November 22, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 36


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

 

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: I wish to inform members of this House that the Marble Mountain Event Management Group has been awarded the 2002 Canadian National Senior Freestyle Ski Championships.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: This event will take place at Marble Mountain on March 21-24 and is expected to attract more than 600 out-of-Province skiers, coaches and staff.

The Marble Mountain Event Management Group is a group of young volunteers, headed by Mr. Sean Dolter, who have organized for the sole purpose of attracting national and international freestyle ski events to Marble Mountain.

In March of this year, the group hosted the Canadian National Junior Championships to much critical acclaim and have applied to the International Ski Federation to host the 2003 World Junior Championships.

Mr. Speaker, the awarding of these events to Marble Mountain speaks volumes about the highly motivated volunteers that we have in the Humber Valley-Bay of Islands region.

In the not-too-distant future, I feel confident that Marble Mountain will become a regular stop on the World Cup Freestyle Tour, just as Corner Brook has become a regular stop on the World Triathlon Tour.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Sean Dolter and the entire Marble Mountain Event Management team on attracting these prestigious events to Marble Mountain and, through the medium of television, showcasing our Province to millions of people around the world.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the Town of Conception Bay South as being one of the top three Canadian communities out of ninety surveyed by the RBC, Royal Bank of Canada, Canada Post and Home Business Report for home-based businesses that positively impact our economy.

What makes Conception Bay South so friendly to home-based businesses is that one of their major economic development policies is keeping young people at home by providing job opportunities. The town has developed a pioneer program to encourage people under thirty to start a business, called the Business Tax Incentive for Youth Entrepreneurs. The program gives the youth a five-year business tax break as long as their enterprise does not compete with existing businesses within the town. In addition, the town waives various fees for young entrepreneurs.

I would like to congratulate the Town of Conception Bay South on having the vision to see that our young people have a future.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the Town of Conception Bay South on taking on this very, very worthwhile initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the first few lines of a story told in verse, relating to one of the most devastating natural disasters to ever hit Newfoundland shores, that I can remember from childhood, began, "On the eighteenth of November, A day we'll all remember, When everybody thought the world was coming to an end."

This week, Mr. Speaker, we commemorate the seventy-second anniversary of that devastating event.

Mr. Speaker, on November 18, 1929, at 5:02 p.m., an earthquake underwater off the South Coast, registering 7.2 on the Richter scale, caused a massive tidal wave that engulfed many communities along the coast and resulted in the loss of twenty-eight lives, most of them drowned by the force of the tidal wave. It remains, Mr. Speaker, the highest death toll attributed to an earthquake in Canadian history.

The tidal wave also caused a million dollars damage as boats, wharves and homes were swept up and smashed to smithereens, causing irrevocable damage to the livelihood of the people in our area.

Mr. Speaker, as the years have passed, many of the survivors of that fierce wave have passed away, but the story of this tragedy continues to hold a significant place in the history of the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to take a moment today to reflect for the victims and their descendants on this seventy-second anniversary week of a tragedy that will remain ever vigilant in the minds of many residents of the Burin Peninsula and the South Coast.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity today to say congratulation to a few people in my district who have reached a major milestone in their lives, their 50th wedding anniversaries.

The first couple is Lawrence and Lena Barry of St. Bride's, who celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary on October 8 of this year; Patrick and Bride Coffey of Placentia, who celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary on October 31 of this year; my own parents, Walter and Julia Manning of St. Bride's, who celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary on October 27; and John and Eleanor McGrath of Branch, St. Mary's Bay, who, on December 2, will celebrate their 55th wedding anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I know all of these people very well, and they have lived exemplary lives in our communities. I pay much tribute to them today. They have raised large families and all enjoy good health.

I ask the House to join with me in sending them congratulations and many more years of happiness and health.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Twelve young entrepreneurs from around the Province were in Carbonear recently to receive Young Ventures Program Awards. The award recipients were: Maria Pike, operator of Maria's Artwork of Brigus, receiving the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council High Artistic Achievement Award; David Ball of David's Digital Imaging, receiving the High Achievement in Technology award, sponsored by Newfoundland Power; Justin Keats and Mike Counche of St. Anthony Odd Job Squad received the High Achievement in Customer Service award sponsored by Fishery Products International; Adam and Amanda Larkin and Matthew Simms of Glacier Ice, also from St. Anthony, received the High Achievement in Financial Management Award sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada; Chelsea Howard of Dorset Spirit Stones, Baie Verte, received the High Achievement in Culture and Tourism sponsored by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador; Micheal O'Brien of Mike's Seafood in Happy Valley-Goose Bay received the High Achievement in Marketing Award sponsored by NewCap Broadcasting; Jonathan Jesseau of Jesseau's Summer Watch, also of Happy Valley- Goose Bay, received the Venture of the Year Award sponsored by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Business Development Centres; and Robert Reid and Amber Cuff of Functional Fashions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SWEENEY: Robert Reid and Amber Cuff of Functional Fashions, Bishop's Falls, received the High Achievement in Innovation Award sponsored by Long Island Seafoods.

Mr. Speaker, starting with three students in St. Anthony in 1992, the Youth Ventures Program has grown to include more than 300 young people around the Province this summer. This year, the program was offered at twenty-one sites around the Province, offering young people between twelve and twenty-nine hands-on business experience, ranging from Web page design to singing telegrams.

I would ask Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating these young entrepreneurs and also recognizing the sponsors for these awards and the various funding partners for this very important program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today I want to give recognition to the Friends and Lobbyists of the Waterford River, an environmental action group located in my district and dedicated to a river that spans the District of St. John's South, as well as running through a number of other provincial districts. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it runs from the Town of Paradise, through the City of Mount Pearl, the City of St. John's and into St. John's Harbour.

FLOW have made outstanding achievements throughout their years despite the fact they have been working with a limited budget.

This group of volunteers have initiated an annual cleanup of the Waterford River. They have significantly reduced the amount of pollution into the river including raw sewage, and have successfully reintroduced salmon to the Waterford River as well as improved the flora and fauna of the watershed area.

FLOW are also to be commended for bringing an awareness of the importance of the Waterford River and the watershed system to the region, as well as educating the general public about the need for environmental protection of the river.

While FLOW have made many accomplishments, there is still much to be done with the Waterford River, including reducing the remaining outflow that continues to pump sewage into the river.

I would like for all Members of the House to recognize the important work that FLOW have done and continue to do, given the restraints of their financial budget.

Also, I would like to congratulate FLOW for their persistence and their positive impact that they have had on my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I call Statements by Ministers, I would like to welcome to the gallery today, a former Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Port de Grave, John Efford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, as I have stated before, is extremely concerned about the current state of affairs of the finances in the Province. The Opposition is concerned, as well as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, about twelve years of Liberal mismanagement. The people simply want the truth.

In light of our deteriorating financial situation, would the Premier tell the people of our Province, will there be any more cuts to health care services or additional layoffs beyond what has already been announced?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition are really concerned about the Auditor General's Report. In answering the question, since it is all based on the Auditor General's concerns, maybe if the Leader of the Opposition will not read it into the record, Mr. Speaker, I will read into the record what the Auditor General has said. The Auditor General has said, in filing a report on November 20, 2000: In my opinion these consolidated summary financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Province as at March 31, 2000 and the results of its operations and changes in its financial position for the year ended in accordance with the accounting policies disclosed.

Mr. Speaker, there was a reference to the word concern. It did say: I am still concerned that government continues to report a cash surplus and as its surplus or deficit can easily be adjusted to produce whatever financial result the government desires. It also says, Mr. Speaker - and let the words speak for themselves - government can easily decrease its cash surplus by increasing expenditures through special warrants. It did not say that we had done it. It did not say she was concerned about it. It said it is possible to do. Not that this government had done it, Mr. Speaker. That is not what the Auditor General had said.

The Auditor General also said: I have two concerns with respect to accountability. The present initiatives for government departments, Crown agencies, and Memorial University are not legislated with respect to the initiatives for Crown agencies and Memorial University. They are not mandatory in that they are at the discretion of the minister responsible. Those are the concerns, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in here about mismanagement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - or inappropriate use or accounting for the funds that the government has spent.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the health care issues; the Minister of Health and Community Services has given a full update to this House two days ago with respect to the consultations and discussions that are ongoing with the health care boards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, I said the people are concerned as well. Perhaps you are not concerned about the people, but we are concerned about the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: I will ask you again: In light of the deteriorating financial situation, will there be any cuts in services or will there be any more layoffs? Yes or no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the Official Opposition unveiled it's plan, if it were to be the government today, which would include layoffs. I do understand that, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition can say whether that is true or not, because not only is the finance critic for the Opposition on the public record as saying there is $100 million wasted in health care - I read it to him from Hansard last year. It is in Hansard and I will produce it again, Mr. Speaker, if I have to. So here is the Official Opposition with its finance critic saying: There is $100 million wasted in health care.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a point of order. Now, the hon. member should realize that points of order ought to be raised at the end of Question Period, and unless it is of an urgent matter the Chair is not prepared to hear it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a misstatement made by the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the hon. member knows the rules of the House, that he ought to wait until the end of Question Period if there is a point of order to be raised.

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand, just as when we debated this point in the Legislature last year, that the finance critic will get up and say he didn't say that. I produced the verbatim record of this House and I will do it again, Mr. Speaker.

Today, he is saying there is an over-expenditure of $20 million in the direct departments of government. Now, if the Opposition is saying, we will not spent $100 million wastefully in health, and if we would reduce expenditures in government departments by $20 million, then clearly, if they were the government, every single public servant and every person working in health care should be shaking in their boots, because they wouldn't know if they have a job tomorrow or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Our plan, Mr. Speaker, has been announced by the Minister of Finance, it is laid out for the public, and we are proud of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Premier slipped into that chair on the basis of straight answers and real solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Give me a straight answer, Premier? Yes or no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for a question. I heard a comment about slipping into a chair, and yes or no.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the pattern continues all week, no answers to the questions. I will repeat this one question for the fourth time. Would the Premier confirm to the people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I want to remind hon. members about the rules for oral Question Period. One, supplementary questions ought to require no preambles. We have allowed some preambles to members to allow them to clarify questions, but clearly, a supplementary should not require preambles and certainly no question should require a long preamble. Secondly, questions ought not to be repeated. That is clearly in Beauchesne and other parliamentary authorities. I ask hon. members to keep these rules in mind.

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my second question. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that we are looking at each job to decide whether they are essential to the functioning of government. Would the Premier confirm for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that many long-term, contractual and/or temporary, government employees may lose their jobs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will confirm this: The plan laid out by the Minister of Finance indicated that we would restrict travel to critical, necessary and urgent travel instead of just good travel that is normally done, and should be done. We would limit and restrict any discretionary spending for the rest of the year to control our deficit, and we would impose a hiring freeze, not lay anybody off, but if anybody leaves the public service, we would ask people to review whether or not they come back. If anybody leaves, Mr. Speaker, not that anybody is fired or terminated by the government, but if anybody leaves. That is what we have laid out as the plan, not massive layoffs.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular role, both of our roles are roles of leadership and I do give the answers to the questions to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and in this Legislature. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition who, in April, said: I do not want to just be there and be a dummy leader, I want to be on the floor and be active. The chance to be in the House is very important to me, he said just a week ago.

Yesterday, what he indicated (inaudible) Voisey's Bay, he would not speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: He sat on his hands and refused to participate in a debate about what he said was the number one issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, The Telegram reported today that there is not enough money to spend on employment insurance eligible projects. Again, this is a direct result of Liberal fiscal mismanagement and imprudence. Without sufficient insurable earnings, how does the Premier expect to help the thousands of people in rural Newfoundland survive this winter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This winter we have announced that we are going to do an intervention throughout the Province, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, the Deputy Premier, has been working with MHAs to put in place, to make sure that people who, for no circumstance caused by themselves, or no related circumstances they could control, might not get enough hours to qualify for EI. I understand that your members are participating actively with the Deputy Premier to try to make sure that we help as many people as we can.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that is an intervention that we hope we do not have to do year after year after year, because we would like to do things like get a really good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to Voisey's Bay, which the Leader of the Opposition would not talk about yesterday. But he did stand up, because you say more sometimes with where you stand than what you say, and he did stand up at the end of the day and vote four-square against research and development funding being used in Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - to possibly develop a Voisey's Bay deal so we will not have to do short-term intervention next year and the year after and the year after.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier -

PREMIER GRIMES: He was so anxious to get here yesterday that he could not find -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will the $2 million be sufficient?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, because not only the people here in the Legislature but the people of the Province are watching and want to know the issues, and what we are talking about, let's make sure it is clear that it is unanimous in this Legislature - unanimous - that the Opposition parties and the government members all agree that there should be an intervention. I understand - and they are nodding, Mr. Speaker, so they agree with the action taken by this government. That is about the fifth or sixth time this week, by the way, in just four days, that they have gotten up and said: Whatever this minister is doing, whatever that minister is doing, is the right thing to do, because that is how we govern, Mr. Speaker. It is the right thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if we can get some support instead of some politically-motivated opposition with respect to issues like properly developing the Voisey's Bay project, we might not be talking about $2 million being enough, or any number. We might not even need the program in two years or three years or four years. Now we have the perfect example again of a government group being criticized by the Opposition, saying: You are fiscally mismanaging; we think you should have a tax cut. But here is a case where they want us to spend more money; take in less, spend more. Every single day it repeats itself in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer my question. He is obviously less concerned about more money for the people in rural Newfoundland than he is about getting $100 million for his buddies at Inco.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the combined deficit over the next two years in fact exceeds $500 million, which the Minister of Finance has acknowledged is likely, would the Premier not agree that such an occurrence will have a very negative effect on our ability to access financial markets, and on our borrowing costs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The concern that we have, obviously, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who did not get enough EI eligible hours to qualify is clearly evident in the fact that we are putting in place an intervention with some $2 million that has been found from savings, to help as many people as we can with those $2 million.

We do understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition which wants us to go ahead with a tax cut, which means that in the short term - even the wizard of finance who is the critic will acknowledge - in short term you take in less money, at least on day one. He did say that was right, Mr. Speaker. Because the people on television cannot see him, he did say that is right. You take in less money, but again he is saying: Let's spend some more.

We would like to spend more than $2 million, but we cannot get it right now because we are trying to be fiscally prudent.

Mr. Speaker, anybody would know that if there is a deficit of a billion dollars - why don't you say that the next time you stand up? - that it would clearly impede and impair the borrowing power and the fiscal capability of the government. We do not intend to have a billion dollar deficit, any more than we intend to have a $500 million deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I have invited the Leader of the Opposition and everybody else, as has the Minister of Finance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - to come back in March and we will lay out the plans for next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. The minister said in her financial statement on November 20, that GDP growth for Newfoundland and Labrador is predicted to be 4.5 per cent for 2002.

I want to ask the minister: When were these assessments made? Was it before or after the International Monetary Fund downgraded Canada's economic growth for next year from 2.7 per cent to 0.8 per cent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the member opposite would take about this three-pronged approach or three-legged stool which I think has no legs at all, quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as we know, the markets, particularly the economic raters, are the ones, as well as our Province, that indicate our GDP growth. Our GDP growth for this year, as you know, is predicted to be less than what we anticipated and next year it is at 4.5 per cent.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister does not know whether her predictions and estimate is before or after the IMF. No wonder we have trouble in our economy today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister said in her statement that growth in 2002 will be concentrated in the oil industry. The economic review suggests that oil production will increase by 7 million barrels next year; that is a 10 per cent increase.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am at my question now, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that oil prices are falling and there is no sign yet of a recovery, I want to ask the minister, what price for oil has the minister used in her projections and how did she arrive at that number?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think what is most important when you talk about GDP growth is certainly the current events on what is happening. Everybody knows that this is subject to change and nobody out there, including myself, will say that we are judged, and our GDP is largely judged on our oil revenues. That is clear, Mr. Speaker. That is in black and white in all of our economic forecasts. That is not the issue.

Mr. Speaker, what I will do for the House is table the exact numbers because they have done predictions based on $10, $20, $30, and I would be extremely pleased and honoured to table it in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not ask what it was at each price. I asked what price did you factor into your figures for that deficit there. The minister has refused to say it or she does not know the answer.

I would like to ask the minister - the minister has indicated that nearly one-half of growth in GDP this year is due to consumer spending. Next year, she said, it is going to be concentrated in oil. Does that mean that the minister expects a sharp decline in consumer spending and consumer confidence next year? She cannot have it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would go to no lengths to hear me say the sky is falling. I refuse to say it. The sky is not falling. In fact, we are expecting incremental growth, not decline. I know that bothers you immensely. What I would like to hear, Mr. Speaker, is more about his three-legged stool, where he is going to cut the deficit by borrowing. We are borrowing to address the deficit. He is talking voodoo economics with his tax cuts. That is what I would like to hear about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, maybe he could share for us: If over 50 per cent of our budget is spent on health and education, is he telling me that he is going to cut jobs out of health and education? Because, where do you get your money if you want to reduce the services in health and education? I think, Mr. Speaker, this should be served notice to the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - that Tory times are tough times and you can hear it from his plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would happy to.

Do you know something, Mr. Speaker, there is one good thing about this. At least we have finally smoked them out on one of their policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has stated, in this House and in the media, that twenty-six people within his department are going to be laid off because the Roads for Rails agreement is coming to an end. Then he says that they may be kept on if we don't have any snow, and in the next breath he says that they will be actually hiring people.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tell us why he is so confused on this issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I regret that the hon. member is really disappointed that the news is not so bad, because I think he is really, really disappointed.

As you are well aware, in this department a lot of our functions are very seasonal operations. As a matter of fact, in this department we hire people and lay them off on a seasonal basis. In this case here, if you have checked the ads in the newspapers recently, we are not only laying people off because they have finished their work in the construction but we are hiring people in the snow clearing area. So we are also hiring people.

I want the hon. member to know that we out there hiring people and not laying them off. If that is confusing, I don't know how to explain it any better for the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, as late as this past August this minister had not requested federal funding for roads, and as recently as today confirmed that no proposal has been put forward to Ottawa for a roads agreement.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister now admit and confirm that because of government's lack of foresight, mismanagement and poor planning, government employees and the people of this Province will be doing the suffering and paying the price?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: I think the hon. member is confused. I just indicated to the hon. member that we are not in the layoff mode, we are in the hiring mode. As he is well aware, there are continuous negotiations going on with the federal government in terms of transportation. I don't know where he is getting the information that this Province made no representation whatsoever to the federal government for a roads program. As a matter of fact, all the provincial ministers of transportation are making continuous representation to the federal government for the federal government to come on board with a roads program. So I don't know why he is confused.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Will the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation now admit that we will see larger and deeper potholes and that road construction and road maintenance, Mr. Speaker, will be the victim of this government's poor planning and increasingly higher deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: This minister is proud to report that this year this government invested $120 million in road construction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: One hundred and twenty million dollars was invested in road construction in this Province; $120 million. I feel sorry for the hon. member that when he was driving around the Province this year and seen all those signs with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. Percy Barrett on them, I regret if they were red and caused sight problems for him. There was so much construction on the go in this Province this year in road work, I was afraid to drive on our highways.

This government is committed to road construction, road improvement and I am very sad that the hon. member is confused. If he wants to go out into his own district, he will see that we made major changes in an intersection out there that the hon. member got up and asked for last year in this House of Assembly. This hon. member went out there, had a look at it and said: yes, we need improvements. We made improvements in his own district. Are you confused?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Are you confused about the (inaudible)?

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 Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Next week the provincial, territorial, and federal ministers responsible for housing are meeting in Quebec City. I expect the minister will be joining them.

As of September, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation's wait list for people looking for housing in the Avalon region alone covers four hundred and twenty families, a quarter of which are single or single parent families.

I want to ask the minister what commitment from his government will he bring to this meeting in Quebec City and what assurances can he give to the people across the Province who are in desperate need of affordable housing that there will be some progress made, and that there will be programs in affordable housing in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a good question from the member opposite. Earlier this year, when the ministers met in Quebec City, we met with the national minister, Minister Gagliano, and the provinces. The Atlantic provinces and the territories were seeking some changes from him whereby we would be able to repair some of our existing stock along with building new units in some of the areas, like in the urban areas here in St. John's.

Over the next week or so, when we go back to Quebec City, it is my understanding that the minister and the people from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have considered a number of the requests that have been put forward by myself and my Atlantic colleagues, and some of the other western provinces to allow us to do that. If we do that, then we will have a good program. I am very, very optimistic that will happen. I am prepared, from our government, to put up our share of the dollars because we believe in the low income rental housing and we believe not only for that, but those who are physically impaired as well. We believe, over the next couple of years, that we can probably spend up to $30 million of new money - federal and ours - to be able to take care of a problem that we know exists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the federal government's retreat from affordable housing programs in the last number of years, on this day of national housing strategy day of action, I want to ask the minister what his government has done to pressure the federal government to increase funding to adequately accommodate those in dire need of housing all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the member opposite, not only have we pressured the federal government in doing some things, but the provincial government, under Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, has taken a major initiative on the Northern Labrador coast where we spent about $7 million of our own provincial dollars in Nain, Rigolet and Makkovik to deal with a very serious problem that they have there. It has always been our initiative to go to the federal government. And you are correct, they should never have gotten out of the housing market in the first place. I think through all of the ministers and all the territorial leaders, they have been able to impress upon the federal minister his need to get back in it again. I am very glad to say that they are, but there is not enough money. We will be pressuring him to make sure that we get additional money to do the things that we need, not only in this Province but right across the whole country.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is time for one quick question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have time for one quick question. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government sold Marystown Shipyard for $1 and gave about $2.5 million more to go with it. In the advent following that it is also clear that they did not collect the penalties on it. Now, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development has been involved in a series of high-level negotiations to sell Marystown Shipyard.

My question for him is this: Can he confirm that while Friede Goldman picked up the shipyard for a buck, that they are now in the business of selling it for a price between $15 million and $20 million? Can he confirm that that is the price Friede Goldman are now asking for the yard that they bought for $1, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Well, that is what you call a socko.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is, I say to the hon. gentleman, that he knows and we know that we are in the process of trying to make sure that Marystown - we have told the people of Marystown that the assets not moving. We have told Friede Goldman that they are not moving. We have told this Legislature that they are not moving. We have told everybody that they will be kept there for the benefit -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Let me get to the question.

They have told us that they will be left there for the benefit of the people of Marystown. He knows and I know, and everybody in this House knows, that we are in the process of carrying on negotiations, hopefully, to see that that shipyard becomes very viable and provides work for the people of Marystown. He knows, just as well as I do, that you do not discuss negotiations in public but he wants to grandstand in front of the camera so that he can get his picture on television, and I welcome the opportunity to see him do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Section 28.2(2) of the Provincial -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Section 28.2(2) of the Provincial Court Act, 1991, to lay before the legislative assembly the report and recommendations of the 2001 Newfoundland Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal. This report is dated September 14, 2001.

I would like to provide some background on the process in place for determining compensation for provincial court judges, Mr. Speaker. The Provincial Court Act requires that a salary and benefits tribunal be appointed every four years to make recommendations to the Minister of Justice on the salary and benefits of judges. The minister is then required to table that report in the House of Assembly within fifteen days of receiving it or, in any case, within fifteen days of the opening of the House. The House of Assembly is then required to consider the report within thirty days of its being tabled or, in any event, before the House closes.

Mr. Speaker, this process is set in accordance with constitutional principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada, and based on the principle of judicial independence, which is really the foundation of our democratic system of government. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that any changes to, or freezes in judicial remuneration require prior recourse to a special process which is independent, effective, and objective for determining judicial remuneration. This is required to avoid the possibility of, or the appearance of, political interference with judicial independence through economic manipulation and thereby, ensures public confidence in the administration of justice.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank the tribunal members for their hard work over many weeks and months in reviewing the work of the court, and hearing and considering important submissions from judges, government, and other interested parties.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

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

I rise to give notice of the following private member's motion:

WHEREAS in recent years, child poverty rates have declined in all provinces except Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS over the past twenty years, our neighboring province, Prince Edward Island, has been able to reduce its child poverty rate from 22.7 per cent to 12.5 per cent; and

WHEREAS in those same years, the child poverty rate in Newfoundland and Labrador has increased from 21.6 per cent to 25.3 per cent; and

WHEREAS current longitudinal studies that follow families over time indicate that poverty affects a greater number of children than may have been thought by looking exclusively at the yearly child poverty rates; and

WHEREAS single-parent families have extremely high poverty rates; and

WHEREAS the 2001 Report of the National Council of Welfare shows, in considerable detail, the impact of poverty on family lifestyles and expectations; and

WHEREAS the link between socio-economic status and educational achievement has been demonstrated by numerous studies; and

WHEREAS the Williams Royal Commission and the Canning Report made many recommendations for positive actions to reduce child poverty rates in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the recent research shows that in some parts of our Province as many as 40 per cent of food bank recipients are children; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not demonstrated a strong commitment to the reduction of child poverty in our Province; and

WHEREAS the National Council of Welfare strongly recommends that greater emphasis be placed on comprehensive policies that support parents and children where low-income and poverty issues compromise reasonable lifestyle expectations;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House call on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to adopt social and economic strategies that will reduce child poverty in this Province to national levels or below by the year 2005; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House ask the government to present a comprehensive child poverty-reduction strategy, with sufficient budgetary commitments to achieve acceptable targets, in the March 2002 Provincial Budget.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of a bill -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We have not completed the routine business of the day.

MR. LUSH: I thought we were into Notices of Motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are dealing with Notices of Motion; that is the point at which we were.

MR. LUSH: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I present again today another petition that arrived at my office this morning. I will read the prayer of the petition:

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the hon. House of Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area. We are asking the government to consider the fact that people with disabilities, and their families, need to be able to utilize the support of family and friends within the community of Shea Heights.

If persons are forced to live in units outside the community, it compromises the help and support families so vitally need. We are asking that serious consideration be given to the construction of wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area so families with physical disabilities may avail of essential support networks.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support this petition, as I have every time I have presented petitions such as this. The need for wheelchair accessible housing units is very high, not only in the Shea Heights area but throughout the Province. The need for wheelchair accessible housing units in Shea Heights is vital, because families who have grown up in that community, who have their family, relatives, friends, and who have lived in that community all their lives, wish to stay in the community. It is almost criminal to demand that they move away from the community that they have lived in all their lives, that their family and friends live in, because there are no housing units accessible to them in that community.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking the minister again today to give serious consideration to the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area, and as well throughout the entire Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including school buses serving schools in the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the approximately four kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I stood here many times in this House presenting a similar petition for this same section of road. This government has made three attempts now to go to Bonavista - between Bonavista and Birchy Cove - three attempts to pave five kilometres of road. Today I am standing here, after three attempts, asking that four of those five kilometres of road continue to be paved.

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that this, the main highway leading from approximately fifteen communities that use Bonavista to commute to and from work, to and from the hospital, to and from government offices, have to drive over a section of road in such a deplorable condition. It is the main highway serving those communities.

Last year, I took the minister down there. The minister went down and announced his program for the year and he said: Roger, go ahead and tell your constituents that we are going to be upgrading and paving that section of roadway because it needs to be done - only to find out, from another phone call a couple of days later: I am sorry that we cannot do it because of the cost of pavement.

At that time I said to the minister: Now, Minister, do not use my argument that I have been using to you, that I have been saying for the past number of seasons. We have an asphalt plant in that particular area now, and now is the prime time to complete that section of road. Do not go using my argument saying, because there is no asphalt plant there now, we cannot pave that section of road because of the cost of transportation of asphalt from a section of the road up on Route 230.

Mr. Speaker, this is a roadway where the people in the area have gone out and been responsible. They have stood by the side of the road and said: Look, we are not going to close this roadway down, even though it is of grave concern to us. What we are going to do is, we are going to hand out papers. We are going to hand out leaflets to the motoring public to let them know what we have to do in order to bring this concern to government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, just a minute to clue up?

They did not close the roadway down; they did not block traffic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked for leave. Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 7, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of a bill, An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy, Bill 49, in the name of the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy," carried. (Bill 49)

On motion, Bill 49 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion11, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act," carried. (Bill 57)

On motion, Bill 57 read a first time, ordered read second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are into the adjourned debate of Order 9, the bill that is commonly known as the Class Actions Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 34, second reading.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join in this debate for a few minutes this afternoon in continuation of second reading of what is a relatively important piece of legislation for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, namely class action legislation.

I enjoyed listening to members on both sides of this Legislature as debate began a couple of days ago with respect to second reading of this particular bill. Much has been said about how this bill has, in fact, come about; and why it is, today, that we are now debating in second reading this important piece of legislation.

Much has been said, and so it should have been said, that much of the credit goes to the Hiland Consumers Association and, of course, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Bill Kelly. A group of people, spearheaded by Mr. Kelly, was instrumental in ensuring that this particular class action legislation came forward, and it is largely as a result of their efforts and their hard work that this was done.

I had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Kelly briefly and, of course, he is most pleased to know that this legislation is before the House. Incidentally, Mr. Kelly is in hospital and I think this is an appropriate time for all members, on both sides of the Legislature, to wish Mr. Kelly well during this particular time. I am sure it is indeed a special moment for him that, at this particular time, this particular bill is being debated.

I remember several months ago, in fact it was the last sitting of the Legislature, when this side of the House brought forward a petition. It was a petition, amongst other things, that certainly in our view contributed to this legislation coming forward. It was a petition that was spearheaded by the Hiland Consumers Association. I would just like to refer to it very briefly. In anticipation of such an act coming forward, or in the hope that such an act was coming forward, the wording of the petition stated as follows: that such legislation already in place in other parts of Canada - incidentally, there are three other provincial jurisdictions that presently enjoy class action legislation; namely: British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

The petition read: WHEREAS this legislation, already in place in other parts of Canada, would permit individual citizens to ban together as a group and to take their collective grievances to be adjudicated in a court of law...

The petition continued to state: WHEREAS class action proceedings contain a "no cost" or minimum cost clause which enables ordinary citizens to initiate court action without facing the prospect of tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs, thereby putting them on a "more or less" equal footing with large corporations, government agencies and other organizations with virtually unlimited funding.

The petition continued: The Hiland Consumers Association was formed in 1994 after Hiland Insurance and its agent went into bankruptcy, leaving more than 17,000 policyholders on the hook for millions in lost premiums.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we remember exactly what this is all about. We are talking about 17,000 policyholders on the hook for millions of dollars in lost premiums. I am told by individuals, by individuals I have spoken with, individuals I came in contact with over the past several months, that some of these individuals, in fact, lost from several hundred to as much as $2,000 as a result of what happened in the Hiland Insurance misfortune; or perhaps a better word, fiasco.

Mr. Speaker, it is now hoped that this legislation which is brought forward - and much has been said by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, much has been said by our own justice critic on this already, but - it is hoped that this type of legislation will allow ordinary citizens, ordinarily Newfoundland and Labradorians, who, on their own, may question whether it is worthwhile to proceed on an individual basis but in a joint effort, in a combined effort, see great value and great worth in bringing forward a claim to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland as a part of the class action procedure.

Also, a number of months ago, at the time when a petition was brought forward by this side of the House petitioning government to see to it that this kind of legislation be enacted, there was also a press release put forward, and it was coincidental with a story that came out of the Province of Ontario. In fact, I remember when the press release was issued; we have a date here. It was issued on March 28, 2001. That press released coincided with the story in The Telegram that was interesting from the point of view that it referred to a class action that was taken in the Province of Ontario.

I will just refer to it very briefly because it will give all member present an idea as to how and when a class action proceeding may be appropriate. This, as I have indicated, has come out of the Province of Ontario and it refers to a former Inco nickel refinery having leaked large amounts of cancer-causing toxins into the Southern Ontario community of Port Colborne; and, as a result of that problem that existed in that community, a class action was undertaken. In fact, the suit sought, in damages, $750 million against the company, against the provincial Environment Ministry, against the region of Niagara, against the City of Port Colborne, and against two local school boards.

That particular lawsuit had the potential of including, in this particular case, between 20,000 and 25,000 people, both current and past residents of the community of Port Colborne, and the residents claimed that Inco and the province knew about a problem for years but they failed to offer compensation or pay for a cleanup.

That is an example, certainly on a larger scale, involving some 20,000 to 25,000 either present or former residents of a community, and perhaps, on another scale, looking at individuals, for example, who went through the very unfortunate experience of what happened in this Province with respect to losing perhaps as much as several hundred or, as I have indicated, as much as $2,000 as a result of the collapse of Hiland Insurance.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as has already being expressed, now puts in place a procedure which will allow ordinary people in our Province, when they band together, to seriously pursue a claim if, in fact, the facts warrant, and if, in fact, I guess, the procedure is accepted by the Supreme Court.

There are a few terms and a few clauses in the bill that I would like to refer to specifically because they will help us understand, perhaps, and have a greater appreciation for what is involved in a class action suit.

The act refers to common issues, so obviously the legislation contemplates that there has to be a common issue but not, according to the act, necessarily an identical issue of fact, or common, but not necessarily an identical issue of law that could arise. So right in the definition section we have some indication of what is meant and defined by common issues.

There is, as the minister indicated yesterday in a press conference, a certification procedure whereby it states in section 3.(1), "One member of a class of persons who reside in the province may commence an action in the court on behalf of the members of that class." So obviously there has to be some form of a representative plaintiff. And 3.(2), "The member who commences the action shall apply to a judge of the court within the time period in subsection (3) for an order certifying the action as a class action and appointing the member as the representative plaintiff." Clearly, there is a preliminary procedure known as a certification procedure which has to go through the court, as a part of the court procedure, before the class action or the substantive issue being determined as part of that class action is, in fact, determined.

Section 5.(1) of the act states, "On an application made under section 3 or 4, the court shall certify an action..." when or "...where (a) the pleadings disclose a cause of action; (b) there is an identifiable class of 2 or more persons." Now this is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to think that this legislation could, in fact, encompass a number of persons as low as two. We just had the example in the Province of Ontario, in the community of Port Colborne, where there was a potential class with a number as high as 25,000. This act contemplates a class being identified with as few as two. So, it is an interesting section.

Section 5 continues to state, "...the court shall certify an action as a class action where (c) the claims of the class members raise a common issue, whether or not the common issue is the dominant issue; (d) a class action is the preferable procedure to resolve the common issues of the class." There are more sections within that particular provision and more tests, I guess, that had to be met. So obviously the court is under some obligation to assess clearly whether the tests had been met, whether the requisite subsections, in fact, meet the tests to ensure that certification and, presumably, the substantive issue being addressed in the class action proceeding can be addressed.

Interestingly, under section 7.(2), Mr. Speaker, it goes on to state, "A class that is made up of persons resident in the province and persons not resident in the province shall be divided into resident and non-resident subclasses." So it is conceivable that there could be a class action commenced in our own Supreme Court, in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of this Province, that would include both residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and non-residents.

Under section 9.(1) the act contemplates, or suggests I guess, what the contents of a certification order shall be. It states, "A certification order shall (a) describe the class in respect of which the order was made by setting out the class's identifying characteristics;..." and this would be right in certification order, Mr. Speaker, "...(b) appoint the representative plaintiff for the class; (c) state the nature of the claims asserted on behalf of the class; (d) state the relief sought by the class; (e) set out the common issues for the class; (f) state the manner in which and the time within which a class member may opt out of the action."

Furthermore, in Part II of the act there is a provision indicating what the conduct of a class action should consist of, but like any legislation there are perhaps some improvements that can be made, and this is perhaps more appropriate for Committee stage, when we enter into Committee.

I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, section 15. Upon reading a somewhat muddled, I suggest - and perhaps it is a section that the minister and his officials could have a look at. I would just like to read it. Again, we are talking about applications and it is more of interpretation than anything but it is a section that perhaps could be clarified and reworked to make sure that it makes a little bit more sense.

Section 15.(1) states, "The judge who makes a certification order shall hear all applications in the class action before the trial of the common issues."

Subsection (2) goes on to state, "Where the judge who makes a certification order is unavailable to hear an application in the class action, the chief justice of the court many assign another judge of the court to hear the application."

Subsection (3), "A judge who makes a certification order or hears applications respecting a class action may preside at the trial of the common issues."

I find that there is some ambiguity in that particular section 15, particularly subsection (1), followed by (2), and followed by subsection (3). Some thought may be given by the minister and his department to, in fact, consider the rewording of that particular section.

It is interesting in section 17, Mr. Speaker, that there is an opt in and opt out provision, which essentially means that if an individual member of the community is part of the class action proceeding there is at least an opportunity to opt out. Conversely, if a person is not part of the class action proceeding there is now an opportunity, under this act, to opt in. So these opt in and opt out provisions are indeed important.

Mr. Speaker, the act is largely procedural. The act brings into question, or gives examples, as to how members who want to participate in a class action proceeding are to conduct themselves. Certain tests have to be met, certain requirements have to be met and, as I have indicated, this is largely a bill that sets out how individuals are to conduct themselves who want to form a part of a class action proceeding.

Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly important for us to say, on this side of the House, as members of the Official Opposition, that we certainly have no difficulty in supporting this particular piece of legislation. It is one that we petitioned for in this House. It is one where publicly we expressed the view and the need that class action legislation was essential to protect the interests of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is a bill that we felt ought to be consistent with at least a number of other Canadian jurisdictions. As it turns out, they are in fact the largest three Canadian jurisdictions, namely the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. I think it is only fitting that we, in this Province, have similar legislation, that we now have an opportunity, and individuals have an opportunity, to band together and to join in an action to bring similar points of concern and similar points of interest to the Supreme Court of the Province, to have their concerns and issues addressed and determined.

When the time comes, Mr. Speaker, I feel very safe to say that there will be unanimous support for the passing of this legislation. It is, if I may use the word, `progressive' legislation and it is smart legislation. What it does, and what the minister has done in bringing this act forward, he has responded to what individuals such as Mr. Kelly and the Hiland Consumers Association have stated, he has responded to what we, as the Official Opposition, have presented to this House on several occasions, and he has brought forward a piece of legislation which is consistent with good judgement and at least shows a willingness to respond to what ordinary citizens in this Province want and need.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty supporting this and we look forward to the Committee stage to deal with a few inconsistencies and a few, what we would suggest to be, inaccuracies in the draft bill. We look forward, at the end of the day, to the final reading and passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This new Class Action Bill will have Newfoundland joining the ranks of numerous other jurisdictions which had the wisdom to provide their citizens with a comprehensive class proceedings regime. As my colleague said previously this week, we have started on a chosen and tested path in helping the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, access the justice system via class claims.

This is a positive step, Mr. Speaker. In Canada, the Province of Quebec was the first to give residents a class proceedings act. This act was passed in 1979 and gave their legal system clear rules and procedures for the conduct of class actions. This was unknown territory in 1979 and the Quebec experience would help other Canadian jurisdictions decide whether or not class actions were appropriate for their province.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, Ontario started a lengthy period of study into the suitability of class action legislation for their province. They spent twelve years producing three separate reports on the topic prior to enacting their act in 1992. That landmark act studied and addressed the various criticisms of the Quebec legislation.

In 1995, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario act was used to form the basis of the British Columbia Class Proceedings Act. That province, like Ontario before it, looked to past experiences and previous legislation in designing its own act.

Further, Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the Right Honourable Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls, recommended that England, which has the most historic and influential common law system in the world, should adopt a class action regime along the lines of those of British Columbia and Ontario. In 1998, such a system was adopted.

The model for our act, Mr. Speaker, is the draft class proceedings act developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, in 1996. It incorporates the lessons learned and the best features of the Ontario and the British Columbia acts. Such legislation provided a sound basis for launching our own class actions regime.

Mr. Speaker, we are not alone in our efforts to increase access to justice with a comprehensive class actions regime. In the past three years the Federal Court of Canada's Rules Committee and the Law Reform Commissions of Alberta and Manitoba have also brought forward reports. It is clear that we are part of a (inaudible) Canadian trend to open provincial justice systems to a broader base of plaintiffs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are not alone this fall in introducing such legislation. Saskatchewan has only just finished passing its own class action act. It should become law early in the new year. That the legislative path is well trodden is quite clear. The question remains, Mr. Speaker, however, as to what the practical experience has been.

I am pleased to report that the system has worked as they were designed to do. There were concerns among some of the other jurisdictions that the courts would be swallowed up with a rush of complex, expensive and mostly frivolous class action cases. There were fears that thousands of claims would be rushed to judgement without ever having been properly proven. Mr. Speaker, such fearmongering has been shown to have been groundless.

The experience has shown that the Bar and judiciary in each of the provinces have been acting in concert to see that the legislation is properly used to ensure that class action litigation is conducted efficiently, fairly, and predictably. The numbers bear this out, Mr. Speaker. In Quebec, between 1979 and 1997, only thirty-five class action suits had been decided by that province's courts. Further, during the 1997 calendar year, a full nineteen years after the introduction of the act, only five motions of certification were heard. In the early years of the Quebec act, less than 50 per cent of class action suits passed the certification stage. This shows that such a system remains manageable, while still meeting its goals. Ontario has had a similar experience. From the time it enacted its legislation in 1998, they saw seventy-five class action suits launched. Of those, seventeen reached the point of certification, and only twelve of those were certified to proceed. Again, for the jurisdiction the size of Ontario, these are very reasonable numbers, Mr. Speaker. Given the additional opportunities for accessing justice, this is a very manageable load for the system to absorb.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the numbers reflect the increased ability of the public to access the judicial system. Further, the numbers certainly do not reflect a system under siege, as was feared by some. It is clear that the class action legislation in Canada, in Canada's three most populous provinces, have been a leap forward for their respective legal systems and it is only just that this Province take the same proven path.

Bill 34, Mr. Speaker, will correct our current regime with its inflexible rules. The implementation of this legislation will provide our citizens with a level of access to justice. I commend the minister and the government, and I am honoured to stand with my fellow colleagues in this House to support Bill 34. Mr. Speaker, may it never happen again what had happened to approximately 20,000 of our residents in the ordeal that they had to go through. This legislation is another prime example of this government's commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. July 6, this government announced their intention to draft this legislation. Mr. Speaker, here we are today honouring that commitment.

Once again, I want to thank the minister and the government for putting forth Bill 34, and I am honoured to say that I support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to close debate regarding second reading.

The Kelly bill is indeed, very important, extremely important, and I think it shows, not only that it was needed and long overdue in this Province, but it also shows that this government was particularly sensitive and responsive to the need for this legislation. Mr. Kelly, who it is happily named after, should, of course, be given absolute full credit for being -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: - for being instrumental in this regard.

I appreciate the comments of the justice critic, the Member for Lewisporte, and the comments of the Member for St. John's East as well, concerning some possible discussions as to some particular sections. The reference to may, and shall, permissive, and mandatory, references in some sections of the act. Those concerns, of course, will be dealt with in Committee stage.

I would concur, as it seems everyone in the House concurs, that this was legislation long overdue and needed. There will not be any opposition to the passing of the bill into its general form and if anything, maybe some minor changes. Part of committee and part of the process, and I would certainly wholeheartedly concur with it, is that if there is anything minor wrong with this we would certainly be open to any suggestions and rational comments because this is not about doing it, this is about doing it right.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Permit An Action By One Person On Behalf Of A Class Of Persons," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 34)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 20, Bill 23, An Act to Amend The Health Care Association Act, Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical Nurses Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Care Association Act, Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical Nurses Act." (Bill 23)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the amendments to The Health Care Association Act, Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical Nurses Act, is specifically to be able to accommodate people to participate in board and council meetings by telephone and by other communication devices. It is a very simple amendment to this act. I say that, in essence, what it does is bring this legislation not into the twenty-first century, but into the twentieth century, in fact.

Specifically, the amendment will allow for council meetings, participants to take place in council meetings, via telephone or other telecommunication device and, for the purposes of the record and the official aspect of conducting these meetings, to be considered present and in attendance at meetings.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments being proposed here are requested, and have been requested, by the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Community Services Association and by the Council for Licensed Practical Nurses. I believe that in practical experience what they have found is that, due to geographic distances, sometimes due to weather, and sometimes due to cost, it does not always permit board members to be able to attend every meeting. Consequently, sometimes there has been difficulty for the board itself in being able to achieve a quorum. This has caused problems for them in being able to conduct their business effectively.

Mr. Speaker, in proposing these amendments it is really with the intent of trying to facilitate the regular conduct of board meetings and decision-making, allowing for participation in a means that, I think, is very standardly accepted today via telephone and telecommunication devices. I think this can only enhance the ability of our boards to be able to do their business in an effective, cost-effective, and efficient way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to welcome the opportunity to make a few comments about this bill, particularly the Health Care Association Act and the Hospitals Act, because I think these are two critical ones given the current state of the health system today.

I just want to talk a little bit about not just the manner in which boards have meetings, and their ability to be able to conduct them via telephone or other telecommunication links like that, but the whole notion of health boards, health associations and their meetings, because they do have a critical role and they have a function within our health system.

As we start looking at the events of the last five or six months it is kind of important, I think, to remind ourselves of why boards exist. Health boards are made up of people from the communities in which they live, and they represent those communities in districts. They are the people who are closer to the communities. These are the people who have an understanding of what issues are important in their regions, and they have a responsibility. They have a responsibility for governance of health services in their respective regions of the Province. I think one of the things that they hold very dear to them is their responsibility to the people they serve, and they are held accountable for those people they serve.

I think we need to examine the relationship that those health boards have with the Department of Health and Community Services, and I think it is critical to acknowledge up front that these health boards are an important aspect of our health system. I think it is important that the minister acknowledge the role that they have, acknowledge her responsibility and government's responsibility, in listening to some of the comments that they make.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to a news release from the Minister of Health and Community Services dated March 22 of this year. At that time, the minister indicated that there was an additional $50 million going into health budgets, and that was going to stabilize health funding. She indicated that the boards will now have a balanced budget in this particular fiscal year.

I listened with some interest yesterday, and I listened to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board when she said: We have added $50 million to our budgets this year - in reference to health budgets. Then she goes on to say that within six weeks of that date, within six weeks of March 22, the minister indicated that: we heard from health boards that they were having difficulty living within their additional budgets, or that additional $50 million.

Mr. Speaker, from my calculations, from March 22, six weeks would take you up until the end of April. The end of April would have given you six weeks. The Minister of Finance indicated yesterday that government was aware the end of April that health boards were having difficulty with their budgets, and that health boards could not function with the additional $50 million that they were given.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make reference to another press release; because it was four-and-a-half months later, on September 18, when the Minister of Health and Community Services issued a press release that startled the Province when she said that health boards - no, the health institutional boards - she did not comment at all about the community health boards, but she said the institutional health boards were going to have an $18 million deficit this year, and she said it with some surprise and some shock. However, as we were told yesterday by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, government knew this by the end of April.

That is a clear example of where this Province has set up health boards to be responsible for the governance of health services in respective areas in the Province, and these boards are telling the minister, these boards are advising the minister on issues with respect to health care in their respective regions, and the minister is not listening - totally unheeded - proceeding ahead as if the boards do not exist.

Mr. Speaker, we can make all the amendments we want, we can introduce all the bills that we want, that can allow boards to function more effectively and conduct their meetings easier, but it is useless to have the boards, regardless of how easy it is for them to conduct their meetings, if we are not prepared to listen to them. They have a function, and it is government's responsibility to pay attention to the direction and the recommendations that they are getting.

Just on another point, when we heard back in the first part of November when the minister then said that, of the $18 million deficit that we are having, we are only able to achieve a $10 million saving. That is a reflection of what the boards told her as well. In September, when the minister was advised that the $18 million cuts were not achievable without making massive cuts in services and laying off employees, the minister said that she was comfort that those $18 million could be taken out of the system without impacting services or laying people off.

By her own admission in November, when she indicated that the boards could only come up with $10 million of those savings and the remaining $7 million could not be achieved, finally the minister realized the boards knew what they were talking about. They knew what they were talking about back in March, they knew what they were talking about in September, and finally the minister has recognized that you cannot take that kind of money out of the system without making massive cuts.

Mr. Speaker, the minister now needs to consider what the health boards are currently dealing with. She firstly did not listen to them when they said they could not live with the additional $50 million; that was not enough. She did not listen to them when they told her they could not take $18 million out the system without making massive cuts in services and without laying off large numbers of employees. She did not listen at any of those times.

The minister now needs to take that kind of advice and recognize that the boards are out there today, even though the minister did not answer my question the other day in Question Period when I asked: What is the total accumulated long-term debt of boards? The minister did not answer my question, but we understand from the health boards that currently, right now today, the health system has roughly an $80 million to $90 million accumulated deficit that they have as long-term debt.

The boards are telling the minister today - and I suggest once again that she needs to listen to what they are saying - that they cannot carry an $80 million to $90 million long-term debt and service it with next year's budget. If health boards are going to have to have an $80 million to $90 million long-term debt on their books, how are they going to service it?

I will just use a couple of examples. In my own district, Mr. Speaker, the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation has a $9.5 million long-term debt. The minister is saying to the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation, you must take your $48 million annual budget and you must carve out of it enough money to service a $9.5 million long-term debt.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a banker but I suspect that if that board is going to pay off that $9.5 million over a reasonable period of time, they are going to have to encroach on that $48 million somewhere in the range of $2 million to $2.5 million a year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: If that board has to take a couple of million dollars out their existing budget, if they are already tight, already strapped, already now operating on a shoestring budget, then what that really means, if health boards are going to service that long-term debt, they are going to have to make further cuts. When health boards put forward their plans for next year, they are going to include massive cuts to be able to service the large accumulated deficit.

Mr. Speaker, as I talk about health boards putting forward plans and action plans, it begs the question: Where do they go when they are submitted? Because last year around this time, health boards were asked to put together their budget for the fiscal year 2001-2002. Mr. Speaker, when they were asked to put together these budgets, they were also asked to put together an action plan.

Health boards in this Province were advised by the Minister of Health and Community Services that included in their budgets for this fiscal year that we are currently into, they needed to include an action plan telling her how they were going to function within that money.

Mr. Speaker, those action plans were never acknowledged. The minister never did tell those health boards that, your action plans are approved; or, that we would want them modified in some fashion.

Mr. Speaker, it begs the question: If, in fact, the minister had taken those action plans last fall, if she had taken those action plans which were the recommendation of these same health boards that she is now trying to make more effective in how they function, if she had taken the recommendation of those health boards and ran with them, implemented them, it begs the question of whether or not we would have had an announcement in September of 2001 that health boards had an $18 million deficit.

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as what this bill might be about - this bill focuses on making board meetings more effective, allowing board members easier access to meetings - the fundamental and core to this whole issue of how boards function is whether or not the minister and the government of the day are prepared to use those boards in a fashion in which they were established in the first place, which clearly is to take people from communities and appoint them to health boards because they, in fact, have a good grasp of the health system in their respective areas. They understand the health issues in their respective areas, and they are in a better position to put together the action plans and the strategies for the delivery of health services in those areas.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to have effectively run boards, then the minister is going to have to acknowledge that she is going to have to take their advice periodically. It is no longer rational or reasonable for government to be appointing boards and ignoring their mandate, ignoring the advice they are giving them.

Mr. Speaker, the direction very clearly to the minister is: It is one thing to make legislation like this so that boards can in fact function effectively, but it is a very different story when you take those boards - and they are all making major commitments. They are, in fact, volunteering their time. These people do not get paid , Mr. Speaker. These people are volunteering their time, on a weekly basis, making a significant contribution to the communities in which they live, and it is about time that government start paying attention to the advice that these boards are giving them.

If the government is not prepared to take the advice of these boards then the minister, rather than amending legislation and creating bills for them to function, should re-examine how they function. Because clearly, Mr. Speaker, this government has shown a blatant disregard for health boards in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the minister that she would re-evaluate not just how boards function but how the relationship between boards and government exist. It is about time that the department started to re-evaluate that relationship.

Thank you for the opportunity of speaking on the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on the bill before the House today. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill because it allows for the opportunity for organizations like health boards within our Province that, despite geographic distances and other obstacles, are still able to come together to share in the participation and the administration of our health care system within Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I know all too well what it is like to have a region that poses difficulty in terms of being able to get together and meet and hold meetings on a regular basis. When you look at the communication technology that we use today in both teleconferencing and in videoconferencing, in telephone systems, it is the norm, it is the way that we do business around the world these days, and it is only right that these organizations and entities have the opportunity to be able to perform the important business that they carry out in the very same manner.

Mr. Speaker, I want to certainly respond to some of the comments as well that have been made this evening by the Member for Trinity North. One that I take great offence to is his comment in which he references this government's blatant disregard for boards throughout our Province. I would like to say that we have shown the greatest respect, the greatest admiration, for the work that health boards do in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We realize, Mr. Speaker, that the people who put themselves forward to serve on these boards and in those capacities every single day deal with the same situations, the same circumstances and the same challenges within our health care system as we do in this House, and others around the Province. We respect them for the work they do, and we have carried on a long-established relationship with those individuals not only on a regular basis but a day-to-day basis, as need be, in terms of delivering health care to the people of this Province.

He talks about cutting $18 million from health boards. Mr. Speaker, we are not cutting $18 million. In the last Budget, we put $50 million into stabilizing health boards in this Province. The hon. member was one of the members who tapped his desk that day and congratulated this government for that investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, he understood at that time the importance of making an investment of this nature to the boards in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: He understood the necessity of being able to offer stabilization, and being able to top up the budgets with any - any - dollars that we had available, Mr. Speaker, any dollars that we had available.

We had an agreement, Mr. Speaker, and we are working with these boards to ensure that we can deliver the best possible health care services within this Province, within the allocations that have been made.

Mr. Speaker, we are listening to the people of this Province. Just recently the Minister of Health completed a series of health forums around the Province. In each region she had participation. She heard the views of what people had to say. She listened to their suggestions in terms of how we should be restructuring and moving in terms of health care within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, that was the most extensive communications and listening consultation that has ever occurred in health within this Province to date. So to say that we are not listening; the facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only about listening, it is also about participating, and that is why we brought forward the amendments in this bill today, so that we can allow the people who are representatives of boards and other organizations and entities to participate in a very meaningful way, to ensure that their vote is counted at the table whether it is through video teleconferencing, whether it is through telephone systems, whether it is through teleconferencing, or whatever the mechanism may be. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that we do hear the views of the people and that they have equal participation, no matter where they live in the Province, in the business of the organization or the entity that they are involved with.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to support the bill that is put forward. I certainly understand and agree with the importance of having these amendments passed in the House today, and I would ask that all members support the amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise to speak on this bill as well today. This bill is straightforward. It amends the Health Care Association Act, Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical Nurses Act, to allow for, subject to the organization's by-laws or regulations, members of the boards and councils to participate in board and council meetings via telephone and other telecommunications devices that allow all persons participating in the meeting to hear each other.

As the previous speakers have said, it certainly lends for more inclusion, more participation by board members from all parts of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This initiative, as well, will probably result in lower costs incurred by board members and council members, as there will be reduced travel and travel associated costs incurred by the members. It may also boost attendance at meetings by making it easier and more convenient for members to participate in such meetings.

There is one question that I would like to ask the Minister of Health today regarding this amendment: If people are participating in meetings by telephone from their homes, will they continue to receive the same per diem allowance as they receive if they were to travel in person to a meeting?

As was echoed by my colleague here when he spoke a few moments ago, it is all very well to have meetings of the health boards, whether they are held in person or held by telephone or other means of electronic telecommunication, but the important part, and the part that is really missing here, is whether or not the minister is listening to what the boards have to say. That has not been echoed in the past. We see the health and community services boards out there now looking for more money and complaining to the Department of Health that there has been a freeze on home care which is resulting in higher end costs by people being maintained in hospitals, which, of course, is causing great distress to many of the patients. The minister is not listening to the boards on those aspects.

One of the questions that I ask is: Whether the meeting are held in person or by telephone, will the minister heed the messages that the boards are giving out?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few minutes today to speak to this bill and, first off, to commend the Minister of Health who is doing an excellent job of getting around the Province and listening to people who know about health care. This minister is very dedicated to the task.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to meet the challenges in health care in a very aggressive fashion. Government, in the last five years, has committed over $300 million worth of budget increases. We are up to $1.4 billion now in the health care budget. I think everybody in the Province understands that we have to work together to try to work out what is the best health care system that we can possibly put forward. Our Minister of Health is very involved, at this point, with her officials in doing that. Also, a key part of that are the boards who are responsible for administering. It is very important for the boards. People who volunteer to be on these boards meet on a continuing basis and they try to deal with the challenges, and also try to reflect in each of the areas of the Province, the needs of the people who want to see a health care system that works for them in that area.

Mr. Speaker, on that note I would like to say that in our area, the District of Stephenville and Bay St. George area, we were very pleased recently with the Western Health Care Board and the decision to put a new dialysis service in Stephenville for people who need it. A case was made. I want to thank a gentleman, Mr. Don Tompkins, a senior citizen who went to work with the committee, who was able to put the case forward to the board and was able to convince the board, vocally with board members, that this service was needed. Also, to thank the Department of Health because the Department of Health was able to ensure that in the budget there was funding there to operate the service. That is an example of how the boards can work and see a service that is needed come into place. It is working well. It needs to be improved, and that is what the Minister of Health is doing.

This bill talks about how to improve the operations of the boards, but on the overall, when we look at where we have been, the first priority, the major priority in this administration, if you look at the budget that we put forward, has been health care. There is not a question mark about it. We have increased the budgets, we have worked with the boards, and we are continuing to do that. We have to find inventive ways to get more technology into the system to help with that. Our minister and our government has pressured the federal government, been involved in that, in ensuring that the federal government spends more money in health care. That is something that we need to see happen, especially with our challenges of geography where we are trying to deal with a population in a large rural area in the Province. So it is important that we continue to make representations to the federal government. It is extremely important that we make these representations strongly so that areas in rural Canada - like in our Province, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - see improvements. The minister is meeting that challenge. She has been working diligently to do that, and we look forward to seeing more improvements made in the near future, Mr. Speaker. We will see that happen by working together in collaboration.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of the amendments to this bill as well. I have to agree that the huge costs of travel, particularly in areas such as Labrador, are certainly astronomical and consumes a huge chunk of the board's budget. There is no question, there are better uses for that money to be spent directly on health care for the people who live in the regions. Mr. Speaker, most of the boards around the Province are preoccupied with their deficit positions and the high cost of travel, particularly when you have to fly to each and every meeting from all across Labrador. It would certainly do a lot in bringing their budgets more inline, but more importantly, freeing up much needed money to spend on direct health care needs of the residents of Labrador.

I would like to talk about some of the problems that we incur as residents living in Labrador. For example, the long waiting lists people have to endure to get appointments are mainly here in St. John's because this is where most people have to travel if they have any serious medical problems whatsoever. Coupled with that, Mr. Speaker, many times what happens is that there are a series of appointments that a person has to make once they receive the initial visit to a doctor here in the capital. They are not taking into consideration the needs of the people who have to travel and the difficulties, financial and otherwise, that they endure by having to make such trips.

It is not uncommon at all for someone from Labrador to be out here going to a hospital, seeing a doctor here in St. John's and they make an appointment for them to come back again next week or the week after, and probably make a series of appointments. You wouldn't know but all they had to do was walk out into their driveway, get aboard the car and drive for a few hours and be here. Well, it is not that way at all, as you are aware. It is a great cost travelling from Labrador to St. John's. It is a great expense to the person, to the patient, to their families, and whoever else accompanies them, depending on the seriousness of their illness.

There is also a problem, Mr. Speaker, in communication. A little while ago, about a month ago, in Labrador West the Women's Wellness Centre was discontinued for a period of time. Now the health corporation board said that they did not have any intention of discontinuing that service to the women of Labrador West and Churchill Falls area, but the way it was handled, the way it was communicated, caused a lot of concern in the community. Most of the talk surrounding what happened at the Women's Wellness Centre, was that it was going to close. That caused a lot of turmoil, a lot of concern, and a lot of anxiety for people in Labrador West. So the communication aspect has to be improved, Mr. Speaker, in order for the boards to clearly let the people in the regions know what their intentions are on any particular topic.

Mr. Speaker, also in Labrador West we need more specialist visits in all areas of the medical profession. We need increased physiotherapy facilities. There are long waiting lines for people to get physiotherapy that they badly need. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is no question, it is easier to arrange meetings by telephone or by other electronic means than it is to have everyone try and congregate in one area, in one room, at any particular point in time, particularly when they live hundreds of miles away from each other. It also allows for fuller participation because if a person, who is on a board, cannot make it to a particular town for a meeting on a particular night then they very well may be in a position to take part in that meeting, via teleconferencing or other means that they may have available to them.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to say that I support the amendments to this bill. As I said earlier, the monies that are used now in travel can much better be used to provide direct health care benefits to the people in the different regions around this Province.

The other thing I would like to touch on, before I conclude, is on the need to increase the travel subsidy that is available to residents of Labrador under the non-emergency medical relief fund. That was brought into effect many, many years ago. It needs to be increased in light of today's costs, because the cost incurred today by families who have to travel to St. John's is certainly much greater than it was when this program was put in place.

Mr. Speaker, in saying that, I certainly rise in favour of the changes and the amendments to this bill. Again, I say that definitely the money that is used for travel can best be directed towards direct health care and the residents of Labrador; and other regions of this Province will hopefully be better off as a result.

Thank you.

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

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their support for this piece of legislation, the amendment to the Health Care Association Act, the Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical Nurses Act.

From the comments of all my colleagues in the House everyone would recognize, certainly, that there are many challenges facing health care and there is a need to achieve every possible efficiency that we can within our health care system if we are going to be able to meet the many needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this area.

In one small way, this particular amendment to these acts will permit our boards, who are on the front lines of trying to deliver health services to people across this Province, to do their jobs more efficiently. It will perhaps - as the last speaker just indicated - as well, enable for broader representation and input to the boards if, in fact, people who live quite a distance from where the board meets are able to convene and have their input via teleconference, telephone or something of that nature.

So I believe that this is something that is timely and that will achieve greater efficiency for our boards. It is something they are looking for, and I am pleased to be able to bring it forward today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude the debate on second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Care Association Act, Hospitals Act And Licensed Practical Nurses Act," read a second time, ordered preferred to the Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 23)

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 19, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act," Bill 26.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act." (Bill 26)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of this piece of legislation is really to validate a separate category of nurse practitioner specialist. Currently under our legislation, nurse practitioner specialists have been extended and given extended diagnostic and prescriptive authorities, and that is as a result of recent amendments to their regulations. However, given that these practice protocols are not provided for in the Registered Nurses Act, these powers could be challenged, and this is something we wanted to be able to rectify. The amendment, therefore, will outline the authority of the act to adopt practice protocols and to validate a separate category called nurse practitioner specialist.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Registered Nurses Act regarding this are being brought forward after considerable consultation. The department and officials have met with members of the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have consulted with the Newfoundland Medical Board, with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, with the Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association and with our Health Boards Association and, in all of these cases, they have met with support for this particular amendment.

The amendment will also explicitly identify the appointment, the duties and the authority of the committee of representatives which is currently referred to in section 22.1 of the Registered Nurses Act. This includes the role of the committee, the core representation from the three bodies who will make up the committee, and it will identify and again prescribe the protocols subject to regulations being developed by the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are other provinces across the country who have moved in this direction and who specifically recognize nurse practitioner or extended or advanced practice in nursing, and we will be joining them with this specific amendment.

For the most part, Mr. Speaker, what the act does is validate something that we have already put in place through regulation that is working well, and we want to ensure that we have the appropriate authority to be able to sustain and continue with this practice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is a pleasure, actually, to support this bill. I think, as the minister has indicated, it puts the legislative framework in place to protect the nurse practitioners who are already established in the Province.

I want to commend government for having taken the step to establish nurse practitioners in the Province. I think it reflects a very progressive view, it acknowledges the training and the expertise that nurses have, and acknowledges that there is a role within the health system for a very diversified group of practitioners, and also that we should be very cognition of the fact that many health providers have a level of training that allows them to perform certain tasks well beyond what they are currently doing. As we start looking at the means and ways in which to provide a more effective and efficient health system, a better utilization and maximum utilization of all our health providers becomes critical, and I commend government for doing that.

I would make the comment to the minister, Mr. Speaker: As government starts to look at expanding the role of nurse practitioners - and we understand that they are already established in a number of clinical settings around the Province - I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the minister has given some thought to looking at expanding the scope of practice of nurses in a number of other areas. I am thinking particularly of oncology. Given the current state of the difficulties and challenges we are having in recruiting medical oncologists for the Province, it begs the question of whether or not we now need to re-examine the role of nurses within the provision of that oncology service.

I think particularly of a setting like Corner Brook where the Cancer Research Foundation has a clinic and has for some time been challenged to find a medical oncologist. It would appear that there is no end in sight. It would appear that services still have a vacancy. As we understand, there have been arrangements made to have an oncologist travel there once every couple of months. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has had some experience with that service would acknowledge that having a medical oncologist visit every couple of months is not adequate service.

I guess it begs the question, Mr. Speaker, about whether or not it is now time to look at expanding the role of nurses in some other areas as well, and oncology becomes one of those areas that I think lends itself to allowing nurses to have their scope of practice extended, to be able to provide an expanded service well within their scope of training and to be able to provide improved service to the clients who deal with that particular condition.

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to support the bill and commend government for having expanded the role of nurses and look forward, as we start looking at changes in our health system, to the expanded roles of many other health practitioners to ensure that they are all able to practice within the scope of their training. I welcome some legislation and some changes in that direction.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I, too, rise in support of the amendment to The Registered Nurses Act. I congratulate the minister that now nurses are using the full scope of their training and expertise and doing things that they are quite capable and quite interested in doing.

As an example, Madam Speaker, the Women's Wellness Centre in Labrador West that I referred to in my earlier comments is being run by a nurse, a nurse who, by the way, Madam Speaker, I am proud to say, from all the reports that I am getting, is doing a fabulous job in running that clinic, much needed by the community.

I think, in expanding the jobs and the roles that I know they have been doing, when you add extra duties to the nursing profession I think it is also incumbent upon government to look at the number of nurses in the system, because obviously there are more nurses needed in our hospitals throughout this Province.

Just a few short words in closing. Nurses are trained for this, they are quite capable of performing this type of work, the expanded duties. They have been doing it and they look forward to it. So I think the minister is to be commended for making the changes necessary to allow them to finally legitimately exercise their responsibilities in the manner in which they were trained.

Thank you.

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 want, certainly, to rise and have a few comments on this bill, The Registered Nurses Act, regarding nursing practitioner specialist.

Madam Speaker, these are, no doubt, people within our medical system who contribute a great deal, especially when you look at regions like my district, in particular, where you have a lot of isolated communities and small run clinic operations. Most of the people that work in those clinics have certainly been trained in more advanced medical training in terms of being able to do diagnostics and prescription work, as well. You will find that a lot of these people, in the last couple of years, have endeavored to participate in the nursing practitioner program and nursing practitioner specialist program in order to upgrade themselves and to better prepare themselves for the work that they do in these communities.

Madam Speaker, it is very important, certainly, to recognize and acknowledge that and acknowledge the contribution that they make, because it is sometimes very difficult when you find yourself in a community like Nain or Port Hope Simpson or Hopedale or Mary's Harbour where you have to depend upon referral services of another hospital that is certainly outside of the area and requires air medivacs in order to be able to access it. You really need to have individuals that have the full gamut of qualifications and skills to be able to manage and deliver the health care services in those particular communities.

We have been very fortunate, not only in coastal Labrador but all across the Province, to have such well-trained, well-experienced, well-equipped nurses within our system, within our health care system, and those that certainly have taken their training a step further and have done the nursing practitioner specialist training to be able to deliver the best possible service, no matter where you are within the Province. I want to recognize them today and to recognize the level of service that they are providing, not only in my own district, in coastal Labrador, but in all the different regions around the Province.

I think the minister has brought forward these amendments today to better accommodate them within their profession. It is something that they have certainly been asking for and I think it is important that government has acted upon that request and fulfilled it.

Madam Speaker, I would hope that all the people in this House would certainly support this in support of what these nurses are doing out there in our communities in terms of enhancing their skills and their training in this particular field.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to say a few words on Bill 26, and I start by saying that this is a good piece of legislation. I know first-hand the fear and concern in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, representing a rural district, in trying to keep doctors in rural areas of this Province. The main reason, Mr. Speaker, we have problems keeping doctors in our rural areas is because of the demand on their services, because of their lack of free time, their lack of family time. Most of the complaints that I hear, from talking with doctors that want to move, it is because they want to make themselves a better life, to have more free time, and to have some degree, I suppose, of family life. That is not always available when you have one doctor serving fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen communities. In fact, speaking of doctors, Mr. Speaker, I understand that even now 34 per cent of our doctors in this Province, 34 per cent of our doctors, are looking at the possibility of leaving this Province and going somewhere else. That's frightening, and you know the first places that they are going to move from is going to be from rural areas.

I believe, I firmly believe, that this piece of legislation, while it does not designate any number for nurse practitioners, it certainly shores up what nurse practitioners do and the services they perform. I do not know how many nurse practitioners have been trained, I say to the minister. Maybe she will give us that number when she stands to close the debate. I know of two in my particular area. I know of a nurse practitioner serving in Bonavista under the supervision of the doctor at the health clinic there. You can go into the hospital there at any time when that nurse practitioner is on duty and there is a lineup waiting to see the nurse practitioner. It is a position that has been created, that augurs well with the people out in the rural areas of this Province. I say to the Member for Twillingate, he is aware of it as well. He points to the fact that he has three people in his district. It give us a chance to be able to free up some time that doctors need in order to attend to other services.

I commend the minister for bringing forward this particular act, and I commend her for putting it in legislation, clearly defining the duties of a nurse practitioner. I have talked with a couple of the nurse practitioners. I say to the minister, I sent them a copy of the legislation and asked if they had any concerns. I said, there is some legislation about to be tabled - it is your work area, it concerns you - if you would be kind enough to read the legislation and let me know if there is a concern then I can bring it forward to this House to make amendments, or to do the things and make the changes that need to be changed. I did not hear back from either one of them, which tells me that they are happy with what is brought forward here. It tells me two things. It tells me they are busy, and it tells me they are happy with the piece of legislation.

I, as a rural member, stand up and support this piece of legislation, I say to the minister. I support this legislation. It is a step in the right direction. While it may not solve all of our problems with health care in rural areas, I think it is maximizing the benefits that we get from health care and it is providing a very valuable service to the people, and especially to the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on the amendment to this act as well.

I am pleased to see, as the minister said, that nurse practitioners, their role has been validated by the expansion of their duties; the expanded role nurses serve in two settings: primary and specialty care.

Traditionally, physicians and nurses have worked cooperatively. The level to which nurses have worked independently has depended, to a large extent, upon a community's degree of isolation. For instance, as my colleagues from Labrador and my colleague from Bonavista South have said, in rural areas nurse practitioners are depended on much more than they are in urban areas. In many instances, primary care practical nurses do not replace the physician but instead work to assist physicians in circumstances when they cannot be physically present, which is quite often in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.

To date that has been geographically isolated areas, but with the out-migration of many of our physicians it is not just geographically isolated areas but rural areas as well. Their work is invaluable.

When I spoke to an amendment to this act a couple of years ago, I spoke about their invaluable work in the rural areas but I also spoke about how they would fit well in the emergency clinics and in out-patient clinics in the urban areas as well. For instance, in the emergency unit at one of the children's hospitals, if a parent were to bring a child in who had a cut and just required a couple of stitches, rather than sit there in the waiting room for hours and hours waiting for a physician, if a nurse practitioner were able to perform those duties, how much easier it would make it on the parents and on the child. It would certainly facilitate the flow of patients through the emergency setting and allow the physicians to take care of the more acute emergencies, and the nurse practitioner to take care of things that they have been trained to do and could do quite easily.

As I said, I am glad to see that the nurse practitioners are validated. I would like to see their roles expanded even greater to include their presence in many of our emergency rooms and in our clinics, not just in rural Newfoundland but in the urban centres as well.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Madam Speaker, the addition of nurse practitioners to our health system has been a very positive development over recent years. I think all of us who have had contact with nurse practitioners in various settings have recognized the contribution they have made. As I went throughout the Province doing our regional health forums, at each one of those forums we had many people who had either had contact with nurse practitioners or, in some cases, they themselves were nurse practitioners. In that context, they were talking about the really positive advantage to their areas of having nurse practitioners who could utilize their full scope of practice and really be able to provide good primary health care in this setting.

As we move forward with trying to enhance primary health care, we know that we will see an evolving role and a continuing role for nurse practitioners and nurse practitioner specialists. That is why it is important that we ensure that we have the proper authorities in place.

If members were not aware, if you look at the legislation that does identify some of the specifics of what nurse practitioners can do, you would almost wonder why they were not able to do it in the past. In fact, when you read that, a nurse practitioner who is licensed under this act may communicate to a patient a diagnosis that they have made, they may communicate to them the results of laboratory tests that have been authorized, they can issue prescriptions, and they can order laboratory tests. These are things which greatly enhance primary health care in our communities. It can add to primary health care in rural communities but, as the Member for St. John's West indicated, it can also enhance health care and make our system work better in urban settings as well.

I am pleased to have the support of all of the members to move this amendment forward. It does provide a validation for the regulations which we had put in place, to ensure the practice of nurse practitioner specialists.

I thank the members for their co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 26)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 10, Madam Speaker, Bill 29, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Motor Carrier Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motor Carrier Act." (Bill 29)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Madam Speaker, I rise today to propose some amendments to the Motor Carrier Act. The reason we are proposing the amendments is because the Department of Government Services and Lands, the highway enforcement officers, have difficulty in trying to enforce the regulations on the Trans-Canada Highway because of definitions contained in the act. The amendment will provide clarification to allow for active enforcement under clear definitions for a bus, regular schedules and the Trans-Canada Highway. The previous act did not outline the definitions for these three major items in the act and, as a result, they were unable to enforce the regulations of the act.

Madam Speaker, this amendment will encourage fair competition among provincial bus operators by requiring all bus operators using the Trans-Canada Highway for picking up and dropping off passengers at various points to obtain a permit from the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities to operate.

The amendments further clarify these definitions so that carriers who drive along any portion of the Trans-Canada Highway without either picking up or dropping off passengers along it, and who should be exempt from the application of the act but are not currently, will now be able to carry on these services without making an application for a permit under the Public Utilities Board. These carriers do not compete with the trans-island carrier and should not be regulated.

The amendment to the Motor Carrier Act will therefore limit regulations to regular scheduled bus operators where passengers both originate and terminate on the Trans-Canada Highway. This means some passengers' buses going from one community to another - for example, Harbour Breton to Grand Falls - on a regular scheduled bus will no longer require permits to operate. These bus services are not trans-island services.

This amendment will protect Newfoundland and Labrador bus companies operating on the Trans-Canada Highway from unfair competition from carriers from other provinces.

Neither Nova Scotia nor Quebec have deregulated their main line bus operations, thus creating a barrier in Newfoundland and Labrador for bus operators who wish to compete in these provinces.

The retention of the regulation for the Trans-Canada Highway attempts to maintain a level playing field for companies such as DRL Coachlines relative to interprovincial competition.

The amendments have been drafted clarifying the current act and will protect any trans-island carrier from unfair and destructive competition, and provides the appropriate enforcement mechanisms to the Motor Registration Division to enforce the act.

Mad+am Speaker, I move second reading.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to stand here today and say a few words with respect to Bill 29. I take this to be a very serious piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, the minister, when he stood to introduce this piece of legislation, it took him less than three minutes. I think we all could have read the legislation, as the minister just got in his place and did, but I will say this: When I did receive a copy of this legislation, I knew the importance of this piece of legislation to the people of the Province, to the people this would impact upon with respect to certain bus lines, taxi drivers, truckers and the like. What did I do? I sent out copies of this legislation to the people, such as DRL, so I could have some consultation with those people. I sent it out to truckers within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker. Also, I had some consultation with some of the ambulance operators within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, some questions would probably need to be asked - there are many questions, actually - but key questions right now, I suppose, are: Why is this being done at this point in time? Who is really benefitting from this bill? Who will be impacted upon negatively from this piece of legislation, I ask the minister, and really, who is behind the change?

Now, I had a conversation the other night with a certain individual who knew -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, no.

- who knew this process, the busing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the carrier system and what have you, with respect to the problems that are happening now within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Speaker, and there are many.

Now, the minister referenced the Trans-Canada Highway and the definition of the Trans-Canada Highway. From this legislation, the change will be now that the definition of the Trans-Canada Highway will include from Port aux Basques to St. John's a corridor twenty kilometres wide, ten on either side of the centre line of the Trans-Canada Highway, which would also include Corner Brook, Gander, St. John's, Mount Pearl, what have you. Also, any municipalities in which a portion of that municipality falls within that twenty kilometre corridor is also impacted by this piece of legislation.

Also, when I was speaking with some individuals, they were saying to me, Madam Speaker, that they are not quite sure that the PUB, the Public Utilities Board, should be the one that is governing this licensing and permitting of the carriers within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Some people are having problems with that. Some feel, in particular with respect to the ambulances - the ambulance operations and the private ambulance operations within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - that it should come under the Department of Health and not necessarily under the PUB, because some feel that maybe the Public Utilities Board does not have the expertise to do the licensing and to do the permitting.

That is something that I think the minister should be looking at. I do not know if it should come under this legislation, if they want to look at amending it or to leave it. I do not know the consultation that the minister has had.

Madam Speaker, there are certain activities happening within the House now that I will try to avoid comment on at this point in time.

Should we be ending the role of the PUB with respect to licensing ambulances and the like with respect to carriers within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Under the new act, you are going to need a certificate to operate within this corridor. The minister stated that there will be certain exemptions, and there are many under this legislation. There are going to be many exemptions.

If you look at it from the point of view of a company such as DRL, who is a trans-island operation from Port aux Basques to St. John's, I think when they basically took over CN that was a requirement of those individuals to run from St. John's to Port aux Basques, a true trans-island operation. Now we have, within this new regulation and this legislation, that there may be operations outside that twenty kilometre corridor, or an operation that does not start within that twenty kilometre corridor, or ends in it, that will not have to have a permit.

If you talk to some people within the industry, Madam Speaker, section 4.1(b), if you just change one word it could be very, very restrictive with respect to who could operate within that corridor. That was pointed out to me. I do not know if the minister is planning to make any amendments to this amendment - or to this bill - in the future with respect to that concern of certain individuals within the industry that, if you change just one word, the whole intent of this legislation could change.

Again, we have many questions that can be asked with respect to this. What about the Northeast Avalon? Is there going to be any impact on this with respect to municipalities in the Northeast Avalon? Strictly, with this legislation, I do not think there will be, but we do have taxi operations and charter operations that operate within the Northeast Avalon, in particular with tourism and buses and what have you. I would ask the minister: Is there anything now before the PUB, that he is aware of, that there may be legislation coming in the near future that could impact upon this?

What about some of the services of the larger taxis in and around St. John's who may want to use a vehicle that would hold more than seven passengers - ten, twelve, fifteen? What impact will this legislation have on that service, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation? Are there any proposals before the PUB to impact upon that?

Which services, Madam Speaker, within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will not now require certificates? Again, within that corridor, from Port aux Basques to St. John's, across the Province, we will have certain restrictions on certain operations. The minister said that he was going to try and make a level playing field. In some situations it may, it very well may, but there may be situations, Madam Speaker, where it will not make a level playing field and will actually cause more problems than it is creating.

Are there any other proposals right now before the PUB? Again, I will have to ask the question: Should the PUB be the one that is governing this? Are there any proposals before the PUB that would be impacted upon by this legislation, either in a positive or negative way? Is this legislation going to be restrictive to certain proposals that may be before the PUB? Is this one of the reasons why this legislation is coming forth now? Is it to cut competition within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to motor carriers within the Province?

Again, the minister was on his feet and in less than three minutes introduced this piece of legislation. Of course, I personally read the legislation, read the proposed amendments and what have you, and just listen to what the minister had to say. It would not give anybody a fair idea of what is really being proposed with respect to this legislation. It would really give the people of the Province a good handle on the legislation before this House of Assembly. I think, personally, that when a minister gets up in this House of Assembly to make a presentation and to speak on a piece of legislation - obviously, we have occasions in this House of Assembly when there is legislation coming before the House that is housekeeping. It is minor changes. I have seen ministers stand in their place in this House of Assembly on a minor piece of legislation and speak for ten, fifteen or twenty minutes introducing the legislation. So when we have a piece of legislation that is so important - and obviously the minister must feel it is important if he is going to introduce it here - I would expect that he will say a bit more than two or three minutes.

Madam Speaker, did the private operators within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for this change or these amendments? What presentations were made to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to have this legislation brought before the House of Assembly for our approval this fall? Was it a company such as DRL? A fine company. It does a great service for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When you have to provide transportation from St. John's to Port aux Basques, a true trans-Island service - it is not like leaving, for example, Gander and going to Grand Falls, or leaving Marystown and coming up to Gander or to St. John's, but a true trans-Island service, Madam Speaker. They have problems, obviously, with respect to the number of users. I would say at certain times of the year the capacity would be at full, but many times of the year, I would think, the capacity would be very, very low. Maybe at times - and again, the minister referred to competition within the Province. Maybe for those people it may be a good thing. I would venture to say it may be a good thing because it could be reducing competition for those people. But if we want a true trans-Island bus service within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador maybe we should be at that.

I was just wondering, what was the presentations to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who had this legislation brought before the House of Assembly? What guidelines will the PUB be putting in place for certificates that will be required? What guidelines would be put in place? Will there be a certain expense to qualify to get these certificates? Is there going to be - well we know that buses are inspected across the Island. They have to be inspected, I would imagine, or any piece of equipment travelling on the highway would be inspected, of course.

Madam Speaker, a few years ago under the previous Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the former Member for Port de Grave took away the vehicle inspections for motor vehicles, cars, trucks, et cetera. Most people in the Province had to drive around with respect to their own family vehicles. They took away motor vehicle inspections. I have noticed that the quality of some of the cars on the highway today are not nearly the same as it was. Not only that, Madam Speaker - we have comments from the other side of the House now with respect to my comments about motor vehicle inspections for family cars, and what have you; but there were many jobs lost in this Province because of that. The impact that move made - and safety was jeopardized. I have seen vehicles on the highway with respect to the body condition of them - so when you get back to it, what guidelines will be put in place by the PUB to qualify these vehicles - buses, small buses, large buses, whatever the case may be - to qualify to get these certificates? What other guidelines, with respect to - not only the actual condition of the vehicles but just permits. I cannot imagine what else they could put in place.

Another very important issue; if this legislation goes through and we have an application before the PUB to licence or give certificates to another company to get into the business and they are refused, what appeal system is in place, I say to the minister, for those individuals? If we have a carrier service that is in place today and at a certain point in time - I know, Madam Speaker, there is a grandfathering clause here - when their permit is up and they want their certificates renewed, but they are refused, what guidelines and conditions are in place, or will be put in place by the PUB - the Public Utilities Board - for those individuals if they are refused, or turned down? A legitimate question, Madam Speaker. Now I hope the minister will keep notes on this and answer these questions when he gets on his feet at the close of debate sometime this afternoon or Monday, whatever the case maybe.

Again, when the minister was on his feet he talked about enforcement. I had some discussion with some of the people in the industry with respect to enforcement, and who would do the enforcement. Who is doing the enforcement today? Who will be doing the enforcement when this legislation is put through this House of Assembly and passed and becomes law? Who will be doing the inspections? Right now, of course, we have the Trans-Canada Highway, the highway itself - the travelled surface is maybe eighty feet wide. Right now we are going to have a surface - the corridor is going to be twenty kilometres wide. So who is going to be doing the enforcement?

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, earlier today in Question Period when he was trying to be smart, made some comments with respect to certain people being confused and talked about hiring within his department, as if to say he did not know what was going on there. Is the Department of Works, Services and Transportation now going to be required to hire more highway enforcement officers? Is he going to be leaving it to the RCMP or the RNC, who are understaffed now within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? There are a lot of questions that need to be asked, which are being asked by the way, but also need to be answered.

This legislation, again, I think is something that members on this side of the House will probably end up supporting.

MR. E. BYRNE: With some amendments.

MR. J. BYRNE: Maybe with some amendments down the roads, I say to the Opposition House Leader. Maybe with some amendments, quite possibly.

But where is this coming from? Why at this point in time? These are some questions that I have put forward to the minister. I am sure he is paying attention over there. I thank him for that, and he is taking notes. It is a good thing to see. It is a serious piece of legislation. I am glad to stand in my place today and speak to it. I am sure there are other members who would like to speak to this. I would imagine, and I will certainly give them the opportunity to do so.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I stand today to say a few words on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Motor Carrier Act.

I am going to relate to the minister a story as it relates to the highway enforcement act and the highway enforcement officers. I think it is something that both the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and the Minister of Government Services and Lands might pay particular attention to. I have a business in my district, known as Bloomfield Lumber, which hires eighty to one hundred people on a year round basis, and their business is milling lumber. Their business is buying round sawlogs, taking them to the mill, turning it into a product that is exported, for the most part, south of the border into the United States. A very viable business. It is a business that is expanding. If you drive by that business today you will see a new planer mill being constructed which measures something like 260 feet x 90 feet. You will see a modern mill. You will see seventy-five to eighty people working there year around. In order for this particular business to access fibre, access wood, they had to go outside the immediate area and have wood barged in from Labrador. It is not uncommon, five or six times a year, to see a barge come into the Newfoundland Hardwoods location in Clarenville. They use the dock facilities at Newfoundland Hardwoods. When that happens, this particular business has a time frame to unload this barge and allow the barge to continue on with the business of barging. If it goes over a particular time frame the business is subjected to a penalty, which is about $350 an hour, for every hour that barge is tied up at that wharf over-and-above the period designated to have it unloaded.

Mr. Speaker, in order to get the wood from Newfoundland Hardwoods to their mill in Bloomfield - which is about, I would guess, twenty-five kilometres away - the wood is unloaded off the barge and put on high bed tracker-trailers and carried to the mill in Bloomfield. Those tracker-trailers are inspected according to the rules and regulations of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; abiding by the rules and regulations as printed by the Minister of Government Services and Lands. Their loads are inspected at the site. They are deemed as being safe. I say to ministers opposite, the amount of wood that is carried on that particular tracker-trailer is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Motor Carrier Act and the Highway Traffic Act.

The second last barge that came into Clarenville, the highway enforcement officers stopped one of the trucks and said: I am sorry, but you can't use the Cabot Highway leading through Clarenville and Shoal Harbour any more to transport your wood products.

MR. BARRETT: It was because of the weight on it.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is not because of the weight, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I just said that they were abiding by the rules and regulations with weight.

The directive came from the Town of Clarenville to the enforcement officers under the jurisdiction of the Government Services and Lands, to tell truck drivers that they were not allowed to use the Cabot Highway any more because of debris coming from the truck and because of the road conditions were not capable of handling the load carried by the tractor trailers.

Just imagine, we are talking about the Cabot Highway here. We are talking about the main road leading to Bonavista South, leading to parts of Trinity North, leading to the district of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Terra Nova. We are talking about the Cabot Highway. We are talking about an enforcement officer stopping a truck that is carrying wood and saying: The Cabot Highway is not safe for you to transport wood over this road any more. Now we want you to go up through the Town of Clarenville, go out Manitoba Drive and access the Trans-Canada Highway.

The operator of the mill picked up the phone and called me, and I said: This is unbelievable. I cannot believe this. I cannot believe that the Town of Clarenville - actually, I suppose, the directive must have come from the mayor - would try to stop highway trucks using one of the main trunk roads in this Province, to say it is unsafe. I further cannot understand a highway enforcement officer agreeing to issue that truck driver a $2,000 ticket if he was to use that roadway any more.

MR. NOEL: Did they say how it was unsafe?

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister asked if they said how it was unsafe. I have a copy of the warning ticket that was written out here, I say to the minister. It was written out as a warning ticket that said: Wood must be transported from Clarenville to Bloomfield via the Trans-Canada Highway as it pertains to the Highway Traffic Act 106-1.

That was the warning ticket that was written out. When that warning ticket was written out, the truck driver driving that particular truck was told not only was he not allowed to haul wood down over the highway, but he was not allowed to return back over that same highway with an empty truck. If he did, there would be a $2,000 fine issued. I said: This is unbelievable. I cannot appreciate this at all.

I got on the phone and I called the minister's department and, with all due respect to his staff, the gentleman said: I cannot understand this as well. He got on the phone and in a short time it was straightened out.

I say to the minister that highway enforcement officers should be given clear directive, should be given clear direction, on what their authority is and what the Highway Traffic Act states.

Here were highway traffic officers going to act under a directive of the Town of Clarenville to stop a woods truck from using the Cabot Highway, that was abiding by all the rules and regulations of the Highway Traffic Act. That is what was happening here. I said to the individual: I would consult my lawyer - and he did. He consulted his lawyer. The lawyer wrote a letter on his behalf to the Town of Clarenville. Probably he is still awaiting a reply; I do not know. I have not seen the correspondence.

There is something wrong when we allow a business to be put in this kind of a situation. There is something wrong when the normal transportation of product over our highways and our trunk roads is interrupted and given those kinds of directives from the minister's office.

It is straightened out now. The truck drivers and the operator of that mill have no problem with a highway enforcement officer stopping a truck in order to make sure that they have all their licences, inspections and permits in place. That is not the issue. The issue here is that we have a company carrying out a business in this Province, that Lord knows we need, that we should be supporting and we should be promoting and we should be helping, and we have somebody else stepping up and saying that we do not want our streets dirtied up. We think what you are doing is unsafe because they may be pedestrians walking on the roadway. I have no problem with having a safe highway and allowing pedestrians a safe area to walk, but certainly we should not interrupt the transportation of goods and services because somebody happened to be making the highway busy that day in order to carry out a business.

I say to the minister that the highway enforcement officers should take direction from the minister's office, not from the Town of Clarenville or the town of somewhere else. Those people should not have the authority to issue directives to say that this truck is not allowed but this truck is; this truck should not go in that direction but this truck can. That is not the way it should be.

I thought it was an important issue, something that I wanted to raise here on the floor of the House of Assembly, and I say to the Minister of Works, Services, and Transportation and the Minister of Government Services and Lands, if they want to talk to me further about this particular situation, I would only be too glad to share whatever information or to direct them to the owner of this particular mill - Bloomfield Lumber - at any time at their convenience.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Government Services and Lands, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: I am sorry.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: No, go ahead.

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

MR. MANNING: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just wanted a few moments, if I could, to make a few comments on Bill 29 that is before us today. As the critic for our party has suggested, certainly with most aspects of the bill we do not have a problem and we will be supporting the bill, hopefully, with some amendments that we feel are necessary to ensure that the full impact of the bill is felt.

Madam Speaker, I would like the opportunity, if I could, to make a few comments on busing in the Province. I have just gone through, in my own district, a situation with busing and I feel it is important that not only do we have this legislation before us today to address some of the concerns in relation to the transportation of people throughout the Province, but I think it is time that the government had a serious look at transportation of school children throughout the Province also, and an opportunity maybe in this piece of legislation to make an amendment to address some of the concerns that were raised by me, by parents, and by people involved especially in the communities of Branch and Point Lance which are in my district in relation to the transportation of their school children, Madam Speaker.

The concern we have is not necessarily how the children are transported. The thing is, we need to ensure that the vehicles - the number one priority is that the vehicles that are transporting those people are safe, are up to par, and are vehicles that should be on the highway. We raised some concerns here with regard to the fact that we have vehicles that are taken off the roads in other provinces that are brought to Newfoundland and Labrador and then put on the roads here, that transport our children, that are deemed unsafe in other jurisdictions, that are deemed unsafe in other parts of Canada after so many years, Madam Speaker, and then brought here and are own children are put on those buses. There are some major concerns out in the Province, and indeed in the district that I represent, and certainly through the month of September and into October of this year that concern was brought forward by the communities of Branch and Point Lance.

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about the phrase, chartered trips. Again, we have a situation where we have buses that are not being used on a regular basis, that have been put aside by operators throughout the Province, that for some reason or other can be taken and put forward into a situation where they can be hired for a charter, where they are not necessarily, in my view, in some cases that have been brought forward to me by parents especially in the Placentia area, in my district, the concern that has been brought forward by these people is that we have buses that are on the highways that are not necessarily under inspection as much as our regular school buses are. I believe that it is something that we need to look at and it is something that we need to bring forward and raise that concern here, because if we have buses that are in our system that need mechanical inspections twice a year and we have other buses that do not, the same buses should not be transporting the children in the Province. I think it is a concern that needs to be raised.

In this bill here today, we are talking about a corridor, a Trans-Canada Highway corridor, that will address concerns of buses that are on the Trans-Canada, that will address concerns of buses that are within 10 kilometers of the right or left of the Trans-Canada. What about all the other communities in the Province? What about all the other smaller communities that are transporting people also? Are there going to be regulations put forward that are going to make sure that these people are traveling in a safe and secure way on the buses in the Province?

I want to ensure that if there is a need to bring forward something else in this bill, an amendment to address those concerns, they are brought forward, and I felt it was necessary to bring those concerns forward here today because they are concerns that have been brought forward by the people in my district: that we have regulations in the Province that do not address the concerns of having aging buses on our highways.

If there is not something that can be done, not something that can be brought forward in this bill, I think it is something that the government has to have a serious look at because we have buses that are on the roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that are unsafe, that are taken off highways in other provinces in this country, that are not able to transport because they are deemed to be unsafe in Ontario, deemed to be unsafe in Quebec, but because the regulations are not here to address those concerns, we can take them down in this Province, we can use those buses and transport our children. I think it is a very serious concern. If we cannot raise it in this bill here, I think it is something that needs to be brought forward by government and I look forward to having legislation to that effect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I listened intently to my hon. critic, the Member for Cape St. Francis. If he were to read sections 4.(1) and 4.(2) of the act, it would give him a clear indication in terms of, it would answer most of the questions that he asked me about this bill.

What we are talking about here is a vehicle designated or used for transportation of ill or injured persons on a highway, or a bus that travels on the Trans-Canada Highway for all or part of the time to transport passengers originating and terminating at points within the Trans-Canada Highway corridor who have to apply to the PUB for a permit.

That is all we are talking about: buses that operate on the Trans-Canada Highway within the corridor of the Trans-Canada Highway only. These operators will have to apply to the PUB for a permit to operate.

He asked a question about the cost. The cost to apply for a permit is $238.50.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

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

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

I just point out to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that I really do not know if he has read that piece of legislation. What he just said is inaccurate. What happens is, with respect to that piece of legislation, any bus or service or chartered service that originates outside that twenty kilometre corridor will not need a certificate.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is not what you are saying.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, what he just said was, any chartered service that operates on the Trans-Canada Highway, within the Trans-Canada Highway, and that is not correct. That is not right. So, I would suggest that he know the piece of legislation before he brings it to this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. BARRETT: No point of order.

The hon. member still has not read the legislation. Any bus that operates on the Trans-Canada and picks up passengers on the Trans-Canada, on the corridor within the Trans-Canada, will have to apply for a permit before the PUB.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I did not change what I said. That is what the act says. I am not changing the act. The act says what is here. The hon. member should read the act. He is confused again. If he were to read section 4.(2), "Notwithstanding subsection (1) a person may operate the following services without a certificate: (a) a service to passengers who (i) originate in the City of St. John's or the City of Mount Pearl and terminate in the City of St. John's or the City of Mount Pearl...", so we are talking about the taxi drivers. They do not need a permit.

Section 4.2(ii), "originate and terminate within the City of Corner Brook, or (iii) originate and terminate within one municipality whose boundaries extend within the area in subparagraph 2(r.2)(i)".

All we are talking about is buses that operate on the Trans-Canada Highway.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the first time.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis - all this bill does is: bus operators who pick up and drop off passengers on the Trans-Canada will obtain a permit, will have to obtain a permit, which will be $238.50. Anyone who does not operate on the Trans-Canada will not require a permit. That is putting it in as baby language as I can get. I suggest that you should read the bill.

Madam Speaker, I move second reading of this complicated bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motor Carrier Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 29)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, Order 7, Bill 30.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act." (Bill 30)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to rise and recommend these amendments to Bill 30, the Lands Act, to this hon. House. There are several sections of the Lands Act that require amendment to ensure greater clarity, or to enhance the administration of the Crown land resource.

For greater clarity in section 5 and section 17(2), the term grant an easement is being changed to issue an easement. The word grant is incorrect, as it suggests that the easement is granted in perpetuity. In fact, easements are issued for specific terms.

In the Lands Act, the word grant is the name of a title document that conveys (inaudible) interest. This amendment will eliminate any misinterpretation. The change of the word grant to issue will bring section 5 and section 17(2) of the Lands Act in line with the wording found in sections 3, 4 and 6, which respectively referred to the issuance of leases, grants and licenses to occupy Crown land.

Section 39 is to be amended to permit ministerial certificates to be registered as evidence in all courts having jurisdiction in the Province, not just the Supreme Court as in the current legislation.

Section 55, as currently written, requires the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to convey to another minister any lands (inaudible) of less than twenty hectares. This is inconsistent with sections 53(2) and 54(2) of the Lands Act which permits the minister to convey lands where the area does not exceed twenty hectares.

To address this inconsistency, section 55 is being amended to allow the conveyance of such lands of less than twenty hectares to other ministers without the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. This was the intent of the Lands Act when originally drafted and is currently permitted by section 53(2) of the Lands Act for Crown lands that were never reacquired by the Crown.

I trust members are following the detail of this proposed amendment with great interest.

These amendments will allow the department to provide a more efficient and timely service to clients, both within and outside of government. This is essentially a housekeeping act, Mr. Speaker, which will do a lot to facilitate the operations of the department and the courts of our Province and help clarify and speed along the business of our department.

We had a little mix-up earlier when I was going to respond to the Member for Bonavista South in regard to his comments about difficulties that he has apparently had with some of our road inspectors.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Well, you got in on it, you called the department. You should have called the minister. I am always happy to hear from you, either by telephone or catching you on your own cell phone.

I must say, during the summer I was driving around part of the member's district, checking up on how well he was looking after his constituents, and I was driving up on this hill and I saw this car stopped with the gentleman using his cell phone in his parked car. Let me tell you how impressed I was to see that the member is so responsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: He ran out of gas.

MR. NOEL: He ran out of gas. He pulled into the side of the road to use his cell phone. I hope everybody in the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I am sure the member never ran out of gas, he is much too astute for that.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible). I was talking to somebody about crown land and you solved the problem right there.

MR. NOEL: Right there on the spot, I solved the problem for you. How about that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: I am glad to see that your problem was solved quickly once you contacted our department in relation to the Bloomfield Lumber problem.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible)

MR. NOEL: This appears to have been a misunderstanding by the particular people involved. Of course, we cannot prevent the Town of Clarenville from making requests to our inspectors out on the road, but we are responsible for how they deal with them. Obviously, there was a misunderstanding in this case that has now been straightened out, and I am happy to see that was the case, but if you have any future problems in this regard, or the Bloomfield Lumber people have any problems, tell them to feel free to call me and we will get it straightened out right away.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few comments to the bill that are rather short. Clause 3 of the Bill would amend section 39 of the Lands Act to allow the Provincial Court, along with a competent jurisdiction, to be points of registration for certificates respecting Crown land issued under the Act. Presently the only court referred to is the Supreme Court.

The only question that comes to mind is: Why would this change be necessary? Can the minister provide an answer as to why it is necessary for other courts to act as points of registration for certificates respecting Crown land issued under the act?

Clause 4 of the Bill repeals and replaces section 55 of the act. Section 55 proposes that the bill remove the reference to, acquired by the Crown and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister, and replaces it with, acquired by the minister. Again, one may ask for the rationale in making this change. The change seems logical enough, but why at this time?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands. If he speaks now, he will close the debate.

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

Just in response to the member's question: I want to tell him that the legislation is necessary to clarify the issuance of easements and bring section 5 and section 17(2) in line with other sections of the act and ensure there are no misinterpretations. This is something that is deemed necessary by the officials in our department and something that we feel is going to facilitate and speed up the process of dealing with these issues.

I thank the member for his support of the bill and assure him that it is necessary, and if he will speak to the people who are involved in this particular area of our activities he will find they endorse what we are doing and, in fact, have requested it.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 30)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 26, Mr. Speaker, Bill 24, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Twenty-five, Mr. Speaker. Sorry! Order 25, Bill 24, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act." (Bill 24)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a short amendment, but it is a very important amendment to the Assessment Act. Many of the people would know that this particular agency is run by the municipalities themselves and one of the requests that they wanted, and it is very important to allow the municipality if there is a request for a reassessment, Mr. Speaker - and up to this particular time here, the council had no right to wave the particular fee that was charged to the resident in that particular community. Under this particular situation, if there is a person in the community who has hardship in being able to pay the $100 fee, the council can now waive that particular fee and absorb that particular amount themselves. That is very important. The agency has asked for that. I want to concur by saying that it is very important, and I want to continue to work with that agency and work with the federation. By the way, it was requested by the federation that we do it, and also by the administrators association, NLAMA.

I am very pleased to introduce this here today in second reading, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Let me say up front, we support the bill. I speak on behalf of the critic who is unavoidably absent today. The Member for Baie Verte is attending a funeral for the Mayor of Le Scie, Mr. Claude Ward.

In his absence, I indicated to the member that I would speak to the bill on his behalf. I know that he has spoken to the minister. He is extremely aware. He has communicated to our caucus why we should support the bill - the Federation of Municipalities, the Association of Administrators, I believe, to support it. We see the merit in the legislation. We are not going to unduly obstruct or uphold it. From that point of view we, for the record, stand and support the bill as put forward by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to speak for a few minutes on this bill in support of the legislation, but it is an opportunity to talk about the importance of the right to appeal an assessment that has been carried out on property.

Some municipalities have been used to this process. It has been going on for many years, but there are many municipalities throughout the Province where an assessment may be new or where an assessment is into the second or third assessment, but there can be circumstances where there are serious problems with the way the assessment process works. There could be, for example, a situation where a number of people are affected by an assessment but the only way around it is to have an appeal to be able to waive the $100 fee; which is a pretty substantial fee for an appeal. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is an appropriate thing to do.

I think the history of property assessments in this Province, indeed the history of municipal government in this Province is one which is relatively new compared to other provinces. Nova Scotia and other provinces have had municipal councils with municipal property taxes for, in some case, in excess of well over 100 years, whereas in this Province property assessments, outside of St. John's, is very, very new. In some cases, less than ten years old. In most cases, less than fifteen years old. So I think we ought to move cautiously in this field. If somebody has an assessment that they are not satisfied with and there is a fee associated with an appeal of that, it should not be an onerous fee. A hundred dollars is a lot of money to many families in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and just because someone is a property owner doesn't mean that they have the ability to put down $100 to question a decision of an assessor in terms of the value of property.

Sometimes there are technical problems that an assessor does not recognize when they file an assessment but it has a serious effect on the taxes that a person might be required to pay. In fact, I would be in favour of having a fee that is much lower than the $100 mandated and to have it mandated with no opportunity to change it by a council certainly seems to be very onerous on individuals and families wishing to appeal their property assessment. Where we are not taking away the $100 dollar fee, we are allowing councils to understand the circumstances of their own citizens and individually waive the appeal fee in their communities. In fact, perhaps we can review this as an interim measure, Mr. Speaker, and if it appears that a number of towns and municipalities throughout the Province feel it important to waive this fee, maybe we should have another look at the fee altogether and see whether it is, in fact, appropriate. In the interim, to give the councils the opportunity to waive the fee for all appeals and assessments is a good first step but certainly if there are individuals or residents of a community or a town who have concerns about this fee, and their council is not prepared to waive the fee, than perhaps it should be revisited by the minister. If there are people who have that problem, they have an opportunity, of course, to contact their Members of the House of Assembly or the minister and let them know that this is a problem in their area or in their community.

That fee of $100, I think, is relatively new. In fact, that it apply across the board is one that I was surprised to see when it came in the assessments here in the City of St. John's, that the fee was $100 for an appeal. That is a high amount of money. I think it is relatively recently that the fee came in. It may be in the most recent Municipalities Act or in the most recent Assessment Act.

I do support the legislation. I hope that it will be effective, especially in those areas where assessments are new and where assessments are seen to be an imposition on people, and the property taxes are an imposition. To charge $100 to be able to challenge the amount of that assessment, to waive that, certainly for a period of time, for the first few assessments perhaps, on a town-by-town, or municipality-by-municipality basis, seems to me to be an appropriate way to go. Perhaps it is the case that the towns and municipalities themselves are the best ones to judge that for the time being.

I want to say that we, in the New Democratic Party, support this amendment to the Assessment Act and hope that it is effective in those towns where this is an issue, that the fee may be waived.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Opposition House Leader. Indeed he is right. I did talk to the critic, the Member for Baie Verte. We know that he is in La Scie today, where he is attending the funeral of the late Mayor Claude Ward, a great community leader, as the Opposition critic said in the House yesterday. I had the opportunity to talk to him last week on some problems in the town.

I want to say also to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Quidi Vidi, that this particular agency is run by the municipalities themselves and the particular fees are being set by this particular agency, and the present President of the NLFM is the current chair of this assessment. I am sure they will find another one to replace him.

It is a piece of legislation that they wanted. I am pleased to be able to stand in the House, to put this forward, and to see that it is also supported by the two Opposition parties as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow." (Bill 24)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 24, Mr. Speaker, Bill 36.

Motion, second reading of 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)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to introduce today, government's Same Sex Amendment Act, which is legislation designed to provide to same sex cohabiting partners the same rights and responsibilities as those of opposite sex cohabiting partners.

Government had previously amended the Family Law Act to ensure that cohabiting same sex partners have equal rights and obligations in the areas of support and cohabitation and separation agreements as those of cohabiting opposite sex partners.

The legislation which I introduce today shall provide for equality of rights and responsibilities in the areas of pension benefits, conflict of interest matters, powers of attorney, and survivor benefits under the workers' compensation system.

The measures which I introduce are in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of M versus H. In that matter, the court determined that the denial of the supports benefits under Ontario's family law legislation to persons who had cohabited in a same sex relationship constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and violated equality rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court also indicated that its ruling could apply to other legislation which has the effect of limiting rights and responsibilities only to partners in opposite sex cohabitation relationships. Government shall comply with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and so has amended its Family Law Act and now introduces legislation to provide for the further equality of rights and responsibilities between same sex and opposite sex cohabiting partners.

The legislative amendments which I introduced today, Mr. Speaker, in this same sex amendment act will serve to respond to government's responsibilities in law to provide to same sex partners rights and obligations which are equal to that of opposite sex partners. Government has also been careful to preserve the traditional values of the family in developing its legislative amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the bill, once it becomes law, will ensure that the laws of our Province will be consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding equality for persons in same sex and opposite sex cohabitation relationships. The amendments will, as well, provide for a consistent approach in providing for same sex equality which is shared with other jurisdictions throughout this country. Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the provincial legislation will not diminish the currents rights and responsibilities of unmarried couples. Government's intention is to ensure that unmarried cohabiting same sex partners receive the rights and have the responsibilities under our laws that are equal to those of unmarried cohabiting opposite sex partners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to briefly speak on this particular bill on behalf of my colleagues. This bill, though appearing as a routine matter, is a very significant and important piece of legislation to the people who are affected by it. What this bill actually does, Mr. Speaker, is the courts of the land, and particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, have forced governments; and this government is now responding to that legal force.

The Supreme Court of Canada have forced governments to recognize that there are consequences that flow out of the equality rights in our Constitution. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Speaker, enumerates a number of grounds on which citizens of this country cannot be discriminated against because of a certain ground. One of those grounds that is so enumerated is sexual orientation. It has happened, in various jurisdictions across the country, that the laws that we make, whether it relates to pension plans, whether it relates to survivors' benefits, whether it relates to other matters - medical insurance, for example, under provincial medical plans that we all contribute to, or other matters, what has happened is that people have been discriminated against based on the ground of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court of Canada has said to governments - in fact, I believe it said to the Government of Ontario last year: you have six months to clean up your act. You have six months to bring your laws in accordance with how we interrupt the law of the land or we are going to do it for you. In fact, courts in some circumstances - as my friend, the minister, knows - have in fact done it for provinces that have refused to act. So this Province is acting to do what the courts of the land says it ought to do, and that is bring in certain provincial laws in accordance with judicial decisions that have already been taken by the highest court in the land.

Mr. Speaker, in that context we note and support the passage of this piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this but I note the time, and in noting the time I move that we adjourn debate and speak to the bill on the next day.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House do now adjourn.

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