The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

On Wednesday, December 5, the Opposition House Leader rose on a point of order after the Chair had intervened with respect to the reading of documents during Oral Question Period. Our Standing Orders are very clear on that point. Standing Order 26(4) states: "Oral questions must not be prefaced by the reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or preambles of any kind." The Chair interprets this rule to mean the reading of preambles. As we know, short preambles are permitted to original questions. This is the only logical interpretation for that.

The Opposition House Leader's point was: the asking of a question was permitted if the document being read was Hansard. The Chair again referred the member to our Standing Orders and indicated that members may refer to documents but could not read from documents and that the point about Hansard would be taken under advisement. It is the opinion of the Chair that members must not read from anything when asking a question.

In Westminister, for example, a member was called to order for reading a document while asking a question. Referring to documents is acceptable, verbatim quotations are not.

In the interest of clarity, I want to inform all hon. members that Standing Order 26(4) applies to all documents.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with deep regret that I rise to inform members of the passing of a gentleman best described as a pioneer, a mover and shaker in local politics and a man of great dignity, Mr. Archibald Lawrence of Corner Brook.

Mr. Lawrence was a key player in the creation of the present city of Corner Brook through his many efforts to amalgamate the former communities of Curling, Humbermouth, Corner Brook West and Corner Brook East.

Mr. Lawrence was the last mayor of Corner Brook East and he served on Corner Brook's first city council from 1956 to 1963.

He was born in Channel-Port aux Basques in 1912, and at the age of fourteen he moved to Corner Brook where his father took up employment at the pulp and paper mill.

Upon graduation from Corner Brook Public School, Arch began a twenty-five year career with Harvey and Company and Harvey's Industrial. Later working with Lundrigan's Building Supplies and the City of Corner Brook, before retiring in 1977.

In addition to his involvement in municipal politics Arch volunteered a great deal of his time to his community through his involvement with the Church Lads' Brigade, the Masonic Lodge, the Lions Club, the Humber Municipal Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities - an organization, by the way, which bestowed upon him a lifetime honourary membership.

Mr. Lawrence was also instrumental in constructing with volunteer labour All Saints Anglican Church and the former St. Marks School in Corner Brook.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in extending our deepest sympathies to Mr. Lawrence's wife, Isabel, and their five children: Grace, Edward, Joan, Phyllis and Cecil.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, sixty-two years ago, shortly after the beginning of World War II and following the call from Great Britain for volunteers to enlist, a group of young men from Newfoundland and Labrador assembled in St. John's ready to join the Royal Navy. On November 27 of that year, nearly 200 volunteers left St. John's on board the RMS Newfoundland and arrived in Liverpool on December 12.

This group of Newfoundland naval veterans saw service in many parts of the world from the oceans around South America to the Indian and Pacific Oceans, but primarily they served in the battlefields of the North Atlantic. Some paid the supreme sacrifice.

Following their return in 1945, they formed the First Two Hundred Naval Association and until this year they were able to hold an annual reunion. Unfortunately, due to failing health and decreased members, this autumn their reunion had to be canceled.

It was my privilege, while I served as the mayor of Mount Pearl, to meet and know many of these special veterans. Branch 36 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Mount Pearl, where, Mr. Speaker, I am an honourary member, have dedicated a room to the memory of the first 200 and it was at Branch 36 where the annual reunions were held from 1988 until 2000.

Mr. Speaker, one of the photographs that hangs in my office is of this special group of veterans as they assembled on Parade Grounds at Fort Townshend -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the photograph is of the first 200 as they assembled on the Parade Grounds at Fort Townshend in St. John's ready for departure to Great Britain.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure those too frail to attend any more reunions that they hold a special place in our hearts.

Mr. Speaker, to the families of those who have answered their last roll call, and I am sure I speak for all members of this House when we say that their contributions to our Province and to the preservation of freedom in our world will forever command our respect and our admiration.

Mr. Speaker, to all veterans everywhere, and to all their families, and on this day, especially those members of the First 200 Naval Association, we wish them all a very Merry Christmas and best wishes for the New Year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to bring to the attention of the House of Assembly today, a young man from Paradise, Mr. Lee English, who was recently presented with the prestigious Maj. Gen. W.A. Howard Award as the outstanding army cadet for Newfoundland and Labrador for the year 2001.

The criteria for the award includes both conduct, contribution to corps activities, peer relationships, standing on the National Star Certification Exam, results of career courses and academic rating.

Lee has been a member of the cadets for four years and holds the rank of Master Warrant Officer. He has attended summer training camps in New Brunswick, British Columbia, Ontario, England and Scotland.

Lee is a Level 11 student at Holy Spirit High school in Manuels. He also recently received the Duke of Edinburgh Award, bronze, and is working on the silver award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating a young man, Lee English of Paradise, on receiving this award for being the outstanding army cadet in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for the year 2001.

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, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had a great history of fighting for freedom. We all know of the bravery and tragedies of the First World War and the Second World War. We know of the many battles such as Beaumont Hamel, and the great respect all nations held for the Blue Puttees, the first group that went overseas from Newfoundland.

The people of the world know of the great sacrifices of the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that served in the Armed Forces of the Second World War, the Canadian Armed Forces and in the British Armed Forces such as the Royal Navy, in which my father served. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians also bravely served in the Korean Conflict.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have always played a major role in peacekeeping forces throughout the world in areas of conflict such as Kosavo.

Presently, Mr. Speaker, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from all over the Province are again putting their lives at risk and fighting for freedom, peace and security in the war on terrorism. Many of these men and women are from the District of Cape St. Francis, whom I know personally. I know, Mr. Speaker, these heroes will follow in the tradition of those who went before them and do us proud.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to remember and thank these very unselfish and brave Newfoundlandlers and Labradorians, and that we wish them all a battle free and pleasant Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, let us all pray for their safe return home to their families as soon as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this summer, five young Newfoundlanders participated in a Junior Team Canada Trade Mission to Asia.

Each participant was required to raise $3,500 primarily through partnerships with local companies which they would promote and seek contacts and opportunities for while in Asia.

The participants this year were: Kevin Farrell, 17, of Marystown; Krista Peddle, 20, of St. John's; Chris Roberts, 20, of St. John's; Jillian Stoyles, 18, of St. John's; and Ryan Chaisson, 17, of Upper Ferry in the Codroy Valley.

Junior Team Canada is organized by Global Vision, a non-profit organization. It is dedicated to providing youth, ages sixteen to twenty-five, with the skills, experience and knowledge necessary to become the new generation of business leaders. This year, forty-two students from across the country participated in this trade mission.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the participants in this trade mission and also commending Global Vision for the work they are doing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to acknowledge a very successful fund-raising concert held in my district last Sunday, December 2, 2001. Called "Save the Beauty and Tradition of Quidi Vidi", the benefit was held at the Ship Inn on Duckworth Street from 2:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.

I want to thank the musicians and performers who generously donated their time and talent to the occasion. They include: Ron Hynes, The Sons of Erin, The Navigators, Jim Fiddler, Rasa, Larry Foley, The Panting Brothers, Gearbox, Eddy Stevens, Scott Goudie, Paul Ronayne, Bareback, Mike Walsh and Graham Wells, and Fergus O'Byrne and Fergus Brown O'Byrne.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the organizers of this event for their hard work and dedication. The benefit raised over $2,000 for the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation, whose mission is to preserve and enhance the historic values of Quidi Vidi Village.

The members of the Foundation are very encouraged by the huge numbers who turned out and who recognize the value of our historic resources. I know that the money raised will serve to assist the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation in their efforts to protect and preserve the physical beauty, tradition, and cultural heritage of Quidi Vidi Village.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, today the flags are flown at half mast as it is the 12^th Anniversary of our remembrance of the fourteen women killed at L'École Polytechnique in Montreal on December 6, 1989.

This terrible tragedy serves as a focal point to raise awareness of violence against women in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the oppression of a group because of gender, race, sexual orientation, age or class is often at the root of violence in our society and the world over. Recent world events, for example, made us very aware of the oppression of women in Afghanistan.

It seems appropriate, as we move forward to address issues of violence related to gender and race in this Province and country, that we also take steps to ensure that the power imbalance that leads to discrimination against women in our global community is addressed.

Mr. Speaker, women in Afghanistan need to have a say in the restructuring of their society, and I urge my colleagues in this House, our community leaders, and citizens of this Province, to join the women's community in advocating for the inclusion of women in that process.

Thank you.

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.

Once again, I join with the minister in marking an event that has become a symbol for the violence so many women face. This act of violence has changed our country forever. The fourteen women who were so violently slain at L'École Polytechnique because of their gender died needlessly, but will we let their deaths be in vain? We have come some distance in our attitudes towards the issue of violence, but have we come far enough? What have we learned? Are women still dying in the same numbers through acts of violence? We may say that there is less violence being reported, but is more violence happening? Are women being silenced because the response is not adequate? Are we once again victimizing them because our response to their call against the violence they are suffering is not adequate.

I ask us to again rededicate ourselves to the cause of stamping out all violence, and let us once again remember the names of those women who died at L'École Polytechnique. I think most of the members of the House and probably of the general public can bring to mind the name of the perpetrator.

I would like to have leave to name the women whose lives were lost in 1989.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Michele Richard, who was age 21; Helene Colgan, age 23; Nathalie Croteau, age 23; Maryse Leclair, age 23; Sonia Pelletier, age 23; Annie Turcotte, age 21; Maryse Laganiere, age 25; Barbara Daigneault, age 22; Anne-Marie Lemy, age 27; Anne-Marie Edward, age 21; Maud Haviernick, age 29; Anne Saint-Arneault, age 23; Genevieve Bergeron, age 21; Barbara Maria Kleuznick, age 31.

These women were in the prime of their lives, and not only did they lose their lives that day but their families lost something as well. They lost the opportunity to see their daughters and their sisters lead full, productive lives.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we remember the tragedy in Montreal on December 6, 1989, we need also to remind ourselves that violence against women in our society continues. An average of 140,000 women are victims each year of criminal acts of violence by their spouses. To give you an idea of the size of the problem, Canadian government statistics show that $4 billion per year is spent on medical costs dealing with wife abuse in this country.

The minister mentions the world affairs and, yes, I want to remind people of a quote from Mahatma Gandhi which is relevant -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - that, poverty is the worst form of violence. In our own country 60 per cent of single parent women live in poverty, and fear of abject poverty leaves many women in abusive relationships. We do have, in our own country and throughout the world, a long way to go to end violence against women.

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

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

My questions today are for the Deputy Premier, the acting head of the government. Can he confirm - we have information and our own sources tell us that government has reached a conclusion with respect to the development of White Rose. Can he confirm, some time between now and in the next week or so, that government will actually announce a deal that they have reached with White Rose with respect to the development plan that has been put before them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could just let me say, I think the hon. gentleman knows the process that takes place here. First of all, the development plan, the benefits plan, is released by C-NOPB, then it is put to government for its consideration and signed off by both the provincial and federal ministers. Then after that, I think it is fair to say that they have until December 27 for that process to occur, for both ministers to study the benefits plan that has been put forward by C-NOPB. Our decision is then given by sign off on the developmental plan by the two ministers and then, Mr. Speaker - if I could for just one more second because I think it is important to establish the guidelines - I think the company has another month to give project sanction to that development plan to set the things in motion to get it done.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that government has already dealt with this, that the outlines are agreed upon, the details are agreed upon. Can the Deputy Premier confirm that in terms of the project execution phase, say beginning right now when the deal is announced and say 2004, that the total number of hours associated - person hours and employment hours - are exactly 9,100,000? Can he confirm that a substantial bulk of that, somewhere in the vicinity of 4 million to 5.5 million person hours of work related to White Rose, will actually be done in the Province? Can he confirm that, and can he confirm what we are saying is actually fact?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows the process. He knows that the benefits plan has been given to the minister, the government is considering it, the minister is considering it. He knows full well, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate his question because he should question, it is his right to question, but it is also our right and our duty to see that the process is followed, and followed diligently. We are doing that. The Minister of Mines and Energy - along with myself as the industrial benefits minister, the rep P&P and the rest of Cabinet - are considering what the benefits plan is saying to us. That is the framework in which we are operating. We have until December 27 to release any of those figures and to confirm or deny that we agree with anything that has come forward from the C-NOPB, or not agree.

I want to assure him of this: That it will be along the guidelines of maximizing the return from the benefits of this resource offshore for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I want to assure him of one other thing, and that is that we will go through this with due diligence, but we will, in the process, not hang up one day longer than we feel is necessary to ensure that we have gotten everything that we can get out of this - out of this project that is a natural resource - for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: We will not be one day longer than it is necessary to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Whether the Deputy Premier is willing to release details now or not, based on the information that we have the provincial government have reached their own conclusions on what is there before it.

Can he confirm today, with respect to the fabrication work associated with White Rose, that an agreement has been reached in principle to conduct and do that work in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Can he confirm that the fabrication work associated with the White Rose project, that the provincial government has reached an agreement to see the bulk of that work done in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much plainer I can be to the hon. gentleman. I realize what the score is here. The score is to try to get out in public, to scoop the story, to make sure that a good news story is put forward first by the Opposition. That is fair game. But, I have to say to him that there is a process here that has to be followed, is set down in legislation by both orders of government, and I believe, I could be wrong on this, it was a process that was put in place by the party to which he belongs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am not going to get into that with the hon. gentleman today. I am not going to do that today. I am just going to say to him that the process is there to be followed, and we will not delay one day longer than it takes to get what we think we can get out of this project to maximize the returns to Newfoundland and Labrador. Not one day longer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: But we will not negotiate in public, and I will not confirm and talk about speculation - any more than I will about Marystown - not speculate about what he heard. Will I confirm what he heard? It will all be confirmed in good time and in due time. That is all I can say to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

So, the Deputy Premier is clear. The score here is to get the questions and the information out front so a situation like when you sold the Marystown Shipyard for a buck, that people actually go to work this time. That is the score, I say to the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

My understanding is that the agreement has been reached to lease Marystown Shipyard, and in particular, the Cow Head fabrication facility. Based upon our information an agreement has been reached to lease it. I would like to ask him this question: From whom will the company lease this shipyard or Cow Head fabrication facility from? Will it be leased, possibly, based on your own commentary by the provincial government in a possible expropriation or have you reached some other successful conclusion in resolving the ownership issue and the development of - and getting work to the Marystown Shipyard and, hopefully, for the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. gentleman - and I am not going to tell him how but it will all unfold for him, I hope, in good time. I want to tell him that his speculation is a little off. I not going to tell how today, because I am not going to lay out the details of anything that we are negotiating. I do not negotiate in public until it is a deal. Then I will put it out in front of you and then you can come at me as to whether it is a good deal or a bad deal.

Let me give him just one little tidbit out of the benefits report. He will see that an Atlantic Accord that was put forward by Mr. Mulroney, the Prime Minister of day, and Mr. Peckford, who was then the Premier of the day, by his party, that maybe the Atlantic Accord did not inflict that much prosperity on Newfoundland anyway. That is what he might find out in this benefits plan, some things that have not been said before. I am not going to speculate to him, but I have to say him that in terms of Marystown -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Let me just keep down his feelings. In terms of Marystown - and I will finish here with this - I am far more hopeful for the people of Marystown today than I have been in twelve months. Far more hopeful for them and I don't want to destroy that by throwing things back and forth across this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. A startling statistic that we all know in this Province is that some 50,000 people have left this Province in the last ten years. Another known fact, the truth is, most of those people who have left are from small town, rural Newfoundland and Labrador. What has compounded that is that thousands more have left rural Newfoundland communities to move into the urban part of Newfoundland. So really, the rural part of Newfoundland has been the hardest hit with this situation.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen short gaps, stop gaps, but I want to ask the minister the first question: What in long term have we seen for these communities of rural Newfoundland and Labrador who need some help desperately?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I guess when you look at the number of small towns in this Province, and the municipalities in the form of government that is set up, we have more entities here - councils and local service districts - than anywhere else across the country. We have 278 councils, 151 local service districts, for less than the total population of the City of Winnipeg.

I have discussed that with the Federation of Municipalities. I have discussed that with NLAMA group. One of the ways that we are looking at doing that is for many of the smaller communities - it is happening in a number of places. It is happening on the Northern Peninsula. We had a gentleman who came in to see me sometime ago, who said that he would like to take two incorporated towns, seven unincorporated towns, and be able to form one manageable unit as far as administration is concerned. I think that is a good way to go. It also happened in Eastport area where one of the councillors from one of the towns came in and said: There are five or six towns here, we share water, we share waste management, we even share the dogcatcher, why can't we share administrative services? I think that is the way to go.

Now, you are right that many of the smaller communities out there do have problems. One of the things that we are working at, and I think I mentioned it in the House here not too long ago, is what we are doing with the Federation of Municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LANGDON: Just one more second to conclude, if it is okay, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is, we are looking at the municipal operating grants. If you look at again the communities in the Province, you have the largest number of communities at the base and the smallest number at the front. The way the municipal operating grants are happening is at the front and this way. The pyramid is reversed. We have to try to find a way, along with the federation and everybody else, to find ways whereby we might be able to change the municipal operating grant to help the smaller communities. We are open, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot of work to be done and I want to work with all the groups to ensure the viability of many of the smaller communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed there is a big problem with the MOGs. They have been slashed and cut for the last number of years. Mr. Speaker, this is the question that a lot of the mayors and councillors were asking at the conference that we attended just a short while ago. They were asking. Can the minister tell these communities today that these reductions will actually stop, and in some of the smaller rural Newfoundland communities, will they see an increase in their municipal operating grants?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot tell any town today what they will or will not receive. That process is in place. We have a committee of which the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities is a part, of which the administrators under NLAMA, Newfoundland and Labrador Administrators Association is a part, of which people in my own department are a part. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that some time during 2002 we might be able to come up with a formula so that we might be able, in the next fiscal year, to be able to help many of the smaller communities that are out there now.

That process is ongoing, so I cannot tell you yes or whatnot because I am not a part of the actual working group. I am sure, when they have come to some agreement, they will bring it to me and then we will be able to consider it and ask government to consider it overall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, again speaking to mayors and councillors, especially at this conference where you get a great opportunity to talk to so many of them, they all say the same thing. If they have any chance at all of economic recovery, Mr. Speaker, they have to maintain their infrastructure. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, infrastructure of water and sewer and roads is collapsing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

What they are asking is: Is the minister going to see a status quo in the program he is doing now, which is falling short, or is he going to put in a new program that will really address the infrastructure in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This year, for the first time, we have had a three-pronged approach to infrastructure in the Province. We had the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program, we had the Newfoundland and Labrador Capital Works Program, and we also had a water program for the communities across the Province. For the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program, Mr. Speaker, it was designed primarily for rural Newfoundland.

There are some instances, as the hon. member would know, in his area, that the provincial government picked up, in some instances, as much as 90 per cent of the share of the municipality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: There were other instances where we picked up 80 per cent, 75 per cent, and 70 per cent. We were able to do that because of the multi-year plan that we had in for larger cities like St. John's and Corner Brook and some of the others.

As far as the water problem is concerned, we budgeted $1.8 million. I can say to the hon. member today, we have spent more than $9 million for disinfection and chlorination systems in this particular Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Is it enough? The answer is, no; but, I am telling you that we have made a good start. We want to work at it and we want to make sure that not only rural Newfoundland but also the urban areas are well served. We will work at that over the next little while to make sure that it becomes a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: - better reality for the Province.

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.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Last week, Minister, I brought up a patient who was in intensive care, for whom home care had been provided, but he is still in intensive care. Today I have a case of a woman who is in the Health Sciences Centre; she has cancer. She has been medically discharged. As a matter of fact, her doctor said she would do much better at home, far less risk of infection. Her home care -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: The Minister of Finance is saying this is pathetic? It is indeed pathetic. This is indeed pathetic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: It is indeed pathetic, Minister, and I ask: When can this woman expect to be home? She has a son at home who is willing to give some time with her. She has been approved for five hours a day; she does not want to lose her dignity by having her son do her personal care. When can she expect to be home?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to discuss individual cases here in the House of Assembly. There is a very appropriate channel to take if information is being sought around individual cases and that is, of course, through the board who handles home care; and, of course, my office is always available as well on a private basis to respond to individual specific cases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Government Services and Lands. Given that his twenty-nine inspectors have so many duties, Mr. Speaker, and they are unable to inspect the water in the public water supplies only half the number of times that they are supposed to, if they have been unable to inspect restaurants for public health reasons, will the minister not agree that it would be more appropriate to have the public health matters inspection be dealt with by the Department of Health so that they can be given the priority that they deserve?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

No, I do not think it matters where the inspectors reside, in which department they reside. The question is, how we use the resources that we have. We want to have more inspectors and we are looking to finance more positions in our next budget, Mr. Speaker, but right now we are doing more inspections in this Province than we have ever done. We have a lot more demand for our inspectors this year that was not anticipated when the budget was put together for this year, and we are hoping to be able to have more resources in the future to do more. At present, we are doing a good job in this Province. More money is being devoted to water quality than was ever devoted in this Province and we are pretty proud of the job we are able to do.

If the hon. member wants to suggest that anything would change simply by moving inspectors from one department to another, he will have to make a stronger case than he has made so far for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, when a public health officer, medical officer of health, is not told about an E.coli outbreak in her district because it goes through three departments of government, then that is a case for having the public health department deal with public health issues.

I ask the minister again, given the fact that the inspectors are responsible for everything from building accessibility, development in protected areas, liquor licensing, enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act, daycares, swimming pools, schools and public water supplies, why doesn't the minister acknowledge they are not been given adequate priority for public health issues because they are only doing half of what they should be doing in water quality tests and one-third of what they should be doing in food establishments, public health issues? Can the minister not acknowledge that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not acknowledge something that is not a fact. What the member contends is certainly not a fact. While we would like to be doing more inspections than we are doing, we are doing a pretty good job. The Canadian standard is four inspections a month. We are doing about two right now, but we are doing a lot better than we have done in the past. We are endeavoring to do more and we intend to do more in the next year or so, Mr. Speaker, so I do not think that the member has a great deal to be concerned about.

As for the particular instance of E.coli he is speaking about, that was a breakdown in the process. That could occur regardless of what department inspectors may be in. Sometimes people make mistakes and those kinds of things happen. We do not pretend to be perfect, but we do believe that we are doing a good job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Education. I say to the minister that two schools in my district are earmarked for roofing repairs. The students and staff of those schools have had to deal with long-term problems with these leaking roofs, seriously comprising air quality and student/staff safety. At long last, in May, tenders were awarded, and last August tons of materials were delivered and placed upon the roofs of these schools. It is now early December and the repair work is still not carried out despite excellent fall weather; constant lobbing by the board, by the staff and by the parents.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, as the one responsible, if she can explain the unnecessary delay in carrying out repairs so crucial to ensure a healthy and safe learning environment for students and staff of these two schools?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I can say is that I am so pleased that we have been able to provide the necessary funding to move ahead with these types of initiatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: In fact, this government has put more money back into the education system than any government in its history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: As for the situation that the hon. member refers to, I can only assume that he has had discussions with the board to try and determine why the work has not taken place. It is certainly not a reflection on the Department of Education because we do not go out and repair roofs. We provide the funding to do just that.

I am hoping he has had the discussion with the school board, and if there is anything that we can do to move it forward we will certainly do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A larger issue for the minister, or for her counterpart in Works, Services and Transportation, is the practice of placing tons of roofing materials over the heads of children, on roofs in need of repair, facing a winter season of possible hundreds of centimeters of snow accumulation. I ask: Is this the accepted practice of this government, of those departments? Who, pray tell, is looking after the interests of our children?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate if the member opposite has a very serious concern here, but I have to say to him that I am not in the roofing business. I do not know what tonnage would be too much to put on any particular roof, but I can assure the member opposite that if there is an issue there, we will certainly look at it. I am assuming this is not the first time it has come to his attention, since it has been there for awhile. I am wondering whether or not he has reported it, had somebody out to look at it. It sounds like he has an issue here that he really should have brought to someone's attention before now if it is such a serious, serious issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

On December 4, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tabled information regarding extra costs to accommodate the Apollo on the St. Barbe/Blanc Sablon ferry route. He is now saying that the $1.7 million spent on renovations and extension to the dock was due to a fire in 1997 and the ongoing problems of loading and unloading vehicles with long wheel bases, like tractor trailers or buses.

Mr. Speaker, why did Works, Services and Transportation ignore warnings from Transport Canada that the Apollo, at 109 metres, was much too long for safe docking, and award the contract to a Liberal connected company, knowing full well that extra costs would incur to the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry that the hon. member is so disappointed in the fact that the government did such a great job in awarding the tender for the St. Barbe ferry service, the great service that has been provided to the people of Labrador. As a matter of fact, our numbers are up by 40 per cent this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: As a matter of fact, stay tuned because we are going to be making great improvements to the marine services in Labrador over the next two or three months. I can't wait to be able to give the people of Labrador the services that they desire. If it means that we have to provide docking services, wharves and everything in Labrador, this government is committed to providing a great service for the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I say to the minister, we, on this side of the House, support proper ferry service in Labrador and all over the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: But, Mr. Speaker, he should be taking the recommendations of the people who told him that he should not have awarded that contract.

Mr. Speaker, sources tell me that $1.4 million of the $1.7 million was related to extra work done to accommodate the Apolla. Won't the minster now admit he is misleading the people by what he is now saying regarding the extra costs, and that the extra $1.4 million was because government ignored Transport Canada, playing around with the Public Tender Act once again, and the people of the Province are now paying $1.4 million for your mistakes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the hon. member that there was no playing around with the Public Tender Act. The wharf repairs in the St. Barbe District was publicly tendered, is in progress and I know that the hon. Member for St. Barbe is quite pleased with what is happening in his district, and the amount of work that is being created.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: As a matter of fact, the fact that we have a first class ferry service between St. Barbe and, hopefully, in the future probably the Straits of Labrador somewhere, rather than Blanc Sablon, then we are very, very pleased with that. I do not know what he is complaining about. The Public Tender Act was followed completely with the St. Barbe wharf repairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that the specifications to the Private Tender Act were changed nine days before the tender was awarded. He has to admit, because the tender was changed, the vessel went from 85 meters to 109 meters which Transport Canada recommended they not accept. Again, why did this government award a contract -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

The vessel, itself, is over capacity. It is only half full. Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that his mistakes cost the people of this Province $1.4 million that did not need to be spent when they could have had a first class service without spending that $1.4 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know where the hon. member is living. I do not know if he is living in the real world or not because, as a critic, I think he should travel Newfoundland and Labrador a little bit and find out what is happening out there in the real world. As a matter of fact, the capacity on that boat this year, we have had such a tremendous number of interests, and people moving into Labrador and out of Labrador, that we had to leave cars and vehicles on the wharves because the boat is not big enough right now. We are probably going to have to open another deck on the boat next summer because the traffic is that heavy going across the Strait of Belle Isle, and we are so pleased with this ferry, it is not even funny.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: I mean the sky is falling in, I guess. Every time this hon. member gets up he talks about doom and gloom.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: Why doesn't he go out and see what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador because this government is very committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the isolated parts of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

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

I am tabling today answers to a question from the Member for Ferryland, our analysis of the provincial personal income tax.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5, first reading of Bill 63, to ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Limitations Act.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Limitations Act," carried. (Bill 63)

On motion, Bill 63 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 4, first reading of Bill 58, An Act To Establish The Boxing Authority Of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Establish The Boxing Authority Of Newfoundland and Labrador," carried. (Bill 58)

On motion, Bill 58 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: First reading of Bill 60, An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises Act.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises Act," carried. (Bill 60)

On motion, Bill 60 read a first time, ordered read a second on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Order 9, Bill 29, and a series of other bills. Once we are in the Committee of the Whole, it is Order 9, Bill 21.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Teacher Training Act.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on this particular bill, An Act To Amend The Teacher Training Act. As I said before, it seems to me to be housekeeping but there are some changes there and I feel it necessary to go through. I refer back to some of the concerns that I brought forward the last day, Mr. Chairman, concerning teacher certification in general.

In looking at teacher certification, it is most important that the process of teacher certification be a process whereby it is open, where teachers can be attracted to the profession, that they can be certified without too much difficulty; not only teachers within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador but outside the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as well. It is indeed very, very important that we ensure that this bill moving forward will allow for a continuous supply of quality teachers to continue on from those who may be moving out of the profession, for those who may be retiring or for whatever reason leaving their particular position.

This bill calls for the certification review panel which will take over from the Teachers' Certification Committee the job that they were doing before in, I suppose, reviewing the certification of teachers. It will be their job to look at whether they would suspend a teacher, whether they would cancel the certificate or licence of a teacher who is guilty of gross misconduct, incompetence, or for other just cause. It is such an important situation that may arise, Mr. Chairman, with regard to teacher certification. There are teachers out there now who have varying years of experience but most importantly we are, at this present time, in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, at a crucial stage in teacher supply. Even though it appears that there are enough teachers, the question arises as to whether or not there are enough qualified teachers to take care of the demand for, I suppose, certified teachers.

With this in mind, there has to be some body responsible, and I would assume it is the Department of Education who would be responsible for keeping attuned to what is happening in the Province, Mr. Chairman, with regard to teacher supply, teacher demand. It is most important that the Minister of the Department of Education certainly be ahead of any supply or demand situations. The red flags have gone up with regard to teacher supply and demand, and I say they have gone up, Mr. Chairman, because, with regard to teacher supply and demand, it varies with regard to the part of the Province that we are talking about. It varies with regard to the type of teacher that one might be looking for. It varies with regard to population.

There is a whole set of variables that will determine the supply and the demand for teachers in any particular year, certainly in any particular period of time. Now in 1998, Dr. Crocker did a report and clearly indicated that there would be some difficulties as the 1990s, I guess, phased out and we entered into the new century. It wasn't with regard to numbers, as much as it was with regard to quality of teachers, specialist teachers and so on and so forth.

As we move now past the turn of the century, into 2001 and on into 2002, we are finding that there are going to be difficulties in filling positions in this Province as early as September of 2002, but in particular that there are problems, even as we speak, in getting teachers into certain positions. That is why it is so important that when we bring about changes in the Teacher Training Act, especially with regard to certification, it is most important that we keep in mind the demands that are going to be placed upon the teaching certification in the years to come.

Now, as was mentioned to you before, Mr. Chairman, there are some flags that have been raised, and we see now, in some parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, that it is impossible to find substitute teachers, teachers who have been certified, willing to go in and take over from a teacher who, for whatever reason, is off from teaching, be it because of sickness, because of leave or whatever the case might be. We are finding, on a daily basis, and long-term basis, that it is getting increasingly difficult, throughout all of this Province, to find substitutes who can readily fill in on a daily basis or whatever.

A second flag that has gone up deals with, I guess, the emergency supply. Because there are no substitute teachers to be found on a daily basis, school boards and administrators have been forced to depend upon emergency supply. Now, this gets to be a tricky situation because when you are looking at emergency supply, there is provision that really all you need in order to be certified to go in and substitute as an emergency supply is a letter that shows you are in good character and good standing. So, there are no qualifications looked at. It is simply whether or not you are of a character that you don't have a criminal record, I suppose, any kind of a record. So anyone, literally, a high school graduate, could be in the classrooms of this Province filling in on a daily basis, a weekly basis, and maybe even longer, simply because the substitute teachers cannot be gotten to go in there.

The other situation - again it deals with certification - is that this year, as well, there have been changes brought about in the certification of teachers to allow for emergency supplies, especially in isolated area. How this works is that teachers are being certified without any teacher training. The teacher training is not there, except that they happen to be in the general area of a position that has been offered, that cannot be filled, and if they have certain years of university, maybe a degree, maybe some courses - but again not necessarily any teacher training - they can get certification for up until a year, on a yearly basis, because they cannot fill that position with a qualified teacher.

I cannot stress, Mr. Chairman, how important it is that we be very, very careful - when I say we, of course, I refer to the department, to the minister - that we don't find ourselves in this Province in a situation where we have not protected the supply of teachers, quality teachers, in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Apart from that, Mr. Chairman, there are demands that have placed from outside this Province on our teaching force, on our graduates. You say: Well, there should be enough graduates coming out of post-secondary to be able to fill the shoes of retiring teachers or teachers who are leaving their positions to go elsewhere. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case. In the 1980s, and indeed in the 1990s, there was an oversupply of teachers in this Province; however, these teachers could not secure any type of commitment as to whether or not they could get employment in Newfoundland and Labrador, not necessarily during the year that they graduated, but in the years to follow.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. HEDDERSON: That is quite alright. I can get up at another time.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I certainly want to rise today just to spend a few minutes on this particular Bill 21, just to echo some of the words of my colleague who talked about the supply of teachers in the Province, and to basically talk about teaching in general in this Province. Being a former teacher, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that you have to experience the profession to really know what it is all about. I guess it is the same in politics, or if you are a police officer, or whatever your profession. It gives you that inside experience to look at from the other side.

Certainly today in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is what I want to speak about today in particular, especially years ago, as new teachers came into a particular community, they became the leaders in that particular community. They were on councils, they were on organizational groups and they were a big part of small-town Newfoundland.

Mr. Chairman, when my colleague talks about the continuous supply, it is something that we all should be very concerned about. The fact is, in some of the rural communities these days, it is hard to get a substitute teacher. I do not know how often that happens, maybe the minister will talk later about it, because it is a concern. In some of these smaller communities especially, there are situations arising where, if there is no substitute teacher and there is just too much demand on the staff that are there, that, in fact, students may even have to be sent home or doubled up in classes. There are all kinds of circumstances which arise.

The member also mentioned about Ontario and the demand there. Mr. Chairman, as we get graduates coming through our system here in Newfoundland and Labrador, there certainly is a demand. As a matter of fact, some ten years ago I was in that particular situation. Before I entered politics, I was looking at a job in Oshawa, Ontario. As a matter of fact, it was within days of deciding to go to Oshawa, Ontario, to teach, where a friend of mine was already teaching. There were lots of jobs there, no problem to get work up there as a teacher. Luckily for me, I should say, within days of that decision I was offered a job in Baie Verte. Mr. Chairman, I happened to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador and I am glad I did, and I hope I continue to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just want to remind my colleagues that Jean Charest, one time here in Newfoundland some years ago, gave a speech here in this Province and he referred to the teaching profession. He said: It has to remain a proud profession and the morale has to stay high because, don't forget, as he explained, when you take your kindergarten little boy or little girl to school for the first time, and you pass his or her hand, lots of times crying at that stage, you pass it on to a teacher, that teacher and the teachers within that system are probably going to spend more time with your child than you have a chance to, especially these days where you have two people in the family working and so on.

Mr. Chairman, if we are entrusting that responsibility of our children, with that profession, with that teacher whom you passed that hand to, then the morale of that profession has to be high. When the morale is high, I say to the minister, the teachers perform their best. They are interested, they are enthused and so on.

When the system is strained, and it is strained today, Mr. Chairman - especially some years ago, we all know that, when the reform was continuing, as things started to fall in place, and we hope that it gets better. It is certainly not up to where we want it so far, but as the system gets better hopefully we will see the morale improve and we will see teachers with enthusiasm and vigor again so that when they walk into a classroom at 9:00 o'clock on a Monday morning, after a weekend, and you have twenty-five, thirty, thirty-five students facing you, you have to motivate yourself. You have to be interested in that job. That is when you perform the best. Not unlike any other profession.

Mr. Chair, I would like, at some other time, get up and talk specifically about physical education and teachers. I really would like to talk about that because I was a physical education teacher. It is interesting to note that in the latest talks that the Minister of Health had around the Province - and I am glad to hear this, minister, and I am going to spend some time later talking about it - that it is so important, especially as we see the strains on health care these days, that children from kindergarten throughout their entire school life know the benefits of being healthy and what physical education is all about.

I attended the conference for phys ed teachers just a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Chair, and talked to a lot of teachers who are still in the profession, a lot of people I knew who went through university. We hope that this continues, and in fact, that the government will put more emphasis on physical education in the school program because that is where you start. When a kindergartner enters school and throughout his life, if he is involved in physical education - and I do not mean just the sports. I mean in knowing the health of the body, knowing about good practices to remain healthy. That is what physical education is all about. That is why it is more important than ever, especially today.

I say to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education, that those two elements are brought together; that we provide an education. What that does, in the long run, if we educate our children in school on how important it is to be healthy, in the long term our health system improves, because simply put, they learn how important it is to remain healthy.

I know there is not enough time in Committee now, Mr. Chair, but spend another time, a longer period of time speaking specifically about how important physical education is to our children. I agree with the minister, if we want to look at prevention in health care they should learn in elementary school, in high school, so that they will go on in life to become healthy members of society and be less of a strain on our health care system.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words at Committee stage on Bill 21, the Teacher Training Act. I listened carefully to the last speaker, the Member for Baie Verte, and his comments, particularly about the issue of physical education. I know that is something that is perhaps neglected in our schools. In fact, not only perhaps, I think it is neglected, given its importance to the physical and, I would add, mental health and well being of all of our school children, particularly given the fact that the habits of school children these days are very much different than they were many years ago. Children do not walk miles to school everyday. In fact, they do not walk very far at all to school every day. They do not do the kind of physical activity that was done a generation ago. Many of them spend too much time watching television and doing other sedentary activities. Any parent knows how hard it is to drag kids away from a TV set from time to time. So physical education in our schools has taken on a much more significant and important role.

We know, for example, from the statistics on a child's weight as opposed to height, the obesity issue for children in our country is becoming a very serious problem as it causes a whole series of issues for children as they are older and as they become adults. It is something that is a significant problem, particularly in North America as a whole, and in particular in this Province. I know the Minister of Health has made reference to that on a number of occasions. In fact, during the health forums held throughout the Province, and including the one at Gander last week, the statistics for this Province has been one of the highest rates of childhood obesity in the country. I think that is something that needs to be addressed in our health care system, but the best place to address it, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, would be in our school system where children spend a significant period of time during the week, and where they learn life habits; where they learn habits of life and the importance of exercise and physical activity. The importance of good nourishment should be a part of our school system and it is not. We do not have a national nutrition program or even a provincial nutrition program that is mandated in our schools. We have, woefully, inadequate time devoted to physical education as a whole.

I want to take another moment, Mr. Chairman, to reiterate a couple of the questions that I had for the minister the other day when I spoke at second reading, which the minister did not get a chance to respond to but said that she would be happy to deal with at the Committee stage. Now that we are here I will repeat those concerns on teacher training. They have to do with, first of all: What mechanisms are in place to ensure that people who have teacher certificates, who are teaching in our schools, who are reported to have been guilty of abusing children - whether sexually, physically, or emotionally - whether there is a mechanism in place to ensure that any reports of this type of activity do in fact get to the board that is given the responsibility of dealing with discipline matters and the revocation of certificates?

What provisions are in place nationally - so that someone who is either convicted or in some cases not convicted but may have their teaching certificate removed in this Province as a result of a report of a hearing - to ensure that that same person cannot go to Nova Scotia, British Columbia, or the Yukon and teach in a school system there? That is something that has happened within this Province - going from one school board to another, or even within school boards - by teachers who have been reported. I am not saying that anybody about whom a report is made is sufficient to deny a certificate but who have been reported and have been found to be guilty of - either in a board hearing, or through a court - abusing children, that that person be denied the opportunity to teach in another school in this Province or in this country. Not only that, similarly, whether someone has been convicted or have their license deprived in another province or territory, what provision is in place to ensure that these individuals do not get to teach here in this Province?

As I said the other day, I am not just talking about the incidents that have received so much publicity involving Christian Brothers in this Province, where we have had examples of people teaching in schools in this Province being charged with offences and going to other provinces and teaching, but we have also had people who have not been involved in the religious orders, lay people in other denominations and in other school boards. It is a broader issue than the issue involving the Christian Brothers of Ireland. It is an issue involving all teachers and it is an issue involving the protection of our school children so that they are not to be exposed in the school to people who have a history of abusing children, either physically or sexually, and have had their license removed.

The two questions, essentially, are what provisions are made to ensure that there is a requirement for principals or vice-principals to report to the Teacher Certification Board, incidents of abuse of children? Is there a provision in place? What is it? Where is it? What provision is there to ensure that other provinces and other territories, who have similar Teacher Certification Boards, to make sure that they know what happened here and that we know what happened there? If the minister could answer those I would be very pleased to hear her answers.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment that we are speaking to is very much a housekeeping item, as I referenced when I first stood up to speak to this, and I think members opposite recognize that. But, there have been some important points raised in the debate about this amendment that I think deserve some comment. I say that because I think they have raised some very valid points and some very valid concerns out around the Province.

I would like to take this opportunity to ensure them that steps are being taken to deal with some of the issues that they have raised, certainly in the terms of the teacher supply and demand. We have put in place what we call a provincial advisory committee on teacher supply and demand, and the representation on that committee, in fact, is comprised from the university, from the NLTA, from school districts, from school boards, and from the Department of Education, to look at the issue to try and determine where we can make whatever effort we can to try and ensure that we will have a sufficient number of teachers in the system to respond to the needs out there.

One of the things that we have asked the university to do, of course, is to work with us in terms of looking at the number of graduates they have, or whether or not they have sufficient numbers of graduates, and where they come from, and what area of expertise they are trained in. We found that we have more than enough when it comes to the primary and elementary teachers. The areas where we do have some problems, you will find, is in physics, math, special education, and a couple of other areas. So, what we have asked the university to do is to work with us, with the Faculty of Education, to, in fact, look at other faculties and see if we cannot direct students into the Faculty of Education from maybe the Faculty of Science, from the Faculty of Arts, and from other faculties, to have them put on some kind of campaign to encourage others to go into the teaching profession, which is a very laudable profession, and one we would like to see a bigger emphasis placed on in the Province.

So we have that provincial advisory group in place to deal with the fact that we do have areas in the Province where we are seeing some shortages. We are, by no means, in a crisis situation, Mr. Chairman. What we are finding is something that is happening right across the country, in fact. No matter where you go in this country, in any province in this country, you will find that they have difficulty recruiting teachers in those specialty areas. So this is not something new, it is not something different. This is something that has been with us for quite some time.

I guess the issue now is that you will find other provinces rating our Province to try and attract, because we do have one of the highest qualified teaching forces in the country. I am very pleased to say that. In fact, most of our teachers have more than one degree and, of course, that means they have at least four years of university and, in some cases, many more. A lot of our teachers coming out of the Faculty of Education today, in fact, have two degrees. So we have a very qualified teaching force in the Province, and a force that is very attractive to other provinces when they look to recruit.

I take the points raised by the members opposite, that it is in our best interest to try and keep those teachers here and to ensure that they have the supports that they need, which is why, as I mentioned earlier, I am very proud of this government. In fact, we have put more money into the education system than any government before us, and we will continue with that level of support. In fact, if you look at what we do put into the system, Mr. Chairman, you are looking at, based on our ability to pay, more money into the system per student than any other province in the country. In fact, if you look at the past four years, we have seen an increase of 16 per cent in terms of the allocation per student to our school boards. We have gone from $5,500 just four years ago, up to about $6,500 today. That is an increase of a little over 16 per cent.

We are, in fact, putting the resources into the system to support our teachers and to ensure that our students have a quality education; in fact, an education second to none. We are very proud of our record in that respect.

Yes, we do have to work very diligently to ensure that we have the qualified teaching force in the Province. As I say, we have a very highly trained teaching force, and we are very proud of that, but there are areas of the Province where we are seeing some shortages, and those are the areas that we must focus on. We have taken a number of measures already.

In addition to the provincial advisory board that we put in place to try and deal with the issue of teacher supply and demand, we have also, in the past little while, and the members opposite will be familiar with this, put a $5,000 bonus in place for teachers who would take positions along the Coast of Labrador. This government did that, and I am very, very proud of that, as a way again of attracting teachers to Coastal Labrador. That has been very fortunate for us in terms of the number of teachers we have been able to attract as a result of that bonus being put in place.

There are a number of other things that we continue to do to try and deal with this issue. We do not want to see a crisis situation in this Province, and we have no intention of letting it become a crisis situation, Mr. Chairman.

In fact, as the member opposite suggested, we have also changed our regulations so that we can hired people are not teachers, those who have university degrees, who may be in a community, whose husband or wife may be a teacher, and who may be there with a university degree, not necessarily a teaching degree, but certainly there with academic qualifications and a teaching degree to enable them to go into the teaching force as well.

Normally when we have an emergency supply, what would happen is that these people would maybe have Grade 12, and they would be paid maybe about $10,000 while they were there teaching for the period of time; I guess about $10,000 a year.

What we have done is, we have increased the salary, not for anyone with a Grade 12, but if you have a university degree, in fact, we have increased the salary so that person would be at level three making about $27,000 a year, so that is a substantial increase. That means that boards can in fact have access to people with more qualifications and be able to pay them accordingly. That has worked out very well. In fact, in Labrador we have seen an additional five teachers hired as a result of that initiative, so that has worked very well.

There are other things that we are going to be doing as well. In fact, I ask the hon. members to stay tuned because we will be announcing another initiative in the not-too-distant future in terms of measures that are being taken to ensure that we have qualified teachers in the education system.

Again, to repeat, we have, in fact, the most highly qualified teaching force in the country but there are areas where we have shortages, and again I repeat that it is no different than anywhere else in the rest of the country. I am very proud of the initiatives we have taken. We will continue to work with the university, and I have to say that the university has come to the table; they want to work with us. They recognize that there is an issue here that has to be addressed and they are very determined to work with us to see that we do not end up in a situation were we do not have the required number of teachers in our Province, if there is anything we can do to avoid that happening.

I recognize that the concerns raised by the members opposite are valid concerns, not to the extent to say that we have a crisis situation, Mr. Chairman, but certainly to the extent that there are students out there who are probably not able to avail of a qualified teacher at this point in time, and one that we are working on to address, and we will continue to do. I think the measures that we have put in place show that we are sincere about addressing those issues.

With respect to physical education, you are speaking to the converted. I recognize that this is a very important part of our curriculum, one that we really need to continue to focus on, and certainly, having listened to my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, in terms of findings about children in our system today, it is certainly something that we should give as much attention to as we possibly can. She and I will be working very closely at looking at the situation in which we find ourselves with our young people in the Province, and seeing how best to address that, but I do recognize that physical education is certainly a course that right now is being offered in our school system. It is not compulsory when you get to the high school level, but I think it is certainly something that we need to look seriously at. We are going to be doing that, and that is something that I have been thinking about for quite some time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Absolutely. Physical education is one, I think, where, if we are going to talk prevention verses maintenance, and talk about our health care system, that is certainly one. Of course, a healthy population will make all the difference in the world.

The question with respect to what happens if a teacher moves to this Province or a teacher from this Province moves to another province and has been accused of something, what I can tell you there is that, in fact, when a person holds a teaching certificate in one province and applies for a teaching certificate in another province, the receiving province requires the person to provide a professional statement from the province which has issued the existing certificate. This, of course, would confirm the existing certificate is valid and has not been suspended or cancelled. There are safety measures there so that if you are going from one province to another, that if that province has issued a valid certificate which every province will require, then you can be guaranteed that certificate is given and that there is no case there where anyone has been suspended or had their certificate cancelled for whatever reason.

Generally, of course, the receiving province also requires the applicant to certify that he or she has not been convicted of a crime against a person or is not under investigation for any such crime. So there are measures in place in the system to ensure that if a teacher has been suspended or had their certificate cancelled for any reason, that a receiving province will be aware of that. That is not a concern for us. We think the measures are there to ensure that if a teacher has been convicted, that he or she will not get a job in another province unbeknownst to the receiving province.

With that, Mr. Chair, those are my comments with respect to the amendment to this bill. Again, it is essentially a housekeeping bill. One that will ensure that the panel will be able to carry out the work for which they would have done the research anyway, and that they will then be able to act on that recommendation.

Thank you.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teacher Training Act." (Bill 21)

On motion, clauses 1 through 7 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 10, Mr. Chairman, Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

CHAIR: Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

This is an opportunity again to ask questions on the specific clause of debate, not for general debate. In that spirit I have a couple of questions for the minister. Our critic today is in his own district, unavoidably absent, so in his place I have conferred with him on some of the issues that we wanted to ask the minister about.

In clause 1, it reads: "the Bill would amend paragraph 23(b) of the Forestry Act to permit the minister rather than the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to enter into timber sale agreements."

Essentially, what that means is that the minister can go ahead now without going before the entire Cabinet. It gives whoever the minister may be, at any point in time, the authority to do exactly that.

I wonder if the minister could elaborate on what the rationale was for giving the minister that sort of discretion without having a full discussion and debate at Cabinet, understanding how important the forestry industry is? Secondly, when we are talking about entering into timber sale agreements these agreements would have long reaching impacts on the industry and the potential economic development of the industry that it offers to the regions of the Province that depend so heavily upon the forestry industry.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The intent of this amendment is to facilitate the process. It has become apparent that in recent years - there are a couple of instances here that references giving the minister the authority as opposed to having the matter dealt with entirely by Cabinet. It is really just a matter of facilitating the process from the point of view that going the other route causes unnecessary delays. Sometimes it takes a good while to get these matters before Cabinet for approval.

For example, there was a situation whereby - especially as it relates to the awarding of a certificate - there actually was a court case where a question was raised with regards to the fact that the timber was being transported without the proper authorization. The courts actually asked why it was. The simple reason was, that there was just a delay in getting the thing through the system. It is really just a matter of facilitating the process and certainly not intended in any way to circumvent that broader process. Safeguards are in place. The hon. member is concerned that, in any way, this would negatively impact on the management of the industry as such. That is certainly not the intention here and that would not happen.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The minister touched on the second area in terms of the checks and balances, and you called them safeguards. You are convinced, I guess, and I would ask you to elaborate if you could, enshrining that much power to the minister - and you have indicated that the reason that the change is there from Cabinet to the minister is so that it would enable government to facilitate the management of the industry in a more expeditious way. Would that be correct? Is that what you are saying?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: The intent is not to enshrine all power to the minister, who would have to brief Cabinet anyway, I understand. Is that what -

MR. SMITH: Exactly. Precisely.

MR. E. BYRNE: If you could speak to the safeguards, or the checks and balances just for a moment, and elaborate on the issue that you raised yourself, I would certainly appreciate it.

CHAIR: The Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, this relates to instances where approval is given to enter into these arrangements, and for the transportation and that sort of thing.

As I mentioned to the hon. member, there was an instance a short time ago - and I cannot get into a lot of detail on it - where the courts actually referenced the fact that they had some difficulty with the fact that we had the product being transported, the proper certification was not there, and the courts did point out, rightly so, that really none of this should have happened. The reason for the delay wasn't that there was a problem - but again, the way the system is now with the number of matters that go to Cabinet, it is just a matter of getting it on the Cabinet agenda, getting it dealt with, even when it is only routine matters.

As the hon. member rightly pointed out, obviously the minister sits as a part of Cabinet, and the decisions are still the decisions of Cabinet. I guess any minister, whether it is this minister or any subsequent minister acting in that capacity, would be held to account as to what is happening at that particular department. I do not think there would be an any difficulties arising as a result of it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I am just going to ask one more question. It deals with another clause. I know it may be a bit unorthodox but then my questions can be concluded with that and we can move ahead to pass the various amendments suggested by the minister. It deals with clause 6 of the bill: "Clause 6 of the Bill would repeal and replace paragraph 83(a) of the Act to provide for quarterly rather than annual reporting of sawmill licensee returns." A small issue but an important issue for those who are involved in the industry, and one that I agree with. I wonder if you just could elaborate or provide a greater explanation on why the department saw the need to do this, and what will be the impacts, either pro or con, as a result of doing this?

CHAIR: The Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, this particular amendment is intended to streamline the process. I guess it ties in with our overall concern for management of the forest resource. We recognize, and certainly all hon. Members of this House would be well aware that the resource, at the present time within the Province, is under some strain. We are trying to deal with the competing demands from the sawmill industry and from our paper mills. Part and parcel to all of that, we want to try to ensure that the resource that we do have available is being properly used. We think that requiring the sawmills to report on a quarterly, as opposed to an annual basis, will provide for closer inspection as to what is happening there to ensure that the companies are in compliance with the guidelines that are set down, and overall make for a better operation. I would point out to the hon. member, my understanding is that this is with the agreement of the industry, that they do not have any great difficulties with this particular change.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few remarks on Bill 22. It is in connection with the same clause referred to by the previous speaker in dealing with the certificates of managed land. I raised at second reading the issue here where we seem to be making it easier to get a certificate of managed land but still the process, when it comes to the minister coming to the conclusion, that in fact the land is not being managed in accordance with the plan or managed properly. The minister has no authority to cancel the certification without going to the Cabinet. It seems to me that it is just as important to have the authority of the minister to cancel a certificate in a timely fashion as it would be to grant the certificate in a timely fashion.

If the problems that the minister has mentioned are problems with respect to giving a grant of authority to a licence holder or an operator to go ahead and operate under a Certificate of Managed Land, if that is such a cumbersome process to get the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, well surely the opposite must be true as well if the minister or the minister's officials find a situation where the land is not being managed, that the minister does not seem to have the power, without having to go to Cabinet, to revoke that certification. I want to know why the minister is doing that. Why would that be a less important activity than the other way around? I say this in a context, obviously, where we have a forest industry that is important to our Province.

The history of the management of land in this Province has been a negative one, I say to the minister. It has not been one where we have had - we had to bring in this legislation twenty-five years ago in order to get proper management or try to get proper management of our forest lands. In fact the minister himself, the actual minister - the minister is the acting minister, the actual minister - in September, clearly indicated that the forests were not being managed properly because, if they were, he would not be saying that there was a reduction or to be a reduction in the Annual Allowable Cut of about 10 per cent to 25 per cent because there was not sufficient reforestation going on.

I say to the minister, the issue of proper management of our land, the issue of proper restocking of our forests, the issue of reforestation and proper management is just as important and significant to the future of our forest industry as to have a timely procedure for the issuing of Certificates of Managed Land, which has the effect of giving the owners of the land a break from taxes.

Surely, I say to the minister, the necessity of getting a certificate in place is important, but surely equally, and perhaps more important, is to have the minister to be able to revoke such a certificate, if a necessity arises, in just as timely a fashion. Would the minister respond to that?

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member should be aware that in terms of the actual management of the forest lands at the present time, that the companies concerned would have to be required to offer to present, on an annual basis, a plan of operation as to how they propose to proceed with the harvesting in their particular area. Subsequent to that, officials from the department would go into the area to determine whether, in fact, the guidelines as they are set down within the operating plan are being adhered to; if, in fact, the company is delivering or in compliance of what they set out to do in the original plan. On the basis of that, the determination will then be made as to whether or not the minister will issue a Certificate of Managed Land. Part of it could be determined to be managed or the whole thing could be determined to be unmanaged. The catch is, I guess, in terms of the control that the department has. The department will then determine the taxation rate based on that, and the company will automatically be placed in a higher taxation rate if, in fact, it is determined to be unmanaged or only partially managed.

Those are where the controls are. I would also remind the hon. member that this happens on an annual basis so it is not a long-term commitment in that point of view. I think it would be kind of difficult if the hon. member is suggesting that as soon as we have that, that automatically the permit would be cancelled, I am sure he would recognize that would cause some severe difficulties all around.

Keeping in mind that it is on an annual basis, and again it is part and parcel of the efforts of government to try to improve on the management of our forest resources, I think we all acknowledge it within this hon. House, and certainly anybody who has had any direct exposure to what has been happening in the forest lands in recent years, I think you will notice that there is some improvement. We are making some gains. We do recognize that in the past there had been some serious problems, but I think with amendments of this nature like we are seeing here today, it will move us further along in terms of improving on our proper management of the resources on behalf of the people of the Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister talks about improving the circumstances. Certainly it is improving the ability or the speed at which a Certificate of Managed Land can be issued. That does not seem to have been the problem.

The problem has been, we have had the land management tax system in place for twenty-five years now and we still are seeing the actual minister having to make a statement that we might see the Annual Allowable Cut reduced by 10 per cent to 25 per cent because management is not taking place. It seems to me that the minister ought to be bringing in measures to make more enforceability, a higher degree of enforceability, to achieve a higher degree of compliance with the requirements of having properly managed lands.

I understand that on a day-to-day basis the system has to be able to operate, but if you look at clause 5 of the bill, on page 4, the last sentence in terms of dealing with the fact that a holder is not managing the land, the last line says, "...the minister may..." - the next words are - "...with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, (a) cancel the certificate...". So, the minister is given the authority to grant the certificate but the minister cannot take it away.

My point is, Mr. Chairman, the very obvious, if it is so important to have the minister have control over what is going on in the forest, and whether they are managing the lands properly or not, why is the minister given the authority by him or herself to go ahead and issue a certificate, but when it comes to cancelling it or revoking it or making a declaration that it is unmanaged, why does the minister have to go to the Cabinet? Why is that extra step there if the minister is going to have control over ensuring that the land is properly managed? That seems to me, Mr. Chairman, to be making it easier to grant the certificate than to take it away because, although it is an awful lot of trouble to get the - it takes time, it has to make its Cabinet submission and all kinds of documentation, not only will the Minister of Forestry have a say in it but the Minister of Fisheries will have a say in it, the Minister of Justice will have a say in it, and the Minister of Government Services and Lands will have a say in it, and every other minister sitting around the Cabinet will have a say in it because it requires the approval of the Cabinet to revoke a certificate but the minister can go issue a certificate without getting any approval at all.

That is the question that I am raising here. If our concern is, and it certainly seems to be, that the forest lands in this Province are not being managed to a point of sustainability because we do not have sustainability right now, then why are we making it easier to grant Certificates of Managed Lands then we are to take them away? That is an important point that the minister should address.

CHAIR: The Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

Just to point out to the hon. member, I listened to his line of reasoning and I find it rather strange. I am sure that if today this piece of legislation where indicating that the minister would indeed have that authority, I would suspect that the hon. member would be on his feet questioning why that kind of authority is being given to the minister.

As I pointed out to the hon. member, what we are talking about here does take place on an annual basis. I think, in terms of management, yes, we all subscribe to the idea that we do have to properly manage our resource, but we also have to acknowledge, as I am sure the hon. member would, that you cannot micromanage to the point that you are going to be down on a daily basis dealing with these sorts of things. The best that we can do is bring in guidelines to try to protect and direct development within the Province. We try to ensure that people who are working within the industry are in adherence and compliance of these regulations. Where they are not, then we provide the mechanism whereby we can deal with those instances of non-compliance.

What is being proposed here today, I submit, will facilitate the process. It will improve the present situation. It is something that the industry has been asking for. At the same time, I do not concede or subscribe to the argument being put forward by the hon. member that by doing what we are proposing to do here today, that we will in fact reduce what we are doing in terms of protecting this resource on behalf of the people of the Province.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the minister is suggesting that this hon. member wants to micromanage the forest industry. What I am saying is not that at all. The minister is the one who says that when they put their certificates in place he sends his officials out to see whether they are complying with the act or not. The point is not whether he is seeing whether they are complying with the act or not; the point is, what do you do when you find out that they are not? Sure, the industry wants it easier to get Certificates of Managed Lands. Of course, the industry is asking for this amendment because they want to make it easier to get Certificates of Managed Land. They are not asking for the minister to have the approval to cancel them. They do not want the minister to have the approval to cancel them. They want it to be more trouble, presumably, for the minister to cancel them because it is more difficult to get the Cabinet to go along with cancelling a - or more time consuming. It may be more elaborate. It may take more effort to get the Cabinet to cancel a certificate of managed land than it would be to get the minister to do it. If the minister was doing his or her job, the minister would be in a position to cancel a certificate if their officials were telling them that they are not compiling with the management plan, that they are not compiling with the certificate that was granted. They are doing it, as the minister says, on an annual basis.

If the minister says we are not going to micromanage - well you are asking for an annual report for starters, but it is a report that the minister has the authority to approve or disapprove. We have seen already in this House, in this session, where the Minister of Environment, for example, has a five year operating plan which is supposed to tabled 180 days prior to the start of the plan of being submitted within ninety days of the start and the minister gives a waiver under another provision of the regulation. The minister has lots of discretion when it comes to assisting a company in getting approval for things but it appears that the legislation does not give the minister much discretion when it comes to acting when they are not going along with the plans that have been approved and the certificates that have been this issued.

I want the minister to answer this particular question: Why is there more discretion in the minister to grant a certificate than it is to revoke a certificate where they are not compiling with the management plans that they put in place? That is the issue. Of course, the industry is not asking for that. This should not be industry-driven legislation. This should be legislation to protect and guarantee the forest resources and their sustainability for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the point of having legislation in the first place, not doing what the industry requests, unless it is in the best interest of the people of the Province. If it is in the best interest of the people of the Province to give the minister discretion to grant these certificates, why is it not in the best interest of the forest resources and the people of the Province to give the minister the discretion to revoke those certificates if they are not compiling with the regulations that are set down, if they are not compiling with the management plan they put forward, and if they are not deserving of a certificate? Why can't the minister revoke it? Why does he have to go and get Cabinet approval which may take weeks or months or longer?

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One final comment with regard to this, I realize the hon. member and myself could engage in debate for the rest of the afternoon. But, in terms of the issue that he is pursuing, he is suggesting that right now automatically - what he is saying is that the minister would have the authority to automatically cancel if the officials came back and cited an instance of non-compliance.

The fact is right now, as the regulation reads, the minister has the authority - and the officials will determine whether it is partially managed or non-managed. I am sure the hon. member would acknowledge that if we are going out and dealing with a company or a proponent in that particular area, they certainly should have the right - and we will go back and make them aware that we are not satisfied that they are doing what they committed to in their operating plan - that they have the opportunity to address that and move towards bringing it back in line. Again, keeping in mind that we are talking about one year - this is not a ten, fifteen, or twenty year operation, and most of this operation is seasonal in nature as well. When a lot of this information does come back the operation is, in fact, over. By the time it comes back the information is received.

I think the hon. member is trying to create a situation where one does not exist. Quite frankly, this minister feels quite comfortable that sufficient guidelines are there to protect the interests of the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If there were sufficient guidelines and they were properly being adhered to we would not be dealing with the situation where we have a serious shortage of wood supply in the Province and a reduction in the total allowable cut by as much as 25 per cent being warned by the minister if it was being done properly. I think it is pretty clear that it is not being done properly.

In fact, what this legislation is doing in clause 5 is also making it easier for the circumstances to go on the way they are by suggesting that in addition to having to go to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to declare a piece of land or a parcel of land to be unmanaged, the minister has the authority, and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council being the authority, not to look at the area that is supposed to be managed but just to look at a portion and say: Well, we will only declare a portion of it to be unmanaged, thereby making it easier for non-compliance to take place without there being serious consequences to the holder of a license. That seems to me, again probably requested by the industry, but something that is making it easier for non-compliance to take place, because the consequences are allowed to be less because they can result in a circumstance where the penalty, if you will, or the consequences are less onerous because all you have is a portion of the land being declared unmanaged, and therefore the taxes only relate to that and won't relate to the entire parcel that the certificate is in place of.

I realize that the minister and I can debate this all afternoon, but I think the point has been fairly made that these changes may improve the efficiency of granting of certificates of managed land to forest holders, the holders of licenses, but they will do nothing to improve the quality of the management of our forests and exercise of that management by the Minister of Forestry or by this government.

I think we have a serious situation on our hands, as I said at second reading of this bill. I won't go on further this afternoon because I think it is a larger question than this bill itself. I think we are at a point where we really need to have a big picture study done in the form of something in the nature of a royal commission to look at the competing uses of our forests, to look at how we have been managing our forests in this Province, particularly in light of the new regime that is going to be coming on us with the expiry of timber leases that have been in place, in some cases, for ninety-nine years, with the fact that there are whole new understandings of how the forest operates and the forest ecosystem operates. We have talk of a forest ecosystem management approach, but we haven't seen any examples of it yet, and yet we see Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, for example, wanting to go in again as of January 1, to cut in a 7,000-year-old forest that has been untouched.

That is something that we have serious questions about, if we are properly managing our forests. We haven't met our commitments to set aside a proper amount of 12 per cent of our natural landscape for preservation that we committed ourselves to ten years ago. We have failed to really put in place a proper sustainability, we have failed to address the competing uses for our forest, and we failed to address, really, the methodology in which we can maximize the use of our forest resources to guarantee that those people who make their living in the woods, whether they be loggers, whether they be people who are using the woods for other purposes, that we have the maximum use of that resource.

What we have seen in our forest industries, in fact, is a decrease, a constant and continuing decrease of the number of people who are making their living from the forests. Some of that is due to technology, and some of that, I would submit, is due to bad management. If our forest resources were managed properly we would have more people working in the woods, there would be more loggers working in the woods, there would be more harvesters working in the woods, and there would be more people employed in our forest industry, whether they be in sawmills or in further value-added activity related to our forests.

So it is not an issue that has to do with: Lets make things easy for the forest industry. It is really a much larger question which says: Lets do it right and lets ensure that we are getting maximum use of our forests. It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that if we had a properly managed, sustainable forest that we would have more loggers, that we would have more people working in sawmills, that we would have more people working in the lumber and paper industry, and have a much more diversified economy in our forested areas of the Province.

It is in that context that I make these remarks, Mr. Chairman, on this bill and on the forest industry in general.

On motion, clauses 1 through 6 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 22 without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 4, Bill 26.

CHAIR: Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

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

Just a couple of points of clarification, I suppose. The other day at second reading I made the comment that I wholeheartedly supported government's initiative to bring in this legislation, because obviously this is a significant improvement and a move in a new direction in health care, and government is to be commended for that.

I ask the minister, in section 1, whether the introduction now of making provisions for nurse practitioners to be ordering X-rays, whether that has some implication or put some additional pressure to provide that same provision and same right to chiropractors, that is not now covered in their legislation.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the minister for allowing me to say a few words. I just wanted to say that I did not get a chance to speak on this at second reading, and I want put on the record my full support for this particular bill, to amend the Registered Nurses Act, to provide for the activity authority, the activity of the nurse practitioners. These are important health care professionals. I think we have seen in this Province in recent years, as a result of this, the expansion of the role of nurses in our health care system. I think one of the directions in which we perhaps need to go in this Province and in this country in terms of providing better health care is to look at a team approach that can deliver health care without having necessarily to have the highest level of health care professional in every circumstance. I think if we had a team where we had doctors, nurses, physiotherapists and other health professionals working as a team to serve and provide services to a group of people, whether it be in urban areas or in rural areas, we can, I think, provide a better health care system without having the costs going through the roof year after year after year.

I think we have to get away from the fact that every time someone has a health complaint, that it is has to be dealt with by a medical doctor or by a specialist. Obviously, we need to have highly qualified people to ensure that those who need the attention of a specialist actually get that attention, but we also have to have an efficient system that is responding to the needs of people at a price they can afford to pay.

One of the ways of providing better health care in a more direct way is through making better use of the health professionals who are already satisfactorily trained to do the work that needs to be done. The Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act now before the House is a piece of ensuring that those health professionals have the authority to do that, that there are proper protocols in place for the kind of practice that we would expect nurse practitioners to undertake within the Province.

We fully support this bill and fully support the development of the nursing profession in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe the question from the Member for Trinity North was to ask whether the extension of this particular ability to order X-rays is something that would extend or could extend to other professions, to chiropractors, and simply to say that would have to be something that would be dealt with, with each individual profession. We are in the process of trying to develop a canopy act, which the member spoke to in his previous comments at second reading, that would look at trying to provide self-governance to other smaller professions as well. That will take a little bit more time, I believe, to actually develop, but as it pertains to a specific duty such as X-rays, at this time there is no provision. As I say it is something that would have to be considered separately, and decided upon, by government whether to extend this. Of course, it does have implications in terms of cost to the health care system. That would be a major concern.

In some of the preliminary analysis we have done in this area, we do have concerns given the costs to our health care system today, and the difficulty that we are having in trying to even provide the services that currently can be requested and ordered by physicians, or in this case by nurse practitioner specialists who are operating in the acute care setting. We do have some concerns about extending that beyond that. I would want to do a fair bit more analysis before making that decision.

Having said that, as both members have indicated, this particular legislation does provide for a validation of the regulations which accommodate nurse practitioner specialists. They are a major enhancement to our health care system, something that I believe really can add to primary health care in the future in this Province. I think this is a necessary step to ensure that all of the legal requirements are in place to ensure that these specialists can operate without challenge, or without question, in our facilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

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

As I commented in second reading to the minister, wondering whether or not this notion of expanding the role of nurses and this new initiative of establishing nurse practitioners in the Province, because there are other opportunities to expand the role of nurses in some other areas, I ask the minister, with respect to this particular bill here, would this new legislation also cover other instances? I used the example, when discussed at second reading, about oncology services, whether or not there would be consideration to taking oncology nurses, for example, and have them function at an advanced practice nurse level; and, in future, if there were to be those sorts of initiatives, would this legislation also enable them to be covered off under this legislation?

I understood from the minister's opening comments that this legislation was being introduced on recommendation by solicitors. I am wondering if this legislation provides the breath necessary to allow to cover off other advanced practice nurses that may be established in the future.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS BETTNEY: What this legislation does, Mr. Chairman, is authorize qualified nurse practitioners to practice in the manner that has been outlined and set out in the practice protocol to the nurse practitioners. This practice protocol has been defined. It has been agreed to by the nurses association, and all of the other bodies involved. It does provide for this specialist type nurse practitioner. Consequently, I think you would have to look to the protocol to say whether there are specifics of different specialities that can be accommodated there.

I presume that would be the case. As I say, it is contained within the current protocol. All this legislation does is confirm the protocol that is in place and ensure that it can't be challenged.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The chair is having great difficulty in conducting the business of the House with the banter going on between the two sides. If there is a need to have a discussion perhaps the gentlemen could move outside.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chair, His Honour will arrive shortly to preform an important duty.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

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

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again shortly.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor takes the Chair.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Ladies and gentlemen, it is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has, at its present session, passed a bill to which in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act Respecting The Name Of The Province", Bill 43.

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (A.M. House, C.M.,M.D.,LL.D.,FRCPC): In Her Majesty's name, I assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor leaves the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, what we just seen was the official proclamation of the name of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We did this to coincide -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: We did this to coincide with the events taking place in Ottawa today by the Governor General.

Mr, Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate a number of bills. We will start with Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

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

CHAIR (Hodder): Order, please!

Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Most of my comments were made in second reading. I just have very brief comments. Basically, with the bill here, we are increasing the level by which people have to pay the payroll tax to $400,000 exemption up to $500,000. I guess with the stipulation here that it averaged out to $475,000. The fiscal year overlaps with this tax year by three-quarters of the year.

What it would mean, basically, when you look at $500,000 as opposed to $475,000, it was made to apply to the entire year. I know it would be retroactive three months. It would be 25,000 times the payroll tax. For example, if that falls in the category of $500 extra in payroll tax. I have indicated earlier, it is not just this amount. It is always positive to see this exemption amount rising because more and more companies can benefit by getting rid of a tax that is really regressive. It is a particular tax on jobs, because if you are taxing the payroll of a company you are taxing jobs. People in jobs get paid and that makes up the payroll. If you increase jobs you increase the payroll generally speaking and therefore you increase the tax a company pays. That is not a very positive tax. It is not a very stimulating tax on our economy. In fact, it is a tax that has a very regressive effect. As we have called it, it is a tax on jobs.

We would certainly like to see the minister, in future budgets - because we think it is going to have a positive effect on our economy in stimulating within our total tax structure. That is just one. I know of many particular taxes there. It would be more preferable to see revenues shared in different areas rather than in a payroll tax. We have to have competitive tax rates with the rest of this country and, particularly, with Atlantic Canada overall.

There are areas to improve in our tax structure, and we would like to see some movement certainly in that direction. There was significant movement made over two years ago but it sort of slowed down this year to more of a snail's pace overall. The figures indicated on budget day that over 2,000 businesses have benefitted up to now, 200 with this latest movement here, which is only marginal. It is a small step forward, I might add. It would only make a difference on a company of about $500 or from a $400,000 one it would make a difference of $2,000 basically on an annualized basis from last year.

When companies pay out extra taxes, and when you have extra payroll burdens and extra costs, companies usually respond by trying to maintain a certain margin in their business and they try to do that possibly by getting by with one less employee. The higher the taxation affects your bottom line costs. Companies are in to make business and companies should make profit. Profit is not a bad word. Profit is a very positive word for businesses. The healthier a company is the more profitable it is, the more likely it is to have a larger workforce. As profits increase they can respond by offering, maybe new products, new employees and help grow the economy. Payroll tax is one that certainly does not do that.

Government has indicated that they are in the process of starting to lift that. So hopefully down the road it will happen, but it is not happening very fast. If we look at the revenues we are taking in on payroll tax - it is up in the tens of millions, I believe in the $70 million range. I don't have the extra figure but it is in that ballpark there. There is still a significant amount of taxes coming into our treasury of a regressive nature. We would like to see more taxes coming in but we would like to see it on a more progressive nature. Ones that are taxes because a company is more profitable, because a company is growing. That is not necessarily the case with this particular tax. While we support any raising of that - increasing the amount that can be exempted before they have to pay it, we would support that. Consequently, it would be a benefit for roughly 200 companies this year, based on their performance of last year.

We support this bill, and we will not belabor this particular point anymore because most of the points we wanted to make on this bill have already been made.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 5, Madam Chair, Bill 33, Act Respecting The Protection Of Endangered Species.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

This legislation, obviously, as we have noted in second reading of the bill, is an overdue piece of legislation, supported by many in the community.

With respect to clause 6, I would like to ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation a couple of questions dealing with Part II of the bill, under "HOW A SPECIES IS DETERMINED TO BE AT RISK". Clause 6.(3) deals with, "The minister shall appoint a maximum of 9 members of the committee on terms and conditions that the minister considers appropriate."

The companion section to that, clause 6.(4) "The minimum qualifications to be a member of the SSAC shall be prescribed in regulations made under subsection 44(1)." We all know that regulations are subordinate to and made in Cabinet.

I wonder if the minister could expound on what his thoughts are with respect to the appointments, how he is going to draw from the community with these appointments, what groups' or individuals' qualifications, et cetera, that he, as the political head of the department, will be looking for. This is an important committee. Obviously this bill, in appointing the Species Status Advisory Committee, is meant to advise the minister on a regular systematic basis on the risks that many species in the Province are under. I can only assume, through the bill and the legislation and the commentary in second reading, that this committee will play a big part in determining what the minister's decisions will be, if the minister feels, based upon a recommendation coming from this committee, that a certain species should be classified as endangered or put on a watch, so to speak.

I wonder if he could expound upon the board appointments themselves, the nature of the board, what sort of qualifications will he be looking for, and will it be a board comprised of broad representation from the community in terms of specialists associated with what the minister is looking for here.

I will sit down for the moment and let him answer that question.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to say that I appreciate the question from the Opposition House Leader.

The appointments to this board will be people with background in sciences that have expertise in different fields that this legislation will be responsible for. We are patterning this legislation after four or five others provinces and also what the federal government will be proposing. The people who will be appointed to this board will have science based backgrounds, a very strong science base, so that they will be able to provide the expertise to the government and to the department as to the potential listing for endangered species, or whatever type of listing they want to put forward. It will have to be a science based approach.

As a matter of fact, we have a preliminary list of people that the department, and the officials in the department, would like to consider, and these people all have science based backgrounds, very strong scientific backgrounds in the Province. Also, we are looking at having people from different parts of the Province, if we can, because of the geography, particularly Labrador where we believe this bill is also going to help us with protection.

To that question, there will basically be people with science based backgrounds on the board. We look forward to having the approval and the authority to carry it forward.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The concerns I have about this legislation are really twofold. One is the one that was just dealt with by the minister, the issue of who will be appointed to this advisory council. The minister has said that they will be people with a science background. I know other legislation, although the minister said it has been patterned after four or five bills - the Nova Scotia legislation actually states in the legislation itself that people with a suitable scientific background would be the people appointed to advise the minister on that basis.

I know in the regulations under this act, the provisions for setting out the qualifications of people, I take the minister at his word in terms of the appointments that he might make under this legislation, but I do need to say that the bill can certainly be stronger by including in the act itself that the people will have scientific backgrounds, that they will not be political appointees. If someone happens to be an ex-member of the House of Assembly or whatever, such as was just recently appointed to the national Historic Monument Board, for example, with no background in heritage matters or previous involvement. There are circumstances, of course, where people get appointed to boards because of their political connections and not because of their particular abilities or training with respect to the matter at hand, this being a very important matter, especially in this Province.

We certainly do not have the record for losing species, but we have a couple of very stark reminders in our own history of an extinction of species such as the great auk. That is not to be blamed on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because they happen to reside here, the great auk was destroyed by people passing by Newfoundland and Labrador on ships, on the Funk Islands and other islands off our coast, destroying that particular animal by taking its eggs, taking the birds for their feathers, by taking the eggs for food and, in fact, in some instances using the birds for fuel as opposed to any other use. The destruction and extinction of the great auk on our shores, not by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I say, but within this Province, the great auk was destroyed as a species and is now extinct.

We have in the Province of Newfoundland itself the Newfoundland wolf being destroyed through over hunting. The Newfoundland wolf is a separate species of wolf that in this century, in 1925, became extinct because protection wasn't put in place to protect the Newfoundland wolf. That species no longer exists. We have had other examples as well. I won't go into them.

In the case of natural species, of course, we have had other more tragic examples with the case of the Beothuck people who were driven to extinction in this Province, in part by the actions of people who attempted to kill them, but also by the same thing that is happening to animals: the loss of habitat, the loss of ability of these people to survive in the Newfoundland and Labrador environment because it has been taken over by others. In the case of animals, the loss of habitat is the single most important factor in the reduction of species.

This is a very important piece of legislation. It has a lot of implications for other activities including economic activities. We have had conflicts over use of habitat, whether it be urbanization in the case of waterfowl and other species, or whether it be industrial forestry practices in the case of the pine marten and other species. We have to be very, very careful to ensure that the habitat of these species is protected.

If I may, rather than just deal with it clause-by-clause, I will mention the other major concern I have about this legislation. It is that the minister, despite the fact that the scientific panel - and I accept that the minister will ensure that there will be a panel of scientists giving advice, but the minister does not have to follow that advice. The minister can designate the species with the category that it has been placed into, whether it be vulnerable, threatened, endangered, and certain qualifications follow, but the minister does not have to do that. He can designate the species with a recommended or equivalent category. I am not sure what that exactly means unless they are using other categories. These are not equivalent categories. They are either vulnerable, threatened, endangered, or extirpated is the other provision. The minister can follow the advice and designate the species under the act or put it in a different category or, in fact, make no designation at all. It seems to me that, in a case like this where scientific advice is available, the minister should be required to take action under the legislation in order to ensure that the species will, in fact, be protected.

The other concern that I have is that there is no requirement to take action if a species has been characterized as vulnerable. In fact, perhaps the minister can address this specifically. If a species is threatened or endangered, the minister has to establish a recovery team. If a species is vulnerable, the minister shall release a management plan.

The prohibition that occurs in clause 16, and perhaps the minister can address this one specifically, says, (1) "A person shall not disturb, harass, injure, or kill an individual of a species designated as threatened, endangered or extirpated." In fact, there is also a provision that, (2) "A person shall not capture, possess, buy, sell or trade a specimen of a species designated as threatened, endangered or extirpated."

The same provisions apply for a person not being allowed to disturb or destroy the residence of an individual species that is threatened, endangered or extirpated, but there is no provision there under section 16 - the species that are declared as vulnerable are left out. So I presume that this means that even though a species may be designated under the act as being vulnerable, there is no prohibition against disturbing, harassing, injuring or killing, possessing, capturing, buying, selling or trading, or disturbing or destroying the residence of an individual of a species that is declared to be vulnerable under this legislation.

Perhaps the minister can explain why that is: why, if you have a species that, because of its characteristics or habitat, has been declared as vulnerable under the Endangered Species Act, why there is no prohibition at all and there is no provision at all, other than the minister shall have a management plan with respect to that species. Perhaps the minister can answer those questions when he next gets an opportunity to speak.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to again thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party for his commentary on this legislation, which is very positive legislation for the Province. On the designation, with respect to the fact that the minister's authority is there, that there is not an automatic listing because the scientific committee has recommended that there be a listing, for example, of the endangered designation, what we have here in our legislation is the same as five other provinces in that it has to come to the Cabinet. Once it comes to the Cabinet, the committee report from the scientific committee, the requirement also is that the species status report be released by the committee to the public; also, that the criteria for the designation of the species be released to the public. The annual reports are going to be submitted every year, within thirty days after the report has been released by the minister.

With relevance to the fact, yes, the minister and Cabinet has the authority to designate, I think as they should, because they are the government at the end of the day, the scientific committee's recommendations will be made public, if the Cabinet minister and the government decides not to designate a species endangered, as an example, they will have to publish the reasons for doing so.

This legislation is very strong and I believe it certainly will protect what, in this Province, we need to protect for the future. With reference to the second point, where it comes to threatened species and endangered species that he was describing, the fact of the matter is that there is a recovery plan and a management plan that will be put forward for any species that is of concern to the Wildlife Department. Therefore, if it reaches the stage of threatened or endangered, for example, that is where we believe, and advice from our officials is, that we deal with it with the type of legislation that we have here and the type of restrictions that we would have.

The management plan that would be identified for a species that is somewhat threatened, there are certain criteria that we can lay down in a management plan that will protect the species prior to this legislation coming in force. I just wanted to outline that to the member.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am not sure the minister dealt with the issue of vulnerable species. Why is there nothing other than a management plan available for species designated as being vulnerable? It seems that it is still open season on species that may be declared as vulnerable, because prohibitions contained in section 16 do not apply, and those prohibitions are to prevent people from disturbing, harassing, injuring, killing, capturing, buying, selling or trading animals or destroying their residence. This seems to me to be, I use the word, open season. Obviously, if there is a management plan in place it is not open season, but I would like the minister to explain why that has been left out of the prohibition. If there are no prohibitions there at all, perhaps the minister can deal with that.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, if a species is vulnerable, our department officials and our Wildlife Division would recommend, in a management plan, restrictions, for example, to activities that affect the species. What they are saying is that if you can manage a species and if it is becoming vulnerable, there are actions that you can take. If you believe that it is becoming threatened or endangered, then you take the stronger measures. It is a matter of how serious the situation is becoming with the species. While vulnerable does not get the same type of restrictions, we already have restrictions for certain plans that we have now to manage different wildlife species, Madam Chair. As a matter of fact, we have a variety of restrictions, depending on the species, depending on the circumstance, depending on the zone and area that we might be in with the species, where we have, for example, the woodland caribou in Labrador, in the south of Labrador, where we have now a protection plan in place. That is the rationale with it, and it is the same as it is in other provinces.

On motion, clauses 1 through 12 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 13 through 21 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a quick question to the minister. In clause 13 under Part III of the legislation, we talked about what happens after a species is designated as, I guess, being at risk. Clause 13.(1) of the bill says, and it is under the section vulnerable, if a species is declared vulnerable, "The minister shall release a management plan for a species to the public within 3 years from the time that the species is designated as vulnerable under paragraph 7(a)." Under 13.(2), it goes on to say, "If the minister cannot release the management plan within 3 years, he or she may delay the release of the management plan for up to one year and notify the public of the reason for the delay."

In discussing this section in terms of the minister releasing a management plan to the public within three years, some people have expressed concern to myself, Minister, that the time frame of three years may seem a bit long or extended, given the fact that we may be dealing with a species that has been declared vulnerable or endangered. I wonder if you could give some rationale with respect to the reason for these clauses and, in particular, why three years was agreed upon within the department.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, there was a wide range of public consultations on this legislation and our officials who brought forward the recommendations in their briefing to me indicated that this time period is there because some of these issues, when it comes to declaring the species, for example, endangered, there is a great deal of scientific work that has to occur. They have the three years there but it can occur in much less than the three years. They wanted it there because of the science work that has to be done, the necessary work and consultations that have to be done with the variety of organizations that are involved and groups that are involved, and the public.

It is not meant to give a time period to stretch out a period so that you can delay. This legislation is meant to protect, so basically it is their recommendation. It is a recommendation of the scientific community that is involved in this type of protection, that will be involved in the advice that we will seek. It is not meant to be seen to be that it gives you all this time period. It is a necessary type of period of time that would allow for the necessary work to be carried out and to make sure that there is a timeline on the government that, when the report is submitted, you do have a timeline, that you do have to release it within a certain time frame. This was the advice provided to us and we believe that it is certainly going to be worthwhile and we also believe that it will work.

A number of these species we already have identified within the department to act on quickly and we do not expect that it will take that period of time. That was the rational behind it.

On motion, clauses 13 through 47 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 6, Madam Chair, Bill 35.

CHAIR: Bill 35, An Act To Facilitate Electronic Commerce By Removing Barriers To The Use Of Electronic Communication.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to rise for a few minutes and just make a few comments on this really progressive piece of legislation. Of course it is one that reflects, I guess, how activities both commercially and personally, how activities are being done through electronic means throughout our society these days.

The explanatory note in the bill simply states that, "This Bill would provide a legal framework to facilitate commerce and communication by electronic means." However, when we review the legislation, and this was alluded to by my colleague a few days ago during debate, Madam Chair, there is some indication that perhaps the bill requires some tightening and perhaps some clarification. Clause 4 is perhaps an example of that. I would like to perhaps just raise an issue and pose a question to the Minister of Government Services and Lands with respect to Bill 35.

Clause 4(1) states, "This Act does not apply to (a) a will and a codicil to a will; (b) a trust created by a will or by a codicil to a will; (c) a power of attorney, to the extent that it deals with the financial affairs or personal care of an individual; (d) a document that creates or transfers an interest in land and that must be registered to be effective against a third party; (e) a negotiable instrument, except as provided in Part III."

I am just wondering, there seems to be another series of documentation, I say to the minister, that perhaps ought to be considered for inclusion in this section whereby these particular documents would therefore be excluded, because we are talking about the excluded provisions. I am thinking about domestic contracts. I am thinking, for example, a document such as a pre-nuptial agreement, a cohabitation agreement, a domestic contract of that nature. I am wondering where we are excluding, for example, personal documentation such as a will or codicil to that will, or a trust provision or other negotiable instruments and even a power of attorney that deals with ones personal affairs and financial affairs. Would it not be prudent to include in that particular exclusion section, I say to the minister, documentation dealing with domestic contracts? I simply raise that question with the hon. minister.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to have a few words on this bill. Maybe it is some words that relate more to second reading than they do to committee stage. I want to talk more about why I believe this type of legislation is important and what I think e-commerce can do for the Province, for industry, for rural areas of the Province, and the need for us to concentrate on broadband in this Province, seriously, and in this country; whether it is done by satellite, whether it is done by fibre optics or however it is done. I think it is extremely important, and I think this kind of legislation is very important to us because obviously, when you engage in new technologies, when you engage in new ways of doing things, when you engage in technology to strike down the barriers - as IT can do, as broadband could do, and as satellite connections could do - I think it is extremely important that we make sure that the regulations are in place. I think it is extremely important that we see that broadband is put in place in our Province. I say this for a couple of reasons, because everybody knows the IT industry, the call center industry, has become very important in Newfoundland and Labrador. While it is not the highest paying jobs and it is not the highest end of IT that we would like to see, it can certainly provide jobs in certain areas of our Province, and see that our people, who have been displaced out of the fishery for example, or forestry or out of any other job, have a means to make a living and therefore help keep rural Newfoundland and Labrador alive.

One of the biggest problems I found as the Minister of Industry - I think it was particularly true in the area of Placentia, where I think we had on the hook, and still have to some extent, in Placentia -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am not in the habit of naming companies in the Legislature, as the hon. gentleman knows, but yes, we had a company down in Placentia that wanted to go into Placentia but yet could not find the type of technology infrastructure that they needed to put - I think it was 250 to 300 jobs in Placentia, which obviously means a great boost to the rural area of this Province in terms of creating a feeling of employment.

I think the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace will tell you that since we put in place the call center in Carbonear that indeed the economy is having an effect right throughout the community; not only in terms of economics but in terms of a positive feeling about what is happening in the community.

While all of that is important, I think it is also important that we make sure, as legislators, that in terms of e-commerce - and there is a great deal of potential in rural Newfoundland for e-commerce. I think it is very important that we make sure that the legislation that is required to govern e-commerce and to make sure that no fraud is carried on, for example, is put in place and that is what this bill attempts to do, and I applaud the bill on that basis.

With that I will close. I only wanted to take four or five minutes to do this. I would say to all of us, that it is something that we should be very concerned about, that it is something that we should watch very closely because we are living in a different society today than we lived in, not only before September 11, but for some years now. It has some very great advantages for us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: What's wrong, Jack? You don't like this? It is a different one from yesterday.

That we make sure that we have the right regulations and the right legislation in place. I think it is a very, very important piece of legislation and I want to commend the minister for bringing it in.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will go back to my earlier point, if I may, Madam Chair. We certainly support the spirit of this legislation. What the Deputy Premier has said obviously goes to the spirit of the legislation, and we have no difficulty with that, but it is a critical piece of legislation because we are dealing with innovations in how things work in our business community. As the act indicates, we are talking about a legal framework to facilitate both commerce and communication by electronic means. It is important that we tighten the legislation at this time to ensure that the best possible act is enacted. That, of course, is the purpose of the Committee stage of these proceedings.

My question, again, is to the hon. minister: Is it not possible that we can include, under section 4 of the legislation, which are the exclusion provisions - it talks about a will, it talks about a codicil, it talks about a trust and a power of attorney; very personalized documentation. Why not include, in that section, those domestic contracts which outline the relationship between spouses, or two people who cohabit with one another, for example, a prenuptial arrangement or cohabitation agreement; why not include those types of domestic documents in that very section to ensure that they too are excluded, just as other documentation, such as a will or whatever, would be?

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

MR. NOEL: Madam Chair, I am informed that the wording that is in the act is consistent with other jurisdictions and with the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. If there are other documents which people feel should be added this can be accommodated in regulations. There is flexibility on this issue within the way the act is written, I am given to understand. Whether a particular or convincing case can be made for specifying domestic contracts such as the member refers to, I would have to look into it further and determine whether we think there may be justification for doing so.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

One comment, and we hear this from time to time, that we are adopting a precedent or we have looked at other similar legislation in other jurisdictions, but if we can improve on these other precedents - we are here as legislators for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and I do not think we should simply rest and say that we have looked at other precedents and other such statutes in other jurisdictions. If we can improve, even on what we have looked at, what we have reviewed and what we have accessed, to determine what perhaps is good in whole or in part, but if we can improve on that, I say to the hon. minister, we should take every opportunity to do that. I know there is a provision there whereby, under regulation, we can make these changes, I say to the hon. minister, but if we can do it now rather than have it done as an afterthought, particularly when it is being debated during the Committee. I will accept what the minister is saying, that he will review, either with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General or his friends in the legislative drafting department to see if, in fact, we can make this change. I think it is important to do so, particularly if we all agree that it is something that we ought to undertake.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to that particular section, the purpose of the act is to facilitate a certain activity, for example, the registration of certain types of documents by way of electronic means. The reason that 4.(1), I would submit, excludes particularly wills and instruments of trust, and powers of attorney, has nothing to do with the personal nature of them. It has to do with the proof that is required if you are going to prove the existence of those particular documents. As the Member for St. John's East, I am sure, is aware, when you talk about wills and construction of wills, there is a very explicit body of law that relates to how a will is signed, where it must be signed and witnessed and so on.

To suggest that we should have domestic contracts under this section, I think, would be limiting in nature; because, for example, what if you have a situation where someone who has a domestic contract wants to use electronic means to register it? You may well have a separation agreement between a party who resides in Newfoundland and someone who resides in B.C. They may want to avail of registration by electronic means. To put domestic contracts under this exclusionary clause, I would suggest, would take away a right and limit their ability to facilitate their activities. I think it is the intent of this bill to allow people more flexibility to carry on their affairs rather than be restrictive in nature.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In part, I agree with the hon. minister; however, I think that particular argument weakens when we go down the list of other exclusions. I realize that there are certain signing obligations and witnessing obligations for wills and codicils and so on. Under subsection (e), for example, it even excludes negotiable instruments. It just seems that when this type of documentation is being transferred electronically - maybe there should be an opting out provision in the act to allow parties to communicate in that way if they so wish - that the nature of the type of documentation that is found under the section of domestic contracts under the family law legislation in this Province ought to be an excluded provision as found in section 4. The minister did indicate, I say to the hon. Minister of Justice, the Minister of Government Services and Lands, the minister sponsoring this legislation, I believe, did indicate that he will undertake to review that aspect to see whether or not this type of inclusion should be added to the exclusion provision, which is really what the suggestion is all about.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly see the value of this legislation in allowing electronic commerce to occur. We have lots of businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador and many in rural areas who can have a business more effectively by being able to enter into contracts through electronic means to sell things over the Internet and that sort of thing. I think this is designed to facilitate that and I am quite pleased to see that we are facilitating that type of commerce.

I just have one question, really, for the minister. The act refers to an electronic signature, and I have to confess that I do not really know what an electronic signature is. Is that my signature that somehow or other is scanned into my computer and sent off by electronic means ,or is it a code? Is it an encrypted signature that is specially protected? It is a very practical question. I suppose it is a legal question, too, what is going to qualify as an electronic signature. If I sign my name and we have handwriting experts and they can determine whether I have signed it or whether I did not, and I can deny that I signed it, and all of that. Now we have electronic signatures and it not very clear, in the legislation at least, what an electronic signature is.

I am sure the minister, in receiving advice as to the appropriateness of this legislation, I do not know if the Minister of Government Services and Lands can answer that or whether the Minister of Justice can answer that. Is this my signature, how I sign my name, or is it some sort of electronic code that somehow or other can be verified to me or identified to me or registered somewhere? It is not very clear on a practical level what an electronic signature is. Perhaps the minister can help us out on that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would refer the member to the definition section which defines electronic signature to mean "...electronic information that a person has created or adopted in order to sign a document and that is in, attached to or associated with the document."

As those of us who use the Internet and the Web know, there are different kinds of ways that you can gain access to secure sites. In the course of setting up the protocol for determining those means of access, it is my understanding that the process for doing that is what is designated as determining an electronic signature. It is not a written signature. The idea is not that there would be a reproduction of your written signature that would be transferred over the Net. It would be whatever is deemed to be a signature for the purposes of electronic commerce.

If you need a more technical explanation than that, I will have to undertake to bring it back to you at a future date.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have to agree with the Member for Baie Verte when he says: I still don't understand that.

The definition doesn't really help. The only example I can think of, I suppose, is if someone is doing electronic banking you have to put an account number, a name or a code in and then you have to put a password in. That is to get access to services.

I am wondering: Is that the kind of thing the minister is talking about in terms of an electronic signature, or are we talking about something else?

I recognize that it is a technical question, but the people reading this act or the people who are engaging in electronic commerce will need to know a practical definition. The definition contained in the act is not, frankly, very helpful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I didn't hear the hon. member. I am sure his comment is deserving of contribution to the debate. If he wants to get up and make it, I am sure he will have an opportunity when I sit down.

I guess it is a practical question. It is not a legal question, it is not a question designed to make life difficult for the minister. It may be that people who engage in this know what we are talking about, but I am sure hon. members here don't know, and many people who might be watching don't know. An account number and a password probably would qualify as an electronic signature, but that is not what we are talking about here when we are talking about individuals engaging in commerce or signing contracts, or the minister is even talking about domestic contracts under the Family Law Act. How would people who are engaged in that know what is meant by an electronic signature?

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I indicated earlier, Madam Chair, I will undertake to try to get a better definition of what constitutes an electronic signature. I think we all have a pretty good sense of what we are talking about, but what is technically the definition, I am afraid I can't tell you definitely. If I can determine that within the next little while, I will be happy to make it known to the member.

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

MR. HARRIS: I just want to thank the minister for his undertaking. It does seem to be a practical question that would require an answer.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 6 through 19 carry?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a couple of questions with respect to section 12 which deals with the requirement to provide originals. The section states that, "A requirement under a law for a person to present or retain a document in original form is satisfied by the provision or retention of electronic information where..." Subsection (a), I indicate to the minister, states, "there is a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the electronic information...".

I am just wondering: Does the minister have any thoughts as to what is actually the interpretation of reliable assurance of the integrity of the electronic information? I mean, is there a test that he is aware of, is there a standard that the minister is aware of, particularly where other legislation in other jurisdictions has been reviewed to help in the production of this particular bill? I am just wondering, is there any assistance that can be offered to the people of the Province, Madam Chair? What is exactly meant by reliable assurance?

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

MR. NOEL: Madam Chair, I would think it is acceptance of the various encryption kinds of definitions that we see when we are involved in using the Internet. You might need a 128 encryption designation. In my view, that is what would constitute reliable assurance as to the integrity of the electronic information. In other words, it would have to be in keeping with the standard that is generally accepted within the industry.

On motion, clauses 6 through 27 carried

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, Order 13, Bill 41.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 41, An Act Respecting The Protection Of Farm Practices In The Province.

Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Madam Chair, on a point of order, I have a proposed amendment to subclause 15 of the act and there has been some discussion with the minister as well. Just as a point of order, I realize we are on clause 1. If it is agreeable to the House, we could talk about the bill in general and I could make my remarks in the context of the proposed amendment, if that is okay.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the House agree?

MR. HARRIS: The minister and I have had discussions about the amendment and it appears there may be agreement on it. Is that agreeable to the House?

MADAM CHAIR: Is that agreeable to the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I made some extensive remarks on second reading on Bill 41 about the farm practices. I had a number of concerns about the wording of the act, and what was included and not included in the farm practices and acceptable farm practices.

The other issue and most important issue that I raised was the fact that the act says that a decision by the board would be final. I complained about the fact that no appeal was provided for, from a decision of the board. In light of that, as both the Member for Kilbride and I and the minister talked about this matter, we might try to work out something in the interim with respect to that, the consequence of which is an amendment proposed by me, seconded by the Member for Kilbride, that the bill be amended by deleting subclause 15.(7)of the bill and replacing it with the following. New clause (7) would be: an applicant or a farmer may appeal a decision of the board to the Trial Division within thirty days from the date of the decision by filing a notice of appeal with the Registrar of the Supreme Court. New clause (8): an appeal under subsection (7) does not stay the decision being appealed unless the Trial Division orders otherwise.

I have a copy for the Chair and I can also advise the Chair that the bill has been reviewed by the law clerk with respect to its wording, and the suggested wording has been incorporated into the amendment to comply with the normal type of amendments of this sort. There is a copy for the Government House Leader and the Chair.

We have a situation where the board to which a complaint may be raised by an applicant complaining about an noxious farm practice that is bothering them, go to a board - the boards consist of three people from the agricultural community and only two others. It was felt, by me at least, that to provide for adequate protection and the possibility of an appeal ought to be there. I have discussed this with the minister and the minister made a comment on this but I understand that other provinces have legislation providing for an appeal to the Trial Division. This is just a check and balance so that if the Farm Practices Review Board, established under the act - if a person is unhappy with the decision of that board there is a provision for going to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court for an appeal. I think this would take care of most of my concerns, Madam Chair. Some of the wording that is there, that I complained about the other day, including: or other disturbance without qualifying it, if there was a problem with how that was being interpreted or applied by the board, the Supreme Court would have the right to deal with that in terms of a proper interpretation of the act, regulations and guidelines that may be prescribed by the minister.

That being said, I move that amendment, seconded by the Member for Kilbride.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the second reading on this particular piece of legislation the only serious or glaring omission was the right of appeal. In many other instances - we have debated legislation today, for example, on Bill 21, the Teacher Training Act, or certification I believe. Enshrined in the legislation it talks about the right of appeal and the board to appeal too.

In discussions on second reading with the minister on this, obviously, this is an inherent right that is contained in many of our pieces of legislation. On the basis of that, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, has put forward an amendment that puts in place an appeal procedure to the Trial Division. It is seconded, certainly by myself. I want to support that because it is an important amendment from both points of view, whether a legitimate farm exercise is in operation that the board may feel that a complaint has been made that is justified, then at least that enterprise will have the opportunity to appeal the decision or vice versa, that a complainant who has lodged a complaint before the board, that has been seen by the board as not being justified then the complainant has an opportunity to appeal as well. So, on that basis, we have discussed - I think the minister is prepared to accept the clause and we are prepared to move the bill fairly quickly once we vote on the clause and accept it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On motion, clauses 1 through 14 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Mr. Jack Harris, has moved that the bill be amended by deleting subclause 15(7), replacing it with the following: An application of a farmer may appeal a decision of the board to the Trial Division within thirty days of the date of the decision by filing a notice of appeal with the Registrar of Supreme Court; and (8) an appeal under subsection 7 does not stay the decision being appealed unless the Trial Division orders otherwise.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 15, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 16 through 19 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 8, Madam Chair, Bill 46, An Act Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate.

MADAM CHAIR: Order 8, Bill 46, An Act Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to make a few comments before we proceed to the clause-by-clause. I want to join my colleague who spoke the other day in second reading, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. I want to mention the people who served on the Select Committee that was the focus of this House for some months back in 1995-1996. I want to mention the contributions made by Pat Cowan, who was the first Chair, and then after the election in 1996, until the committee finished its work, the Member for Burin-Placentia West; also noting the tremendous contributions made by Richard Abraham and Elizabeth Murphy. Today in my comments I forgot to specifically mention these people and to thank them for their contributions to the Select Committee.

Madam Chair, we, on this side of the House, are very happy that this piece of legislation has come before the House in this session. However, there are some things that we made note of a few days ago that we would want to draw the House's attention to during the committee process.

Madam Chair, we support the legislation in principle. Through the creation of a Child and Youth Advocate - parents, teachers, children and youth in care, as well as social workers and other community leaders, clergy, guidance counsellors - all these people will be hopefully able to facilitate a permanent mechanism for ongoing input in the development and delivery of social policy; in particular, when social policy applies to services to children.

I note, in particular, the commitment of the government to make this officer an independent member of the House, an independent officer of the Legislature. In other words, this is similar to the Office of the Auditor General or the Citizens' Representative. We are very encouraged by that and that follows the legislation or the suggestion that the Select Committee made to the House some time ago.

I noted the other day, when I was talking, the narrowness of the definition of youth. In clause 2(g) it is very restrictive. We note that primarily the child advocate legislation is put in place to look after the children who are in care. That is consistent with the primary focus of legislation in other jurisdictions.

We also note that the Select Committee, when we were doing our hearings, heard from a lot of people who asked that we also have some process in place that could be pro-active, so that there could be early intervention to prevent those situations that are causing concerns and growing into serious problems, and to be able to intervene at the early stages.

In other words, we felt that it was important that the advocate be able to be pro-active and be able to intervene in situations, when requested, before they got to a stage where the children were placed in foster homes, placed in some sort of group home, or in other kinds of care facilities.

Madam Chair, we felt that that was an important part of the role of the advocate. We still believe that is a role that we should have considered when this legislation was being drafted.

What we are saying is that a much broader scope of authority should be given to the advocate with this legislation to ensure that all children in Newfoundland and Labrador have adequate access to services, if their complaints, and complaints of their natural advocates - that is their parents - are to receive appropriate attention.

At the right place here in the Committee hearings this afternoon, and during that debate, we were making an amendment to, I think it is section 32 where we deal with the schedule. We will be asking that the minister give consideration to including the school boards as constituted in Newfoundland under the Schools Act of 1997 to be part of that schedule. That would permit some parents who are experiencing some frustration with the school system - Madam Chair, I note that some parents have been calling my office since this bill received second reading and have been asking that there be some consideration given to having the school boards included in the schedule.

I want to note as well that when we read the Williams Royal Commission, Chapter 16 talks about equal access and equal opportunities. We want to note that there is a big difference between equal access and equal opportunity. The two do not necessarily go together all the time. A child can have equal access to a learning environment, but the child may not have equal opportunity to be able to avail of that particular learning situation. The Royal Commission made a distinction between equal access and equal opportunity.

In the Terms of Reference of the Royal Commission, that is the Williams Royal Commission which submitted its report in 1992, we note that there was one part of that Terms of Reference given that commission that was asked to look at the concerns of students who, for social, economic and educational reasons, could not have their needs addressed adequately by the educational system.

Madam Chair, the Williams Royal Commission saw, when they did their hearings, and they listened to people who told them that there was a need to have some mechanism whereby some children who were not being served well would be able to have some equal access and therefore be able to avail of a better learning opportunity. I just wanted to note that in Chapter 16 of the Williams Royal Commission, it tells us that we have to look at every possible circumstance, and they talked about the definitions of schools, and they looked at social and economic barriers to achievement. There was a considerable amount of research, and this afternoon I certainly do not want to go through all the research. That is not appropriate and it is not necessary. Members of this House have read, I hope, the Williams Royal Commission, or they at least have access to it, but it talked about removing the social and economic barriers to achievement. We are trying to do our best to make sure that every child is able to avail of those equal opportunities and able to overcome some of those barriers.

Madam Chair, if children are distracted because of hunger or if they are distressed because of abuse, or they are emotionally torn, for example, between two parents - that sometimes happens when families separate - and if they cannot get their issues resolved satisfactorily, it is important that these young people have an opportunity to be able to have their issues resolved in consultation with their school system. When that comes to the point where the teachers feel - and teachers themselves are all advocates for children; that is the nature of teachers - but there may be circumstances where we need to have the advocate be able to access the documents, to be able to support, in many cases, what the schools are doing all the time. Teachers and guidance counselors and principals and administrators, all of these people are, by their very nature, locum parentis. They are the local parents. So they will have the role and will accept the role of being advocates for children, but there are some occasions when the advocate may want to access some of the information that is in the school system in order that the advocate can do a better job.

Madam Chairperson, we want to ask the minister if she would be able to consider an amendment to the legislation, at the appropriate time in the committee process, to include the schools boards of Newfoundland and Labrador as one of the groups that is included in the Schedule. We believe this is very important and it would, I believe, help ensure that more children in this Province have equal access and equal opportunity to all the services that they should have access to. Hopefully they can assist the advocate to be proactive and be able to intervene before situations get to a circumstance that causes children to be further disruptive than might otherwise be the case.

On motion, clauses 1 and 3 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I just want to make sure that my colleague - is it section 32 I ask my colleague from Waterford Valley that he has an amendment for? I didn't want to proceed and have to go back.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay. If I can give leave to the Member for Waterford Valley. He has a proposed amendment for section 32 of Bill 46.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Chairperson, I would like to move an amendment to Bill 46, seconded by the Member for St. John's West, An Act Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate, by adding to the Schedule after The Newfoundland & Labrador Housing Corporation the following: The school boards of Newfoundland and Labrador as constituted by an order from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, under section 53 of the Schools Act, 1997.'

MADAM CHAIR: We haven't reached that stage yet, so we will attend to that in a little while.

On motion, clauses 4 through 16 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 17 carry?

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to move the following amendment, that Bill 46, An Act Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate, be amended by adding immediately following Section 17(2) to the following subsection (3): Every facility, caregiver's home, group home or other home or place in which a child is placed under an Act of the province, the Criminal Code or the Young Offenders Act (Canada) shall be given written information telling them about the Office of the Advocate, their right to bring any grievance to the advocate, and how they may contact the advocate, seconded by the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

MR. HARRIS: I would like to speak briefly on the amendment. It seems to me that to amend the bill by ensuring that young people are aware of the provisions of the legislation is eminently desirable. People have rights, but rights are no good unless you are aware that you have them, and in particular with respect to young people. Quite often we are dealing in circumstances where a young person is potentially subject to particular forms of abuse, whether it be institutional in nature or otherwise. The fact that a child is informed that they have the right to the provisions of the Child And Youth Advocate Act, but if they do not know about it, it does not do them any good.

We have this Kids Help Phone, for example, to give an opportunity for children who might be abused within a family circumstance or institution to call and look for help. The only way that people can exercise the use of that service is to, in fact, know about it. So they advertise extensively, they try and make people know about it. We can have this great act, and I think all of us are quite happy to see this act being brought forward, and I am sure it will be passed unanimously in this House, but the Member for St. John's West has brought forth an amendment that I think is a significant improvement to the act.

That is what the House is all about, where we as legislators have an opportunity to review the legislation, offer suggestions, offer improvements, and I would suggest that this particular improvement is one that, here in the Committee of the Whole House, the Member for St. John's West has proposed. It is one that I think is very well written and would give a child an opportunity to seek the assistance of the Child and Youth Advocate.

If we were using our committee system in the House a little bit more effectively these amendments would go through a committee. We would not be trying to do ten or twelve bills in one day. But we have this legislation before us now, the time is now to deal with it, and I hope the minister will indicate that she is prepared to accept this amendment to the legislation.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, we would like to suggest that we adjourn this debate at this point. We have not seen the amendments and the hon. members would like for us to see the amendments, just as we try to give hon. members the legislation with plenty of time. I think it is only fair we see the amendments so that we can look at them and do it in a rational fashion rather than just look at them now. I would suggest that we adjourn this debate at this stage and go on to another bill.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I concur, and the Government House Leader makes an excellent point. We have just had a quick discussion, and I appreciate the suggestion that was made in terms that we adjourn the debate just on this bill. It will allow the minister to have a serious look at well-intentioned and serious amendments that we believe will enhance the bill; no significant change to the substance or intent of the legislation. We will adjourn and move to another bill in Committee Stage, which will allow the minister the time.

Let me say to the Government House Leader, that we will endeavor in the future, certainly, with any amendments that we have to any legislation to get them to the ministers who are responsible for any piece of legislation in the appropriate time. Certainly it has been our practice in the past and we apologize for the oversight in this instance.

MADAM CHAIR: It has been agreed that we adjourn the debate at this time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think that the legislation and the amendments would be able to be given more careful consideration and a realistic opportunity for members opposite and the minister in particular to review if that were to happen. I will say that there are ten or twelve bills at committee stage here this afternoon and the fact that all of them are going to be debated today was not made certain until earlier today. I have an amendment as well, so I am glad that we would have an opportunity to have these amendments given proper consideration and to have a realistic opportunity to be passed. I would encourage you to move on to something else.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, Order 7, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act, Bill 57.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act.

On motion, clauses 1 through 28 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 12, Madam Chair, Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Just a few brief comments. I have already said most of what I wanted to say at second reading. I will just touch on each of the clauses in a couple of minutes and that way I will not have to get up again in any other clauses of the bill.

The Deputy Minister would have authority to write off less than $1,000, I do not think that is giving too much responsibility, I might add, to the Deputy Minister. Even in clause 2, giving the President of Treasury Board the responsibility to write off $5,000, now that gets a little more serious there but I think that we can entrust the minister with that much responsibility. I have a lot of concerns with trusting her with a $4 billion expenditure but I think we can let her live with a $5,000 limit.

Clause 3 of the bill I think is one that there was a void in legislation that would not provide when a House is in disillusion. In other words, when the Premier ever gets courage enough to call an election - just in case it happens around year end - we might find that at least there is provision made for the expenditure of public funds. There is a thirty day window now and beyond that approval would be needed. There is already approval there when it is not in disillusion. That can be done under the same section 28 of the Financial Administration Act. The provision covers this. We certainly support closing that loophole. I think that has certainly been recommended and it has been some time. I think we said it has been about eleven years calling for that. I must admit, they have seen the light after eleven years and they are going to get it through there, certainly with our support.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No.

The last section of the bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, on a serious note. The last section of the bill with Public Accounts - it is a good clause, clause 4: "...submission of the Public Accounts by the President of the Treasury Board to the Clerk of the House of Assembly if the House is not in session..." because if the House is not in session and you normally get copies of the Public Accounts, at least by being with the Clerk they can be distributed to all the members and we can have them; that is certainly positive.

We can support, in fact, all four clauses of this bill without any amendments, Mr. Chair. I am delighted to say it. I have said what I wanted on second reading, so we will expedite this process here because we are in agreement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, Order 3, Bill 34, An Act To Permit An Action By One Person On Behalf Of A Class Of Persons.

CHAIR: Bill 34, An Act To Permit An Action By One Person On Behalf Of A Class Of Persons.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a couple of brief comments. We have debated this particular piece of legislation somewhat extensively in the House, and I know my colleague, the Member for Lewisporte and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and of course the Minister of Justice, spoke at length. At that time it was clear, I think, that the members on both sides of this Chamber certainly support this very progressive and important piece of legislation.

What we really look forward to now, now that we have such legislation in our jurisdiction, is to see how the people of the Province now embrace this legislation, where it goes from here, and how the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, throughout its own practice and its own procedures, will adopt the legislation in terms of their own practice, procedure, and the guidelines as outlined in the legislation, obviously, as a guide. We look forward to how the judges of the Trial Division use this legislation to the benefit of those individuals who seek a remedy as a result of class action proceedings.

We, on this side of the House, certainly strongly endorse this legislation. We strongly endorsed it in the past by way of petitions, as was indicated during second reading. Of course all members, on both sides of the House, recognize the very important work of Mr. Bill Kelly, throughout the dispute that was ongoing between the Hiland Consumers Association and their endeavoring to attempt to find and seek some remedy through the Supreme Court which, unfortunately for them, because of the absence of this type of legislation, such remedy was not really available to them.

We certainly endorse the legislation; however, I do have just one question for the Minister of Justice. I realize that this piece of legislation as well is a product of having looked at other pieces of similar legislation in other jurisdictions; for example, the Uniform Code I believe the hon. minister mentioned in the past. However, under section 5.(1)(b) it indicates that, "there is an identifiable class of 2 or more persons...", which really means that two people can form the basis of a class action in this Province. Although it is found in other jurisdictions, I accept that and appreciate that, but I am curious, from the minister's point of view, what advantages he would see in having a number as minimal as two in forming the basis of a class action, as opposed to a typical statement of claim whereby two plaintiffs can simply, by way of an originating document, proceed with any sort of civil litigation issue. How does the minister see as low a number as two as being a direct benefit to individuals, to consumers in the Province, by virtue of commencing a class action proceeding as opposed to any similar civil action that may be commenced out of our Supreme Court?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess it is a definition part. If it is obviously an individual, for example, one person, you will not qualify for class action legislation because you automatically are single. If there are more than one, for example, two and beginning at two, there may be a commonality of purpose or a commonality of facts in a particular case which might justify you launching a class action. In any case, of course, it would always still be subject under the procedural rules here to the Supreme Court Judge deciding if it does or does not fit for certification purposes. Class, by definition, has to be anybody more than one.

We do not know the particular circumstances in which two is justifiable, or three, or 1,000, until two or more persons get their heads together and decide that they might want to make an application for certification under this legislation. Once they do that, it is up to the judge then to decide if it will be certified as a class action. What reasons two people might want to get together to decide that they want to do it together as a class, that would obviously be determined by the trial judge considering the provisions of this legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to speak briefly because we did have, as the Member for St. John's East has said, a larger discussion at second reading on the bill to introduce class action provisions in the jurisdiction of Newfoundland and Labrador. I just want to say that it is something that we support wholeheartedly and welcome and, in doing so, want to commend the work of Bill Kelly.

As I said in second reading, if we had names on legislation in this jurisdiction the way they do in the United States, this would certainly be called the Bill Kelly bill; because it has been principally through his efforts and his group efforts and a lot of other volunteers who promoted the idea of bringing this legislation forward and, in fact, took risks himself in going to court to try and, I suppose, fit a round peg into a square hole, or vice versa, and found out that this kind of representative action did not apply to the circumstances of Hiland Insurance where a lot of people lost money. Individually they may have lost $300, $400, $500 or $600, but they could not afford to, or it would not be economically efficient to, bring an action, a complicated action, for a small amount of money. The class action legislation allows a whole class of consumers, in some cases, or in other cases, a whole group of people who are affected by the same matter, to get certified as a class and bring an action together. Provisions of the bill protect from massive awards of cost, people taking bonafide a kind of application of that nature, as long as it is not frivolous, as long as it is not designed to be abusive of the process, then the courts will accept that this is something that should not engage a large award of costs against people taking that action.

I think it is very positive, and I commend the minister for moving quickly in response to the petitions of thousands and thousands of people; a very large petition brought to this House and a lot of public support for it. I hope the details of it, as it works out, works its way through the courts. I am sure there will need to be new rules of court to provide for this provision going through the courts and it would be certainly interesting to see the success of this legislation as people find reasons to bring the matter before the court and, hopefully, have a new access to justice in our Province.

I am saying that I want to support the legislation, and that is all I have to say on it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, just one comment in regards to a matter raised in second reading by the Member for Lewisporte. A very good question, actually, concerning where solicitor client fits into the system here, vis-à-vis this act. I checked, and this being a procedural act, it does not deal with the issue of solicitor client privilege. In fact, in no other jurisdiction do their class action legislation deal with that either. What they do is leave that to the Law Society of the Province in question. For example, in Ontario, the Upper Canadian Law Society has defined a code of ethics and included in their existing code of ethics provisions for council who are involved in class actions.

The Law Society of Newfoundland did not bring any recommendations forward. We did send the bill to them for consideration and comment, but given your very legitimate question, I certainly undertake to inform them that maybe they should consider looking at the code of ethics now, vis-à-vis class action, solicitor client re privileges.

CHAIR: There being some 43 clauses to this bill is it the pleasure of the House that we do them individually or collectively?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Collectively.

On motion, clauses 1 through 43 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that Bills 21, 22, 26, 28, 33, 35, 57, 50, and 34 passed without amendment and Bill 41 passed with amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time.

On motion, report received and adopted, Bills 21, 22, 26, 28, 33, 35 ,57, 50, 34 and 41 ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their cooperation. We had a good afternoon of work and hon. members will know that we had a motion in effect but since we achieved everything, except for about one quarter of the Child and Youth Advocate Bill, we will not carry on any longer. We will wait until Monday, and we wish all hon. members a good weekend because we have a hard week of work next week.

With that in mind I move, under Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at its regular time on Monday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: With that I move that the House do now adjourn.

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