of the class were not necessary.

You take a group like the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary - which we have jurisdiction over here in this Province - and the St. John's Regional Fire Department, for example, if they are affronted or not properly dealt with as a result of a reorganization, for whatever reason, is this legislation - that they can take advantage of to advance their cause judicially - and is that the intent?

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Speaker, I think the member speaking in reply to a minister introducing a piece of legislation is entitled to an hour. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, that's right.

MADAM SPEAKER: Continue.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In any event, I won't be going on much longer but I do have a few more things that I would like to say.

These are matters, Madam Speaker, that deserve consideration. The wide open, eye open consideration of us, as legislators, as we do our legislative duty in bringing into law a piece of legislation that will pass into law.

Those are some things that opened eyes in terms of class action in Ontario. Let me remind the House of some things that in Ontario it did not apply to. Class action legislation does not always make everybody happy. I suspect that, perhaps, this piece of legislation won't always make all of our citizens happy.

In the case of (inaudible) and the Ottawa Civic Hospital, for example; a class action suit on behalf of those unborn persons, or that class of unborn persons whose lives may be terminated by abortion in the defendant hospitals who struck out. The anti-abortion or pro-abortion groups would not be able to find solace and comfort in this type of legislation in terms of bringing a class action suit on behalf of aborted fetuses.

In Judge verus the Muslim Society of Toronto; an action by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all members on adherence of a mosque was dismissed because the class was too vaguely defined. So that's the kind of thing that you have to get yourself under the definitions that this particular piece of legislation provides.

I will just mention one other because it has jumped out to me as perhaps being timely in this day of 2001. It was the case of (inaudible) versus Air Canada; a class action on behalf of all persons whose flights were cancelled, by the defendant, were dismissed because the damages suffered by each member of the class differed. I do not know if there is any point in suing Canada 3000 these days, but because of all of those people who would have felt aggrieved recently, there might not be much there to go after. If there was, you might not be successful under this piece of legislation either.

The point, Madam Speaker, in mentioning three or four of those cases on either side of the issue, is just that That we can perhaps, if we wanted to, broaden this legislation. We could perhaps, if we wanted to, narrow the legislation, but I do not think we should be deceived by thinking that this piece of legislation will solve the ills of everybody over an extended period of time. We will improve it, no question, Madam Speaker. This is a great judicial reform, a great step forward in access to justice in this Province, and in that context we are happy and proud to support it, but it is just that one other piece, I suppose, in the long history of access to justice. One other piece in the long history that marchs through time.

Madam Speaker, this particular bill is a justice bill. Of course, in the context of second reading the debate on the principle of the bill, you could debate anything. Our precedence has been quite clear on that. You could debate anything related to the field of justice in Newfoundland and Labrador, if you wanted to. You could talk about court settlement, you could talk about suing the Crown, you could talk about a whole bunch of things because we are debating a piece of justice legislation, but I do not think that would be the right and proper thing to do today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I will tell you, Madam Speaker, I have known people who have done it. I have known people who have taken a piece of justice legislation or a piece of social service legislation and gone on for days, but that is the difference between a responsible Opposition and an irresponsible Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) was it eight days?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, it was not eight days. It was sixteen hours. I had Liberals feeding me notes. How could I stop?

Anyway, Madam Speaker, I think to go on any longer would take away from the significance of this piece of legislation. It is a good piece of legislation. The minister and the government deserve our compliments and support. We give them both.

I guess I failed to say that the people who helped bring forward this legislation, unfortunately, will not benefit by it. The Bill Kellys and the 17,000 policyholders who fought the fight to get this legislation before this Legislature will not be the beneficiaries. It is not, nor can it be, retroactive legislation, but it will hopefully help those in the future who run into a similar problem. Unfortunately, those who had the problem, who brought the problem to the attention of the government and this Legislature, will not be helped by it.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, we support the legislation and are pleased to support it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I wanted to rise and have a few words on Bill 34. Before I start, Madam Speaker, I also want to commend the minister for listening to the people of this Province and for acting on their behalf -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - ensuring that there is justice, and that is one word that certainly sums up this new act.

The new Class Actions Act will, in a single stroke, open the door of the justice system to deserving people who could never before hope to see their claims properly adjudicated. In the same stroke, civil wrongs conducted by a single entity but against a wide number of people can now be addressed in one forum at the one time with one result, as has already been alluded to in the opening comments.

Deserving classes of plaintiffs will no longer be turned away from the justice system for the simple reason that their individual claims are not lucrative enough to pay for the assistant legal counsel. This act means that thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians may finally get their day in court.

The naysayers will cry that we have opened the judicial floodgates, the courts will clog and corporations will close their doors after paying out inflated awards.

Let us be clear: We are not adopting the American model. Rather, we are adopting a well tried and tested Canadian model which will ensure the access to justice for thousands while protecting potential defendants from frivolous and vexation lawsuits. We are replacing the old regime with a new structured class action regime, and that will act as a wise and just gatekeeper to the justice system, Mr. Speaker.

The certification process contained in the act - the new certification process which is unlike the old, I want to point out, the old regime - sets out very clear and equitable rules as to what matters may proceed as class action. The process also includes clear rules of procedure, something which did not exist under the common law rules. Now, that the guess work is done, well prepared legitimate litigants may proceed with confidence that their matter will receive a full hearing in court.

There should never again be a Kelly's case, as was already discussed here this afternoon, where thousands of people with potentially valid claims are turned away from the justice system simply because they do not fit within the rigid rules of the common law. These things should not happen in our society.

The certification process will provide balance. On one hand, the classes of plaintiffs who will come forward are provided with clear guidelines, setting out what they need for clarification to proceed as a class action. On the other hand, defendants are protected from nuisance suits and ill-conceived actions by provisions preventing the certification of such actions as well as possible cost consequences for those who would try and abuse the system. We anticipate that there will certainly be some attempt to do that.

The path for plaintiffs is now clear. In order to be certified as a class action, a proposed class of plaintiffs must satisfy a Supreme Court Justice that their suit meets the very clear set of criteria.

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the plaintiff's pleadings must describe a tenable legal claim. This will ensure that only lawsuits with triable issues will proceed and that frivolous and ill-defined lawsuits will be kept from clogging the courts.

Secondly, any proposed class must consist of a clearly identifiable group of people. This safeguard ensures that the class action litigation will maintain manageable in size and in scope.

Thirdly, the class action must be the proper way to proceed. If each claim comes down to matters of individual credibility and disputed facts, it would not be appropriate to allow such a suit to proceed as a class action. This ensures that while the act streamlines class claims, all such claims must be properly proven.

The final major requirement for certification is for a representative plaintiff to set forward from the class, and this is the person who must carry the claim forward on behalf of the group, as well as representing the entire class without any conflict of interest. It is essential that the class members who are not directing the litigation have their rights protected. Ensuring a conflict-free representative plaintiff is one of the ways that this achieves this goal.

Clarity is key to the entire process. The procedures I have just listed are leaps and bounds ahead of the previous system. It was that underdeveloped set of rules which prevented people like Mr. Kelly and other former Hiland Insurance customers from succeeding in their attempts of class action. Under that old scheme, minor differences between plaintiffs could see the entire class halted in its tracks. Now, the new rules allow for such differences. These rules are flexible. While an identifiable case is still needed - and rightly so, you have to have that - key differences in fact situations between subgroups of plaintiffs can now be handled through the creation of subclasses with their own representative plaintiff. Subclasses now ensure that their unique issues are properly carried forward and that they are proven. The provision would no doubt have assisted Mr. Kelly and his fellow claimants in having their action certified.

The allowance for subclasses is not the only way that Mr. Kelly's action would have been assisted by this new act. Since the attempted Hiland customer's class action certification was unsuccessful, Mr. Kelly was ordered to pay the legal costs of the winning side. Given the complexity of the issue, these costs amounted to over $17,000. As the only named plaintiff, Mr. Kelly is solely responsible for paying this amount. Under this act, however, it is unlikely that such an order would be made. Each party in a certification hearing must pay their own cost unless the judge feels that the circumstance warrants that one side should pay the other's legal cost. That could certainly avoid situations like that in which Mr. Kelly found himself.

This can be due to conduct or for bringing forth a frivolous action as well. The cost provisions allow a class to bring what they feel is a claim for a certification hearing free from the fear that the representative plaintiff will be economical crushed by an order to pay costs if the class is not certified. This removes another significant hurdle to assessing the justice system. That is what people have been asking for and it is certainly what the attempt of this bill has been intending to do, to eliminate hurdles that have been there.

In closing, it is quite clear that the class action is of great benefit for citizens of this Province wishing to access the justice system. Those with small but similar claims, or those unable to proceed without the help of a stronger class member, now have a clear path that they can follow for fair and economical adjudication for their class action claims. At the same time, those facing such suits will have an equally clear path to follow as well as being secure in the knowledge that the procedural safeguards are also for their benefit.

The carefully considered class action provisions ensure justice and they ensure fairness of process for both the plaintiffs and the defendants in the class action proceedings. This bill is very important and certainly very necessary in order to allow people to bring forward cases that are of importance to them without fear of penalty, and in terms of cost, and allows them affordable access to our justice system.

Again, in closing, I would like to commend the minister for certainly taking under review cases like Mr. Kelly's, and giving due consideration to cases of that nature and ensuring that people in the future do not have to encounter the same hurdles within the justice system as this individual has had to do. This is no doubt very progressive legislation and the minister and his people should certainly be commended, and so should government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to speak in favour of Bill 34, an act to allow class actions in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an important forward step by government to bring forward this legislation at this time. It is legislation that allows certain actions to take place that otherwise would not be allowed to take place.

Let me say first of all, Mr. Speaker, the presentation of this act in the House is a very good piece of news for citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador because it proves to the many cynics who are around about democracy, who do not believe that one person can do anything, that here is an example of how one person, Mr. Bill Kelly, has not single-handedly but provided the leadership and had the courage to bring an action into court and bring about a change in the law. This law is here before us today, Mr. Speaker, because of Mr. Bill Kelly.

If it were in the United States, Mr. Speaker, we would have legislation named after people. Legislation is usually named after the mover and seconder of legislation in the American Senate. If we had names for legislation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would propose that we call this the Bill Kelly Act because, in addition to the minister whose name is underneath the act, the person most responsible for this act being brought - and I think the minister would agree - is Mr. Bill Kelly. Without Mr. Bill Kelly this act would not be here, so he deserves credit for having had the courage first of all to, I suppose, as it was determined at the end of the day, try to put a round peg in a square hole under the existing law, but he did not know that until the judge and the court had decided that was the case.

I recall being in law school many years ago - I think the same era as the Minister of Justice was in law school, in excess of twenty years ago now - learning about representative actions as they were known, recognizing that the laws were very technical. It was very difficult to bring what was called a representative action. The plaintiffs bringing the action had to have the same facts, the same situation. If you had people with different circumstances, even though the cause of action, the action itself, whether it be a fire or whether it be a bankruptcy as we are talking about here, was the same, if the individuals were in different circumstances, and in this case where they had different policies of insurance made on different dates covering different periods of time, a representative action could not be brought.

Mr. Kelly had the courage, at some cost to him, and I will go into that in a moment, to bring this action saying that the consumers of Hiland Insurance had been wronged by the actions of Hiland Insurance and by the actions of government.

Mr. Speaker, those individuals who wanted to bring an action had to bring their own case - they had to bring their own case - even though their individual loss may have been $500, $200 or $700. Those individuals could not afford to bring an action with such a small amount for their own case, but when you add them all up, the thousands of individuals who had policies with Hiland Insurance, when you add them all up there was a significant dollar amount involved and Mr. Kelly and his Hiland consumers group brought this action to attempt to bring an action on behalf of all of the consumers of Hiland distributors. That action failed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo wants to know if I have a new suit. I say to him, no, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Bonavista North may have a new suit. I do not have a new suit. This is a suit I have had for a number of years. In fact, there are buttons missing from it.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to talk about is much more important than suits. We are talking about suits of a different nature. We are talking about lawsuits, not suits that people wear. We are talking about justice and access to the court. I say to the Member for Bonavista North, there is a big difference between being able to bring a suit in the court and what happened to Mr. Kelly, because when he was unable to bring his suit to the court, he had costs awarded against him, and the defendants in that action sought to recover from Bill Kelly in excess of $17,000, and pursued that action to the point that Mr. Kelly brought a petition to this House. He brought a petition to the government and he went, along with others - and I was one of them - who went to the malls, to the Village Mall, to the Avalon Mall and other malls across the Province, with the Consumers Association, asking people to sign the petition and asking people to contribute to the cost that he was being pursued by the legal representatives of the defendants here to personally recover - I believe the costs were in excess of $17,000 - to try and take it from him because he had lost his application to bring a representative action. We have here the actions of one man who had the courage to pursue this beyond an individual court case.

I know members opposite in the government are trying to distract me and avoid talking about the issue here, but I want to say that this is a very important piece of legislation because it provides access to the courts. What is important about it is that the rule of law is going to apply even if the amounts of money are small for each individual. The Member for Lewisporte talked about some of the issues that might be brought before the court, the issues that were brought before the courts, and he talked about some Ontario cases based on his legal research, and he was wondering, out loud, whether or not we wanted to allow certain actions, to open the floodgates of litigation as it is called sometimes, to representative actions, as wide as he has described happened in Ontario.

Do we want Aboriginal groups or an individual member of an Aboriginal group to be able to bring an action on behalf of all members of the group? My answer is, yes. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do want to allow people to bring actions to court if government officials, if municipalities or if others are acting in a manner contrary to law. If they are acting contrary to law, surely they should be allowed to have access to the courts to determine whether that is the case.

An important piece of this legislation, and we are talking in principle here, not clause-by-clause, a very important section of this legislation is found at the very end: Section 42, "This Act binds the Crown." So, the government is bound by this legislation. That means that the government is bound to follow the law - that is all it means - that someone will have access to the courts to ensure that government follows the law.

There are lots of cases that cannot be brought because a person does not have standing. Now, for example, in the cases mentioned by the Member for Lewisporte, an individual who may not have had standing by themselves can bring an action as a representative of a class of persons of which they are a member. That, Mr. Speaker, is a positive thing because it means that the Crown, the government, is required to follow the rule of law, and that law is going to be the rules of law, not the power of the government or the power of a corporation or the ability of a defendant, a large corporation of government, to find costs against somebody who is going to stand in the way of bringing an action.

There are lots of cases, Mr. Speaker. We could deal with products liability cases where individual consumers have a problem resulting from a defective product. The cost of bringing an action might not be worth it because the act itself might not justify a particular court action, but if you have a whole class of consumers who are affected by this, an action can be brought to make a company, or to make a municipality or a manufacturer or the government, accountable for breaking the law or acting in a manner that is negligent.

We see provisions as well in the legislation for the management of the case by the court where the judge can engage in what is called case management; can decide issues as to how the class of persons are going to be notified of the claim; how the individuals can be identified; how they can participate in the claim and bring it forward. This is also very positive, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say that the government did respond to Mr. Kelly and his organization's campaign. By adopting the uniform law, we are taking a first step. I think the minister has done a wise thing in adopting the uniform code that has been established by the Law Reform Commission for class actions, because we could have people in the Justice Department picking and choosing from pieces of legislation across the country, cherry-picking, bringing in things from one act that they like and leaving out things that they do not like from another act. We would be here trying to figure out what the government was up to. Were they trying to avoid certain things? Were they trying to protect themselves in certain areas? That would be a concern if the government was not doing that. It is being brought in rather swiftly in answer to the petition and in answer to the call by the Consumers Association and by the call from the Opposition in support of class action legislation, and to bring it in using the uniform code that was adopted by the Law Reform Commission, I think, is a positive step.

As time goes on, we may discover through court cases and through decisions that the law is inadequate. If we have an opportunity to peruse it through a committee of the House, we may well find ways of improving the legislation beyond what is before us. Whether there will be time between now and the close of this session of the House to do that, I have some serious doubts, Mr. Speaker, because we have so many pieces of legislation before the House at this time.

I am not confident that we will have an opportunity to improve it, but the fact that we have before us a version of the act that has been adopted by the Law Reform Commission of Canada, by the uniform code of laws for this purpose is, I think, a positive step.

I want to say that the minister has done a good thing by doing that. He has consulted with the Canadian Bar Association in the short period of time that has been available since the draft legislation was available, I believe some time in late August or early September. There has been an opportunity for the Atlantic Trial Lawyers Association branch in Newfoundland to respond as well. There has been the recent legal case and the decision of our court in denying class action legislation to look at it, so we have had a short period of time to see what kind of legislation we want.

I think we have a good first step here, and certainly in principle I would want to see this legislation passed in this session of the House without putting it off for further debate and refinement, because it is a very positive step in our law.

The question has to be asked: Why is this legislation necessary? The legislation is necessary because we have had the legal case presented in the court recently, and because we have recognized that class action legislation is another form of democracy, another form of individual consumers, of individuals playing a role in our society by bringing the court and the rule of law to bear on whether it is the actions of government or whether it is the actions of a defendant such as, in most cases, a corporation or a larger corporation that has the resources at their disposal to hire lawyers, to use the litigation process to defend themselves under the law but, at the same time, impose serious burdens on plaintiffs trying to bring an action.

The most important one, and the one of biggest concern, is when people are saying: Well, if I go to court, will it cost me? How much will it cost me, and can I be liable for damages and court costs?

The answer that Mr. Bill Kelly got, on behalf Hiland consumers, was: If you bring an action and lose, you can be personally liable for extensive costs, not only to pay your own lawyer for bringing a case, and in some cases lawyers can bring an action without any money up front, not only for your own costs but also for the cost to pay the lawyer of the corporation that you are trying to sue.

That is what this legislation avoids, Mr. Speaker, by section 37.(4) of the act dealing with cost, fees and disbursements. The court is told that they shall not award costs to a party to an application for certification or to a party to a class action on an appeal arising from a class action at any stage of the application, action or appeal.

The court is prohibited from awarding costs against a party bringing a class action unless there has been some special circumstance, unless the action is found to be vexatious or abusive conduct, or has been an improper or an unnecessary application, or where there are really exceptional circumstances.

I think that is the key to this litigation. Not only does it allow actions to be brought by a representative of a class, but it allows an action to be brought without suffering the possible consequences of having massive costs awarded against you.

If you are having a fair case, if you are bringing an application before the court saying: Look, I think this comes within the category - and the Member for Lewisporte mentioned some cases that did and some cases in Ontario which did not - and if you are wrong, if you find that the court says no, this does not qualify as a class action, you are not going to be faced with a bill of $15,000 or $20,000 or more to pay the lawyers for the other side when you lose an action.

I think that is the nub of this legislation. In addition to allowing the class action is the protection against massive cost awards, or any cost awards, unless it is found that there are truly exceptional circumstances or that the action has been deemed by the court to be frivolous or to be an abuse of the courts process or improper conduct by a party. That would be a rare case indeed, Mr. Speaker. I think that the minister, in including that provision from the uniform law and class actions, has really protected the ability of individuals to bring class actions.

What history it has in this Province remains to be seen. I know we could look to other jurisdictions to see what kinds of actions might be brought. We mentioned cases by Aboriginal groups and individuals. I am sure we will see them here. We may see other types of class actions that we do not expect. One thing happens when you pass legislation: you really do not know how it is going to be used because there are a lot of imaginative people out there and, I hope, lots of imaginative lawyers out there who would want to see that the courts can be used as a means for bringing about justice for people, because that is what the courts are for.

There has been a lot of talk lately, since September 11, in the international field. I have seen editorials in national newspapers in this country saying that the best thing that could happen is that certain individuals, such as Osama Bin Laden, should be assassinated or killed without a trial; that they should go and find him and kill him; that there should be no trial because a trial would only be an opportunity for that individual and his supporters to get publicity. That is the kind of talk that leads to a total abrogation of the rule of law. The rule of law is that the laws should govern, not the power of one individual or government, or the power of large corporations, but the rule that we are all governed by laws and not by power and not by the ability of one individual, one company, one country, or one government to act however it sees fit regardless of the law.

This is, in fact, turning the law and turning access to the courts and to justice over to individuals through a class action procedure which is not available to them under the current law. It is in the very good tradition of the reform of law and it is in the very good tradition of improving justice for our people, and it is in the very good tradition of an example where one individual, one individual acting publicly with courage and leadership, Mr. Bill Kelly, has been able to bring about a change in the law of this Province and has convinced others and convinced the government that this law is necessary. It is a law that we in the New Democratic Party support and will be supporting when the matter comes to a vote here at second reading in the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It is getting to that time again. I wonder if I can just put forward a motion to adjourn. We will continue with the second reading on Bill 34 on the next legislative parliamentary day, which is Thursday, November 22, tomorrow being Private Members' Day where I believe we are debating the private member's motion of the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

If I may, I will adjourn debate with the accordance, certainly, of the Government House Leader.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

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