The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate a Corner Brook team on winning the provincial, Senior's Men's Curling Championships.

Bas Buckle's Corner Brook Recplex rink, featuring Bob Freeman, Harvey Holloway and Gerry Young won the title yesterday in an exciting ninth end win over the Rick Casmey rink from Labrador City.

Mr. Speaker, this is a first time that Mr. Buckle has won the provincial Senior Men's Championship as a skip. His rink will now represent Newfoundland and Labrador at the National Championships in St. Thomas, Ontario, in February 2002.

Mr. Speaker, Bas Buckle has been a tireless advocate for curling in this Province. He is the president of the provincial curling association and he was a member of the Gary Oke rink that won back-to-back provincial mixed curling championships in 1988 and 1989.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Mr. Buckle and his Corner Brook rink on winning the provincial Senior Men's Championship and wish them well at the upcoming championships in February.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to offer congratulations to the Boys 4A Volleyball Team from Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, who captured the High School Provincial Championship in Grand Falls over the weekend.

Nine high school teams throughout the Province competed for the title. The Ascension team went through the tournament undefeated, posting a 3 and 0 record in the round robin. In the crossover they defeated Queen Elizabeth of Foxtrap in two games and in the championship match defeated Booth Memorial of St. John's two games to one, the final game by a close fifteen to twelve score.

The eleven athletes, their coach Mr. Glen Lane, and assistant coach Mr. Fred Simms, are to be congratulated for winning the provincial title, the first time for this school in fifteen years. This team have worked hard throughout this season and are a credit to the school for bringing home this honor.

I certainly would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Newfoundland and Labrador High School Athletic Federation, the local organizers in the Grand Falls area for sponsoring this tournament, teachers, parents, and supporters of all teams who participated in the tournament.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to the Boys 4A Volleyball Team from Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, for winning this provincial title.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion on their successful campaign to have the Conception Bay North access road named the Veterans Memorial Highway -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: - to honour the memory of those who fought for this country in various conflicts.

I think this is a very important way to pay tribute to these people. Hopefully for years to come, as people drive along this highway, they will think of the sacrifice these people made for our freedom.

A ceremony was organized at the beginning of the highway on Remembrance Day, November 11, to officially establish the name as Veterans Memorial Highway, and approximately 500 people attended. I think this is an indication of the respect that people have for those who have given so much.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in paying tribute to the Royal Canadian Legion for the work they continue to do in communities all over this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Saturday night, December 8, I attended a concert at St. Catherine's Academy on Salmonier Line. This tremendous show was called "Christmas with Folk of the Sea", a tremendous night of entertainment enjoyed by over 500 people including the leader of our own party, the Member for Humber West, and the Member for the Straits and White Bay North, who co-hosted the event.

It was a top-notch night of entertainment with the different school choirs performing beautiful Christmas favorites and then the heartwarming music of The Folk of The Sea group. From popular ballads such as Let Me Fish Off Cape St. Mary's to Father Jerome Hann's toe-thumping rendition of Dance in Cape Royal. It was an unforgettable evening of Newfoundland culture and heritage.

The Folk of The Sea are a group of fisherfolk from across Newfoundland and Labrador who want to ensure that our history is preserved in music, song and dance. Their purpose highlights hope, strength and unity. It is about remembering and keeping alive a proud heritage.

I want to congratulate Mr. Jed Blackmore and the members of The Folk of The Sea, for a job well done. Congratulations also need to go to principal Gary Corbett and the St. Catherine's Academy school community for their commitment to ensuring annual nights of entertainment second to none anywhere in the Province.

A special thank you to Gus Marrie, a fisherman from Mount Carmel, St. Mary's Bay, and Michael Dobbin, a fisherman from Admiral's Beach, St. Mary's Bay, who were instrumental in bringing this great show to St. Catherine's Academy on Saturday night.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two individuals in the riding of Torngat Mountains for winning the Volunteer of the Year Award. Martha Winters from Hopedale has spent many hours working on womens' issues and was instrumental in getting the womens' shelter in Hopedale. As well as organizing other community events, she also serves on the church board of the Moravian Church in Hopedale.

In Makkovik, John Andersen, has spent many years organizing sports throughout the community as well as the Makkovik Come Home Year, the annual Trout Festival, as well as organizing cubs and scouts in his riding.

Mr. Speaker, we are honoured to have such people in these small communities who give so much of their time where these small communities lack facilities. These people are very deserving, and today it is a pleasure for me to rise in this House and congratulate them on winning their awards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I had the great honour last week to attend the Golden Wedding Anniversary of a very special couple in the District of Terra Nova.

Trixie and Martin Collins, my parents, were married fifty years ago, on December 6, at the Anglican Church in Gambo.

Mr. Speaker, myself and my five younger sisters certainly feel privileged to have been raised by parents who instilled in us, at an early age, the beliefs and values we hold dear today, including respect and compassion for others.

A celebration was held at their home on Thursday, attended by a large number of family and friends who visited throughout the afternoon and evening.

My parents still reside in Gambo, along with their youngest daughter, Trina, a special sister to myself, Geraldine, Cindy, Debbie and Carolyn.

I, and I am sure all members of this House, join me in wishing them many happy returns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. There seems to be some confusion in the minds of the general public as a result of the behind closed doors negotiations and, of course, some conflicting statements made by senior members of government with respect to the outstanding issues on Voisey's Bay.

In his ministerial statement, at the beginning of this session, the Minister of Mines and Energy said that the two major outstanding issues between government and Inco involved the movement of concentrate out of the Province. Would the Premier confirm that these are still the two major outstanding issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Mines and Energy is conducting those negotiations on behalf of the government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not a matter of being behind closed doors. The Leader of the Opposition would understand that if anyone is going to make an arrangement with respect to something as big and important as Voisey's Bay, the discussions have to be held -and we have indicated to all the people in the Province that when we have something agreed to we will tell everybody in the Province exactly what it is, the basis on which it is done and why it is good for Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy has raised those two points in the public before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Ministerial Statement was given to this House at the opening of this session, and at that time the Minister of Mines and Energy did, in fact, indicate that they were the only two major outstanding issues. I would just ask the Premier again if they are, in fact, still the only two major outstanding issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I have had no new update from the Minister of Mines and Energy with respect to the issue. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who was trying to suggest to the people of the Province last week, there is no deal. There has been no deal. There has never been a deal, unfortunately. We would like to, and I understand that the Opposition would like to have a deal as well. That is what I have heard from them recently, in any event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there continues to be discussions with respect to that. One of the issues that - I am not sure this week what the position of the Opposition is, but I do know that Inco is in Ottawa trying to get some approval for research and development funding, and maybe it would be helpful if the Opposition would suggest to the Government of Canada that that might be a good thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I understand from one of the former Premiers that - I think it was Premier Tobin who indicated that that money would not go if there wasn't an agreement between Inco and government. I think that is the position.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier then something that he knows directly about, because he was quoted in an interview this morning that if the new hydromet technology does not work there will not be a project unless the company promises to build a smelter in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier to confirm if that is, in fact, his position.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I think it is helpful, at times, to make sure that there is no misunderstanding of what is meant by words that are said. Mr. Speaker, I have never said that there had to be a smelter in the Province. What I have said is this: There will be no deal unless a finished nickel product leaves Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the questions can be asked a hundred different ways but what we have always said is this: We are not trying to tell a company like Inco what kind of technology to use. All we are telling them is the technology does not really matter to us as long as the final product that leaves Newfoundland and Labrador is nickel. We are not trying to suggest to them what the technology should be. They are interested in trying the hydromet technology - which the Leader of the Opposition does not want to know - if it will work in Newfoundland or Labrador or not. As a matter of fact, he is frightened to death to find out. He does not want to know, Mr. Speaker. We would like to know because it is the newer technology. It is cleaner. It is more environmentally friendly. It is more cost-efficient and effective and could probably lead to a longer future in the Province. He does not want to know if it works or not. We have said we will gladly find out if it works because if it does, they will build that in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: If it does not work, Mr. Speaker, we have told them they will have to build something else. We do not care what it is, as long as a finished nickel product leaves the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: His position has changed again.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that is why there is confusion in the minds of the public because this morning on CBC there was an interview, and obviously the Premier has changed his position on that particular issue.

I do want to know about hydromet processing. I would ask the Premier if he would bring the people of Newfoundland and Labrador up to date on the most recent information he has on the likely success of hydromet processing on sulfide ore in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see again that the Leader of the Opposition is using the CBC morning news as his research base. Mr. Speaker, maybe he would also like to talk about the fact that on the CBC news this morning the Member for The Straits & White Bay North was talking about the fact that there is not enough money being spent for job creation and make-work on the Northern Peninsula this year, when last year at this same time he was accusing the then Premier of the day of trying to buy votes by spending too much money.

So, Mr. Speaker, is it too much money or not enough money?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: It seems to be the way, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition operates; they change their statement every day to suit the circumstance. That is not the way we operate. We know what we are about, we are consistent in what we do, and in this respect we are consistent in the one thing. We would like to find out whether or not hydromet is going to work in Newfoundland and Labrador with $100 million assistance, or thereabouts, from the Government of Canada which, if it is not spent on hydromet research, will be spent on some other research in Canada. They are frightened to death to find out whether or not it will work in Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike this government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you once again, Mr. Premier, for another non-answer.

A lot of the people in this Province actually were quite upset by what they saw, the story on Melita Fillier from the Northern Peninsula last week, very, very upset about the failure of your policies in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier if he would confirm if any ore has, in fact, been already taken from the ovoid and left this Province for testing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Opposition would always try to suggest things that are nowhere in the realm of truth or possibility. There has been no mining going on in Labrador. There is no mining lease. You cannot extract ore, Mr. Speaker, without a mining lease.

However, Mr. Speaker, if he is confused and trying to suggest that when people drill, when they do a drilling exploration program and they take the core samples and test them to see whether or not there is nickel in the actual stuff or not - that is the only activity that has occurred in Labrador, a drilling program just like there is a drilling program for every single mining project everywhere in the world.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know - and I can tell you quite honestly - whether or not those core samples from the drilling itself for exploration have actually been tested in Newfoundland and Labrador or elsewhere. I know that the final core samples and the results are all registered with the Department of Mines and Energy here in Newfoundland and Labrador because they are the property of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Leader of the Opposition is not trying to suggest to the people of the Province that there has been some ore already taken out of Labrador to be turned into nickel somewhere else. It is impossible because there is no mining lease and will never be a mining lease if they get their way because they are frightened to death to let it happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: Something good might happen in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, last month at a conference in St. John's Dr. Chris Fleming of Lakefield Research has indicated that some twenty-eight tons of ore has been removed from this Province for testing. It must have been some drill, Premier.

I would ask the Premier if he can confirm, or is he aware, that any of this ore has been removed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is serious enough that I will check into it, because the Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that a normal practice under a drilling program - because that is all that has occurred in Labrador, a testing and drilling program, and there has been no request of any extraordinary nature with respect to Voisey's Bay. I am quite disappointed, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition would now try to suggest to the people of the Province that a normal bit of testing to prove up the value of the ore itself so that people can see whether or not it is really worth investing in, is now going to be described as taking some ore out of the Province. He should be absolutely, totally, ashamed of himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: But I will check it out and get the full details, rather than leave the innuendo that he would like to put forward as he usually operates with the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the Premier of this Province is not aware that some 56,000 pounds of ore has left this Province; sad.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier: What is the time frame for construction of a test facility, testing that facility, construction of a full hydromet processing facility, or a smelter in the event that hydromet processing fails? What is the time frame, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there is something very sad going on in the Province. It is an Opposition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, being so opposed to something good happening for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that he would spread this kind of innuendo. I will get the answer, because it needs a clear answer for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now he is back to asking me to speculate about what might be in a deal with Voisey's Bay and Inco.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; we do not have a deal that I can tell you the details of. Our commitment is this: When we reach a deal - I say when because we hope it is when, not if - that is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, every single detail will be released to every single person in the Province who has an interest in what is going to happen with respect to Voisey's Bay. Until then, Mr. Speaker, I see nothing constructively to be served by speculating about some -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - what ifs, about certain components of a deal that may or may not occur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have asked six very, very important questions of clarification to the Premier for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and he hasn't answered one of them.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier another question: Since the government will allow concentrate to leave this Province for processing in Sudbury, while hydromet processing has been tested, will the Premier tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador how much ore or concentrate he is willing to allow to leave this Province while this testing is going on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, actually, I look forward to the day, hopefully sooner rather than later, when I can tell the people of the Province exactly what the arrangement is. There is no arrangement today. There is no arrangement to talk about. Unfortunately, in my view, there is no arrangement to talk about. When there is one, I will gladly talk about it, Mr. Speaker, because I believe, I would guess, that the people of the Province would clearly understand and support the notion that if you have to let some portion leave and if you know you are going to get it back at the end, and that is going to cause us to have a full processing plant so that finished nickel leaves the Province, 100 per cent of it by the way that we discussed last week leaves the Provinces over the life of the project, that the people of the Province were likely to support that particular proposition. We will gladly put that to everybody when we have an arrangement; but I will tell, Mr. Speaker, we will not be taking positions like the Opposition that say in Clarenville that we will demand a smelter be built, but in St. John's say we will demand a smelter be built only if it is economically feasible. You will not get two different standards from us, Mr. Speaker. You will get a clear answer, a straight answer, and the full details when we have something to disclose to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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. The minister, Mr. Speaker, has been warned for years that the Province is facing a severe teacher shortage. We have been asking on this side what she plans to do about it. Her response has been to wait and see, and now we see her plan. It is to bring retired teachers back into the classroom on full pension and full salary. Surely, I say to the minister, this must be a stop-gap measure. Does the minister have any other plan for a longer term solution to the shortage of teachers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am assuming that the member opposite agrees with the initiative that we have taken, because clearly it will take of some issues that we have around the Province, but I have to say an issue that we have in the country where we have difficulty finding teachers to cover all specialized areas throughout the Province. This is one step in a multi-faceted strategy in terms of how to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves, not only in this Province but in the country.

The hon. member opposite knows that clearly where we have a shortage of teachers for teaching speciality areas like French, like special education, like math, like biology, then clearly we have to take some measures to try and ensure that our students get a quality education. What we announced this weekend, Mr. Speaker, will do just that. We have a responsibility to make sure that we have qualified teachers in the classroom.

We are very proud of all of our teachers, Mr. Speaker, because we have the highest qualified teaching force in the country, something of which we are very, very proud.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there is an issue for us in some pockets of this Province that we must address, and we are doing just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, my question referenced a long-term solution, a long-term plan, and short-term band-aid solutions have a way of getting, I guess, out of control. This is what may happen in this case.

I ask the minister: Isn't it possible that the minister's solution will only make the problem worse? Won't new graduates likely be discouraged when entering the profession if they feel the jobs are being taken up by retired teachers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows differently from that, or he should have, if he read the news this weekend or read our press release. He knows this is being done on a case-by-case basis. Under no circumstance will the board be able to hire a retired teacher if there is a qualified graduate from Memorial waiting to be hired. It is a case-by-case basis. We have been watching this very closely. Again, let me say, it is part of a multi-faceted strategy. Even the President of the NLTA has said this is a very positive thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: He said that any time we can put a qualified teacher in the classroom we should do it, and we are doing just that, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to that, we have put in place an advisory committee on teacher supply and demand. We are working with all of the stakeholders, the University, the school boards, the NLTA, the Department of Education, again to make sure that we never find ourselves in a situation where we have a shortage of teachers. This is no different than what has happened in this Province for years, and what is happening in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to get real -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEDDERSON: - because it reminds me, Minister, of musical chairs.

Why, I ask the minister, wouldn't teachers who are in the classroom now take early retirement and be hired back, perhaps in another community, at a significant boost in income? Get real, Minister! Get real!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, anyone would know that the proposition the member just put forward is ludicrous. Clearly, we are not going to have teachers who are going to retire in June and go back into a classroom in September. First, these teachers receive a severance package and they cannot go back in the classroom and teach until they have used up the value of that severance package. The member should do some research before he starts to ask questions, or at least he should know the answers before he asks the questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Minister, because several doctors have left the Central Newfoundland area in the past year, hundreds of people are being left without health services. Minister, can you tell the people of the Grand Falls-Windsor area, and particularly the surrounding areas of Grand Falls-Windsor, too, when they can expect to have more family physicians come to our area?

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, our boards, of course, are making every effort at recruitment for physicians across this Province. In addition to that, we have put in place a central recruitment effort that is taking place between the department, the board, and the university, to improve our recruitment of new physicians. Mr. Speaker, this is something that is ongoing. We have improved our efforts this year by putting in a central recruitment office and I am sure as soon as the individuals have success in attracting candidates to the individual areas, they will do so. The plan is in place. The process is there, it has been improved, and I am sure we will see increasingly positive results from it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I read her press release on October 18. That is no comfort to people in Central Newfoundland when they go to the outpatients at the hospital - some of them having to drive for an hour to get there - and be turned away by the outpatients department because they do not have a family doctor. I say to the minister, something needs to be done and done quickly to make sure that the people of Central Newfoundland get the services that they deserve.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HUNTER: Minister, the doctors in Central Newfoundland are so overwhelmed with the amount of work they have, and patients, that they have to turn away five to ten patients a day. Minister, when can we see something done?

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 say again that we have improved our recruitment process. I am sure that we will see increasingly positive results from it. I also would like to add that I believe, in terms of Central Newfoundland and in terms of the boards there, that they have in the past had a fairly good record with recruitment. From my understanding of how that region of the Province stands with respect to other areas of the Province, they have a very good recruitment record. It can only be enhanced by the work of our central recruitment office and I am sure that we will see increasingly positive results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: If it is that bad in Central Newfoundland, the Grand Falls-Windsor area, does she know how bad it is in the rest of rural Newfoundland where people cannot see a doctor? Does she know that?

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, yes, the recruitment of physicians is a very serious issue. It is something that we have paid particular attention to, to the point of trying to maximize our own retention of our medical students here by centralizing our efforts through the university. We also know that there areas of the Province where it is more difficult to attract physicians, whether they are fee-for-service or salaried positions. We are well aware of it. We are working hard with the boards to try and improve the outcomes there. The boards are doing their best, as well, to try and ensure that there are sufficient physicians within the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, in terms of how we actually stand, you also need to keep in mind that if you look at the stats for the rest of the country, across Canada as a whole, as the Centre for Health Information showed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just this last point: The average across the country is ninety four physicians per 100,000 of population, and here in Newfoundland we have 106 per 100,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

A study released on Friday by Statistics Canada showed that young people from low income families are two-and-a-half times less likely to attain a university education. In this Province, the student aid system itself is a major barrier to attending university, where government forces single mothers on social assistance to borrow the maximum student loan and then claws back the shelter component about $2,600 a year, adding $10,000 to $13,000 to these students cost of a university education. Will the government reverse this policy, thereby removing at least one barrier for these low income students to attend university?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

At the moment we are doing a student aid review that I think most members are aware of, and most members are also aware that we probably have the best Loan Remission Program in all of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Needy students who have to borrow at maximum levels, right now, as they finish and meet the criteria which mostly involves finishing in a timely fashion, Mr. Speaker, it mostly means that most of the provincial portion of their student debt is written off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister should know that most single mothers on social assistance do not meet the criteria because they cannot do their university education in the time that the minister has allotted. Given, Mr. Speaker, that these financial barriers are actually creating a situation, as shown by Statistics Canada, that low income people cannot get to university and cannot continue university, will the minister not use this money that is being spent now on student loan remission, on loans interest, the Millennium Scholarship Program, and turn it into a grants program like we had before 1993, so that low income people can attend university without the fear of facing a huge debt coming out the other end? Will the minister not do that?

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just points out exactly why we are doing a student aid review, why we need to be looking at in particular students who have to come from rural areas, and it costs them quite a bit more. It is not the cost of tuition that is causing all of the high student debt in this Province. It is the cost of leaving your home and moving into your point of education, whether it is at a private college, a public college, or the university. That is exactly why our loan remission system, in fact, works better most of the time than the grant systems that are in place in many other provinces. Right now, if you look at the millions of dollars that we are putting into loan remission each year, it is put in for the neediest students in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, in her discussion document Reaching Consensus and Planning Ahead, the minister outlined some of the principles that would guide future decision-making, and one of them was accessibility. Can the minister tell this House today about her plans to implement standards for the operation of ambulance services in this Province to make sure that, regardless of where you live in rural Newfoundland, the ambulance service you get will be adequately staffed by capable, competent well-trained people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we move forward with developing a strategic health plan for this Province there will be few key pieces to that. We talked about these at the provincial forum. We talked about the issue of wellness. We talked about primary care and secondary care, and, yes, tertiary care would be the fourth. A piece of all of this has to be how we provide ambulance care so that we can move people to where the services are.

So, Mr. Speaker, as we continue to develop our strategic health plan, how we deliver ambulance services will come under review and it will require intensive deliberation. But, at this point, we are working on the current plan which was fully developed and put in place five years ago and again, most recently, in the last two years when we enhanced our subsidies for ambulance services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am providing an answer to a question put on the Order Paper on November 21 with respect to: "A detailed breakdown of the cost of producing, publishing and distributing the document and advertisements highlighting the Premier's first 100 days in office." I am glad to provide the information. I would also point out that the information was requested once before already by the Opposition under Freedom of Information on July 12, from the Member for St. John's Centre and it has already been provided, but I will gladly provide it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's East.

PREMIER GRIMES: St. John's East.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question asked by the member for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question that was asked by the Member for Kilbride: "To ask the Honourable the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development to lay upon the Table of the House the following information: a) A list of all companies that have received EDGE status since the program's inception, detailing the number and duration of all jobs created as a consequence of the granting of EDGE status, and indicating the current operational status of each company."

Let me just summarize by saying to him, Mr. Speaker, that there are a total of 115 companies that applied for EDGE designation; forty-three of those have had their EDGE designation revoked; seventy-two companies have EDGE designation: thirty-three from the Northeast Avalon; thirty-nine outside the Northeast Avalon; sixty-two startups; ten expansions; twenty outside companies and investors. Mr. Speaker, the total cost to the Province has been $5.1 million, and there has been over $200 million invested, as a result of that, and has created over 1,600 jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House this afternoon a response to a question which was tabled by my colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley, on the issue of the consultation which was conducted on drafting the legislation for the Child and Youth Advocate.

PREMIER GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, just for clarification. I had indicated, in error, that the Freedom of Information request from the Opposition was from the Member for St. John's Centre, which is not the case, she is one of our members. It was from the Member for St. John's East, Mr. Speaker, and the point being, that they put a question on the Order Paper that they already had the answer to in writing some three months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Petitions. Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 26, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I know there were some members on our side who must have missed when you called Petitions, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if it would be okay with the Government House Leader if we could revert on the Order Paper to the section under petitions to allow several members who have petitions from their constituencies or people to bring forward. If that would be okay?

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?

Agreed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition today which reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative Session convened, the Petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS onshore developments and infrastructure with respect to the fishing industry in the District of St. Barbe has deteriorated to the point where it is unsafe to both the fishers who use it and the equipment it is supposed to protect; and

WHEREAS the deterioration of the above mentioned infrastructure has significantly deterred economic growth in communities who so desperately need it;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to begin investing in infrastructure improvements in the District of St. Barbe, which, in turn, will lead to economic remuneration in a region that is in dire need of such benefits, as in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.

Whereas the centre of activity has always been around the wharves in our communities, and that is where we placed our fish plants. They go hand in hand. I think that it is a must if you are going to have economic growth in areas that depend on the fishery, like in many parts of rural Newfoundland.

We have seen cases where we have lost opportunities to process fish. There was a situation where we had crab that had gone to the Province of Quebec because they were not able to land at a wharf that was next to the fish plant. It had to be trucked there and it just was not acceptable to be able to make that deal go through. Those are the results of not having wharves and fish plants together, as was the original intent. It has left many of our communities disjointed with an opportunity for them to get the economic opportunities that are out there.

Also, many times the onshore fishermen who needed to get close to the resource, such as the lobster fishermen had places that were dredged and could protect their boats when they are away from the fishing grounds. Those have gone into deterioration and it is a continuous struggle for those people to get a small bit of dredging. There is never any plan they will take and make it more secure for the future. It is always just enough for the season to get by, and that attitude has been there for quite some time. I think these people would like to see a government that has a plan for the future and willing to see that what they contribute to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. YOUNG: I am talking about some dredging here.

Dredging would have made it more viable for these people to continue on with their fishing enterprises.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

WHEREFORE your petitions urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the approximately four kilometers of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition, once again, from the residents who live, not only in Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove, Middle, Upper and Lower Amherst Cove, but also from people from the Bonavista and King's Cove area as well; people who use this section of road on a continuous basis. It is one of the main highways leading into Bonavista where people have to access schools, school children; where people have to go to access hospitals and health care. It is a situation where this particular section of Route 235 has been promised by the present minister to have been completed this year. At the end of the construction season it was proven that instead of upgrading and paving 5 kilometers, the minister saw fit to upgrade and pave 1.9 kilometers.

The residents of those communities have gone forward. They did not go out and block the roads; they have been responsible people. In fact, just last year they went out and stood by the side of the road handing out leaflets to people who passed by and asked for their support in order to get this road upgraded and repaired. They did not want to stop school buses. They did not want to stop business people from carrying out their daily activities. They were responsible enough just to stay by the side of the road in order to bring the seriousness of this particular road to the minister's and government's attention.

I certainly support the people in having this section of road upgraded and paved. It is certainly in a deteriorated condition right now. Many times when driving down the road you don't know if you are out on the shoulder of the road or driving down the part that is suppose to be paved. It is certainly a big concern. It is an area of Route 235, like I said, that is travelled all over by most of the people from King's Cove to Bonavista where people have to access work; where people have to go and attend to their daily duties.

I ask the minister if he would include this section of road when he looks at putting forward his budget for the next construction year to make sure that this particular section of road is upgraded and paved to bring it to modern-day conditions.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have a petition today from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The prayer of the petition reads:

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

Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador, has resulted in the majority of benefits going outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and fair share.

With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the opportunity to deliver maximum benefits through jobs, spinoff from secondary processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the signatures of this petition today are from Topsail, Baie Verte and some from St. John's as well. We put these with the numbers of other petitions that have been presented so far to the House of Assembly on this particular issue. We fully support the people who have signed this petition; it is an important issue. They are demanding that the Government of this Province listen to the people who own the resource. The people who own this resource are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people of this Province, the owners of this resource, are demanding that we process this resource in a fashion that will give full benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; that we manage this resource in a way that will see jobs right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The guarantee that the people who own this resource are the people who benefit from the resource in terms of jobs, processing, secondary spinoff and so on and so on.

We have seen many other resources where the raw resources left this Province to be processed elsewhere. The people of this Province want an end put to that type of practice. They want to ensure that our resources, where at all possible, are processed in this Province, to make sure that this Province gets out of the hole that we are in; to make sure that this Province and the people of this Province start to get the benefit from our resources so that we can become a have Province so that we no longer have to go to Ottawa with hat in hand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, do not want to be begging Ottawa for transfer payments. They want to chart their own destiny. The only way we can do that is by managing our resources in the way they should be managed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 26, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 54)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand in this House today and introduce Bill 54. Bill 54 is the amendments to the Labour Standards Act.

Mr. Speaker, last February, when our new Premier, Premier Grimes, created a new Department of Labour, it marked the beginning of a new era in labour relations in our Province. Since then, we have been working very hard with business and labour in a collaborative approach to dealing with the labour issues. One of the key areas for change in which we are able to demonstrate progress today is in labour standards legislation. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the biggest overhaul in labour standards in almost thirty years.

The Labour Standards Act and regulations establish minimum conditions and basic terms of employment in our Province, including minimum wage, hours of work and overtime rates of pay. The legislation applies to the majority of our Province's workplaces; however, the provisions primarily affect non-union workplaces. Non-union workplaces in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, are approximately 60 per cent of our workforce.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the act that I am introducing today will bring about significant improvements to the Province's labour standards and will have positive impacts on both workers and employers. In February, 2000, my colleague, the former Minister of Environment and Labour, appointed a Labour Standards Board to review the Labour Standards Act. The board, which was comprised of an employee and employer representative and a neutral chairperson reviewed the existing legislation and sought input on labour standards issues by conducting public meetings throughout our Province.

In June, 2000, the board submitted its report. My department has consulted with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council, and nineteen other business and labour organizations on the recommendations in the board's report.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that the package of amendments I am tabling this afternoon has the support of this Province's business and labour community. This support is central to government's decision to bring about these changes. The amendments ensure that the Labour Standard Act is progressive and continues to provide protection for workers and a level playing field for employers.

Mr. Speaker, I am about to outline some of the key highlights of the new Labour Standards Act. The first one I will talk about is an additional paid public holiday. In 2002, the number of paid public holidays will increase from five to six days. I am pleased to say here today, Mr. Speaker, that the sixth paid public holiday will be Remembrance Day. That will give workers an additional paid day off every year. Three other provinces throughout Canada have declared Remembrance Day a paid public holiday. This change, Mr. Speaker, will place Newfoundland and Labrador among the country's leaders in recognizing the historical significance and ongoing importance of Remembrance Day. I think all of us here in this House today, and I think people all across our Province, would be pleased when we look at the men and women who are serving our country and remembering those who served for us. Remembrance Day is a very important day in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am pleased to announce that will be recognized next year as a paid public holiday.

Legislation regarding overtime pay is also being amended and will require employers to pay overtime pay at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. The current legislation, Mr. Speaker, allows employers to pay overtime at one and one-half times the minimum wage. So, this will be changed in this new Labour Standards Act.

Several of the changes will improve flexibility in the workplace and accommodate family responsibilities, as all workers are challenged by the need to balance work and family responsibilities. The legislation that I am introducing today, introduces a new approach to the obligation of employers and employees to provide notice of termination of an employment relationship. The period of notice will be required to be increased as the years of employment in the relationship increases. I wanted to say to you - getting back to the flexibility in the workplace for family responsibilities - this new act will increase the unpaid holidays from five to seven. Workers can now take up to seven days a year unpaid leave for either family or responsibility days.

The notice of determination period, what that means is that the longer you work in an establishment, both employees and employers must give each other notice if either the employee or the employer wants to terminate the relationship.

Amendments to the Labour Standards Act will also increase protection for employees wages. Firstly, in the event of business insolvency, the current maximum of $2,000 for employee wage protection among creditors will increase to a maximum of $7,500. Secondly, and more significantly, company directors will become personally liable for wages that are earned by employees and remain unpaid at the time of a business insolvency. A maximum liability of two months unpaid wages per employee will apply. This liability will not apply where company directors can demonstrate that they have exercised due diligence in their duties as directors.

Mr. Speaker, the new legislation I am introducing is progressive and keeps pace with legislative developments across the country. While I am bringing these amendments to the House of Assembly on behalf of government, I want to emphasize the important contribution business and labour organizations have made towards modernizing this labour legislation to provide an improved and more flexible labour climate.

I want to especially thank the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, Ms Elaine Price, and the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council, Ms Marilyn Tucker, for the leadership which they have demonstrated in advancing the package of changes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth issue that we have addressed business, government and labour this spring. Firstly, we have made changes to the Labour Relations Act, the Workers' Compensation Ac, we have had an agreement working on a training initiative for both employers and employees and now, fourthly, new changes to the Labour Standards Act. What that says is that business, government and labour are working closely to improve labour relations in this Province, and this is a very important aspect of it.

I am also pleased to announce today that the Department of Labour will, commencing next year in 2002, consult annually with business and labour leaders on labour standards matters. That will be done on an annual basis, Mr. Speaker.

I am confident that this new legislation will bring about significant improvements to the Province's labour standards. These amendments will provide additional flexibility which will be of benefit to both workers and employers. Improved and flexible working conditions contribute to a greater morale and improved productivity. This is a key ingredient to building a strong and stable workforce which is so vital to the continued economic growth of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, this afternoon, to make a few comments on the Labour Standards bill. It is very interesting to note, when the minister was up speaking, she said how much this legislation was needed. Mr. Speaker, I really could not agree with her more. This legislation is needed, and as I get into my remarks this afternoon I will tell you why, in this hon. member's opinion, this legislation is needed.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 54 brings the Labour Standards Act into the Twenty-First Century. I support this bill, and of course throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador this bill will be broadly supported because it is fair legislation and it is legislation that is long overdue. It is essentially important to have this legislation at this time in our history. More and more people employed in this Province belong to the working poor. They work for very low wages and in fact, they don't have any job security and absolutely nobody to represent them in the workplace. There is nobody in the position to defend them but at least now we have the Labour Standard Act which will be quite capable to defend the unfortunate people in our Province who don't have anybody to represent them. I am pleased that this act clearly defines the benefits that are entitled to workers in the workplace and the responsibility on the employer to make sure employees, the working poor, receive the employment benefits that they are so much entitled to. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, there is a greater need for this legislation now than ever before in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, a few interesting points; most of the new jobs created in this Province are minimum wage jobs or they are very low paying jobs. Most of them are temporary jobs, part-time jobs or make-work jobs with little or no security. Many individuals in this Province who, a few years ago, had a full time job at a decent wage, a steady pay cheque, paid holidays and paid vacations so that they could spend time with their families, no longer have these jobs. They now have to support themselves and their families through temporary employment, piecework and very low incomes. They feel humiliated and have lost their sense of economic dignity.

Mr. Speaker, if you cannot give these people a decent job, a decent pay, at least give them back some dignity. Do something to make sure they get a vacation. That they are given notice before they are pushed back on the unemployment roles and make sure that employers just cannot pack up and leave this Province without paying the employees the money to which they are so rightly entitled, the money which they have earned. Now, Mr. Speaker, this act tries to do this.

As I said earlier, I fully support this legislation as help towards the working poor in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I would love to be able to stand here today and say that this legislation is unnecessary. I would love to be able to say that more working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have full time jobs and earn living wage; that they can all afford to take vacations with their families; that they could all enjoy a turkey dinner this Christmas and have presents for their children under their Christmas trees; but, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot say this because I know that the facts in this instance are very different. Far to many of the growing numbers of the working poor in this Province will have to depend on food banks for their Christmas dinner or eat the humble fare that they can afford. The gifts given to their children this year will come from the Salvation Army or other sources such as the VOCM Happy Tree or other charities throughout our Province, or from compassionate neighbours or else they will do without. At this time of year I believe that there should be nobody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who has to do without.

Mr. Speaker, I spent some time years ago as a member of an organization that, at this time of the year, was a very active organization and were giving out Christmas hampers. Also, in those hampers was not only food but gifts for children. For somebody to go door-to-door two or three days before Christmas when the children were in bed and leave these parcels at people's homes, I tell you what, Mr. Speaker, it gives you a much greater appreciation for Christmas. It should give you a much greater appreciation for the things that you have and it certainly should do your heart good to know that when you go to bed at night you have helped somebody who is less fortunate than you are, and know you have been able to make their Christmas just that much better for them, their wives and their families. As I said earlier, where the gifts come from, where the food comes from, that is the unvarnished truth.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because it will restore some respect to the growing numbers of the working poor in this Province. I fear it is the only help that they are going to get from this government, because as I have said earlier, there is no more high-paying jobs. We are dealing with low-paying jobs. I say to the minister and to the people who devised this act, the people who put their time into it: Congratulations, because this act helps the working poor in our Province, helps the people who no longer have employment and, as I said earlier, who have to depend on food banks and other charities, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, to live. Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody in this House who does not believe that we have these kinds of people living in our own Province, or people who do not need help at this very serious time of year, then somebody really needs a reality check, because this information is available. When we look at the number of gifts that the Salvation Army give out at Christmas - and the gifts go from St. John's all across this Province of ours - and the work and the effort that VOCM puts into this; especially the work of the Salvation Army.

I had an incident several years ago, on Christmas Eve, where I received a call from a lady who had no milk or sugar in her house. I was very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, because I knew the Salvation Army Captain in the area where I lived. I called the man up and in a second the gentleman said to me: Bob, I have a hamper here to the value of $100. You are more than welcome to it. You can call this lady up and tell her that this is here; and any time she wishes it, we are only too glad to give it to her. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that when I called the lady back she said: Bob, thanks but no thanks; before the day was out I was able to go to some neighbours of mine and come up with some milk and sugar. So I really and truly don't need a hamper, and I do have a turkey for tomorrow for dinner. I said: Well thank goodness for that. She said: Bob, I have a greater problem now. I said: Well, what is that? Maybe I can help you with that. She said: Bob, I have absolutely nothing for my daughter for Christmas. I have absolutely nothing to wrap up and lay under the Christmas tree for Mary - or Susan or whatever her name was. When she comes down the stairs tomorrow morning there will be absolutely nothing under the tree for her. Mr. Speaker, I have somebody who works with me as well, who said: Bob, I will look after her daughter. He went out that afternoon and bought their daughter a pair of jeans, took them home, and the lady came to my house later on that afternoon and picked them up. So you can imagine the joy that we put into that house for Christmas.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, was needed. It was badly needed because, as I said earlier, it was needed to help the working poor of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to congratulate the people who took the time to sit and go through the legislation and come up with recommendations whereby we would help the working poor of our Province; whereby we would help the poor in our Province be able to make a decent living.

I also say to the minister: I would certainly agree with Remembrance Day being a provincial holiday. As a matter of fact, for years I have been very surprised that Remembrance Day wasn't a holiday, because I say to the minister: Look what we are remembering. Look at the people we are remembering. How many of us go through Remembrance Day - and go to various parades and have had the opportunity to talk to some veterans who have taken part in some of the great wars throughout this world - and sit and listen to these people? So I think it is only right and fitting that we should have a provincial holiday in this Province which we would name in honour of the working people of this Province, and that holiday would be Remembrance Day.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I support the bill. I support the bill because it is a bill that is needed to help the working poor of our Province. It is a bill that is needed to help those who, through no fault of their own, cannot find employment; and goodness knows, throughout our Province at this time of year we have lots of them. Make-work projects are not the answer because, as we have heard in recent days through the press and through some of our own colleagues on both sides of the House, there are areas in this Province where the make-work projects are not working. When we see a number of people looking for work and we can only apply maybe less than one third of that, then we can say in all honesty, because we are creating make-work projects, we are not creating work to help the people in this Province. We all heard the horror stories last year of a lady up to her knees in snow trying to warm up a can of beans. I mean, Mr. Speaker, that's true; that's very true.

Again, as I said, I support this particular piece of legislation. It is a bill that was badly needed. It has been needed for some time. As I said earlier, I congratulate the people who took the time and the effort to sit down and get into this particular piece of legislation. On that note I will sit down, and thank you for your time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today, as the Minister of Justice, to support the amendments to the Labour Standards Act and regulations presented by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has introduced a bill that this Province can be truly proud of, because it goes further to balance employees and employers interests in the workplace.

This progress is possible because of the collaboration of employer and employee advocates during the Department of Labour's review of the labour standards regulations and legislation. I want to congratulate the business and labour on this significant achievement. I specifically want to congratulate the minister and the employer and employee representatives on offering amendments that will increase employees' wage protection.

The first change increases wage protection in the event of business insolvency. Currently, employees have first priority among creditors to a maximum of $2,000. This change will increase the level of protection to a maximum of $7,500, bringing Newfoundland and Labrador inline with the majority of the other provinces.

Secondly, this bill introduces directors liability for unpaid wages. If an incorporated business should become insolvent, Mr. Speaker, the directors of that business will be liable for up to two months of unpaid wages for each employee affected by the closure. However, directors will have a measure of protection if they can demonstrate that they have exercised due diligence in the exercise of their duties as directors. In other words, if a director can demonstrate that he or she has exercised care and diligence to ensure that wages owing to affected employees are paid, he or she will not be liable for unpaid wages.

In addition, amendments to the act will increase the time period for which an employee can recover unpaid wages. Under current legislation, employees can only recover unpaid wages that are owed in the six months prior to their making a complaint under the Labour Standards Act. The new act will allow an employee to request an investigation for unpaid wages for up to two years prior to the date of their complaint. These changes bring Newfoundland and Labrador inline with the country's leaders on this issue in an effort to protect employees from the pain associated with lost wages when businesses close. These changes exemplify this government's general commitment to wage protection.

On this issue, I am also proud to note that in Newfoundland and Labrador we currently lead a national initiative to improve on protection granted to employee's wages in business bankruptcies. Working with all other provinces, we are seeking an amendment to the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in order to improve upon the low priority of employee's wages among unsecured creditors.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour on this comprehensive and progressive piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise in my place today to say a few words on Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. Generally speaking, I think this is a positive piece of legislation. We will be supporting it on this side of the House, I do believe. I know I will be.

The Minister of Labour, when she was up, spoke on a number of issues with respect to this piece of legislation, Bill 54. The first thing she hit on, of course, was the overtime rates paid out to people. She said now that basically it would go from one and one-half times the minimum wage to one and one-half times the hourly salary being paid to individuals. Of course, that is a good thing because in this Province we have many, many people who are what we would refer to as the working poor. Sometimes in my district I speak to people who make a very low salary and, I have to say, I wonder how they make a go of it. People on social assistance have a very difficult time. Sometimes they can get a drug card or in special situations get special assistance with respect to rent and what have you, but the people - the working poor - making $6, $7 or $8 an hour, I think this piece of legislation does go a certain distance to help those individuals.

The Minister of Labour said that the non-union people, the workforce in this Province, make up 60 per cent of the workforce. That is a lot of people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Fifty per cent? She said 60 per cent, but the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi says it is 50 per cent.

The job security for these people needs to be looked at, and this legislation is doing that somewhat, not to a great extent. Many of these people, too, have part-time positions or temporary positions, Mr. Speaker. You would notice, too, of later years, that this very government has been hiring people on contract and it does not give individuals a lot of protection.

I remember the Minister of Finance, not long ago, saying that there would be no layoffs this fall, because of the cutbacks and what have you, with the civil service. I often wondered, since she said that, what about the people who are on contact? Will those contracts be renewed? Some people in the civil service have their contracts renewed for two years, three years, five years and ten years. I am just wondering, will any of those people, down the road, be laid off? Not laid off really, just that their contracts will not be renewed; so they would not really fit into the specs, or the numbers that the government would put out in labour later on.

The minister also said, when she was up, that this piece of legislation is coming forward after a lot of consultation with the employers and employees across the Province. She had a review committee put in place. Of course, that is always a good thing with respect to a review if, in fact, the recommendations of the groups who made the presentations are followed. It seems to me, in this situation, they are being followed. That, of course, is a good thing.

Also, the minister says now that we will have six paid holidays instead of five, and Remembrance Day will now be a paid holiday. When you look at this you try to balance it out, I suppose, when you do something like this with respect to the employer and the employee.

Before I got into politics, I had a small business operation. I used to hire thirty or forty people in the summertime, and six or seven over the winter months. There are a lot of expenses involved in small business in this Province, from the taxes we have. We have the income tax, we have workers' compensation, EI, and all our contributions go into that. It is a major factor and the bottom line for the small businesses.

A few years ago this Administration brought in the payroll tax. At that time I was very strongly opposed to that. I think, at the time, the payroll tax was $500,000 for a payroll. If someone, a small business, had a payroll of $500,000 they paid a tax on it, a tax on a job. Then this government reduced that from $500,000 to $300,000 which made it even worse. There were businesses in this Province that would not hire if their salary, or their payout, or their payroll, was going to be over $300,000. In actual fact, it was a tax on jobs. That is something that this government now is looking at with respect to the payroll tax. Maybe in due course they will eventually eliminate a problem that they created, in my mind.

Another thing that the Minister of Labour mentioned when she was on her feet introducing this piece of legislation was the notice of termination of employment. That goes both ways, of course, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the employee giving notification of their termination of employment and we have the employer giving notice of termination of employment. Now it is going to be related to the amount of time an individual or employee works with a given company. Again that is a good thing, I think. Most people would agree with that. Obviously, that came out of the consultation that this government had with the employers and the employees and the various organizations - I think it was something like sixteen organizations that the minister referred to when she was up, fourteen plus two - that they had consulted with, and obviously that came out of that. Again, a good thing. We know, as we sit here on this side of the House, this is a progressive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Another very key thing here, of course, in this legislation, is the protection of the wages of individuals if a company goes out of business. In the past, of course, when a company went out of business, there was very little protection there with respect to the amount of money that the employees could go after. Not only the amount, but the time has been changed; another positive step in this piece of legislation.

I see the Deputy Premier listening to me very intently. Maybe he would want to get up, as did the Minister of Justice, and say a few words on this piece of legislation and let us know how he feels about it. Obviously he would be supporting it - I would not question that - I would imagine, I say to the Deputy Premier. I am glad to see that he is paying attention very attentively.

The Minister of Justice, when he was on his feet, Mr. Speaker, talked about a balance between the employees' and the employers' interest. In the past, if you would listen to the reasoning and the logic behind this piece of legislation, of course, people would seem to think the employer had the advantage. This is trying to balance out somewhat, from the employees' perspective, what they should expect in the future with respect to the legislation. Again, we support that here.

I am not going to take much more time on this piece of legislation. I am sure there are members on the other side of the House who want to get up and speak. The claim that an individual or an employee can put to a company with respect to going up six months to two years, the time frame, that if a company goes out of business from six months to two years, it is a fairly long period of time. There is no doubt about that, especially in light of the fact that some of the smaller businesses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have a very difficult time surviving in the Province with, as I said earlier, the different taxes they have to pay, and the economy itself, Mr. Speaker, especially in rural Newfoundland. In rural Newfoundland we have now - we saw an example of it, I suppose, with the EDGE legislation that is coming here before the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Zone 19 and what can happen outside Zone 19 in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what can actually happen out there versus the Northeast Avalon and the Avalon Peninsula. The economy in this area is fairly good and the chances of a company surviving in that economy on the Northeast Avalon is pretty good, I would think. New companies starting up in rural Newfoundland, companies that have been in business for years in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, have had difficult times and I think that anybody would agree to that. Members on the opposite side would agree to that. The EDGE legislation is good and is bad, depending on the situation and your perspective. A new company starting up in Newfoundland, where there is going to be some investment, you have a lot of tax breaks from the government, you have land given to them from the government, Crown land and what have you. A company that has been in business for years and years and years is really not getting the same benefits with respect to the EDGE legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Those are a few of the comments I want to make on this legislation. I am sure, as time goes forth, on the many bills that are before this House - there are some I think, over thirty, thirty-five or thirty-six pieces of legislation before this House. Some were only introduced on Friday. The House is scheduled to close on December 13, I do believe, or early next week. Now we have some, I do not know, twenty pieces of legislation left to deal with. Some twenty pieces of legislation yet to deal with, three or four days to do it, probably eight or nine hours, and I will personally have some concerns with respect to the legislation. I have one in particular that I have some major concerns with. It is Bill 25, an amendment to the Public Tender Act, and I will take my time and make the points on that one.

With respect to this piece of legislation, I have to compliment the minister on this piece of legislation, bringing it before the House, and the process they took to consult with the employers and the employees across this Province. Hopefully it will produce what the minister says it will produce with respect to the protection of the employees and the employers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to support the amendments to Bill 54, the Labour Standards Act, which was tabled by my colleague, the Minister of Labour. In particular, I want to speak to how these amendments will be more accommodating to family responsibilities within the workforce.

In the last quarter of a century we have seen dramatic increases in women's participation in the labour force, population aging, and increases in single-parent families. The constant restructuring of the labour force has been a contributing factor to employee stress, and growing conflicts between the demands of the job and the demands of home and family.

Although change has always been with us, seldom has it occurred from so many directions and at such a rapid pace as we presently experience. Against this backdrop, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the worker's ability to properly balance the competing demands of work and home life is being recognized as an essential ingredient to both economic and social well-being. Failure to find a proper balance takes its toll in many ways, not only in our personal lives but also in the workplace in the form of reduced performance, morale and productivity.

The implications of work-family conflict have caught the attention of employers who are increasingly looking for ways to support their employees in order to maintain competitive and responsive to their own ever-changing operating environments. In addition, Mr. Speaker, work-family balance is also on the public policy agenda. As governments recognize this cost in terms of the well-being of individuals and the well-being of families, the stress-related health problems and productivity losses, we are gradually seeing a change come about, especially in terms of the public policy agenda.

Integrating work and family responsibilities has been the subject of both federal, provincial and territorial policy planning, and several task forces, as we all know. In 1999, in the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada reiterated its commitment to children and families, and committed to making federally-regulated workplaces more family friendly. The federal government, however, has only limited jurisdiction over Canadian workplaces so substantial progress in this area of public policy certainly rests with the provinces and the territories which retain jurisdiction over the vast majority of workplaces through their labour standards legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the proactive amendments introduced by my colleague today demonstrate the commitment of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make further progress in establishing the appropriate balance between work and family. The amendments which will provide the ability to take time off in lieu of payment for overtime and increased access to bereavement leave are beneficial to employers and employees in terms of fostering a more positive and productive relationship.

The introduction of family leave to labour standards legislation certainly ensures that a worker can attend to the immediate needs of a sick child, of their spouse or of a parent, without the fear of losing their job. That is important, Mr. Speaker, because quite often those insecurities within the workplace, that are carried by an employee, certainly do affect the calibre of the work that they do, and it affects the morale, no doubt about that. Being able to make those particular policy changes allows them to have a good sense of security within their workplace and to also feel they can certainly attend to the priorities that are within their own lives, especially when it comes to their children and their aging parents.

Mr. Speaker, much remains to be done by both individuals, business, labour and governments, to facilitate the healthy integration of work and family roles. The commitment demonstrated by these amendments which were reached by consensus with key business and labour leaders signals a growing recognition that identifying ways to balance our work with our family and personal responsibilities is of interest and is of benefit to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to commend the Minister of Labour for the work that she has done in making the amendments to the Labour Standards Act, and certainly for the facilitation of the input that she has received from both labour and the represented employee groups, and to ask that all members support the amendments that are put forward today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of the changes made to the Labour Standards Act, and I want to start off first by saying to the minister that I agree completely and applaud the effort that made the separate department that governs labour in the Province. I think that the Department of Labour, Mr. Speaker, that represents all working people in this Province, should have a stand-alone department that is responsible for the duties and the conditions that apply, and the legislation that pertains to workers. I also say that the co-operative approach that was taken in this case to arrive at the changes that we have before us today is certainly a lesson that other areas can draw from in the sense that when people are doing things co-operatively you finally get a better result than if people are pulling in different directions.

In order to fully appreciate the changes that are made to this act, I think, to fully appreciate that, one would have had to work in this system for a while to experience the difficulties that you run into when you are trying to assist workers who have been treated unfairly. I have, in my time, Mr. Speaker, interceded on behalf of literally hundreds of workers from time to time over the past twenty-five years in dealing with things that, I say to the minister, I am glad to see have changed in this current legislative change before the House; for example, Mr. Speaker, the clause that would require an employer to reimburse an employee for reasonable expenses incurred by the employee that are otherwise irrecoverable. That goes to the question of a person's vacation, Mr. Speaker, and I have run into this on a few occasions. A person, a worker, has a vacation already scheduled, they have plans made with their family to go to another destination for vacation purposes and, during the last week or a couple days prior to it, the employer tells them: I am sorry, you cannot go on your vacation as planned.

Most times when that situation occurred, Mr. Speaker, it was the employee who was out of whatever money they may have lost by way of non-refundable tickets, accommodations that had been paid for in advance, and other such things. I am glad to see that now the employer, should they decide to change an employee's vacation schedule, would have to be responsible for picking up any expenses that the employee made that are not recoverable by the employee.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that Remembrance Day will be made a public holiday. I am sure that all of the Legions across this Province, and all of the veterans, will look at this and say, it is about time; and it is, Mr. Speaker, because without what the Legions and the veterans of this Province represent we would not have any legislation that applied to working people and probably not much legislation that would apply to anything else in our society either. It is very important that we have recognized Remembrance Day as a public paid holiday and putting Remembrance Day to the forefront in public domain where it should be.

Clause 8 of the bill extends a right to a weekly day of rest to management employees. I say to the minister, while that appears to be good, I think it should be reviewed because if it has not changed in the regulations, or in the act, the way that it used to read and the way it reads there is that you get one day off per week. Employees had the right, for a long time, to have one day off per week. That right, by virtue of these changes, has now been extended to management employees. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that you run into with that is: The day off per week can be the first day of one week and the very last day of the second week. When that happens we have people who are working for thirteen days straight without a day off. I don't think that is conducive to any worker in the Province. Working long hours, working long days, accident frequencies tend to climb - thirteen days on is a long period of time - and that can happen under this legislation without an employee having a day off.

Also, Mr. Speaker, one of the real good changes that I like, which is put forward in the House today for second reading, is the fact that overtime - I understand from the minister, it is not clear in the act, but it is covered under the regulations - now will be paid at time and a half the regular hourly rate of pay. Prior to this, it was paid at time and a half - or it could be, not all employers did this. It would not be fair to suggest that they did. For example, if the minimum wage was $5.50 and a person was making $10 an hour, then legally, under the prior legislation, an employer could pay someone time and a half the minimum wage rather than time and a half $10.50 an hour. I am not suggesting that all employers did that. I know that they did not, but there have been many who took advantage of the legislation, as it was prior to these changes, and paid at time and a half the minimum wage.

"Clause 11 of the Bill would provide for the setting of minimum wage rates by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council without recourse to the recommendations of a Labour Standards Board." I think the old system was more cumbersome and the review was conducted, I think, probably once every five years, sometimes every couple of years, but now it can be done faster, in a more expedient way, should the Lieutenant-Governor in Council decide to do so.

One clause that causes me a bit of concern is: "Clause 15 of the Bill would provide that an employer may pay wages by direct deposit to an employee's account in a financial institution." I have always taken the position that the employee should be the one to decide how they receive their pay. Whether it be in the form of a cheque or whether it be in the form of a direct deposit system, the employee should have the right to decide that. After all, they are the people working for their money and they should be the ones to decide how it is being paid.

The changes in the clothing allowance; again, I say to the minister, prior to the changes made - that are before us - employees who were making minimum wage, or just above, could be required to purchase their own uniforms that were required in the workplace for the employee to wear. There was no onus on the employer to provide the uniforms to the employees. This change certainly changes that. It is great to see that people who have to buy clothing for their work purposes, with their employers' insignia on the sleeve or on front, do not have to spend their hard earned money in order to promote the company that they work for, it is now an employer's obligation.

The amount of an employee's claim priority for unpaid wages would go from $2,000 to $7,500. The amendment also provides that employer is considered to hold unpaid wages in trust for an employee. Before, Mr. Speaker, as we know, employees in the Province, in the case of a company folding, were the last in line to get their money and, ninety-nine chances out of a hundred, by the time it got to them there wasn't any money left in order for them to receive their wages.

Mr. Speaker: "Clause 28 of the Bill would provide that an employer, instead of providing a notice of intention to terminate in the event of a group lay-off, may pay the wages of the employees in the group to whom the notice would otherwise have been given." We have had some dealings with this in the past in this Province under the Labour Standards. I recall, quite vividly, in 1983-1984 there was a bill introduced in this House, Bill 38 - introduced, by the way, by the party on my left, geographically speaking that is. The party on my left introduced a bill and made it retroactive five years that took millions of dollars out of the pockets of workers in Labrador City, Wabush, Corner Brook and other places around this Province; and did so by making it retroactive five years. I am glad to say that this is, once again, entrenched so that if employers do not give the notice that is required under law, then they will have to pay. I certainly hope that whatever administration may be in power, that that is not tampered with in the future to the detriment of workers in this Province.

The investigations into complaints filed by the board - I want to advise the minister that I have worked pretty closely with the Department of Labour over a long period of time and, I say to the minister, there are good people in the Department of Labour who take their jobs very seriously and do their jobs very diligently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I commend your department on having employees there who take their jobs real serious, but one of the problems that investigating officers in your department have from time to time, particularly in Labrador - that is the area I know best when this happens - is that if a person has a complaint with Labour Standards next week and the investigating officer only left last week or a month ago, it may be a very long extended period of time before that complaint gets investigated. Generally, there have to be enough complaints in an area of the Province that would generate a response by having someone go and investigate, or it would operate on a time frame where there is a schedule saying: We are going to visit an area every four month or every six months, whatever the case might be. At times, this unduly drags out the process in which complaints should be dealt with in an expedient manner.

Last week, or the week before last, when the minimum wage increase was announced in this House, I talked about the need, at that time, for a living wage versus a minimum wage. I still believe that all of the things that are contained in Bill 54 are things that apply - not necessarily 100 per cent but to a large degree - to workers who are not unionized and workers who are making minimum wage or barely above. There are exceptions to that, but by and large, as a rule, these are the employees that this legislation applies to. If a person is unionized, Mr. Speaker, obviously there is not much in their labour standards that they need to rely on because they have collective agreements in place on which to fall.

"Clause 31 of the Bill would also provide for the enforcement of a determination of the Director of Labour Standards, or a labour standards officer as if it were an order of the Trial Division." That is a good change as well because that reinforces the seriousness of the investigating officers when they go in. It gives them more authority and also puts them in line with the same degree of respect that an arbitration award has in a unionized environment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clue up by saying to the minister, that these changes we have before us today, while they are positive - there is no question about that - for the people of this Province, it is not something that is done now and forever taken care of for the future. Ongoing changes will continually need to be made. As we work with this new legislation, I am sure that there will be developments and problems that crop up from time to time that will have to be addressed as that happens.

I say to the minister: This is a positive piece of legislation, one that I certainly have no difficulty in supporting, one that I have been part of advocating, for many of the changes contained here, over a long number of years, and I am glad to see that progress is being made in this area. We will certainly be supporting this bill when it comes to a vote in this House.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to add a few words to those of my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, on the Labour Standards Act amendments. There are some very important landmark changes in the labour standards legislation in this Province as a result of this bill. The two I want to mention have to do with the director's liability issue. For many, many years we were the only province in Canada where there was no director's liability for unpaid wages. I never understood why that was so, why the government seemed to think that this Province alone should protect directors from liability for the unpaid wages of their employees. That has been changed by this legislation, and now directors of companies have a responsibility, clearly, to ensure that their employees get paid. The directors have to take an active role in ensuring that employees get paid, or they will find themselves responsible for the wages that were unpaid in the event of an insolvency or a failure to pay.

The increase of the limit to $7,500 for unpaid wages is a very, very important step as well. With raises in wages over the years it is important to protect as much of an employee's income as you can, because you also have, sometimes, severance pay and other things that might be associated with wages that would remain unpaid if the amount were lower.

The important factor in that regard, though, is the federal bankruptcy legislation that we have no control over, obviously, in this House. That is something that is long overdue, needed change, and our party federally has made a number of attempts to seek to have the bankruptcy legislation changed to ensure that the first priority is given to employees' wages.

There is also a positive step, as the minister has pointed out, in ensuring that there is no loophole in the minimum wage legislation to allow overtime wages to be at time-and-a-half the minimum wage. An example would be, I suppose, if somebody was paying $7.50 an hour, there would essentially be no overtime under the old rate because $7.50 an hour worked out to time-and-a-half of a $5.00 minimum wage. You could ask an employee to work extra hours and not pay them any overtime at all, because you would be meeting the Labour Standards Act in that regard.

There is a problem, and I am going to ask the minister if she would be prepared to accept an amendment on this particular issue. It is one that my colleague, the Member for Labrador West, has made, and it is an important point, particularly in many areas of the Province where there are no banks or financial institutions and, in fact, we see banks closing down at branches in various parts of the Province from time to time. A couple have been announced in recent weeks and months. Clause 15 of the bill allows an employer to make a payment of employees' wages by direct deposit into an account of a bank of the employee's choice. Now, granted, the employee may be able to choose a bank, but what if the employee has no bank account? Why would you force an employee to deal with a banking institution for the sake of receiving his or her wages? I think that certainly to allow an employer to make a payment that way would be fine but it should be based on the consent of an employee and not by an employer saying: The only way I pay wages is into a bank account, so you have to get yourself a bank account for a minimum wage job that I am offering you.

It does not seem to me to be proper to say to an employee that even without their consent the employer has the right to go ahead and pay money into a bank account by direct deposit rather than actually issue a cheque or cash to an employee. I think there certainly should be a provision to make such a payment lawful, I have no problem with that, but it should not be something that can be forced on an employee.

I know that employees of the government, for example, have the right at this stage to have money directed to an account but if you change this provision the government could turn around tomorrow and say: We are issuing no more cheques. We will only pay direct deposit to a bank or credit union.

That could be very inconvenient for some people who either do not have a bank account or do not live near a bank, or do not have a bank or credit union in their community. To force the payment to go to an account would be to force someone perhaps to make a trip a number of miles to get access to their cash or money. I think that is a provision that is perhaps too onerous on employees. If we had a banking system that had a bank in every community, or a credit union in every community, it might not be so onerous, but it does force someone to deal with a banking institution whether they want to or not. I am wondering if the minister, when she speaks at the close of this debate, will indicate whether she is prepared to take under advisement an amendment to that provision that would require the consent of an employee for this provision to come into force.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we endorse the provisions that are made to amending the Labour Standards Act. They are long overdue in some cases. I think there is a lot of pleasure around the Province with respect to the fact that the Department of Labour is a single department now, with its own responsibilities. That is considered very important. I would also say that many of the improvements that we see in the Labour Standards Act are really the work of the way being paved by the trade union movement.

I know that the Federation of Labour played an important role in assisting the minister with advice and recommendations with respect to the amendments to the Labour Standards Act,. What we see, really, is some of the provisions that have been fought for and won by the labour movement with respect to collective bargaining regimes are turning up and setting a higher standard of employment relations in the Province. We see some of them being now put into law to ensure that the employment standards for employees who are not covered by collective bargaining agreement are in fact being brought up to standard on some of the issues here that have been fought for and won by the labour movement through collective bargaining. I think that is a positive thing as well.

We will, Mr. Speaker, be supporting these amendments and I hope that the minister will consider an amendment to clause 15 as well.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to add a few words to the points that have been made by members on both sides of this Legislature with respect to this bill, Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. I certainly would wish to join with my colleagues on this side of the House, and obviously join with the comments that have been made by hon. members opposite, with the respect to the strengths of this particular piece of legislation. Obviously, the legislation makes some significant changes with respect to the employer-employee relationship which, Madam Speaker, is a very important legal relationship, I would like to add. Obviously, the duties and obligations and the rights and obligations of both parties are often significant and they are spelled out very well in Bill 54.

I am not going to address the specific clauses. That has been done adequately, I would think, Madam Speaker, by the points that have been made by members on both sides of this Legislature; only to add, perhaps, in a global sense, what this does. It strengthens a relationship between both an employer and an employee to the point that this is clearly a win-win situation.

When we think, Madam Speaker, of labour standards, and how employees and workers in our Province are to be treated and respected by employers; when we think of labour standards laws and regulations in our Province, we tend to overlook the significance of such legislation on the employer as opposed to the employee. Obviously, this is important and there are significant benefits for the employees and the workers of this Province, but the employer, the manager, the owner, the proprietor, for example, these individuals also reap benefits, I might add, Madam Speaker, simply because, as a result of these changes and as a result of these proposals in this particular bill, there is an increased morale, there is an increased degree of respectability by the employee towards his or her employer, and what that does is, that only creates a win-win situation for all those involved.

Madam Speaker, although obviously the objective here is ensure, and it is obviously the priority objective, I would think, to ensure that employees and workers in our Province are treated with dignity throughout the employment period, however we should not underestimate the benefit to the overall employer-employee relationship to the point that morale is enhanced, there is a greater feeling of respectability by the employee to the employer, and that only results in, in an overall sense, a much more worthwhile and beneficial working environment. So that is perhaps a secondary benefit of this legislation. It is, to put it simply, Madam Speaker, a win-win situation. The employees and the workers of our Province again, but certainly the employer and certainly the proprietor, the owner of that business operation, the owner of that store, the owner of the professional office, whatever the situation might be, because of an improved and enhanced working environment, the business establishment also wins. I think we ought to not underestimate the impact that good labour standard regulations and good labour standards laws have on all parties.

Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, also wants to make just a couple of comments. With those few comments, I will take my place.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think one of the realities that defines a prosperous place, or one of the, I guess, cornerstones or fundamentals that many societies today, in trying to move forward as a society, create wealth, create jobs, drive an economic engine, in attempting to create a better life, certainly one of the cornerstones of that philosophy has to be a positive labour relations climate.

Madam Speaker, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, as the minister has alluded to, is a long overdue sweeping haul of this act. My understanding, based upon comments both outside this House and inside, is that this was a process initiated by government, employer and employee driven, that culminated in a body of work presented both to the provincial government and ultimately to the Cabinet, which eventually found itself into the act that is before us today.

My understanding is that not all recommendations - and the minister would probably, if she could, in her concluding remarks - that were put forward by the group assembled, from the Federation of Labor, the Employers' Council, and representatives from the provincial government, were accepted carte blanche. What we see in the Act today, certainly it is my understanding that the vast majority of those recommendations found themselves contained in the current Act, if I am correct.

Madam Speaker, we do not need to look too far to find where this sort of model has had huge success in other places. To the east of us - across the pond as we sometimes call it - but across the Atlantic ocean in the Republic of Ireland, some fifteen years ago they found themselves in a crisis. That is the best way to put it. They were on the brink of financial catastrophe, on the brink of insolvency and bankruptcy as a nation. Fifteen years later the picture has completely changed. They have a net immigration as opposed to out-migration. They have an employment rate that is less than 4 per cent. Essentially, an employment rate of less than four per cent means virtually unemployment is non-existent, that the 4 per cent unemployment rate really reflects those individuals who are between positions. In other words, they have left one position and are on their way to another position. The job market is extremely lucrative in that sense.

If you look at 200 years ago, when many people immigrated to this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, from places like Waterford, Wexford and Cork, they came because there were no opportunities and they came to this part of the world to create a life for themselves and their ancestors. Ireland's model of economic turnaround was significant. In one election, actually, all of the parties - because they have a multi-party system, there are two main parties there - ran on the same platform. If you can believe that, about twelve to fourteen years ago, all of the major political parties, from a financial point of view and a standpoint of policy, ran on the same platform. This allowed significant changes to occur in the Republic of Ireland. One of those changes reflects the spirit, intent and philosophy that is contained in this Bill, An Act To Amend The Labor Standards Act.

That was: Many of Ireland's largest and most powerful unions, the government, the Irish Development Association, the IDA, which came out of that process, got together in an employer-employee driven initiative and agreed to certain principles. They agreed to a wage package over several years that was guaranteed and, in return, no strike agreements were entered into for most of the labor unions.

What we see here is very similar in this sense. We see a model that has worked in other parts of the globe, not only in Ireland but in Scandianian countries as well, other provinces, but what we see successfully implemented here is a working group from what would be seen at both ends of the spectrum, the employer and the employee, facilitated by the Department of Labor, come together to define a relationship. Now, in many ways, that relationship was already defined, but certainly not defined in law, in an act. Many employers, if not most, operate in the spirit and intent of what is contained in the bill. One of the most positive elements of it is that it defines, in legislation, and therefore in regulation, once the regulatory regime is established - and I would suspect that it already is, to be approved by Cabinet or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - it establishes and defines, for both the employee and employer, a framework by which their relationship is going to be governed henceforward, or here on in.

I just want to add my voice to this particular piece of legislation, Madam Speaker, in saying that we fully endorse and support the principles upon which this was brought forward, we fully endorse and support the clauses contained in the bill with one exception; not what is in the bill but what is not in the bill. It is the issue dealing with Sunday shopping. It is still a controversial issue with respect to many people in the workplace. It is one, I think, that many people in the workplace, particularly in the retail sector today, are still looking for a resolution to. However, that debate will be left for another day.

I want to, generally on the framework of the bill, as put forward in terms of keeping my comments relevant in second reading to the legislation, to say that we are pleased to support it. We will be pleased to support it in Committee and to ensure that this particular piece of legislation moves expeditiously through all committee stages so that, in fact, it can come into force and be made law as soon as possible, gazetted and the associated regulations accompanying that legislation be sent to all employers within Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour will speak now to close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to thank all members in this House today for their valuable contribution by way of debate on this Bill 54. It is clear that Bill 54 is an important piece of legislation because we are hearing unanimous support from all sides of the House, and that is very important.

I would like to just refer to a couple of issues that were raised by hon. members. The Member from Labrador West, I would like to thank him for his confidence of the Department of Labour. When you look at the fact that the Department of Labour oversees over 500 collective agreements in this Province, and they oversee also 109,000 workers who are non-unionized and 70,000 workers who are unionized, it is a very busy department, when you look at the number of employees that are employed by the Department of Labour. So, I do thank you for your compliment.

With reference to the issue that was raised by the Member from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, clause 15. I would like to say to the member opposite, that that particular clause, clause 15, speaks to the employer's right to choose the method of payment to pay the employees. The intent of that clause was to allow the employer to choose the method of payment, whether it be a cheque or a deposit directly to a bank account or a credit union deposit. What is being said in clause 15 is that if the employer chooses to pay by way of direct deposit, the employee would have the choice as to which financial institution that particular pay would be deposited to. When you look at the fact that all nineteen stakeholders agreed to this particular clause, I would not want to break it down, I would like for it to stay exactly as it was recommended. In other words, leaving employers the right to choose the method of payment. When you look at the fact that the Federation of Labour and the Employers' Council, nineteen stakeholders in the Province recommended that particular clause. The intention: I would like to leave it in tact.

The Member for Kilbride, the Opposition House Leader, made reference to the fact that not all recommendations were accepted. The majority of recommendations were accepted and they are now in this bill. There were no recommendations rejected. Exactly! There are a few that require further study and all stakeholders agree that, yes, there will be further study. I think what we are saying, from the Department of Labour's point of view, is that, on an annual basis we will now conduct further study into labour standards issues in a round table forum.

I think what we are seeing here is a threshold of minimum standards for employment in this Province that has the support of business, government and labour. It is definitely a positive happening here today. There is a lot to be said in this particular bill, Bill 54. What we are doing in the Department of Labour, is developing a user-friendly handbook both for employees and employers that will contain all the provisions of Bill 54. It is important that employees and employers know what their rights and responsibilities are. It can only lead to better morale, as many members of the opposite side have indicated, better working relationships, better morale and better productivity for our entire Province.

With that being said, Madam Speaker, I would like to close debate now and thank all members.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow." (Bill 54).

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to resume the adjourned debate on Bill 46, An Act Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

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

I rise on a point of order. I believe it was late last week when we were in debate on this. Just for a recap, so we understand in terms of the context of where we are. We had agreed, as opposed to going clause-by-clause, that there were a couple of amendments that were put forward to the minister. So the debate was a little bit more open in terms that we deal with the amendments as put forward by the Opposition to the Minister of Health and Community Services, and once those amendments made to particular sections of this act had been concluded, once the debate had finished, then we would move into passing the bill clause-by-clause from there. I just want to make sure that is the understanding. That is how we were operating last week.

Mr. Chairperson, I just want to ensure that, in the spirit of fairness, we continue to operate that way, if the Government House Leader has no problem with that. Certainly, we would like to hear from his point of view if that is okay with the government side.

CHAIR: Just as a point of clarification, it is my understanding that when we adjourned committee, we had approved clauses 4 through 16. So now we will pick up on clause 17.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I want to make sure, Mr. Chairman, that everybody understands where we are. I think the Chair had said that we are at clause 16, we finished at clause 16 and now we are calling clause 17.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. LUSH: Yes. Okay.

CHAIR: Shall clause 17 carry?

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

I am assuming, then, that the amendment is added to clause 17.

Thank you very much.

I would just like to say a few words on that. The purpose of this amendment was to ensure that the child or children are aware of the child advocate. As well, there are a couple of logistics or mechanics around that clause that I would just like to put in here maybe for purposes of setting everything straight. When the child or children are notified or given written information about the child advocate, there should be some forum for the protection of the child and for the protection of the worker to indicate that the child has in fact received the information. In the event that some proceedings take place down the road, there will be no denying on one part or the other whether or not the information was provided. In the case of a child who is too young to read, maybe a designate could sign on behalf of the child that they have been in fact informed of the child advocate and their right to get in touch with them either orally or by writing a letter that the designate could sign on behalf of the child who cannot read or write, that they have in fact been informed; and in the event of a child who can read or write, that the child sign that they have in fact been informed. I am not suggesting that be put in here. I am just suggesting that the mechanics be followed in that manner.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can comment very briefly. With respect to the amendment that the member has put forward on our last day of sitting, that every facility, caregiver's home, group home or other home or place in which the child is placed under an act of the Province, the Criminal Code or the Young Offenders Act, 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. I accept and agree that would be an improvement and an addition to section 17; however, in terms of the specific details that the member has outlined, I would suggest that is better left to the operational planning that will take place when the advocate, himself or herself, puts in place how they are going to dispense the responsibility and duties that they have been given. If I understand that the amendment being put forward is the one that I have read to be contained in the legislation, everything else is subject to an operational plan to be defined, then I believe that is satisfactory.

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

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

Yes, I understand that the amendment was accepted as proposed and I just put that in as some of the mechanics that could be suggested for the operations.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Does clause 17 carry, as amended by the addition of a subclause 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 shall be given written information telling them about the office of the advocate, a right to bring any grievance to the advocate, and how they may contact the advocate.

Shall the amendment carry?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 17 as amended carried.

On motion, clauses 18 through 22 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 23 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, clause 23 gives the right of entry to the advocate to a premises occupied by a department or agency of government. It allows the advocate to go into a premises occupied by a department or agency of government in connection with the review or an investigation within its jurisdiction. That is quite appropriate.

The second half of that, however, provides that before entering such a premises notice shall be given to the deputy minister or the administrative head or the department or agency of government that occupies the premises. This is like sort of saying, I am conducting an investigation and I am entering a premises as of right and giving them either a warning or a tipoff or letting them know you are coming. I do not think that is appropriate. In fact, you know - the minister shakes his head - I am looking here from the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act of British Columbia which has a similar provision, providing for a right to enter a facility for the purposes of carrying out duties, or exercising powers or functions under this act, the advocate may, at any reasonable time, enter any premises in which designated services are provided to children.

There is no provision here for sending them a message beforehand saying, we are coming. If it is not necessary for British Columbia to have that, I do not know why we should have a provision here.

I have no objection, of course, to the minister or the deputy, or the head of government being made aware that an entry has taken place, or that an investigation has taken place, but why must there be given an advance notice? Why would the advocate have to notify the deputy minister or the head of a department or agency beforehand? It just seems to me to be totally unnecessary here. I do not know why it was put in. I do not know why it was felt that this was appropriate to give a warning, or a notice that an entry was being made. I think that should be removed.

In fact, I have an amendment to make, seconded by the Member for St. John's West, that clause 23.(2) be deleted from the bill. I am waiting for it to come downstairs in writing, but basically it is to move that the bill be amended by deleting clause 23.(2) from the legislation. That is the proposed amendment, which I think would improve the legislation by making it clear that the right to enter a facility was not qualified by any prior notification to anyone, that the advocate could go ahead and carry out his or her duties, and conduct his or her investigation without having to give prior notice to the head of the department or agency concerned.

We have to wait for the written copy, Mr. Chairman; it is coming down. Perhaps we can go on to another clause until we have it in writing. I think it is appropriate that there be a written amendment passed over to the Chair. Either that or we continue debate on it and when the amendment comes downstairs we will pass it into the House.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I think quite clearly we try to establish fairness here by members giving the particular minister a copy of the amendment in advance. We do that with the legislation. All members on this side work hard to make sure members have the legislation in time so that they can give intelligent debate and reasoned debate, and we think it is only fair, the same thing with amendments, that hon. members not come here during the debate and make an amendment right off the spur of the moment like that, that we ought to see it, all of us. I just ask the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in the future, that maybe he could co-operate in that regard, in the same manner that we co-operate.

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

MR. HARRIS: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman, I take seriously the comments of the Government House Leader. Certainly, the more time available for debate and notices the better. This is something that was just discussed today, actually, by the Member for St. John's West and I, as a problem with the legislation. Obviously we would like to have more time to consider and debate these things, and perhaps in the future we will have more use of our legislative committees to actually review these things before they come to the House.

I take the Government House Leader's comments seriously, and certainly any notice that we can give in the future, we will certainly try to do that. Perhaps there will be other debate on the particular point.

CHAIR: There is no point of order on that, but a point of clarification.

The amendment that is being proposed is that clause 23.(2) be deleted from the proposed legislation, Bill 46.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion, on a point of order?

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I wonder, could we proceed, leave out clause 23 at this moment, move on to clause 24, and possibly come back to that in a few minutes? There is another amendment before that the minister already has, unless you want to vote on it right away. It may give some time for consideration.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to move ahead with voting on this amendment, despite the fact that I have not had any advance notice of it, just in knowing what the particular section here of number two in intended to do. I am quite comfortable with leaving that section in the act. It certainly only provides for notifying the deputy minister or the administrative head. It does not imply that there is any significant period of advance notice which the member opposite has said might pose a problem. Consequently, I believe that section 23 as it is stated is appropriate and I would not support the amendment.

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

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

I would like to speak in favour of the amendment. I look at the one from British Columbia, and that does not have that particular clause in there. I speak in support of it. I see no reason why people should be given any notice why the advocate should enter the premises.

CHAIR: There being no further debate on the amendment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: When the gentlemen is behind me, it is difficult to hear if he says nothing.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Chair, I too want to speak in favour of the amendment. As my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has said, the British Columbia legislation, which is a leading piece of legislation regarding the child advocate position across this country, that piece of legislation very clearly does not contain a provision whereby the advocate will be required to give notice to the deputy minister or the administrative head of the department or the agency of government that occupies the premises.

Mr. Chairman, it is fundamental that the child advocate have unfettered and uninterrupted access to all matters as they affect the interests of children. Certainly by putting this section 23.(2), there is the possibility that the access could be delayed, for example, if the advocate were to call and to say: Can I come over and visit you this afternoon or whatever? That could happen. In other words, the advocate needs to give notice, I would assume, to make an appointment, to let people know, yes, I am coming over to visit the office. What is the good of coming to the office if there is no one available to see the advocate, in a very forthright manner?

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this particular piece of this legislation is certainly different from the existing legislation in other parts of the country. I do not believe the advocate should have to call up and say to a deputy minister, assuming that they can find the deputy minister in a very forthright and timely manner, or find the administrative head, and that person is available to talk to the advocate. I think that certain circumstances require the advocate to have access immediately in a very unfettered, uninterrupted, no conditions attached, and no notice given.

When we were conducting the hearings on the Children's Interests Committee, many of the young people we spoke to in private told us about what happens when social workers call in to the group home or call in to the foster home and make an appointment saying: Tomorrow we are coming over to visit your place where you are staying.

They told us that suddenly the place would be cleaned up. The bedroom would be all fixed up. Things would be all prepared. They would be told what they were allowed to say or what they were not allowed to say. Mr. Chairman, I do believe that we have to be very cautious because, within the bureaucracy, we have some wonderful people. There is a point in which the bureaucracy - and we are told this many times in our hearings - tends to protect itself. Therefore we want to say on this side that there should be no need for the advocate to have to give notice to anybody; not to the minister, not to the deputy minister, not to any department head. There should be absolute freedom. It should be immediate and should be always available to the advocate. That is fundamental. We do not have to think very long or very hard in this Province to find examples of where - if somebody could have gotten immediate access, with no strings attached, that the rights of children may have been protected a lot better than they were.

We, on this side, say: I cannot see any reason why any deputy minister, any administrative department head, would need that kind of notice. The child advocate is part of our protection of the children. We should not have to give notice that the advocate is going to do his or her job. That is what we are saying here: You can do your job, but tell me in advance that you are coming to do it. That is wrong. That fundamentally goes against the whole concept of the child advocate's role whereby the child advocate should be able to do his or her job on behalf of children, do it immediately and have no strings attached whatsoever; no notices, but get the job done and do it at the most timely and in the most unfettered and uninterrupted manner.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister for Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have been following the debate on this bill very carefully and listening to all of the proposed amendments. To be frank, I really cannot see a reason to be voting for this amendment. It has nothing to do with what BC is proposing. If you are worried that we are doing it in one province and not in another, it should be pointed out that Saskatchewan, who also have leading edge legislation in this area, do have this type of thing in their bill.

I think it is important for us to be not just looking at what is in one province or the other, but looking at why it should be there. This is not asking the deputy minister, or the administrative assistant or whoever is in charge of that department at that time, for permission. This is just a notification. It will not delay access at all in this instance.

I strongly support my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, in not voting for this amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to know, when we are voting in favour of this amendment, are we voting in favour of the adults, the department heads, et cetera, or are we voting for protection for the children? As my colleague from Waterford Valley said: We don't have to go back very far in history to see where children were totally vulnerable and totally marginalized by department heads, and by other people who are in charge. The children are the people whom we are trying to protect with this bill. When we are voting on this amendment, are we voting in favour of the children or in favour of the department heads? I would say, in that case, that the edge should be given to the children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just to add to that. Again, we are dealing with the head of the department or agency of the government that occupies premises. As the previous speaker has said, we have had situations where the very perpetrator of activity against children was, in fact, the head of the institution itself. When there was activity by the police even, this person brought the children to the police station and on the way told them what to say and what not to say and threatened them and warned them not to tell the police what was going on inside the institution. That was the very head of the agency who was abusing children himself. So we have to be very careful about this. I understand what the minister is saying, that it is just a notification and all of that, it is not advanced warning. If you have a choice of being cautious or not being cautious, I think we should be cautious here and say that caution would mean that the advocate would have the authority to go unannounced to an institution, unannounced to a place where an investigation was being done, so that when the person arrived there was no opportunity for preparation, no opportunity for the head of the agency to undertake measures that would make an investigation inadequate. That is the purpose of this amendment.

The purpose of this amendment is to be more clear and more cautious than the legislation itself is right now by saying that notice should go out. Why? Why should notice go out? Maybe notice should go afterwards. The Deputy Minister would be notified, and should be notified: Yes, Mr. Deputy, I, the Child Advocate, on such and such a date undertook an investigation and entered a certain premises as part of that. I do not have a problem with that. I do not have a problem with the head of the agency knowing that an investigation is taking place once the advocate has determined whether they need to enter the premises or not. I do not have a problem with that, ultimately, but if the point is and the purpose is to enter these premises without the consent of the agency, without the consent of the department, without the consent of the head, then the advocate should have the right to go ahead and do that without prior notification to the head of the department or the agency itself.

It may well be a rare circumstance, but one circumstance would be more than enough to cause me to be cautious. I have to say, I know of which I speak here. I was actively involved, as many people know, with the hearings that took place, the judicial inquiry that took place into the Mount Cashel Orphanage matter. I had long association with how that investigation took place, with the failures of the investigation that took place in 1975, and with the failures of the followup afterwards. I know in great detail the kind of interference with the investigation that was perpetrated by the head of that institution at that time. We hope that this will never happen again. We hope that there will be no children, in any institution, or in any foster home, or in any agency, that will be abused and mistreated. We are trying our best to make sure that the legislation allows the advocate to be a very strong person, in a very strong position, to carry out their work without having any possibility of interference by the agents of government or government themselves.

When we look back at the inquiry into Mount Cashel it was, in some cases, government officials themselves who had failed to act, and failed to take action on behalf of children when complaints were made to them. We are hoping that this child advocate, and the legislation, will be powerful, strong and capable of ensuring that whatever evil things that happened in the past, their chances of being repeated are going to be seriously diminished. I think it is not a technical matter. It is not an unimportant item. I think it is a very important measure to ensure that the advocate has unfettered and unrestricted access to any agency, institution, or operation in which a service is being provided to a child, or where a child may be housed or living, without having to give advanced notice. I do not see any reason for it. The minister said: Well, it does not say how much advanced notice. But I don't think it really matters how much advance notice we are talking about. I think the point has to be that, any kind of notice is unnecessary and any kind of notice may, in fact, be detrimental to the interests of a child whose investigation might be hampered by interference.

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Chair.

The section that is being referred to here, the context of the amendment, is simply one that refers to giving notice and notifying the department head in advance of entering a premises. As I have indicated in my previous comments, this is something that would simply make the contact to notify the person or persons who have the responsibility for this particular area, that the advocate is about to enter the premises.

Mr. Chair, we have already approved section 20 of this legislation which says that, "Before reviewing or investigating a complaint, or before conducting a review or an investigation of a department's or agency's services, the advocate shall inform the deputy minister or the administrative head of the department or agency of that government affected of his or her intention to conduct the review of investigation." So, we have already approved a clause which says that the child advocate will notify the deputy minister or the department head of the intention to conduct an investigation. This section simply is consistent with that, to say that, in conducting it, before going to the premises they will actually notify them of the fact that they are about to visit the premises.

Mr. Chair, this clause does not, in any way, compromise the integrity of this act. It is part of the overall process. It is consistent with the other pieces of the legislation, and I suggest and recommend that it remain.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Chair, I have, again, the wish to speak at least once more to this particular section, because section 23(2) says, "Before entering a premises...", and then goes on to say, "...the advocate shall notify...". Now, I want to ask the minister why. The fundamental question is: Why? Why should the advocate be required to notify anybody before they enter? You know, there are such things as professional courtesies. We understand that.

We are talking here about putting in legislation a process which could conceivably be used to delay services to a child. I am talking about the possibility that could be used. This particular section is different from section 20. In section 20 you are simply saying, before reviewing or investigating a complaint, or before conducting a review or an investigation of a department's or agency's services, the advocate will let people know. They already will know.

So, what we are saying here is, if there is some reason why, why do you have to again give notice that: I am coming over on Tuesday afternoon. I want to see this file or that file. The question is: Why do you need to do that?

What we are saying, on this side, is that children are too important to be constrained and services to them constrained by technicalities. Here we see a possibility whereby services to a child could be restricted, could be delayed. There could be things happen to files. Anything could happen. Fairly often we know that has been the history. There have been changes made and there have been things that happened. We should learn from instances, as my colleagues know here, and as has already been mentioned by people who are very knowledgeable of what happened in Newfoundland and Labrador with Mount Cashel. There were changes made. There were instances where children were intimidated because somebody was asking questions.

All we want to say is that the advocate should have absolute, unfettered, uninterrupted immediate access. If the minister reads section 20 the way in which I thought she just read it now, then maybe we have made a mistake already and we should have changed section 20 as well. If the intention of section 20 is to do anything to compromise the work of the advocate, then this whole Act is comprised in its totality before it is even passed. If we compromise on one single little piece of this Act that potentially delays services or interrupts services to children, than we have a piece of legislation which is flawed even before it passes this Legislature.

Madam Minister, I say to you: Think again. Children need to be protected in any way that they can, and I am afraid that section 23(2) has a potential - and it only has to have potential for one child in the next fifteen years or forever. If one child in any way, in any institution, is having services delayed or any compromises made, then this legislation will be a failure in the life of that child. Children look to this House for protection. Consequently, what we are saying is: Think about it again, Madam Minister.

We believe that there is no need for it, because if you put it in there it must be there for a reason. The minister has stood now, I think, three times and she has not told us yet why that should be there and why she will not agree to its elimination, as per the amendment put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and seconded by the Member for St. John's West.

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

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

The advocate that we are proposing to bring in here is supposed to be a system's advocate, and if it is a system's advocate it is to protect children against the system. Who are the people who are in charge of the system? They are our deputy ministers, they are our administrative heads. Now, at the present time and, hopefully, never again will we run into situations, as my colleagues have referred to, such as Mount Cashel, et cetera. However, in the event if there is a modicum of a chance that a child is being maligned or marginalized or is not being treated properly by the system, than I would like to vote in favour of the child.

As my colleague said, if the minister can show me the reason for having there, then maybe we will have another look at it, but at this particular point in time we see absolutely no reason for having this clause here that will protect the system before it protects the children. Why would the advocate need to give advance warning of a day, an hour or even a minute that the advocate is going to enter one of the departments and look to see a file in which there is very sensitive information about a child. Why does notice need to be given? Now, who are we going to vote in favour of here today, the department heads and the deputy ministers or the children that this act is supposed to be protecting?

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be some misunderstanding. As I recall our full debate on this particular bill and this particular item, we are talking about public servants here who do a very good job of protecting the interests of the children that they are working on behalf of, Mr. Chair. The idea of giving some notice is because we value their time and their effort. In fact, if you do not give notice and you just walk in unannounced, now you have the public servant scrambling around trying to find out: What file you are looking for, what information did you want, why are you here, what is the basis of the issue, and so on.

Mr. Chair, it is only done as a convenience and a courtesy. All of the information will be made available. That is the standard by which the whole system operates. I understand the point that they are making. If you want to suggest, which is the whole tone of the amendment, that nobody trusts these people who are in these positions, and that these workers, these public servants, are going to hide information and that they will not disclose what is in the best interests of the child, then by all means, carry on with the debate. Mr. Chairman, I am telling you, quite clearly, and I tell everybody in the Legislature, all we are trying to do here is facilitate the work by giving some notice to some very busy public servants who want to provide the information.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

This debate was going along fine until the Premier stood up and wanted to politicize a very important issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Yet again today he wants to stand up and put words in the mouths of every member over here. One has to wonder sometimes, with the antics of the Premier in the last three weeks, does he believe that this place is even necessary, I say to the Premier. The fact of the matter is that a legitimate, bonafide issue has been raised. I am shocked by the commentary of the Premier when he says: What if the child advocate shows up to a deputy minister and they say, what are you here for, and we have to go find papers, and we are going to inconvenience somebody. The fact of the matter is -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Talk about putting words in somebody's mouth!

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I heard.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Talk about putting words in your mouth!

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, what did he say, in terms of people of showing up?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) did a bang up job in the case of Mount Cashel.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am talking about the Premier, I say to the minister. You will have a chance, I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You won't repeat what she just said.

MR. E. BYRNE: Say what? If the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would like to speak to the amendment and the clause, fair enough.

Now, the point of the debate that is occurring on this particular clause is very clear. It is not complex. It is 23(2) and it says, for the record, Mr. Chair, "Before entering a premises under subsection (1)..." - and subsection (1) says, "For the purpose of this Act, the advocate may enter a premises occupied by a department or agency of the government in connection with a review or an investigation within his or her jurisdiction." What are the areas that are in his or her jurisdiction? They are in the schedule in the back, and we have made an amendment to that which we will debate in a second.

Clause 23)(2) clearly says - and the minister hasn't answered the question, and people know that you haven't answered the question. Why would a child and youth advocate, if there is suspicious behaviour, or believes a child is at risk, for whatever reason - it could be, lets see, not being treated properly. It could be because of possible sexual offences. It could be for any number of reasons. One would have to suspect that if the advocate, whoever it may be, whoever is appointed, suspects that a child is in such danger that they may or should, by definition, enter a premises, then in so doing, the child must be at risk. So, if the child is at risk in a premises, why would you, in fact, inform the people who put them at risk before you went in there? That is the motion of the amendment right there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Logically, it doesn't work.

You referenced earlier about Section 20, where you said we have already passed Section 20, and it reads: "Before reviewing or investigating a complaint, or before conducting a review or an investigation of a department's or agency's services, the advocate shall inform the deputy minister or the administrative head of the department or agency of the government affected of his or her intention to conduct the review or investigation." It is completely different from Section 23. That means that the advocate, like the Auditor General in some ways, says: I am going to be reviewing this department and its services in accordance with the act. Right? It does not indicate there that if a child is at risk for whatever reason, that before you go in to see if the child is truly at risk or you want to take a child out of a particular environment, you have to notify the people responsible who have, in the first place, put that child at risk. That is the question that you failed to answer so far. I think that the Legislature and the people of the Province at least deserve an answer to the question raised by my colleagues, the Member for Waterford Valley and the Member for St. John's West.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to respond to the Premier's remarks which seem to suggest that people who are asking for this amendment are somehow or other casting a suspicion, or casting a lack of trust, on every civil servant and public servant in the Province. That is what the Premier said, that somehow because somebody is a deputy minister, automatically we do not trust him.

Well, I want to remind the Premier, because I am very familiar with some of the things that have happened in this Province, that it was a Director of Child Welfare of this Province who was notified of events at Mount Cashel and failed to take action. That does not mean that every person who occupies the chair of the Director of Child Welfare, or every deputy minister, or every public servant, or everybody who acts in a situation in relation to children is somehow to be suspect and untrustworthy, but those are the facts. That is what happened. There was a public inquiry which elicited those fact known to everybody, not only in this Province, but throughout the country.

So let's not pretend that by having legislation that is designed to protect children we are automatically pointing fingers at public servants, whom we respect and do the work of the people and are supposed to do the work. It is not when they are doing their jobs that we have a problem. It is when they are not doing their jobs, that we have the problem. The purpose of the child advocate is to make it possible for a child advocate to do his or her job in the proper way and do the things that needs to be done to protect children.

If the Premier wants to try and make this a political circus here, well then he will get a political circus. This is a very serious point. The speakers on this side who have addressed this point have spoken out of sincerity and concern for the issue, not for political motives, not for anything other than to suggest that this bill could be improved in the interests of the children whom it is designed to protect, and, hopefully, be take it in that spirit by the opposite side.

We obviously know, from our experience, that individuals, whether they be teachers in our schools, whether they be priests or ministers in our churches, have been, in this Province, guilty of abusing the positions of trust that they hold in relation to our children. These are facts. We do not have to go very far to recognize that is the case. It would be the same thing if we were asking for legislation designed to protect children in our schools. Would the Premier get up and say you are casting aspersions on all teachers? Well, no, we are not doing that. We are saying we want to protect children and this measure is designed to do that.

Nobody has satisfactorily answered the question, why? Why do we need to give advanced notice? I do not really think, Premier, that it is to save the time of these very busy people. I really do not think that is the purpose of it. I do not know what the purpose of it is. It has not been adequately explained, I say, and the amendment here is one which is proper and appropriate. It will improve the legislation. There is no need to provide this kind of notice. It is a different type of circumstance than provided for in section 20. I think we should make it stronger and more effective by removing the qualification in clause 23(2).

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to speak at least one more time. The other day when I was speaking in second reading, I made a comment, and I quoted Bruce Rawson, who published a paper entitled Public Service 2000 Service to the Public Task Force: Findings and Implications. He was commenting on Canadian Public Administration. When he published that paper, he had served as a deputy minister in the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. He talked about the modern bureaucracy. He said that the modern government bureaucracy, and I quote, "...the system is not built to serve. It is built more to avoid error, deflect criticism and justify action." Further on in the same publication, he writes, "...individual public servants look first through the hierarchy to the relevant authority and only second, outward to the client in front of them."

Mr. Chair, that is written by one of the leading Canadian authorities on the way in which the bureaucracy reacts to and interacts with the clients that it serves. It is not necessarily the case in all instances. As a matter of fact, responding to what the Premier said, I have great admiration for public servants. Absolutely! In 99.99 per cent of the cases, they are motivated with all the right motives. What we are saying here, however, is that we want to eliminate - if there is one chance in 10,000 that a child can have his or her rights mitigated negatively in any way, we want to make sure that that particular chance is not taken.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier that when we were doing the hearings, we met with children in care. We met them in Marystown, in Grand Falls and in St. John's. They told us over and over again what happens when social workers call the group home, or social workers call the foster home, or social workers give any advance notice whatsoever: the whole situation changed at that particular institution.

Mr. Chairman, we met these young people, and we met them on one or two conditions. One was that we would not take any notes. We went to the meetings with absolutely no notes whatsoever. We met them on the condition that social workers and their care people would not be present either. They told us what they wanted to tell us absolutely, frankly, and they were three of the most valuable sessions we had as a committee.

Mr. Chairman, that was a select committee of this House and I am reporting back now, as we have before, on some of the things that happened. When we look at this particular section, we want to make absolutely sure that there is no possibility - this is not about lack of courtesies to the public service; it is not. I assume that in 99 per cent of the cases, the child advocate will be filled. It is okay to make an appointment. It is okay to do the professional thing and to give notice or to call the department and do the professional dialogue that is required on behalf of the child or on behalf of a department, but if there is the slightest, the slightest, possibility that any child can have his or her rights interfered with in any way, that the child advocate must retain that right to be able to enter a premises, not give notice, not give any advance warning whatsoever. That is fundamental.

We take these children and we put them in care. We put them in care because we believe that is best for them. Fundamental in child welfare legislation is the best interest of the child. I invite members to read the books and the articles put out by Professor Bissett-Johnson, who is the leading legal authority; Alastair Bissett-Johnson out of the University of Dundee, the leading legal authority on child interest legislation. Members should read the introduction to the child welfare legislation in the Yukon. It is among the leading pieces of legislation in the country. I can tell you that if Professor Bissett- Johnson were here today, he would say to us: Do what is right for the child. Put the child first.

In this particular case, all we are saying is: Put the children first, do what is right, do it right here today. Drop this section 23.(2) because it is not in the best interests of children that we pass this particular subsection today. The best interests of children are not being served. There is a possibility that some child somewhere will fall through the cracks. If one child, just one child, in Newfoundland and Labrador has his or her rights denied or interfered with, then that is enough.

All we are saying is, this is not about courtesy to the public service, not at all. Let the advocate do his or her job, let the advocate do it every day, and let the advocate do it without any possibility that anybody in the bureaucracy will interfere in any way. I say again, 99.99 per cent of our bureaucrats are absolutely wonderful people, but we know - look at our history - do something for the children today for a time when perhaps you will not be here in this Legislature to do it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand the seriousness of the debate and it is not an attempt by me to politicize. Maybe I will say it this way; maybe it will be understood a bit better. I believe that at this point in time the amendment is misdirected, because I believe now that members opposite moving the amendment are confusing the role of the advocate with that of case workers, social workers, police officers and others. We are talking about, here in this section, the advocate never, ever - it is not the job of the Child and Youth Advocate to ever go into a foster home and take a child. That is not the job. That is not the job.

The whole purpose here is, if you go into a department or an agency in which there has been an investigation already conducted, and there has been some dissatisfaction by a child, or a representative on behalf of a child, that they did not like the matter in which the investigation was done, this gives the advocate the right to go into that agency or premises, and it says: for convenience, so that they will be ready to answer the questions, because the investigation would have already been done. The work is already done. There has been a decision made or taken and the child, or representative on behalf of the child, is saying: I am not completely satisfied with the outcome of a full investigation that has already occurred.

The advocate is going in, out of courtesy and for convenience, so they can get the work done, they are saying: Give some notice so everybody will be ready and prepared to provide the information that the advocate wants. It is not a witch hunt. It is not somebody going in without notice, because there has been a complaint made through a social worker, through a case worker, or through a police officer, that says: I am in danger here as a child and I must be protected from some imminent danger. That is not what we are talking about, Mr. Chairman.

I think that is the confusion that is here. They are relating that kind of incident to this section of this act which is not at all related, has nothing to do with it. I apologize if people misunderstood my intervention, but the fact of the matter is that this whole section is being misrepresented by everyone speaking to the amendment because it has nothing to do with the issues that they are now talking about, about how a child might be in danger and you are going to convenience the head of the agency over the child. The investigation has already occurred, some decision has been taken, the advocate is acting on the basis that they are not satisfied with the final outcome of an investigation that has already occurred. It is a completely different matter than leaving a child at risk, and the kinds of things that are being discussed in this amendment.

I would really suggest that we get back to the whole intent of this section. The misunderstanding is that someone is misreading or misrepresenting what this whole section is about because it is not about the kinds of circumstances that each of the presenters on this amendment have been suggesting they are trying to defend against. That is done through another mechanism, another means with case workers and police officers, when and if necessary, Mr Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier is now suggesting that we are misrepresenting the legislation. Here is what the legislation says, section 23.(1) "For the purpose of this Act, the advocate may enter a premises occupied by a department or agency of the government in connection with a review or..." - or, not a review of an investigation - "...a review or an investigation within his or her jurisdiction."

The outside of the act says right of entry. It is not about reviews; it is about right of entry, the power being given to the advocate. The advocate may do this himself or herself or he may delegate someone to do it because the power to delegate exists under an earlier section of the act. It is part of the powers given to the advocate in order to carry out his or her duties. It is not in connection with somebody dissatisfied with an investigation or dissatisfied with a review; it is part of the powers that the advocate has in order to conduct a proper review or a proper investigation.

I think the Premier is misunderstanding what the provision here is for. It is not something separate and above and beyond investigation. It is part of the core powers and duties of an advocate to conduct his or her activities. It is the power and a right that is given to the advocate. The whole purpose of it is to be able to more fully, and more properly, do his or her duty. It is not being misinterpreted or misrepresented by this side of the House. It is very clear from where, in the act, the powers are set out.

It starts at section 15, carries on and talks about the powers of the act and a special right of entry power given. It is the same as in other legislation where it is a very specific power. It is a right above and beyond. You do not have to have a warrant, you do not have to have a judicial process, so it is a very extraordinary power. In fact, that is why it is in a section by itself.

What the Premier is talking about is not something that would be done after the fact, it is something that would be done in the core duty.

I see there are some other speakers who want to speak to that and maybe they can help in the general understanding of what is going on here. It is by no means a mis-presentation or misrepresentation of what the purpose of this is. This is, really, an extraordinary power being given to the advocate that very few - I don't think any other civil servants or agents have that kind of power unless they have warrants.

We had a debate the other day on the Environment Act about to what extent inspectors are allowed to enter business premises without warrants, but this is something specifically related to the duties of the child advocate. We are not talking about entering a premise for the purpose of taking a child into care, as the Premier as suggested. We are talking here about the advocate carrying out its investigative role in a proper way without giving advanced warning to the very people that he or she may be investigating. It is an important power and I don't think we should restrict it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The more I hear in this debate, with respect to this amendment, the more convincing the arguments become, as I see it, to support this amendment. I make that point for a couple of reasons and that is we have to look at section 3 which, essentially, is the definition section of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. It states in clause 3(a): "The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is established to ensure ...". I submit, that word is of fundamental importance. It does not say to advocate on behalf of the rights and interests of children. It does not say to promote the rights and interests of children. Mr. Chairman, it says, "...to ensure that the rights and interests of children and youth are protected and advanced and that their views are heard and considered."

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if that provision is not deleted, namely section 23(2), that the inclusion of that provision in fact contravenes or contradicts the definition as found in section 3 were it states clearly: "The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is established to ensure that the rights and interests of children and youth are protected...".

Therefore, the amendment that is being presented by members on this side of the House perhaps is of more importance the more we think of it because the amendment or namely the removing of that provision under section 23 gives us the certainty or the guarantee that this act and this piece of legislation, which is being introduced by the Minister of Health - by deleting that section it gives us the certainty and the guarantee that the rights and the interests of children are being protected. Mr. Chairman, it seems that the removal of section 23 gives us that certainty, gives us that guarantee which in and of itself is being envisaged by section 3 of the act found in the definition section. To leave it in, to me, almost sounds like what we would find in landlord- tenants situations where often a landlord, for example, who may have a right of entry provision allowed to him, has to give notice to the tenant and has to give a certain number of hours and a certain amount of notice so that - to use the Premier's word - a courtesy may be extended from one party to another.

We are not talking about courtesies in this instance, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important for members opposite to realize that what we are talking about are the rights and the interests of young children in this Province, found in this act, which we wholly support, Mr. Chairman. We wholly support it. This is good legislation, it is sound legislation. We support it fully, however, the more time and deliberation and thought that is given to this amendment - what it does, it strengthens the bill. It strengthens the act in accordance with section 3 which allows us to - in a more real, certain, defined and guaranteed way - support, promote and protect the interests of the children of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is what this is all about. That is the purpose of the amendment. That is the purpose of the debate. Let's act now in unison and support the interests of the children of this Province

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North

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

I have not yet spoken to this bill, and as I have been listening to the debate on the amendment I am a little bit surprised the way this side of the House have had seven or eight speakers up to talk about why it should be taken out, when in fact, the more you read it, the minister should be up explaining why it should be in, in the first place, in its initial draft.

Lets look at it very simplistically. If you say why it is in there, why would you build anything in this bill? You go back to the original intent of the legislation. I go back very clearly to the explanatory notes, right in the face of the bill: "This Bill would provide for the establishment of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate and the appointment of a person to act as an advocate for the interests of children and youth, both individually and collectively."

Mr. Chairman, when you read that note, and then you ask yourself - and go right directly to the clause in question, 23(2). If you took out 23(2), does that, in any way, detract from the intent of this bill? Does it, in any way, diminish the authority that the advocate has? Does it in anyway, somehow or other, is it contradictory to the intent of the person who drafted this legislation? The minister, in introducing the bill, gained immediate acceptance of the notion that we would bring in this piece of legislation, because it is a worthwhile piece of legislation. It is a direction we should be going. We commend the government for introducing it.

Really, in this particular case here, if the minister is truly interested in providing a strong advocacy for the youth of this Province, why would there be such a resistence to excluding a particular piece of the bill that does nothing to take away from the intent? But, she is getting some advice that suggests it might, in fact, strengthen. Whether it strengthens the bill or strengthens government's position, if, in fact the fundamental question - and I think this is the acid test here - if, by taking out this particular clause, does it in some way, in some fashion, do any little minuscule thing at all to advance the interests of the youth? If the answer to that question is yes, I think it is worthy of excluding it from this particular bill. That is fundamental.

I think, if the minister is concerned about what that might do, and what powers that might give the child advocate, my colleague has already identified in part 3.(a) the significance of having this particular role and what the office will do in terms of ensuring the rights, but also, just to ensure that the minister does not get a sincere feeling, a sense that the advocate may be going out on some kind of witch hunt, if we look at clause 18, the child advocate has the right to dismiss and not investigate what is a half-dozen provisions in here. Obviously, the way this legislation is laid out, the child advocate is only going to get involved in the investigation of some significant issues. This clause 18 dismisses all the miscellaneous, irrelevant kinds of things that they may be asked to do. I think this provision here fully recognizes, as the Premier indicated, there are going to be other people involved in this case. There will be social workers and case mangers. We all recognize that they are going to be a part of this process as well. Clearly here in section 18, there is a provision here that identifies and gives direction to the advocate of the kinds of things that person will not get involved in. You know at the end of the day, if the issue of a complaint comes up, the child advocate is only going to investigate and deal with those issues that are considered significant. If the person is only going to be dealing with issues that are considered significant, why would you want to, in any way, tie their hands or impede their ability to conduct an investigation that clearly is in the best interests of the youth or child, the subject of the complaint?

Clearly, I suggest to the minister, it is fundamental. This might be a very simple way of looking at it, but take the bill itself, go back to the notes that you had at the beginning, and ask yourself: Why is it we are bringing in this particular piece of legislation? Very succinctly and very clearly in two sentences, you have given it to us in the explanatory notes. Then ask yourself: Why am I resisting? Why am I refusing to consider removing 23.(2)? Will it, in any way, take away from my original intent? Will it, in any way, do something to impair the ability of the child advocate to function? Or does it, in any way at all, even in a very small way, if it strengthens the role the advocate has, and in some small way has some real benefit, and the real benefit at the end of the day is going to be derived to the children and the youth of this Province, then why would you not want to consider removing it, if it doesn't do anything to take away from your intent? That is fundamentally the question that I ask the ministers to give some consideration to before we move further.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I would like to say a few words on Bill 46 as well, and particularly the clause that is in debate before you today, 23.(2). I would like to say also, Madam Chairperson, that I really cannot believe that we are here today debating this, but we all know the history of what happened to many children in this Province. As has been stated by previous members here today, we should not be doing anything that will lead us in a direction where the mistakes that were made in the past might be repeated.

I would like to draw a little analogy, too, Madam Chairperson, if I could. We are talking here, in this piece of legislation, about the rights of children and our youth, the most vulnerable people in our society, as has been demonstrated many times in the past. I would like to say, let's look at it this way: In this Province today, we have what is known as ‘dial a poacher', where I can pick up the phone and call a number and accuse any member in this House of having illegal moose meat or fish, or whatever, in their possession. Wildlife or the police do not call the person that I accused and say: Listen, in twenty-four hours' time I am going to be there to check your freezer. They go immediately, Madam Chairperson, and do what has to be done.

I say to the minister that in this sense, where we are dealing with children, where it is their lives and their futures at risk, we should not, in any way, shape or form, be offering advance notice if it is not required. If it is required that a person, a child advocate, has to go into a premise as part of an inspection, then they should have an unfettered right to do that without providing notice to the place or the people that they are going.

I say also to the minister, Madam Chairperson, that this is a good piece of legislation, a good act that all members of this House support, but I want to say: Why leave the issue clouded? If there is something there that people are having a problem with, and we think that it is something that can be improved on, then why not do it? Because, as previous speakers have mentioned, no one on this side of the House has stood today and explained why that is necessary. It is not for convenience, as the Premier would have us believe. I do not think there is a hidden motive for it either, but I would say to the minister: Take it out of the legislation. It is not necessary that it be there. Let the advocate do the job that they will have the responsibility of doing.

Other than that, this is great progress in the area of child and youth protection, of child and youth advocacy, to protect their rights and ensure that they are having a place in our society, a place in the areas that they deserve. As I said in the beginning, we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, because the children and the young people are the ones who suffer. It is not the people who are in this House, it is not the vast number of people in the Province, but our young people, our youth, and our children are certainly more vulnerable. I think that anything that can be removed from this bill that will enhance the role of the child advocate should be done.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Madam Chairperson, I rise today to speak with regard to the amendment and in favor of the amendment. I cannot understand how what I consider to be a friendly amendment, has gotten so unfriendly.

We on this side of the House are certainly here for children, as I am sure are the members on the other side of the House. I do not take it away from them. We welcome - and I say we, everyone in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - this piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, I look forward to it.

I was going to speak on the amendment later on but this particular amendment needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed now. If, indeed, this goes forward without address I fear that it will be a flaw within this piece of legislation. It is for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador that we have to stand up. We have to speak to make sure that the minister understands that this is a request to make this legislation stronger.

The clause in question, 23(2) - to preface that beforehand, I go back to clause 18. It talks about the advocate, as to whether or not to do a review or an investigation. Prior to any review or investigation, I would assume that the advocate has to move freely to see whether or not a review or investigation is necessary. If that is the case, we go over then to the clause in question. It says here, in the first part of it, "For the purpose of this Act..." and I guess words are important, "...the advocate may enter a premises...". Now that is permission.

Then we look at the second part of it, subsection (2): Before entering the advocate shall notify. So that is a condition that is placed upon the entry into the premises. Again, if you are giving permission, why put a condition? It is most important that we have the interests of the child here, to make sure that the advocate can move freely; that there is no impediment, whatsoever, to the movement of this advocate - to he or she - as they go about their business; whether it is to find out if a review or investigation is necessary or whether it is to carry out a review and investigation. There should be nothing that would impede the advocate from carrying out the duties that this legislation placed upon the child or the youth advocate. We know that there are many agencies of government. There are many departments of government, and the availability of the deputy minister or the administrative head could be delayed. There is no need, again, to impede the progress of the child and youth advocate in carrying out his or her business.

Again, I ask the minister to certainly consider what has been put forth. You have heard from members on this side of the House in asking you - and I say to you again, minister, it appears to me to be a friendly amendment because if it is taken out it does not change the intent of the act of the bill. As a matter of fact, I agree with the previous speakers in indicating that it strengthens the legislation. If it strengthens the legislation it means to me that it strengthens the case of the advocate. The advocate is there for the child, it is there for the youth of this Province. So, any way that we can strengthen the position of the child or youth advocate, let's do it. Let's do it now before it is too late. Now is the time. That is the purpose of this debate. That is the purpose, I assume, of committee, so that amendments can come forth. We can stop, I suppose, a part of the act from going through that will take away from this piece of legislation that so many people have waited for, for so long. Again, I urge the minister to listen to the debate and consider accepting this, what I consider to be, a friendly amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Madam Chair.

There are a number of comments that I would like to make for the purposes of clarification, and to just ensure that we all understand what the role of the child advocate is and how it is provided for in this legislation. Then I will comment specifically with respect to the proposed amendment and suggest a course that we can follow here.

As I listened to the debate from the original comments when they were brought forward by the Member from St. John's West, we seemed to be embarked on a discussion which was giving example to a role of the child advocate which was really one of child protection. The examples that were given and cited time after time were ones where children were at risk and the potential implication of having a notification given to a Deputy Minister in Health and Community Services would somehow put a child at risk. I think, ladies and gentlemen, we all realize that is not the implication of this particular section of clause 23. It has nothing to do with that. We all know, for example, in the event that the child advocate were to become aware or to consider or think that a child was at risk, in any kind of situation, she or he would have the same obligation to report that - to report it to child protection, to report it to the police if necessary - and the appropriate action would have to be taken. So this is not a question of, in anyway, causing a delay in a process which might put a child at risk.

I think that if members were to look back again, as other members have done, at the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate and why it is established, it says very clearly why it is established in the four clauses under section 3, but then I would encourage you to look at section 15 again. It says: "In carrying out the duties of his or her office, the advocate may (a) receive and review a matter relating to a child or youth or a group of them... (b) advocate or mediate or use another dispute resolution process on behalf of a child, youth or a group of them...".

Section (c) is very relevant: "where advocacy or mediation or another dispute resolution process has not resulted in an outcome the advocate believes is satisfactory...". The advocate has gone through now on behalf of a particular case or a group or any example you want to take here. Advocacy has (inaudible). If mediation or another dispute resolution process has not resulted in the outcome the advocate believes is satisfactory, then the advocate can conduct an investigation on behalf of the child or youth or a group of them, whether or not a request is made. So, there is a definite process here.

When members opposite suggest that the BC legislation is the landmark here, I suggest to you that the legislation that we have is the leading legislation in the country today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: This will surpass the BC legislation. For example, the reason that - I would suggest a possible explanation of why a clause like 23(2) is not included in the BC legislation is the fact that the child advocate does not have investigative powers in British Columbia. Clearly, there probably would not even be a requirement for that kind of process.

Madam Chair, I would suggest to you, first of all, that the reason for having this there is that the whole thrust of the bill is to have the child advocate be able to make the system work for the child. It is outlined in the powers and it is outlined in the overall scope of the child advocate. This particular section is simply intended to expedite the path for the child advocate to be able to do just that, to make the system work for the child.

To take a particular example where all of those three other mechanisms have failed now, and the advocate wishes to go and actually visit a site to try and see if, firsthand, they can make this happen and get more satisfactory results for a child, then they are going to call up either the CEO of a board or the deputy minister of my department and notify them that they are coming in to talk to someone, somewhere in the system, as far out as that may be in terms of where that service is actually provided.

In terms of where we can go with this, what I would suggest - and I would make one recommendation for an amendment to this amendment, if you wish. If you look at this from a perspective of being consistent with officers of the House, in last spring sitting we passed a bill - Bill 10, I believe was the number - which gave authority and provided for the Ombudsman, our Citizens' Representative. In that piece of legislation there is a section, 35(1), which says: "For the purpose of this Act, the Citizens' Representative may enter the premises occupied by a department or agency of the government and carry out an investigation within his or her jurisdiction." This is exactly the same thrust as section 23.

However - and here is where the amendment is - in the second part of it, it says: "Upon entering a premises under subsection (1), the Citizens' Representative shall notify the deputy minister or administrative head...". I would recommend, and I put forward as an amendment to what is being proposed, that we change subsection (2) of section 23, to delete the word before and substitute upon entering a premises under subsection (1), the advocate shall notify the deputy minister or administrative head. It is exactly then, the same kind of provision that is given to the citizens' representative. It is done as a consequence at the time of. It should expedite what everybody is trying to do here. I put that forward for recommendation.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, I hesitate to raise a point of order. There are now two amendments on the floor being debated. I suppose, that is in order.

The amendment that the minister is proposing certainly satisfies the concerns that I had. I do not know about the seconder of my amendment. My amendment was seconded by the Member for St. John's West. I will give her a chance to -

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to see a copy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) but removing the word - the effect of the amendment would remove the word before and replace it with upon. I think that meets the spirit of the concerns raised here. I think the issue really is, why do we have a right of entry at all? The reason we have a right of entry - if you said that all public servants were wonderful they would not refuse admission. They would not need a right of entry, they would open the doors and say come on in. So, the right of entry is there for a particular purpose.

I do not have a problem with the amendment but with the consent of the seconder, the Member for St. John's West, on the basis of the minister's proposed amendment I would withdraw the amendment and allow the minister's amendment to be debated and voted on because it meets the spirit of the concerns that were raised by me and others on this side. I believe the others would agree as well. My amendment then, to delete 23(2), is now withdrawn.

MADAM CHAIR: Is it agreed that the member's amendment be withdrawn?

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: I cannot speak for my hon. colleague, the seconder, but I do believe that changing that wording also with respect to the Citizens' Representative, having that phrase in there, I do believe that will achieve the intention that we had on this side and in our caucus. It would have the effect of giving due notice upon arrival but not necessarily having to give advance notice. We will be satisfied, I do believe, with that wording, particularly if you put in the section from the Citizens' Representative, keeping in mind that the child advocate is an officer of this Legislature and that is very important in this particular piece of legislation. We in our caucus, I do believe, will be satisfied to accept the minister's amendment and move on.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

One wonders what all the fuss was about. Really. It is very important from our point of view, but what was all - one has to wonder what the resistance was up front. Clearly, our initial intention with respect to the debate that occurred, put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, seconded by the Member for St. John's West, had to do with giving notice prior to entering; not notification that you were going to review but, before entering, you had to give notice. Clearly the one word change, deleting before and putting upon, certainly satisfies the spirit and intent of the debate that occurred so that no notice would be given. So, if the child advocate shows up on the Premier's doorstep or on my doorstep, they can say we are here; now, let's have a look at what is taking place. That is essentially what it means, so we support wholeheartedly the amendment to the amendment put forward by the Minister of Health.

It is a sign that when - this is a legitimate example of where there is legitimate and bonafide concern over a bill where there is general and broad-based support amongst all parties in the House, that where there is a deficiency identified that is put forward in a sincere and contrite manner, taken as such, where calmer heads prevail, that progress is made. On that point, I wish to thank the hon. members for the debate because I think it was worthwhile, and thank them for taking the spirit of co-operation with respect to the amendments made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, I just want to say that I think again this points out the importance of debate. It points out as well the point that I made earlier, that hon. members, in the spirit of co-operation, ought to get their amendments to us so that everybody can look at them and we wouldn't have to carry out the debate. I know that hon. members of the Official Opposition have been doing that, and we ask everybody to get engaged in that in the future, Madam Chair, so that the debate can be expedited in a rational and intelligent manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I say to the Deputy Premier, if people on that side did not provoke people over here, we wouldn't be here all day. I would say to the Government House Leader, the rationality of the debate did not have anything to do with the fact that we did not have four days' notice of a very simple, straightforward amendment, the spirit of which was fairly obvious five or ten minutes into the debate. At the same time, of course, we recognize that the government has seen the wisdom of the point made.

I would make this further point. The Government House Leader is talking about the Committee of the Whole on a piece of legislation. We have Legislation Review Committees that this House has set up for years and years. They have not been used to look at debate. This bill, and most of the legislation before us, should have gone to a Legislation Review Committee where it could be debated at leisure without the public glare, without people taking sides and digging in their heels, and politicizing everything, and that improvement could well have made along the way and when it came to this House it would have been ready to be voted on and passed.

There are other processes, I say, that would have made this legislation better. I do not think we need to try to score points here by saying that the amendment should have been presented yesterday instead of today. It was a good amendment and the spirit of it was recognized by the other side. For that, I thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment moved by the hon. member be withdrawn?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, amendment withdrawn.

MADAM CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment, as amended by the hon. the Minister of Health, be adopted?

All those in favour, ‘aye'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 23 as amended carried.

On motion, clauses 24 through 31 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 32 carry?

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

A few days ago, I gave notice of an amendment to clause 32, which has to do with the Schedule. The amendment is as follows: An Act Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate; by adding to the Schedule after the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation the following: the school boards of Newfoundland and Labrador as constituted by an order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under section 53 of the Schools Act, 1997.

When you look at the Schedule, you will notice that the Schedule contains a wide range of government departments. I will read through the Schedule. It says: Criminal Code Mental Disorder Review Board (section 672.38 Criminal Code); a hospital board or authority incorporated under the Hospitals Act; a health or community services board incorporated under the Health and Community Services Act; Mental Health Review Board; Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission: the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, and then it has: a board, commission or other body added to this Schedule by order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

Madam Chair, I note that some of the other legislation in the initial stages did not include educational authorities. For example, if you look at the Ontario example, when they started off with their child advocate legislation, it did not include the school board system; but the intent of the legislation when it was drafted first was that it be kind of constrained to children who were receiving services from their ministry of community and social services.

After they got the legislation passed and the system became operational, it became obvious that the scope of the child advocate's role should be expanded to include other government departments and other agencies, and the educational system was added to that particular schedule. What I am saying today is: Add the educational system in a systemic way, with the potential later on of doing case advocacy relative to the educational system as operated by the school boards.

I note as well that in the case of British Columbia, again they did not initially include the educational system, but afterwards the educational system became added to the scope of authority given to the child advocate. What we here on our side are saying is: Add the school boards, their agencies, up front. Do it now.

We believe that a good many of the difficulties that you hear in Newfoundland and Labrador have to do with interaction between parents and the school board system. That is not to say that school guidance councillors, administrators, school board officials, or the elected trustees are not all advocates for children; they are, as are the people who work in the bureaucracy looking after children.

What we are saying, by planning to put forward to the House by this amendment, is to give children of this Province the opportunity, in cases where they have difficulties with the educational system, for the advocate to be able to speak up on their behalf.

I am sure that the minister would be well aware of all of the commentary that was given to the select committee. I noticed, when I asked the minister a few days ago if she would table before the House a list of all of the locations at which the government and her ministry held consultations on the drafting of the Child and Youth Advocate legislation, that there are lots of government departments listed but very few of the school boards were asked to have representation.

I have a listing here of ninety-two groups that the minister met with in the drafting of this legislation, but missing here, for the most part, are people who represent the school boards, the school trustees in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, if you were to look at the people who spoke to the select committee, you would find that a great number of these were people who were having difficulties with the educational system.

Madam Chair, I believe that adding these school boards and their agencies to the schedule will indeed strengthen the advocate's office and will indeed add a greater level of protection, a greater level of interaction between the school boards and the children they are responsible for, and will serve children better. The whole point of this legislation is that we can serve children better.

Madam Chair, I believe that adding school boards to the schedule will be helpful, will facilitate a better response to the concerns of children, and response to the concerns of parents. Parents want what is best for their children, and in some cases they have great frustrations with school boards. They need to have occasion where they can ask someone to have a second look. What I am saying here is that the advocate can be that independent person who can look at the situation. Again I refer, Madam Minister, to the tremendous number of people who came out and made representations when we did the select committee hearing. Great numbers of them told us of their frustration with the educational system. I believe it would serve the children well if the schedule included the school boards in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I rise, too, in favour of this amendment with regard to clause 32 as it applies to the schedule of the government agencies and boards that would be included under the Child and Youth Advocate. I begin by looking at the list of the boards and agencies, and there are a fair number of them there.

When we look at the child and youth advocate, it is the delivery of services that we are talking about. The child and youth advocate would be there to ensure that the provision of those services was for the child or children or the youth, and also that these services would not be interrupted.

When we look at delivery of services to children, I have to say there were three areas, Madam Chair, that are absolutely essential core, whichever you want to refer to them as. These three areas are social services, health, and education. The three of them are what is absolutely required in order for the children, the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador, to develop as they should develop, assured of the delivery of services that is absolutely essential to their development into young adults.

When we look at these three services, and I look at the Schedule, yes, we do have the social services representative there. We do have the health but we do not have representative of the education aspect of the child's development, and it has to be a balanced approach. So, the question is: Why isn't education included under this particular act? It is most important that we consider putting education into the Schedule because it is absolutely essential, as I have said, to the development of children, of the youth of this Province.

When we look at the education system, it is being run by elected boards, but when we look at the aspect of the boards - and I believe the Minister of Education said the other day that the elected trustees will take care to make sure that the delivery of services under the education system is carried out, and that they are responsible because that is what they were elected for, that is what they are there for. That is not to say, Madam Chair, that appointed trustees in health boards or community boards are not under the same sort of a mandate in order to deliver these services. Just to say that they are elected or appointed does not take away from the fact that the Child and Youth Advocate has to be able to get into the systems to look at any complaints, any concerns, that the children of this Province may, indeed, have. When it comes to the education system there has been - and my colleague from Waterford Valley has already alluded to it - tremendous frustration expressed with regard to having a second look at things.

I don't have to remind, Madam Chair, I am sure of the restructuring that went on in the 1990s. There were many schools closed down and students were, I guess, trucked to different schools, schools were closed down. In seeing this, parents went through the process, but in going through the process they often saw the delivery of services as being detrimental to the development of their own individual child or to a group of children. Once they went to the board and put their case forward then there was an appeal, but the appeal was by the same body. So there was tremendous, tremendous frustration. In looking at that frustration, the children, the students, the youth, felt that they did not have anyone to give it a second look, that they could appeal to. This is where the child advocate would certainly come in.

As the time is moving on, Madam Chair, I wonder would it be inappropriate for me to adjourn debate and finish up my comments after the break? It is getting close to it so I look at the Government House Leader. Is that acceptable?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay.

MR. LUSH: That is acceptable, and rather than rise Committee we will just recess until 6:45 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:45 p.m.

MADAM CHAIR (Ms Hodder): Order, please!

I believe at the time that we recessed we had adjourned debate.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to continue on with regard to the amendment put forth by my colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley, it involves the addition of the school boards to the Schedule, which I feel is most important because there are issues with regard to education that certainly a Child and Youth Advocate could very well address. The Child and Youth Advocate would have access to the social services agencies, and does have access to the health agencies and other government agencies, all except education.

My colleague again mentioned that in other jurisdictions, after bringing in a Child and Youth Advocate, that the education school boards were added on to that particular act. So the question is: What sort of situations warrant us requesting, in this amendment, that the education school boards be added on?

I say, Madam Chair, when it comes to the children, the youth, in the education system, there are situations that may arise that certainly cause great frustration for the children, the youth, and the parents, and there is a feeling that the decisions of boards, the decisions of the department, are final, there is no appeal mechanism there whatsoever, and it just adds to the frustration. Plus, it is not conducive to change, positive change, in making sure that the educational services are delivered to our children, to our youth, of this particular Province.

One particular group that I draw attention to, Madam Chair, would be students who are challenged for different reasons; students who are, I guess, special needs students, especially as it applies to accessibility. I brought this up in the second reading of this bill, talking about how important it is for the children, the youth in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to have physical access to buildings and certainly access to programs. This is why it is most important that we include this very important aspect of the child's or the youth's life in this bill by adding to the Schedule, the education system, the school boards of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have seen situations where, as I pointed out, there are schools that cannot deliver services to the students who are within that school simply because of the physical limitations; simply because, Madam Chair, they do not have the resources. I think it is very, very important that individual cases can be brought to the attention of the advocate so that the advocate can speak, certainly, on behalf of a student or a group of students who may find themselves in a situation whereby they cannot access services within the system because of, as I pointed out, physical limitations or resource limitations or whatever the case might be. These groups, Madam Chair, have lobbied - and again my colleague made reference to the groups that have lobbied to the committee looking at this particular bill - and they lobbied hard for the inclusion of education into the bill, into the Schedule, and it is most important that it go in there.

As well, we know that there are some situations, of course, if you look at a situation where a student may feel that the action of a board may have limited their ability to move forward, be it through graduation or promotion or the like, there has to be some avenue for these students, for these children, to address that particular concern.

As for, I guess, getting swamped - and this is a concern that maybe the people who put the bill together think, with all the issues that are out in education, that the Child Advocate could indeed become swamped with minor, frivolous concerns that students, children, youth, could bring up, but there is provision in the act for the Child Advocate to pick through any requests that come in, and indeed decide not to do a review or not to do an investigation.

I mention as well that the frustration level that people who use the system, or whose children use the system, peaks at different times for different reasons. Again it is very important, Madam Chair, that any type of situation that would arise in education or any other agency can certainly be addressed. It needs to be addressed because it is the children whose lives are important here, and anything that would, I guess, prevent the delivery of, in my case, what I am referring to, the educational services to the child, to the youth, anything that hinders that has to be pushed aside. The Child and Youth Advocate can be a welcomed addition to the education system; welcome in the sense that the advocate can assist, be it the government, be it the people, in pushing forth changes, reforms, calling for changes or reforms, Madam Chair, that can only help us in preparing the children, the youth of this Province, as they move forward in their educational career.

With regard to education now, of course, it is certainly most important that it be part of the overall plan. To get back to where I started, Madam Chair, I talked about education, social services and health as certainly very, very important foundations for the solid development of children, youth, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We must certainly look at this amendment and take it in the light in which it was put before this Assembly. It is there for the purpose of giving the child, the youth, in our Province yet another opportunity, Madam Chair, to be able to avail of the full services that are required in order to develop fully, educationally, socially and otherwise, in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Again, I support the amendment. The amendment is an important one. It is an omission that I feel very strongly will take away from this particular bill, an omission, I say, Madam Chair, that if it is not addressed, can, I guess, put children and youth in a situation where they may not have any type of an avenue to bring forth any of the concerns that they have regarding the delivery of service in this educational system. The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate certainly is intended as a office to look at the individual concerns, the system's concerns, and, I guess, community concerns. By putting in education, it is again putting in a very, very important part of the child's, the youth's, upbringing, as most important. The delivery of these three services, the social services, the health services and the education services, is what is going to allow this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to move forward.

I mentioned to you too, Madam Chair, that the population of our school children, of our youth, is declining, and it will certainly be in the interests of all to be able to address more concerns as the population declines. The Child and Youth Advocate in other jurisdictions that I have looked at certainly addresses educational concerns. There are calls from children, from youth, in schools for the advocate services that the Child and Youth Advocate will be involved in. The other aspects, the social services, the health and the education, certainly go along with that particular scenario.

So, in cluing up, Madam Chair, again I say it is an amendment that is, what I consider to be, a friendly amendment, an amendment that includes at least one-third of, what I consider, a core essential service, and that, without its inclusion, weakens the bill. Its inclusion certainly would strengthen it and make sure that the children who attend our schools will have access to an advocate who will speak on their behalf with regard to the delivery of services, the educational services, and these children, these youth of this Province, will be the better for it. That is what this is all about. I do not see the aspect of leaving it out as strengthening the bill. As a matter of fact, it is the opposite.

So, I will leave it at that, and I will leave it to some of my colleagues, perhaps, to continue on.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to make a few comments on the amendment to Bill 46 put forward by my hon. colleague from Waterford Valley. The Member for Waterford Valley felt it was important to add to the Schedule of the bill the schools boards of Newfoundland and Labrador, as constituted by an order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council under section 53 of the Schools Act, 1997. Coming from the Member for Waterford Valley, who has been involved with the education system here in the Province for almost thirty years, Madam Chair, I feel that he knows of what he speaks, I say to the members opposite; he know of what he speaks.

When you look at the Schedule attached to the bill, Madam Chair, as part of the Schedule we have hospital boards, we have health and community services boards, we have the Mental Health Review Board, we have the Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission, we have the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, and a board, commission, or other body added to this Schedule by order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The Member for Waterford Valley felt it important, with this child advocate piece of legislation, to have this amendment put forward.

I would certainly like to echo the comments of my colleagues on this side of the House, and in other parties also, who support this legislation. We truly believe that this legislation is something that is long overdue. We have supported it for quite some time. We had a debate today where we made some amendments that were accepted by the government, hopefully to strengthen the bill. Therefore, the Member for Waterford Valley felt that by putting forward this amendment, at least it would provide the opportunity for children, who are involved in the education system in the Province, to have a stronger voice, and the Child Advocate could move in, advocate on their behalf and assist them.

Madam Chair, I do not have to go any further than back only a few months ago with a situation in my own district where I believe that the Child Advocate could have been used and used in a very proper manner, and that is with a busing situation that we had in my district back in September; a busing situation for the students out in the communities of Branch and Point Lance in St. Mary's Bay, and the concern that the parents in those communities had in relation to the safe transportation of their children back and forth to school.

When this issue was raised early in September of this year, Madam Chair, the parents had grave concerns. They brought the concerns they had to the administration of Fatima Academy in St. Bride's, and in relation to the busing situation, the administration of the school did not have very much to do with that. Certainly it had nothing to do with creating the laws and regulations that go with it. So finding that they could not change the busing situation through the school administration, they contacted the school council which is a legislative body under the Schools' Act. When they found that the school council, once again, could not do much to help alleviate the concerns the parents had in relation to safety, they took their situation to the school board. The school board, which is supposed to oversee busing in the district, busing in the Cape Shore area, certainly did not feel that there was a safety concern. They felt that they had addressed the concerns of the parents who were there, in relation to changing the busing routes as they related to the amount of students who were already on the bus and, in this situation, to put seventy-two students on a seventy-two-passenger bus. We all know the situation that arose with that. The fact is, there is some feeling that the school board now can take care of that. We believe the Child Advocate could have been used in a situation like that, Madam Chair.

There were some concerns with the school board, for the simple reason that - to give an example, we went down to Spaniard's Bay to a protest that the parents had from Branch and Point Lance, and one of the school board trustees who had been involved in the school board for almost twenty-five years, Mr. Richard Careen from St. Bride's, arrived there that day, and we found that the situation was that two employees of the school board were on their way into the Department of Education for a meeting with the deputy minister. When Richard went in, as a school board trustee, and decided he was going to go along to the meeting with the school board employees, he was informed that he could not go. Here you had an elected school board trustee who felt he wanted an opportunity to sit down at the deputy minister's table and relate the concerns of the students in the district, but the school board employees decided he was not going to be part of that. That certainly raised some concerns, exactly what the school board trustees could do.

That is why we feel that adding the educational system or the school boards of Newfoundland and Labrador to the Schedule for this bill would be an excellent opportunity - if it had been in place at that time, it would have been an excellent opportunity - for the Child Advocate to be brought on side, brought on board - pardon the pun - to deal with the busing issue. This situation continued on. They had the Newfoundland and Labrador Safety Council involved; they had the local detachment of the RCMP, the Placentia-Whitbourne detachment of the RCMP involved; the Department of Works, Services and Transportation traffic control were involved, and the situation ended up in The Supreme Court of Newfoundland before it was - I was almost going to say before it was finished but it is not even finished yet, Madam Chair. The situation arose where this was an opportunity where parents had a concern, where students had a concern, but it seemed that wherever they went doors were closed in their faces. There was an opportunity here, if a Child Advocate had to be in place, to take the concerns of the parents and the students of the communities of Branch and Point Lance in September to government or to the school board on their behalf, or wherever the decision could be reached. Because of that, we believe that, with the amendment put forward by the Member of Waterford Valley, there is an opportunity here to have a voice for the children of the Province.

There is a little less than somewhere around 90,000-plus children in schools in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Madam Chair, and we believe the education system needs a voice in many cases. Through legislation here in the House, we have formed the school councils, but they really do not have the strong arm that you need to deal with situations such as this.

In the situation with the busing, it became a problem between the school board and/or the Department of Education, and trying to get answers straight for the parents and the students was difficult. We believe that if we had to have a situation here where we had the Child Advocate in place, the Office of the Child Advocate could have intervened on behalf of the parents and the students of Branch and Point Lance, and the decision would have been made which would not have caused so much strife to the parents involved. This went on for almost a month, Madam Chair. It caused a lot of concern and disruption at Fatima Academy in St. Bride's. It caused a lot of concern for the parents and the students of those communities.

We believe that there is an opportunity here, through this piece of legislation - as I said, a very good piece of legislation - to move an amendment to strengthen the legislation so it takes in all the concerns of the children in the Province. Certainly the educational system in the Province is something that is of concern to us all. For the children and the parents to have a voice here at the table, and to have an officer of the House of Assembly who will be the Child Advocate to have a strong voice to represent them, I think, would be a step in the right direction. That is why I am pleased tonight to stand and fully support the amendment put forward by the Member for Waterford Valley, not only on behalf of the parents and students of the communities of Branch and Point Lance - it just happened that was the situation that I wanted to relay here tonight - but indeed on behalf of the parents and the students who are involved in the system throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Whatever we, as Members of the House of Assembly, as people here who are bringing forward legislation or debating legislation, can do to strengthen legislation in the House that would give an extra voice, a shoulder to lean on in a lot of cases, to the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is something that we on this side of the House fully support.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Clearly, I do not agree with the amendment that would see the school boards or the school system included in the new legislation. To do so, in fact, would be setting a precedent. It does not exist in any other jurisdiction in the country. Having said that, Madam Chair, we do have, in this Province, elected school boards. These are trustees who offer themselves for office. They want to make a difference. They are there to represent the interests of children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: They are there and they do a very good job, Madam Chair.

We also have school councils comprised primarily of parents. Clearly, if anyone is going to speak on behalf of the child in the education system, it is the parents. So, again, we have the school boards and we have school councils, both of whom are there to represent the interests of the children. If, for some reason, parents have a difficulty in terms of getting proper representation from their elected trustees or the school council representatives - and I cannot imagine that they would, but if they do - there is an appeals process under the Schools Act that any parent or any child can access in terms in trying to deal with the issue of a concern that he or she may have.

Clearly, Madam Chair, there are measures in place to deal with any issue of concern in the educational system that any child or parent may have. Having said that, I think what we have to recognize here is that these are the measures. We should not look at the fact that the school board is not included as an omission but instead as a recognition that there are already measures in place to deal with any concerns that parents or children may have.

Now, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's raised the issue with respect to Fatima and the busing issue. He knows as well as I do, Madam Chair, what prompted that whole scenario down with Fatima and the other children going to Fatima. The fact of the matter was that if we had not had to re-tender the busing system down there, we would not have found ourselves in the situation that we did: where, in fact, the contractor who had the tender for the buses said he could not carry out the third year of that contract, that he needed to re-tender it; and, of course, in doing so, we come up with a cost that was $70,000 more in terms of what he was willing to tender it for. That, for us, became an issue, Madam Chair. Clearly, if you looked at that cost over three years, you were talking over $200,000 to deliver that particular busing service. It was not something we could entertain when we had a reduction in the number of students in the system.

I recognize what the member has said, that between the school councils, the school board, the school administration and the Department of Education, they were trying to get the busing system back to what it used to be even though we have fewer students. He knows full well that the number of students, the seventy-two students on that school bus, was not the case when we tendered it. We were looking at sixty-seven students and we were trying to find a way to accommodate those students, recognizing again that we had a decline in the student enrolment in that system. So we would not even have been in that situation if we had not agreed, or if the board had not agreed to go back to tender, because they did not have to. It was a three-year tender that they had, and they did not have to agree but they did so because they thought the contractor was being up-front and reasonable in saying that he could not deliver on the third year of that contract. When he came in on the third year of that contract and re-tendered, again it was for substantially more to deliver than, Mr. Manning, to deliver a service that he could not really afford, he said, under the existing contract that he had.

So the issue for us became the cost of the contract when we had a reduction in the number of students who would be accessing that service. For us it is not an issue of whether or not they had proper access to an advocate. The parents have access to the school board trustees, they have access to the school council, and they have access to the Department of Education. So that was not an issue. There are a lot of measures that are put in place for people to access to get their point across. It is not that there are no measures in place. There are measures in place, and we have elected trustees. If we do not have faith in our elected trustees, what will make the child advocate any more responsible than an elected trustee who is offering themselves for service because they can and they want to make a difference? If you look at the school councils as well, these are parents, and if that fails we have the appeals process to the Schools Act. We are all obligated to abide by the law, and the Schools Act is the law. I obviously will not support the amendment as being put forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to speak in favour of the amendment as well. I have particularly in mind the developmentally delayed unit at St. Matthews school. I think that the school council, of which the minister speaks, is in favour of keeping this unit open. I am of the impression that the school board, as well, are in favour of this unit, but I have the understanding that there are not going to be any more children admitted to this unit. Perhaps if the education was in the schedule under this bill, then the parents who speak for the children -

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you relate this to this bill?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I say to the hon. member, I can relate it to this bill. This unit is in a school, as far as I am concerned, is under education. That unit up there has children who are nonverbal and unable to speak for themselves. As I said, the school council at St. Matthews is totally in favour of keeping that unit opened. The school board, as far as I understand - and I stand to be corrected - are in favour of that unit, and the parents of the children who attend the unit are in favour of the unit.

The last that I heard on the progress of that unit was there were no more children to be admitted. It was not going to closed but by virtual defect, no more children were going to be admitted to that unit and it would therefore be phased out. Now, we can speak of integration and the parents who speak for children who are nonverbal are against integrating their children into the classrooms. The parents of the children who are in that unit have contacted me. I have visited that unit on several occasions. I have spoken to the parents of all of the children, as far as I know, and they have asked me on numerous occasions to speak in this House on their behalf, and in speaking in favour of the amendment I feel that I am speaking on their behalf.

There may be groups or organizations out in the community who feel that the children should be integrated and parents - but not parents of the children who are attending the developmentally delayed unit, because don't forget, the parents of the children who are attending the developmentally delayed unit have the choice of putting their children into the classrooms now but they have chosen to keep their children in this unit; a fabulous unit with a lot of equipment that is not conducive to be used in classrooms.

I speak in favour of the amendment to have education put in there so that the advocate can speak on behalf of these children who are unable to speak for themselves, and in speaking on behalf of the children the advocate will, as well, be speaking on behalf of the parents of the children.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Clearly, I need to respond to what the member opposite has raised with respect to the developmental unit at St. Matthews. These children who are in that unit will not require an advocate, Madam Chair. These children are going to be able to stay in that unit until they reach age twenty. So, there is nothing happening with the children who are in that unit today. They will not be removed from that unit.

What we are attempting to do with units like the one at St. Matthews - there are only three of these in the Province, by the way, and three of them are in St. John's. What we have done out around the Province, working with parents, working with organizations, is integrate the children into their neighbourhood school system. That does not mean that these children will be in the mainstream or going into a regular classroom. All that means is that where they are able to, yes, they will be integrated, but if they do not need to be or they do not want to be or the parents do not want them to be, there can be a similar type unit established in the neighbourhood school. So, instead of children having to come from all over the Avalon Peninsula to St. Matthews, or Holy Heart, or Virginia Park to attend a unit of this sort, we will have units like that around the Province which exist today - only in St. John's do we have units like the one at St. Matthews - and the children who are in St. Matthews today will stay there until they reach the age of twenty.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is the Minister of Education now telling me that if there is one child in such a situation in a neighbourhood that there will be a unit opened in that neighbourhood school to facilitate that one child?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: What I am saying is that in the future children who want the services, such as is being provided right now at St. Matthews, will be able to avail of those services. It will be up to the supports within the school - including the parents, because they all get involved in this decision-making process. In the individual assessment plan that is put in place for every child with special needs, they will all be involved in determining the type of supports that child will receive in the education system. If it is decided that a child cannot go into a regular classroom or a parent does not want their child going into the regular classroom setting there will be supports in place, as there is now throughout the Province, for children with special needs.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In visiting St. Matthews, I have seen some specialized equipment in that unit. Is the Minister of Education telling me that equipment similar to what is in that unit will be put in place, duplicated and triplicated throughout the Province in neighbourhood schools if there are one or two children in that neighbourhood who need the facilities of a unit like that, the equipment will be put in all the neighbourhood schools that pertain?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Let me repeat, Madam Chair. What we are saying is that for any child who requires particular supports within the education system, and they are going to a neighbourhood school and they require those supports, those supports will become available if it is determined by the individual assessment team, which includes the parents, that those services and equipment are required.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to speak to the amendment to add the school boards to the Schedule of this act. I think it is appropriate that the Child Advocate be able to investigate, do reports, make recommendations dealing with the education system as well as other aspects of children's lives. After all, it is one of the most important significant aspects of a child's life, and there is nothing equivalent to that in the education system. It is all very well to say that members of the school boards are elected and therefore there are particular protections there, but that is like the former Premier said when he got rid of the Ombudsman: We do not need an Ombudsman because we have fifty-two people elected in this House. So, obviously, the fact that there is an elected school board -

MR. BARRETT: We only have forty-eight (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation may not remember, but we did have fifty-two members when the former Premier Clyde Wells made that exact same statement: We have fifty-two ombudsmen, what do we need another one for? He fired the Ombudsman. The first democracy in the western world to get rid of an Ombudsman; the only one who ever did it. He called the Open Line show and said: We don't need an Ombudsman; you can either call the Open Line show or call your MHA. Well, that is the same with the kids in school. Are they going to call the school board member because the school board member is an elected person just as members of this House are?

The importance of the Child Advocate -

MS FOOTE: What is wrong with calling a school board member?

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Education says, what is wrong with calling the school board? There is nothing wrong with calling a school board member, any more than there is anything wrong with calling an HMA. We have an Ombudsman as well. We are going to have a Citizens' Advocate for citizens and we are going to have a Child Advocate for children, but you are not going to be able to look at the single most important aspect of children's lives: education. That is what we have, and there is a reason for it.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation just questioned the Member for St. John's West, saying, what was she talking about? What does that have to do with the bill? I say it has everything to do with the bill. That is exactly what this government does not want. They do not want the Child Advocate looking into what kind of services are provided for children with special needs in this Province. They are afraid that it will not stand up to the light and investigation of the Child Advocate. That is why they do not want to do it. They are afraid that every child in this Province with a family that wants to fight for them are going to go to the Child Advocate and demand better services and challenge the services being offered by the Department of Education. That is what they are afraid of, Madam Chair. That is why what the Member for St. John's West was saying was absolutely right.

MS FOOTE: You have really hit the bottom of the barrel now.

MR. HARRIS: We have really hit the bottom of the barrel.

I say to the Minister of Education, I have not hit the bottom of the barrel. It is this government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I have not hit the bottom of the barrel because down at the bottom of the barrel are the members opposite who know that this is exactly why they do not want the Department of Education and the school boards to be under the scrutiny of the Child Advocate. That is why they are reacting the way they are reacting, because I have hit the nail on the head. I am not going down to the bottom of the barrel like this crowd over here. I am telling the truth, because that is exactly why they do not want to do it. In fact, they used an argument: We do not want to do that; it would open the floodgates. There would be too many people complaining to the Child Advocate if we let education into it.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible) argument.

MR. HARRIS: I know you did not use that argument. You did not use that argument here in the House, but you used that argument because that is the reason why school boards had been removed from the Schedule and do not appear there today, because government does not want individuals who have children with special needs come to the Child Advocate, having an independent third party who is not a part of the school system looking at the situation and giving an objective report. That is what they are trying to avoid. That is the real reason, I suggest, why they do not want to include the school boards in this, but that is the very reason why they should be included, because the services that are being provided, what the Department of Education is doing and what the school boards are providing, will meet that standard and then the Child Advocate would be happy to say that the school board is doing enough and that is all that can be reasonably expected from the system.

They are afraid to have an objective look at it, because right now it is in the realm of politics, whether it be school board politics or whether it be government politics. We know what this government does with school boards, the same thing they do with hospital boards: they put them out there to do the dirty work of the government. If they want to close schools, they just take away the money and that forces the school boards to close the schools. That is what they did two years running. For two years running they wanted to use the school boards as scape goats for their policies, the same way they are using the hospital boards as scape goats for their own policy. They are not prepared to allow an objective person who is an advocate for children to have an objective look at the situation. They want to keep it in the realm of politics where we talk about how much money we have and how much money we spend. We just give them the money and they make the choices. I hear the Minister of Education saying it all the time: We make the money available and the school boards have to make the decisions. We are giving them all this money. We are giving them extra money, more money, and they let the school boards make the decision. What they are really doing is shifting the responsibility and trying to shift the blame. That is why they do not want the school boards attached as a part of the Schedule, because they do not want people to have another avenue outside that school board system to go to, who is going to decide on the basis of fairness whether or not what is being offered to a particular individual child is fair and reasonable. That is the real reason. The Member for St. John's West is absolutely right.

I want to strongly support the amendment that the Child Advocate should have the right to look not only at those things that are included here in terms of hospitals, hospital boards, or hospital authorities, health and community services boards, the Mental Health Review Board, the Legal Aid Commission, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, any other commission added to the Schedule by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. We could add other things if we want to. They could, in fact, add these boards to the authority. I do not see the correctional services (inaudible). The government, of course, is affected by it so all of the operations of the children's home, the Whitbourne Youth Correctional Services, would be covered by that, but to leave out educational services being offered to children is doing a disservice to those children who are looking for an objective evaluation of how well they are being served by the schools. I think it is something that the government should accept and they should recognize that this is a necessity.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

Before we conclude the debate on the amendment that will be moved shortly, I just wanted to make a note to say that when we were conducting the hearings for the select committee, great numbers of those people who came forward were educators. They were guidance councillors and they were school administrators. They told stories of what was happening in their classrooms, and parents came forward and told about their difficulty in being able to be assured that the services would be available for their children. As a matter of fact, I remember a parent coming forward in Corner Brook talking about their child and how they were quite prepared to spend great sums of money if they could get services that would be available, how the school system was not able to or was not participating fully in their child's education.

Madam Chair, we on this side believe that a lot of the interactions that the Child Advocate will have will come from difficulties in the educational system. When these parents are told that the advocate cannot handle those particular cases, there is going to be a great deal of disappointment, a great deal of frustration in the Province, because people believe that the advocate is there for all children, within reason, in a great variety of circumstances.

Look at the fact that school guidance councillors in this Province have had their numbers reduced. Many school boards, when they have to cut back on their staffing, cut back on guidance staffing as almost the first casualty, you might say, because that seems to be a service that many school boards feel they can reduce, sometimes (inaudible); when you look at the fact that, in some cases, school guidance councillors have to handle guidance issues in seven, eight and ten different schools, sometimes separated by many, many miles of traveling distance.

We, on this side, believe that education is also a place where everybody, almost all children, have some interaction with the educational system. From ages four-and-a-half until they finish high school, the school system is common to most children, almost all children, virtually 100 per cent, except in very rare circumstances. Therefore, having a Child Advocate being able to access information, being able to do a very thorough - and can do that now - a very systemic evaluation, but also being able to look at, in some cases, the individual circumstance would be a tremendous asset.

I listened to the Minister of Education and the other speakers and they have not told me why not. They obviously are not voting in favour of this particular amendment. I do believe it is a good amendment. I am hoping that the parents who are listening to this particular debate will realize that there will be a lot of children for whom the Child Advocate will not be available to be able to advocate for them in particular circumstances, because they are going to expect a lot more than the advocate is going to be able to do or be able to assign personnel to handle.

We believe that the educational system is important to all of us. All children are important to all of us. All we are simply saying is that when we give the terms of reference to the Citizens' Representative, we did not go and say: Well, you are going to have opportunities to investigate in this division but not in this one. When the Citizens' Representative is out doing his or her job, they can look at any circumstances that come to them.

All we are saying is, they could do the same thing for the Child Advocate. If there is an educational issue, why not? Because we know there will be circumstances when the Child Advocate will be asked to handle school related issues. We feel that by adding the school board to the Schedule it will greatly facilitate the role of the advocate and let him or her do the best job for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I might be able to take a few moments to just respond to some of the last comments that I have heard on this debate on the amendment to include the schools in this act under the Schedule, first of all members opposite have indicated that the Child Advocate is not going to be able to look at education. That is the inference and also the direct comment that I have heard over the course of this debate. Of course, that is not factual. If there is a matter of policy, if there is an issue that is systemic, if there is a direction that comes out of policy from the Department of Education that directs an action at the school board or the school's level, then the Child Advocate will have the authority and the power to review that matter of policy, to review the system, to review and go into the Department of Education and determine whether or not that particular policy or system or direction is acting in the best interests of children.

Clearly, in contrast to what the Member for Waterford Valley has just said about this not being able to act on behalf of all children, this act does provide for all children in this Province; and, in the case of education, it specifically provides for a systemic and a policy determination and review that the advocate can make, which can address any major concerns that would likely arise.

In the event of an individual case that a parent or child disagrees with on the way that the board or school is taking direction from the department or interpreting a policy direction, there are the other avenues of appeal and advocacy that my colleague, the Minister of Education, has identified. There is the possibility to go through the elected school board; there are the school councils which are primarily made up of parents who can act and speak on behalf of children in these circumstances; and, of course, there is the appeal which can be registered under the Schools Act for any situations or circumstances where they still do not agree with the decisions that are being made.

We believe strongly that the mechanisms that are there to provide for children, and specifically there was a lot of discussion about children with special needs, I would have to reinforce the comments that my colleague, the Minister of Education, has made. If you look at the provision of special needs for school children in this Province, we know that, for the most part, we lead the country in this. It is something of which we are tremendously proud. I know that here in the Atlantic Provinces the resources that we allocate towards children with special needs, in the order of $100 million, are in excess of any other Atlantic Province. When you think of the ability and the means that we have, I think that is a very strong statement on our priority for children, and particularly for children with special needs.

Madam Chair, as my colleague has indicated, there is no other jurisdiction in this country that includes schools in their child advocacy legislation. So, in having this legislation in the way that we have brought it forward, we are being consistent with other jurisdictions in this regard, but I would certainly say that in many other aspects, once again, we have taken a great step forward in providing for the interests of our children and in ensuring their rights and in ensuring protection for them, that exceeds other jurisdictions.

Madam Chair, the amendment which has been put forward, it has been suggested, would correct an omission. I would have to agree with my colleague, the Minister of Education, that this was not an omission, that there are recognized means to provide advocacy for children with respect to school issues. We all know what they are. This legislation provides for systemic and policy advocacy through the Department of Education by the Child Advocate. We think this is not only adequate but very appropriate, and consequently I will not be supporting the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

On motion, clauses 32 through 34 carried.

On motion, Schedule carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried, with amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Without.

MADAM CHAIR: Without amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is one amendment.

MADAM CHAIR: We did have an amendment. Twenty-three was an amendment.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, I have two questions. One is: Did we actually vote on the amendment to the Schedule? The second one: I do not think we voted on the amendment as proposed.

MADAM CHAIR: We just did.

MR. HARRIS: We did?

MADAM CHAIR: We just did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't think we did.

To the first question, I do not think we did. The second one is, if the bill was passed, it was passed with amendment, not without amendment.

MADAM CHAIR: Yes, that is right, with amendment. We had an amendment to 23(2).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: We do have amendments. There was 17(3), we did that one, and 23(2). The amendments that were passed were numbers 17 and 23(2).

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MADAM CHAIR: So it did pass with amendments?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

MR. LUSH: Madam Chair, 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 Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 46, An Act Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate, to pass with amendments to clauses 17 and 23(2), and ask leave to sit again.

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

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 15, Bill 45, second reading, An Act Respecting Environmental Protection.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Environmental Protection." (Bill 45)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bill 45, An Act Respecting Environmental Protection, is what many would refer to as an omnibus bill because it does a number of things to a number of different pieces of legislation. It consolidates four acts, plus parts of another act, into one environmental act. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of approaches to consolidate legislation. The easiest and quickest approach is to cut and paste, which is just basically to take pieces of various pieces of legislation and put them into the new bill as they are. A second and better approach is to cut and paste, adding some editing, which is clearly not the case with this particular bill. A third and preferred approach is to write a new act, a truly new law, a bill that would be up-to-date to take into consideration modern times. That is what we would have liked to have seen with this particular act, a bill that would give greater appreciation to environmental concerns because people's attitudes have changed about the environment from twenty years ago, from thirty years ago, even from ten years ago, to today.

People are obviously more concerned about what happens to the environment. They have an understanding of the importance of the environment to sustaining our economy, to what it means for our health, the health of future generations, and what the environment means to people. People have a greater feeling, a greater understanding of the importance of the environment and a greater desire to protect the environment. So any legislation we put in place should be strong legislation, should take into account modern technologies, modern scientific technologies and advancements within industry and how industries should relate to environment so that industry and environment can progress together so that we can see both industry and environment cooperate in what we call our modern day. This bill, clearly, does not take those into consideration.

Option three would have delivered the kind of legislation people of Newfoundland and Labrador want and would like to see. It would reflect the changing values of people in Newfoundland and Labrador towards the environment and the respect of the environment. That is what the people of this Province would like to see in new environmental legislation. That is what we would like to see in new environmental legislation.

The bill reads like several different acts because it is the combination of several different acts. It does not flow as smoothly as we would like to see. Many sections of the acts that are now being consolidated into the environment act were written ten, twenty, some of them thirty years ago, when attitudes were different about the environment. They do not address the environmental concerns or the importance that people place on environmental issues today. The consolidation of these four or five acts into one overlook what people want to see in environmental legislation today.

Times have changed. Our knowledge about environmental protection has changed about the need for environmental protection. Our attitudes towards the environment have changed. Our understanding of protecting the environment has changed. We have learned from things such as the fishery and the lack of the protection that we have shown the fishery over the years. We have learned from what has happened in our forestry industry where proper reforestation has not taken place. People now have a greater understanding of the need to protect the environment to allow for future generations. This bill does not take that into account, Mr. Speaker.

Our values in relation to the environment have changed. Everywhere throughout the world, and it is evident in Newfoundland and Labrador as well, people's values about environmental protection, how we should treat the environment and what we want to pass on to future generations have changed. The unfortunate thing about this particular piece of legislation is that it does not take into account the changing attitudes, the changing values, the changing mindset, the changing attitude that people have towards the environment. Some of the pieces of the bill are decades old and they are being consolidated into what we are calling a new environmental act. It is not a new environmental act. It is a consolidation of many pieces of legislation. Many of those pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, are very old.

We are all more concerned about the environment today than what we were thirty years ago. If we were as concerned about the environment thirty years ago perhaps we would not have seen the crisis in the fishery or the depletion of our forestry resources, as two examples. This act does not reflect any of those changes in knowledge, attitude, or values because many of the sections of the act, as I have said, are old. It is out of date and out of tune with the times. People today want strong legislation. They want legislation that will protect the environment. They want forward thinking and forward looking legislation, Mr. Speaker. They want legislation that will allow for an environment that can be passed on to our children and their children, at least as good as what we have the environment today.

Mr. Speaker, usually when you consolidate things the aim is to ensure that the whole is stronger than the parts, and that is not the case with this particular piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the relatively few strong pieces or sections that are carried over from former acts are diluted by the discretion that is given to the minister. The discretion that is given to the minister in this particular act are very broad. They are very broad discretions when it comes to environmental assessment; environmental review; what penalties to put in place; whether or not there will be agreements with companies as opposed to fines; whether or not there will be investigations done and when to call short those investigations; what standards to put in place for air quality; what standards to put in place for water qualities and different standards for different regions of the Province. The discretions that the minister has under this bill are very strong indeed. People want strong legislation. They want strong legislation to protect the environment, not strong legislation for ministerial discretion. That is the difference with what people want and what this bill offers.

The bill does not meet the reasonable tests for good legislation because good legislation will tell people what they can and cannot do. That does not happen here. The bill would tell those who administer the legislation and those who must comply with it, what they can and cannot do, what they are required to do and how enforcement will be carried out. That is not the case with this particular piece of legislation. This act tells the minister what he can do and how much he can do. This particular piece of legislation, unfortunately, gives the minister control of the law, discretion over the law on how to enforce the law. It gives the minister very broad discretion.

Good legislation clearly identifies known actions and known substances that are a present threat to the public safety and welfare, and bans them or limits their use. This legislation does not do that. This act does not do that. It leaves it up to the minister to decide. The minister has the final say, which is very dangerous. The minister has the final say on what substances, how much of those substances and where, in fact, we put standards in place. There should be one set of standards for everybody. This act will allow the minister to put different standards in place for different areas of the Province. Too much discretion for one minister.

We have seen on this side of the House and the people of this Province have seen what this government's discretion can do. They have seen it in a number of areas, Mr. Speaker. They have seen it with the trans city hospital; they have seen it with Atlantic Leasing; they have seen it in a number of areas. We know what this government's discretion will do. We cannot allow for too much ministerial discretion.

This minister's power might be tolerated if he was required by law to do the things he is authorized to do, but that is not the case. This minister decides what he can and cannot do under this act. Whomever the minister shall be will decide what is permitted under the act, what is not permitted under the act, how far they can go or how little they can do, and that is dangerous. That is why we have concerns with the way this legislation is written. The intent of the legislation is fine. The purpose of the legislation is fine. The problem is the language, Mr. Speaker. The language allows for ministerial discretion far beyond what the minister should be allowed, far beyond what should be permitted, far beyond what would be tolerated by the people of this Province. That is why we have concerns with this particular piece of legislation.

The minister can use the authority he has under the act to do whatever he wants, or simply to do nothing at all. Different people and different proposals can be treated differently under this act. That is very dangerous to allow a minister of the Crown to treat different people differently; to treat people in different parts of the Province differently; to have different standards for air quality for different regions of the Province; to decide different compliance agreements for different people; how tight that compliance agreement should be or how loose that compliance agreement should be; what would be required under an environmental assessment; what may not be required under an environmental assessment; who have to restrict themselves to the rules of the environmental assessment and who may be allowed to bypass those rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) a couple of minutes to clue up his remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

I will just take a couple of moments to clue up, and I thank the Government House Leader for leave.

Mr. Speaker, we have some concerns about this legislation because of the discretion and because of the language that is written in the act. We have some concerns because of the broad powers that it gives the minister. We have some amendments that we intend to put forward on this particular act. I have already given a copy of those to the minister because we have some very strong concerns about what this act will allow, what this act will not allow, and what this act can do. Mr. Speaker, people want strong environmental legislation, not strong ministerial discretion. That is the difference in what this act is offering and what people want.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased tonight to have the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill 45, An Act Respecting Environmental Protection. I listened intently to the Member for St. John's South as he went through different parts of the act and concerns that he has and the power that this act will give to one person, namely, the Minister of Environment. Whether it is the minister that we have in the government today or whether it is a minister somewhere down the road, we, on this side of the House, are very concerned that any one person would have the authority that this act will allow it to give that person. Certainly, these are some concerns that we have.

I have some concerns in relation to waste management, which is part of this act. This act is the combination of five acts coming together to form the new one act of Bill 45. We support the government trying to fine tune legislation instead of having different acts that would take people all over the globe in trying to find rules and regulations. At least now we have an attempt to bring these pieces of legislation together, but it is the amendments to part of the act that certainly concern us on this side of the House, and the Member for St. John's South put these forward.

I would like to raise a concern in relation to waste management, Mr. Speaker, and certainly a concern throughout the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. For a number of years we have had some major, major concerns with the different situations in my district, but namely dump sites. I feel tonight an opportunity and a need to raise this concern. This concern that I am raising has to do with a situation of the number of people, the population in my district, and the amount of dump sites there. Just to give you an idea, from the community of St. Shotts, traveling through my district right into the other end of the district, to the community of Ship Harbour, we have, give or take, sixteen or seventeen dump sites, for around 13,000 or 14,000 people. I think we all would agree, that is something that we just cannot tolerate in this Province any more, and certainly something that we need to have addressed.

There is a waste management committee in place to look at the concerns in relation to waste management, but certainly the one I would like to cue in on for a second, if I could, is a dump located on the highest piece of land out on the Cape Shore, which is the Cuslett hill, more referred to as the St. Bride's dump. It is administered by the Town Council of St. Bride's, but it is used by people from all over the area, especially the communities along the Cape Shore and in other places. We have had some concerns with that dump site for a number of years now, and when I look at this piece of legislation I do not see any really concrete evidence here that, that can be dealt with. That concerns me, as the member for that area, as a resident of that area, that it cannot be dealt with for the simple reason that we have some concerns there which I would like to raise.

We all know of the situation over the last couple of weeks where a Mrs. Margaret Morrissey of the community of Cuslett has certainly raised the concern, not only in the past couple of weeks but indeed over the past couple of years. She found herself, Mr. Speaker, ending up in court just a couple of days ago in relation to trying to bring forward the concerns and the issues of the dump on Cuslett lookout. She found herself in court trying to defend her actions. Her actions were that she tried to stop the garbage trucks from dumping there for the simple reason that we did not have a situation that she felt was conducive to proper living accommodations, especially in our area. We have a dump, as I said, on the highest piece of land on the Cape Shore, that is unprotected in relation to the wind, unprotected in relation to having a fence around it, unprotected in relation to just being open to the elements, and it has caused some grave concerns. Margaret, in her wisdom, has decided to try to raise that issue and bring it to the forefront over the past several months, but the problem goes back much further than that. I was here in the House of Assembly back in 1994 when I invited the then minister, Pat Cowan, out to the area. She came to the area and met with some of the people in the area, some of the community leaders, who are all concerned about the situation on Cuslett lookout, and tried to address it, and tried to get something organized to address the concern that is there. It was certainly a major environmental problem back then, a few years ago.

Shortly after that, Ms Cowan left the House of Assembly and I then dealt with the new Minister of Environment, who is now the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Again I invited the minister of the day out to the area. Once again the minister obliged and came forward. We went out, sat down and met with some community leaders in the area and tried to address the concern on Cuslett lookout. We had an excellent meeting, but again there were some major concerns that needed to be addressed there. Everybody had an idea but nobody really had a concrete answer to the problem.

It raised its ugly head again not too long ago when the present Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs - I approached the minister on the situation, and once again another minister came down to the area. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself toured several sites in the area and certainly had a first-hand look at the situation at Cuslett lookout. There was no doubt about it, we had full agreement that there was a major problem here. The minister once again met with Mrs. Morrissey, who happened to be at the site that day, and some other community leaders in the area, to try to address the concern.

Shortly after that, the people of the area formed the Cape Shore Area Waste Management Committee and when they got the opportunity they applied under the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board for a grant to do a study into the situation there on Cuslett lookout. That study was done by a company, Davis Engineering in Clarenville, and was completed recently. I attended a meeting where that study was presented by the waste management committee. There were some grave concerns with that because there were recommendations in the report that were there to address the concerns of the situation on Cuslett lookout, but at the same time there were a lot of questions by the people around the table in regard to the different types of garbage and the different concerns that people had.

Indeed we have a framework to begin work on it; but, at the same time, an interesting point of the study was that it recommended that the Cuslett lookout site be closed down immediately and it recommended that there be something done immediately with the situation as it sits there. At the same time again, like any problem we have in the Province in relation to environment or any other problem, Mr. Speaker, it costs money.

A point which I disagree with in the report is that they suggested somewhere in the market of $20,000 to $24,000 to clean up the existing site there. Believe you me, after talking to some people who had been involved in that process before, I certainly believe that you could allow for ten times that amount, upwards of $250,000, just to clean up the existing site; but there are some concerns there in relation to what should happen. Back twenty or twenty-five years ago, when we had the situation there on Cuslett lookout, it did not seem like there was as much garbage floating around in the area - the plastic bags and the containers. I would just like to say -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarification purposes, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's has in his possession a report that was commissioned by the waste management group out there that he is talking about now. I just want it to be clarified, to be absolutely certain that he has that report, because government does not.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the minister - you are always a step behind - I have a copy of the report that was submitted to the Cape Shore Area Waste Management Committee in relation to the situation not only in Cuslett lookout but indeed in the whole area of waste management in the Cape Shore area. That study was paid for by money that came forward from the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board on the encouragement of the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time to apply for that funding, which the committee did. So I would say I just hope that the present Minister of Environment has as much encouragement for the people in that area to get the job done to correct the situation, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs has, I say to the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: It is a situation which I believe needs direct attention from the Minister of Environment. I encourage the Minister of Environment to take a trip down to the Cape Shore and have a look for himself, first-hand. I am sure his colleague who sits right in front of him, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, can relay to him the serious situation that exists there. We have a growing tourism industry in our area with the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve, the development of the Cape Shore Loop, and with the Gateway in Argentia. when people come into Argentia they travel out the Cape Shore area down through St. Mary's Bay. It is a major tourism loop that we are trying to develop and we have a major problem on Cuslett lookout. We have a sixty-year-old lady of Cuslett, Mrs. Margaret Morrissey, who finds herself in court trying to get this situation corrected because she believes there is a major environmental problem. I say it is a very, very serious situation.

We need a solution, and the only person we can turn to for a solution is the Minister of Environment. That is why I have the opportunity tonight to make some comments on that. I say to the minister that we have a study that is completed. The study was presented to the Cape Shore Area Waste Management Committee, but it is a study that requires a couple of other questions that need to be answered by the people that were sitting around the table that night. It has gone back for further review and further clarification on some of the points that the committee and members of the committee have raised. It also needs intervention by the Minister of Environment and the government in relation to not only developing a new site or taking the existing garbage that is there on that site and moving it somewhere else, but the fact that before we start to even clean up, or try to shut down that existing site, we have to have a plan of what to do with the garbage that is there.

I look at the environmental legislation that is before us tonight in regard to recycling. I certainly have some concerns, and the Member for St. John's South has raised concerns about exactly how much strength is going to be put forward into the recycling aspect of this legislation.

When I drive over to Cuslett lookout in my district and see the amount of garbage that is lying around in the areas, I would be willing to bet - without a great deal of knowledge of it - that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of it could be recycled. It could be recycled if we had a proper recycling program that addressed all the concerns that are out there: plastic bags, plastic containers and things like that, Mr. Speaker. It just seems that there needs to be more strength put in. We felt that this piece of legislation that is before us tonight here in the House would be something that would put more strength into the recycling program; but, as the Member for St. John's South has touched on earlier, we on this side of the House do not think it does.

If I could get back to the situation which I feel obligated to raise here tonight under this piece of legislation, it is the situation as it relates on Cuslett lookout. As I said, we have gone down through several different ministers to have a look at this situation that we have here now. We had hoped to have an answer by now in relation to that situation.

As I said before, Mrs. Margaret Morrissey of Cuslett has put her name on the line herself. She has fought a valiant fight in relation to the situation there, and has found herself in court now because she believes there is an environmental concern on that dump site: an environmental concern in relation to all the different garbage that is there; an environmental concern in relation to the fact that garbage is burned there and the toxins that go into the air because of that. We have a situation where we have people who are dumping raw sewage on that dump site. When I look at the legislation that is before us tonight, I do not see anything that would give the power to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, and that certainly concerns me as the member for that area.

We have a committee in place now that is looking at waste management on the Avalon, but indeed, whatever it takes, we have a situation in our area where, as I said before, we have around, give or take, 13,000 people and we have fifteen or sixteen dump sites in a beautiful part of Newfoundland and Labrador, with scenery second to none, a growing tourism industry in that area, and we have these unsightly eyesores on the side of the road that certainly need to be addressed. We need to have the Minister of Environment on side to address that.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that through this legislation that we have before us in the House tonight there would have been something in that legislation which would give not only the power but indeed the means to the Minister of Environment to address that situation.

I have had letters and I have had calls from people, especially tourists, who travel to our area in the summertime. They drive along the Cape Shore, right next to the ocean, a beautiful ride that leads to the Placentia area and you travel down to the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve. When you are driving along, there are forty shades of green. Every hill that you dip down, you will see the forty shades of green. Then you will come up and see forty different colours of plastic bags on top of Cuslett lookout. They are the forty different colours that we do not want to look at. We would rather be looking at the forty shades of green, Mr. Speaker, instead of yellow bags, blue bags, and every other type of plastic bag flying around.

I think we need to put more strength behind legislation like we are bringing forward now, so that we do not put up with or have to deal with a site like we have on Cuslett lookout. I applaud Margaret Morrissey on her efforts to have it addressed. As I have told Mrs. Morrissey herself, time and time again, we need dollars to address that situation, we need strength behind legislation, and hopefully through some of the amendments that the Member for St. John's South will be putting forward here tonight as a follow-up to this piece of legislation, some of these concerns will be addressed.

I indeed think that it is not only that situation, Mr. Speaker. We have many, many concerns in the district, and not only in the district but in the Province, in relation to garbage sites. I have heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs say - I am not sure, but he can correct me if I am wrong - that there are somewhere in excess of maybe 700 dump sites in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something like that, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Two hundred and something, almost 300 dump sites in Newfoundland and Labrador.

For a population of 500,000 people to be living in what we call, time and time again, a pristine environment - we all know the beautiful places here in Newfoundland - to have upwards of 300 dump sites in our Province, I think it certainly needs to be corrected. I have to applaud the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have to give credit where credit is due. He certainly has come forward with a plan to try to address that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, I have no problem at any time giving credit where credit is due; but, at the same time, there is a serious situation in many communities in the Province.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs, through his department, has put forward those concerns and hopefully we will have them addressed through the waste management committee.

It is no good just completing another study. I think that is the big concern with the people in my area, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the study that was presented to the Cape Shore Waste Management Committee. Here we have another study, but we have a problem because, when we look at the study, we need money in order to correct the problem. The money has to come from this source here. It has to come from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment.

I hope, through this legislation and through the amendments that the Member for St. John's South has put forward, that some of the concerns that I have raised here tonight on behalf of the people I represent will be addressed and will be addressed quickly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to stand in the hon. House this evening and speak on behalf of Bill 45.

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the provincial government initiated a comprehensive review of environmental protection legislation that is part of our regulatory reform program. The aim was to clarify and consolidate the necessary provisions of current legislation and provide new authority where needed to protect the environment.

The Environmental Protection Act was developed using fundamental principles of environmental law and practice, Mr. Speaker. The principles were used to achieve the goals of environmental protection and sustainable development for Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe that we can grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time.

We must maintain a clean and healthy environment to ensure the protection of human health. This is a fundamental principle of existing environmental law and practice, and is an underlying premise of the Environmental Protection Act, Mr. Speaker. Protecting human health is largely achieved by prudent management of substance which may cause adverse effects. Only by safeguarding the environment can the conditions needed for physical, mental and social well-being be sustained.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote that?

MR. BUTLER: I did, your honour.

Government maintains a precautionary approach in protecting our environment. We will take all reasonable efforts to ensure the protection and preservation of the environment. It is important to balance sustainable development of our renewable and non-renewable resources with sound environmental management and protection. We have to satisfy human needs, improve the quality of life, protect and preserve life-sustaining natural systems without jeopardizing the needs of our future generations.

Both the Environmental Protection Act and the Water Resources Protection Act encourage stewardship of the environment by promoting environmentally responsible practices and processes.

A basic approach, Mr. Speaker, to environmental protection emphasizes that avoiding pollution is much preferred over expensive and often ineffective cleanup of contaminated sites. The Environmental Protection Act contains specific measures to encourage the use of processes, materials, products and energy to eliminate or maximize a generation of pollution and waste. Individually and collectively, everyone has an obligation to protect the environment and make wise use of our resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Government strongly endorses the concept that whereby those who cause the pollution of our environment will be held financially responsible for its treatment, disposal and cleanup. I am certain that all hon. Members of this House can relate the cases of pollution where the ground and streams have been polluted and have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to be cleaned up. No person should benefit financially from polluting and taxpayers should not bear the costs.

The Environmental Protection Act makes it the financial interest of all to adopt environmentally acceptable processes and practices. However, Mr. Speaker, Bill 45 also clarifies the use of insured supplements, and there is flexibility for settlement of contravention without resorting to the courts.

With the Environmental Act and the Water Resources Protection Act people will no longer have to refer to over eight separate acts, Mr. Speaker, and thereby improve administrative efficiency.

Government recognizes that over-prescriptive and rigid regulatory control is often not the most effective way to protect the environment and foster sustainable development. Therefore, the act enables government to be more proactive and cooperative while still maintaining clear responsibilities for environmental protection and water resource management.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, contains over 125 provisions. Fifty-nine of those provisions have already been in the previous acts. Forty-four of the remaining provisions are already in legislation in other provinces throughout our country. Sixty-three of them are in the acts of every provincial jurisdiction. Rather than prescribing fixed resources of action the Environmental Protection Act generally enables the minister to choose an appropriate response from specified options, depending on the circumstance.

I cannot help but comment on the speech from the hon. Member for St. John's South last Tuesday. He had concerns, Mr. Speaker, and they were: "What if government makes a mistake?" What would the consequences be? Well, this government and this minister are listening to the concerns that are expressed by the other side and they are also listening to the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, this is a government that cares and are protecting the environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: We are prepared to make changes and enforcements so that this place will be a better place for our children and our grandchildren.

I cannot help but note that one minute some hon. member stands on the other side and says: the powers are too strong for the minister. The next minute another speaker gets up and says: they are not strong enough. Typical. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, if we had to proceed along the lines that they would wish for us to do, we would not make any mistakes because probably we would not be doing anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: They are all there to express concerns. However, they have no recommendations, no alternatives, no policies and we are expected to sit back and just take it on the chin and let them complain about the good provisions that have been in this act since 1974.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I stand here today and support Bill 45 and congratulate the minister for his work to date.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on Bill 45, An Act Respecting Environmental Protection. I want to say a few things about the necessity for environmental protection in our Province.

We always hear people talk about the pristine environment. The reality, however, is that this pristine environment has been spoiled, in many ways, by the activities of the people of this Province in not looking after our environment properly. We have a waste management system that, in many respects, is way behind the times. Someone described it the other day, it is the extent of technology - that the technology for waste management, in many cases, was a box of matches. The technology that we use to deal with waste management in the Province is a box of matches; incinerators. That we go and collect together the garbage, put it in an incinerator and put a match to it. That is how we deal with waste management in this Province. As a result, we are the Province with the highest level of dioxins put into the air; higher than any other province in terms of the amount of dioxins put in the air as a result of our burning garbage and burning plastic.

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's South says that we send into the air 40 per cent of the dioxins in Canada; 40 per cent. Dioxin is a known carcinogen, being put in the air. We have about 2 per cent of the population of Canada and we produce about 40 per cent of the dioxins. I don't know what the Minister of Environment has to say about that. We will have to hear when he finishes up. This is totally unacceptable and totally outrageous.

We have citizens trying to do things about it and they are treated as if somehow or other they are the problem. By raising the flag and saying that we have a problem, that somehow they are creating the problem. If we did not talk about it it would go away. If we did not talk about it we would not have to worry about it. If we did not bring up the problem people would not be saying: What is Newfoundland and Labrador doing burning all these dioxins? What we are supposed to do is - nobody is supposed to speak up and say there is something wrong. Well, there is something wrong, Mr. Speaker. There is something very wrong when we are producing 40 per cent of Canada's dioxins by using the technology of the match, which was probably invented by the Chinese 6,000 or 7,000 years ago. That is what is going on in this Province today when the opportunities are there for a sophisticated, job-generating, high-tech based industry in dealing with waste management as other provinces have done.

We have other people, like the lady from St. Brides -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: She's a cousin, is she? - talking about the Cuslett dump. I heard her the other day on the radio. A brave lady, she has been fighting for fifteen years to get rid of this. Here we have the most beautiful spot, the Cuslett lookout, the most pristine - or it was - a great place to view the whole area around there, and they have turned it into a dump. There is not even soil there to fill over the top of the garbage. Here you have the top of the hill, all the garbage is going there, blowing away, no waste disposal system at all, and she is trying to do something about it. What is she going to do? She is going to end up in jail. She is likely going to end up in jail because she protested.

AN HON. MEMBER: She is looking for a lawyer.

MR. HARRIS: She is looking for a lawyer now I hear, yes. She is likely to end up in jail or be fined for obstructing traffic. For fifteen years she has been speaking out about this she said; fifteen years and nobody has listened.

The Member for Placentia & St. Mary's said that the previous Minister of Environment was down for a visit. He did not really say what happened after that. Maybe she was never heard from again down in Cuslett. Maybe the current minister can tell us what happened as a result of the investigation in the Cuslett dump. This is only one of the many problems.

I know the minister is aware of the problems around the Province. We do, as he said, have 240 dump sites and the minister has a plan to reduce that to - What is it? Fifty, Minister? Is it fifty (inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There is no decision on the number. The issue is not necessarily how many we are going to have, but the more important issue is what is going to go on there. What is going to go on in these dumps? Are we going to have the same as we have out in Robin Hood Bay here in St. John's, the biggest dump site in the Province? What goes on there? Nothing, except dumping garbage and filling it up with fill. We can see the plume out into the ocean, leeching out though the soil. God knows what is in it, going out into the ocean, polluting it and everything under the sun going to Robin Hood Bay. What do we have on the other side of it? We talk about recycling, we talk about environmental measures, but in reality, other than public relations programs, where are the real programs?

The one program that we managed to put together - it took about ten or fifteen years to get that going - was the recycling program for soft drink containers. That took about fifteen years because the soft drink industry was resisting it. They did not want it. They did not want to use refillable containers. This is the only Province in the country where there is not one, single refillable soft drink container. There is not one, single refillable soft drink container in this Province. Why is that? Because the soft drink industry managed to lobby this government, work on this government, and prevent them from bringing in a policy; and we still do not have it. We have it for beer. What is the result of that? What is the result of having refillable containers for beer? The result is that 97 per cent of the beer bottles are returned and refilled by the breweries. We do not have anything like that in the program that we have for other containers. I think we are stalled at 50 per cent. Is that the latest statistic? Maybe the minister can update the statistics he has closer - more evidence and more relationship with the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board.

We have a pathetic record in terms of success for the recycling of soft drink containers, and I recognize that the program is not really old. It has been only on the go for two, three or four years; but still, in the beer brewing industry we have a 97 per cent return rate because we have refillable containers that are worth ten cents a piece when you bring them back. We had a big racket last spring when the minister wanted to increase the deposit rate on containers and not do a significant increase on the return rate, and make it, in fact, more expensive for containers to be bought and just added to the price of goods. We still have not seen a major success in that area.

When we talk about environmental protection and waste management, the favourite was the three r's: reduce, reuse and recycle. I guess there is a fourth, too: repair. Reduce, reuse, recycle and repair. But there is also a fifth r, which I consider to be equally important, and that is to conduct research in finding ways of using this material. If we are going to have the recycling program we should also have some research going on to find out ways of reusing the materials that are currently going into dumps. We haven't heard a single idea about a community composting program, for example, which is done in other places and in other provinces, where you could get rid of a significant amount of product that now goes into the landfill stream. We could have a community blue box program which we do no have in any cities or towns in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: What the minister says confirms what I am saying. Yes, there is a pilot program on the go right now in our city. There is a pilot program that is so well known and so all pervasive that the members do not know about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: So now we are talking about a blue box program in St. John's that the Member for St. John's South and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi do not know about. So it must be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, if we do not know about it I do not know who knows about it. I know who is involved in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: St. John's Clean and Beautiful. I know about St. John's Clean and Beautiful but I do not know anything about a blue box program.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister says: no public announcement. Well, there you go, there is a pilot program underway this very day, secretly, in St. John's and they are really promoting it. It is going to be very effective. We can be sure that it is going to be the most effective program because nobody knows about it. There has been no public announcement. There has only been private announcements, I presume, and I don't know who they chose to announce it to.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are trying to keep it quiet.

MR. HARRIS: They were trying to keep it quiet. They were afraid people might want to participate in it. I do not know, perhaps the minister is going to explain all about it. Maybe it is a good thing. I do not know. We have the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, another little pot of money that they dole out to I do not know who. Much of their money is spent on advertising. They have been doling it out to communities for community cleanups in some cases.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: In Tory districts. Well, that is what they say. You can be sure of that. You can be sure that they are doling it out to people who they want to dole it out to. That pot of money is a very important pot of money, and there should be a greater public say in how that money is spent.

We had an announcement the other day, and I do not know whether the minister is in charge of this or whether Gordon Seabright is in charge of this, but all of a sudden Gordon Seabright is announcing that we are not going to follow the Public Tender Act because we decided to give this contract to the same person again. Is that the minister's decision or is this Gordon Seabright in charge of all of this? Is the minister in charge of whether or not the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board follows the Public Tender Act, or is that something that the chairman is entitled to decide?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are following the Public Tender Act.

MR. HARRIS: They decided not to go to public tender. I do not know if the minister heard the same interview that I heard or the same statement that I heard, where it was said that they were not going to put the matter to public tender. I think their excuse was there was only one business in the Province that was capable of doing it, Nova Recycling. That is what Gordon Seabright said.

AN HON. MEMBER: What section are you talking about?

MR. HARRIS: I do not know what section he is following or what the minister has to say, or whether that is the minister's policy or whether that is Mr. Seabright's policy. We do not know.

We have the blue box program that we do not know about and we have the minister's board making decisions about whether or not they should have public tenders for their activities. We also have a contract entered into by the Multi-Material Stewardship Board with Newfoundland Beverage Recovery Inc., I think it is, where most of the work is actually done. I never did hear the explanation as to why that was, why they had to have two groups doing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It is over January 15.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Okay. He said that it is not there anymore. Well, it is still there. It is there until January 15. It is still there. Nobody ever explained why they had to do it that way, why the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board could not actually handle the job that it was supposed to do, or why there had to be this second organization created to manage the program. I understand the people managing the program were the people in the bottling industry itself.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: Yes, the Member for Cape St. Francis has a good suggestion. Maybe the minister could take notes and deal with all these questions afterwards.

What the minister is saying here now is that the initial money came from industry and that is why it was set up. Well, I think that is one of the problems. I am not going to attack the industry here now, but it seems to me that the industry was calling the shots here, and that is the problem. The industry has been calling the shots on this issue for the last ten or fifteen years, and that is why not a single returnable soft drink bottle is found in this Province. Another province like PEI can enforce returnable bottles but we cannot in Newfoundland because the industry does not want it so therefore we are not going to do it. That is what happened here in this Province, that there was no backbone in the government to say: We are going to be in charge of this and not the industry itself. We have seen that happen all along the way.

There was a move one time, a few years ago - the Member for St. John's South will remember it - where there seemed to be a lot of interest in getting a program going. What happened? The soft drink industry decided the best thing to do was to collect a couple of million dollars from these deposits and spend it on telling people that they were littering. Well, the people who were doing the littering, really, were the people who were manufacturing all these bottles. We have 50 million containers going into these landfill sites; 50 million containers. Who is doing the littering, the people who bought the containers or the industry who produced them? Then they had a big campaign telling people the problem was not the industry, the problem was the people. They were littering. Now, the real problem was the manufacturers were creating products and containers that could not be returned, could not be recycled. They were not using refillable containers, and they were the problem. They were part of the problem. There is nothing in any of this legislation, nothing in any of the activities of the Multi-Material Stewardship Board, that seems to be aimed at reducing the amount of packaging that we have in industry. These are the kind of things that this government should be attacking. It requires a significant public investment.

Here I want to say to the minister - I know the minister wants to do a good job - that there are models in other places, in other provinces, in states in the United States and other countries, where, in fact, there are highly advanced uses for recycled materials. There are programs that have been tried and many have worked. In Nova Scotia there is a model being developed - I know that the minister's department and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, as well, have also been looking at it - with a significant public investment, but also a significant success rate in reducing the amount of materials going to landfill sites. These are the kind of things that we have to be doing here, but I do not see, other than the kind of pilot projects that the minister is talking about but we haven't really seen yet, or things that communities are doing on their own. I know there are blue box programs in some places that are done with great effort, with great commitment by local people, but we really have to have a coordinated effort at the provincial level to ensure, first of all, that these programs get provincial support; secondly, to ensure that good models are given the kind of publicity that they need in order to work; and thirdly, to create a culture of protection of the environment that includes the reduction of the amount of containers, that includes the wise use and wise management of the garbage that we do produce, the kind of thing that you can have happen if you do have the right amount of education, the right amount of support. You could have community composting as another way of reducing the amount of waste materials going to landfill sites. We have the occasional hazardous materials days which don't seem to be very well integrated. It is a sort of one-shot deal or every now and then. We have not managed to integrate these things into the system.

For example, anyone who gets their car fixed these days knows that if you change your oil there is a $2 fee charged for disposal of the waste. What happens to that money? Is that just something that goes on to the overhead of the companies? That $2 or $3 fee -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Eighty per cent. That $2 fee, my question about that is: Where does that go? Just that just cover the overhead?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: So that is brought to Come By Chance for refining is it, or is it done somewhere else?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nova Scotia.

MR. HARRIS: It is done in Nova Scotia. It is cleaned up and reused, isn't it? But that cannot be done in the Province, I guess the minister is saying. It is that complicated a deal that it could not be done here. These are the kind of things that I am talking about that perhaps the minister, and the minister's department, can see, that when we have the possibilities here of an integrated system where we are collecting this waste and reusing it here, we are developing technologies here, we are finding ways of using it, we are trying to show some leadership, follow the good ideas that we find somewhere else, but show some leadership ourselves in determining what kind of programs we can have and do have.

I hope the minister will tell us what the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board is going to be doing and what difference it is going to make by taking over the programs. I hope the minister is going to have enough power to give strong direction to the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, tell them what is expected of them, and give them directions as to have to go about it.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Can I have a few minutes, by leave, to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

I hope the minister does have some plans for the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board because they do have a significant amount of money that is being collected through the recycling program, surplus to the deposits. I would prefer to have the refund a lot closer to the deposit because it will help increase the amount of recycling. That is why it is important that we have a high level of recycling, but I hope with the surplus that is there we will have new programs that will show some innovation and some leadership in the Province.

As to the act itself, I think we can deal with that on a clause-by-clause basis. I think there are some aspects of it that I have a great deal of difficulty with, but given the fact that I have to finish my remarks, I will allow the next speaker to speak and deal with those aspects of the bill in committee.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Environment, in bringing forth these two major pieces of legislation, the Environmental Protection Act and also the Water Resources Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: It is one of many major pieces of legislation that is in the process of being brought forward during this particular session: the class-action suit legislation which many people said was spirited by Mr. Kelly after the Hiland Insurance failed; the Freedom of Information; Citizens' Representative; the Child Advocate, which we have being doing today; and, of course, the new Environment and the Water Management Act.

I want to say, first of all, to my colleague across the way from St. Mary's & Placentia: I did travel down to the area with him, and one of the commitments that I made to him when I came back was to go to the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board after they had submitted a plan, and for them to do a plan to look at the number of sites in the area in which he lives. I made good on that commitment, Mr. Speaker, but I did not draw up the terms of reference, neither did I chose any engineering company or whatever company it was to do it. It was as a result of the people who live in the area, the councils in the area and so on. They did the report. As my colleague, the Minister of Environment, says, we have not seen it, but I understand from my colleague, when he was speaking, there is some more work to be done, some fine tuning to be done, and I guess that is why we do not have a copy of it.

I say to him, regardless of where it is, wherever we live in the Province, that it is the responsibility of the municipality to look after waste in the area. There are no two ways about that. That is part of their mandate. Obviously, we have to put in stricter environmental legislation and rules and so on to make that happen, and I think we are going there.

One of the sections in the act that we are talking about tonight is giving the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs the added responsibility of regulating all of those waste sites that are outside of the incorporating areas. Now we have a lot of those sites around the Province as we have already indicated tonight, probably as many as 240 of them. We recognize that there are far too many because, as already alluded to here, many of these sites are not attended to. If there is a bar or gate across and if it is locked, more than likely by the time the maintenance person goes back the next morning, the lock is already cut and people are into those particular sites because they are not manned. We want to try to correct that.

My colleague, the Minister of Environment, has initiated a province-wide plan for waste management in the Province. While that particular plan is being done - I think it is probably to be released sometime around the end of November - on November 12, myself and my colleague, the Minister of Environment, announced a waste management community consultative committee on the Avalon to look at the problems here. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, on the Avalon - and by the way, that particular committee is made up of representatives from Clarenville east. It is a very diverse group. We have the Mayor of Mount Pearl, Dave Denine, on that committee; Don Coombs, the Mayor of Harbour Grace; Stan Reid, the Mayor of Heart's Delight-Islington-Heart's Desire; Shannie Duff, Councillor for St. John's; Ron Smith, Mayor of Conception Bay South; Bride McLennon, Mayor of Placentia; Bern Hickey, Town of Avondale; Tom Osborne, Mayor of Arnold's Cove; Fred Best, Mayor of Clarenville; Diane Whelan, Mayor of Paradise and Treasurer of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities; Rod Cumby, Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators, and I think he is the Town Manager with Torbay; Linda Whelan, Centre for Long Term Environmental Action; Frank Eveleigh, Chairperson, Conception Bay North Incinerator Association; Charlie Riggs, the Executive Director, Newfoundland Environmental Industries Association; and Mr. Leo Moriarty, Mayor of Ferryland. These people have been charged, Mr. Speaker, with the responsibility to look at waste management for the Avalon.

The NDP Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talked about what is happening down here at Robin Hood Bay. We recognize the problem there and that is why we have asked these people to come together to do a thorough arrangement for us of ways that we can eliminate a number of these sites on the Avalon. It would be preferable if they would come up with one site, but, again, I left it to this particular group to choose their terms of reference in relation to the Minister of Environment, because the municipalities, as I said earlier, are responsible for their waste. It is their waste, and they have to discharge that.

Now, whether it will be economically feasible to have one site from Clarenville to St. Mary's to Trepassey to St. John's remains to be seen. I would hope that they would. They might come back with two sites. They might come back with three. This particular group of individuals have been charged with the responsibility of choosing a site; at least be able to reduce it considerably from what we have now. There is no doubt about it, we have these sites - and they are all over the Provinces, in central Newfoundland, on the Northern Peninsula, in Labrador, and a lot of these sites have to do with the terrain. I think of my own district where I have six isolated communities, I think of the Member for Torngat Mountains, I think of the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and also for the Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair area; many small isolated communities. We are never going to be able to achieve the same number of sites in Newfoundland as they have in New Brunswick. They have six major sites with a number of the satellite sites. In Nova Scotia they have twelve. Geography will play a major part in that. What I am hoping, and there is a lot of work being done even on the West Coast where they are looking at having one site from Port aux Basques to Hampden. Will it materialize? I do not know. We have to look at the cost.

The thing about it is that our children, and even ourselves, are demanding of us that they have a pristine environment. The status quo cannot be. We cannot treat our environment like we are now and we have done in the past. We have to clean it up.

I think one of the situations for us here, as municipalities, is that they recognize it. In fact, one of the booklets that I have here is A Call to Action on Environmental Protection, that was done earlier this year by a number of representatives, and the Chair of that was the former president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. This is one of the statements they made in that particular committee, because the committee was made up of, as I said: Mr. Flynn, also the person who manages Ever Green here in St. John's, and also from the City of Corner Brook, so there were four or five of them. This is what he said, "It was recognized throughout the discussions that communities will have to pool resources and implement regional waste management systems in order to meet accepted standards. Government assistance through policy, enforcement and cost sharing will be necessary."

We recognize that. That is why, for example, we look to the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program. There has to be a site, and why we are making it a priority for us on the Avalon is because of the situation in Conception Bay North. They have a major problem there with the incinerator in Harbour Grace and, through the committee that is there, they have given up some leeway whereby, by the end of 2002, we should be able to find an alternate site for the particular situation they have there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: It is a problem.

The Leader of the NDP talked earlier about some of the dioxins and toxins that we have in the Province, and we lead the country. We recognize that. That is why, when I was the Environment Minister, along with the other Environment Ministers across the country, and the federal minister, signed a protocol saying that by 2007 we would do away with the teepee incinerator. That is where many of these toxins come from. Nevertheless we recognize that it is a challenge, but we are up to it and we have to do it.

That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the things we recognize. It is not that we want to sweep it under the rug and that we do not want to recognize it. We are recognizing it. That is why we are going ahead and we are looking at all of the situations that we have in front of us.

When we talk about the Northeast Avalon, there are not a lot of sites we can have available to us for a landfill properly engineered site. One of the main requirements for a proper environmental landfill site, that would be properly done according to the environmental standards of the day, where you would have liners to prevent leachate from going into the environment, would be a massive structure, a large area. One of the main requirements is three metres of fill. Three metres of fill is approximately eleven feet of fill. There are not a large number of places on the Avalon Peninsula where you can find a site like that.

The other thing is, when you talk about the Avalon Peninsula here, you do not have a large site whereby it is not encroaching upon some water body. That pretty much limits us to the number of sites, but there have been a number identified. I said to the committee, and I said to the Chair, there is no way that you have to go out under any pre-conditions from this minister or my colleague, the Minister of Environment. We want you to do a thorough analysis and then come back to us.

It would be convenient - not convenient, it would be more than that - it would be ideal, I guess, if we could find a site that would be near the City of St. John's, near the City of Mount Pearl, and the towns of Conception Bay South and Paradise. If we could find it in that particular area where the largest number of people live, it would be advantageous because it would cut down on the transportation costs. Then we would be able to bring people in from the Bay de Verde Peninsula, bring people in from Conception Bay North, be able to look at it from Clarenville and up through St. Mary's and Trepassey. That is the ideal situation. Will we be able to do that? I do not know. That is what the committee has been charged with, and I look forward to them bringing back recommendations to me.

I also want to quote a couple of people from this particular A Call to Action on Environmental Protection. There is a problem, and the Mayor of Clarenville, Fred Best, said this, "With our settlement patterns, if we don't buy into regionalization for recycling, we simply can't afford it, there won't be enough material at any one location. We have to adopt the concept of regionalization." That is why we are looking at that, and that is why I think that in the main corridor of the Province here we should be able to do three or four main centers. We should be able to do one on the West Coast. We should be able to do one from Grand Falls to Benton, or probably from Badger to Benton, and then, of course, in the St. John's region.

We recognize, as I said, with the geography and the settlement patterns, that it is going to be very difficult to bring everybody into this. We recognize that, and the municipalities recognize that, and I am looking forward to working with them to make it happen.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, for the committee that we have already talked about is to incorporate all feasible options for recycling, composting and waste diversion.

Also, I want to refer to the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. St. John's Clean and Beautiful, the City of St. John's - when I was the Minister of Environment, he came in and asked if they could have some dollars from the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board to do a study on how to collect the waste management when we have a new system in place. As the people said to me, it is very different, the system that you would have for pickup on New Gower Street, where the houses are very close, to what you would have at Cowan Heights, for example, in a different subdivision, so they are looking at that.

There is also a pilot project going on in the Town of Paradise. There are a number of these whereby the communities themselves, the community leaders and the councils, have to have a feel for what is happening in a particular area. Make no bones about it, we have a massive education program to do when it comes to recycling and waste management in the Province. There is no doubt about it that, for a long time, when we talk about waste management - everything - we just take it and put it into a garbage bag. You just tie it and put it out on the curb for the person to pick it up and carry it to the landfill sites.

There are some things happening. We are hoping, once this particular plan is in place, that my colleague, the Minister of Environment, will be able to release, by the end of November, that the committee which I just announced and my colleague has announced for the Avalon area, will be able to take that particular study, be able to take the guidelines that this particular document would outline to them, and be able to work to clean up the environment. We have to do that.

One of the things I am sure my colleague would talk about is the plastic lumber in Corner Brook, where you have plastic bags, plastic buckets, net boxes, nets, and even some of the old carpets and so on that are being stored in the warehouse in Stephenville and used to make plastic lumber. We are hoping that particular person, entrepreneur who started the business, will be able to gain momentum, be able to do more with the plastic lumber, be able to use it for - and the tests that have been done indicate it has strong texture, that it could be used for wharves and so on. No algae can form on it, and there are no toxins in it, so it might be a good thing for us to do.

Mr. Speaker, the thing to remember is this: while we have 240 of these dump sites, none of them meeting environmental standards, none of them manned twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, where they are just carried in from a day a week, or one evening in a week, whatever, and they are left unattended, what happens in some of these sites, some of the people and mayors will tell you, is that they bring in a number of things in the morning and when they go back in the afternoon a lot of it is gone out of these sites again. People are taking it back out. These are some of the things that would never happen in a site.

I had an opportunity to visit the site in Moncton, for example, and it is an economic generator as well. There are approximately 100 people employed in the centre in Moncton, and Moncton would have the same number of people, I think, having their waste management system in place as in the Northeast Avalon. It could be comparable. There are acres and acres and acres of land involved with it, properly maintained and so on, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. We had an opportunity to look at it and see what recycling was going on, and there was a lot of it; but, as I said, over 100 people working, an economic generator. In Nova Scotia, they have thousands of people working. Nova Scotia has really taken the lead as one of the provinces across Canada in recycling.

We recognize that we are not there. We recognize that we have a problem. We are recognizing that by having the Department of Environment do a strategic plan for the Province. We recognize it from the municipalities here, that we have a part to play, and the fact that the Federation of Municipalities have a representative on this, and the NLAMA group as well, that they are with us and they want us to be able to have a plan whereby we can reuse, recycle and reduce and be able to do a number of good things for the environment.

This particular section - because we do have it. Still in the Province we have waste sites that are not under the jurisdiction of the local service district, that are not under the jurisdiction of the council. They are a committee, or people, as individuals, just taking their waste, carrying it to a site, not supervising it, and we have to change that. I am glad, and want to take on the responsibility. I am sure that the federation as well would welcome the opportunity to be able to do that because, just as we recognize within the Province, as already has been said, the number of dump sites we have, we want to be able to reduce that.

Before I finish, Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about one of the things that we did for the area in South Brook. They had a major problem in the Brighton, Triton, Pilley's Island, Port Anson area - major problems. I went and talked to the former Mayor of South Brook, probably a year-and-a-half ago, and asked him about the situation, if we could use their site to be able to incorporate all of the other communities. I can say now that, in addition to that, the Town of Springdale is already in the process of being able to use that particular site as well. We are hoping that King's Point and other communities will be able to use that. I think that is a good beginning. We are able to reduce at least a half dozen or so of those sites into one site that is environmentally friendly. The people themselves are enthused about it. I have had a number of meetings. The Member for Windsor-Springdale has been in on some of those meetings, and I think the people in the area are pretty much happy with the support they have gotten from us. That is the way we have to go. We have to work with the councils because, as I said, the policy has to be in place. We recognize that we have a commitment to finance the studies, and not only to finance but also the infrastructure, because whatever way you are going to get rid of the waste, whatever plan you have, it is going to be expensive. We recognize that, but we are sure that the people in the Province recognize it as well. They want to work with us and we want to work with them to be able to put in a good plan to reduce waste in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to make our environment pristine, not only for us but for our children as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I certainly want to rise tonight and have a few comments on second reading because I can tell you, from looking through this bill, when we do finally hit Committee stage, the minister will have lots of exercise in answering some concerns as we go through that particular part of the bill.

First of all, just to make a couple of comments on the minister's comments on municipalities alone, which is only a part of this whole consolidation of this particular bill, just a part of it, I agree. The status quo is not acceptable any more when we talk about municipalities. I know, and I agree with the minister, that there are lot of communities, and indeed in my own district even recently, are coming together to co-operate and understand the serious situation which affects all of us, and it is certainly going to affect generations to come. That is why we have to address this concern now. That is why we have to talk and make sure we involve people like the committees that the minister spoke about a few minutes ago. I think one of the committees was on the Avalon. He talked about when he was in Green Bay lately, and the plans they have to carry out to try to address the problem with municipal dumps: some 240 dump sites, I understand, throughout the Province.

I do not think the minister is at a point where he can name exactly how many dumps we will get down to, but I understand somewhere in the range of forty to fifty throughout the Province is a possible number. Whatever the final number is, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that municipalities have to come together and cooperate to understand the problem, and the magnitude of the problem, so that municipalities throughout the Province could cooperate and come to some kind of an agreement on how to really tackle this issue.

As far as where the minister comes from in that particular department, Mr. Speaker, and also this committee, the Call to Action Committee - Mr. Derm Flynn, I think, was the Chair of that particular committee. He made some very good comments - understanding also that recycling is something that the minister has already mentioned - but municipalities throughout this Province - when he talks about dioxins in Canada I think the primary source is from those tepees. They are called tepees, the incinerators. Imagine, a statistic where we have 2 per cent of the population in this Province, but 40 per cent of dioxins of all Canada comes from this Province.

Another statistic that my colleague from St. John's South told me just a few minutes ago - that, in fact, is more than the entire steel industry in Canada; 40 per cent of dioxins released in this Province. That is quite a statistic. Yes, it is a wake-up call. Yes, it is something that we have to address. It is long overdue.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are open pit fires (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: They are open pit fires, these incinerators. The bottom line is that 40 per cent of the dioxins in Canada come from this Province. Yes, it is a wake-up call. That is why we have to cooperate. That is why municipalities throughout this Province, and all of those municipalities involved with the 240 dump sites around this Province, realize that there has to be cooperation to address this very serious concern.

On that point alone though, Mr. Speaker, here we are talking tonight on this particular bill, Bill 45 - very, very important, extremely important for this Province. When we look down through the legislation and we spend this much time talking about municipalities, there are four other full acts that are going to be combined in this piece of legislation; four other complete acts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: There is nothing wrong with it; excellent.

Four other complete acts, Mr. Speaker. The point is, it is only a part of that. As a matter of fact, there are eleven new sections dealing with waste and disposal areas, and that is in section 403. The Municipalities Act will be adding eleven sections dealing with that particular section. Although tonight, December 10, at 9 p.m., we could spend this entire night speaking until tomorrow morning on municipalities and eleven sections alone. That is the point, I say to the minister. There are very serious ones that could be addressed. As a matter of fact, I will go so far as to say I would like to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs get up and continue on with some of the points that he has raised about the problem with municipal dumps. The point being, that is one act, eleven sections of the Municipalities Act, but we are also - in this particular bill, Bill 45 - bringing together the environmental assessment act, the pesticides control act, the waste management act and the waste material disposable act; a huge bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know why the Member for Bonavista North keeps wondering if there is anything wrong with it. I am just telling you a fact. I ask the member: Is that a fact that those four bills, and part of the Municipalities Act, do come together?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, okay. If there is no disagreement, Mr. Speaker, then I will continue.

Bill 45 brings together four complete acts, as I just mentioned, and eleven sections which will involve the Department of Municipal Affairs. A huge piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. Here we are with two to three days left in this Legislature before we close for Christmas holidays and we are looking at this piece of legislation that is going to bring together four complete acts and partial Municipalities Act. That is why I believe every single member in this House should stand today and say they approve the concept of bringing together all those acts to strengthen the legislation so that it has some teeth, as some people referred to earlier. It refers to this particular act as bringing together, consolidating, five different acts. That is very important.

The point being, Mr. Speaker, it has to be done right. It has to be done so that it has the strength to address a problem which we all acknowledge, every single one of us acknowledge that it has to be addressed. You think about it, in this day and age in particular, now that we have hit the year 2001 - as a matter of fact, if you go back in history a small bit, say the last twenty-five years, never before has the environment and the issues of environment been so worrisome to everybody across this country, but especially in this Province, because sometimes we may have - over time, over our history - taken for granted the pristine environment of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we heard about air pollution years ago we would have a picture in our mind of these huge smoke stacks in the bigger cities. Air pollution was happening in the big cities, it was of no concern to us. I know, Mr. Speaker, I thought the same thing. There was a show that somebody referred to a couple of days ago, Here Comes the Seventies, when they talked about air pollution. We thought: well, that's something that is happening on the mainland. It is happening in the big cities. There is nothing for us to worry about. In fact, it has all come through education, especially education throughout the schools and environment courses offered through the colleges and universities, that we have become more astute to the real problems of environment. We have come to realize that it is not just the big cities and the big factories where pollution is caused. It affects us in many way.

A lot of the concerns, multiple concerns, that are going to be addressed in this particular piece of legislation is important to each and every one of us, and especially important for generations to come, our children and our grandchildren.

We are talking about everything from municipal (inaudible) as we just talked about, and the lack of recycling. We all know that we can improve on recycling in the Province. Here is one that was mentioned, the former military bases and former mine sites. Something in the Province that we sort of quietly put aside for a long time. We have all been guilty, I guess to a point, as citizens in this Province, of former military bases in this Province, former mine sites - I can certainly speak to that issue, of former mine sites in the Province, because right in our backyard, in my district, we have Tilt Cove, which was a very high productive mine site at one time. There have been some reclamations and some things done in Tilt Cove.

As a matter of fact, in the last couple of years, which I commend, there was a mine operating in the community of Little Bay. There was some work done, I think this past year or certainly the year before, in the mine that was at Little Bay. Then we look at the bigger ones - still in my district, Mr. Speaker - Baie Verte Asbestos Mine. Then we look at the Rambler Mine, which we still have some very serious concerns about. Those are things that have to be addressed, that are long overdue and have not been looked at seriously in the last little while. Is this legislation going to address those issues? Some very serious issues.

Also, as I just mentioned, the former military sites. I remember in Stephenville some time ago they had very serious concerns about some possible environmental problems that may exist there. So, those are important. Those are things that have been lying around this Province and have never really been addressed.

Air quality in schools; we have all experienced that, Mr. Speaker, this past year and the year before, and the year before that, when parents throughout this Province became more educated about this particular issue. Testing was done. What a concern it is when you send your children to school every day worried about the quality of the air. That is something that has to be addressed. I am just touching on these now. We are just talking about the concerns that this bill should be addressing. Where are we going to end up with this legislation?

Then we talk about harbours and cesspools, Mr. Speaker, and not just the St. John's Harbour which we hear a lot about, maybe because the cameras are in St. John's, but there are many cesspools and harbours around this Province that need some attention. We have rivers and streams where municipal councils have talked about raw sewage going into streams and into the bays. How many communities around the Province have a problem with that? Those things have to be addressed. For a long time there was either a blind eye turned to it or we just sort of put it on the back burner. We have to address those.

Domestic oil spills; this past winter, probably a record number. Maybe the minister will speak to that when he stands. Some questions that people had on those. A record number, I understand, of domestic oil spills around this Province; a lot to do with the amount of snow. Nobody is saying it is anybody's fault or whatever, but we finally had to address it. A lot of those problems came because of nature, because there were tons of snow where there were a number of oil spills throughout the Province. But questions that were asked in the general public, when those contaminated soils were taken away: Where did they go? Were they treated? What happened to them? Maybe the minister can answer some of those questions. When we take the expense of having a contractor - and I have seen it where there were tons of soil taken away from oil spills around people's houses. Where did that go? Was it treated? I think it is a good question, and I think it is a question that the minister should answer.

Then, Mr. Speaker, of course we all remember this one, and we are still talking about it: the scare in our drinking water, the quality of drinking water. Not until Walkerton was it really highlighted. There were lots of concerns throughout and I think more than ever, I think that highlighted the problems or the concerns of people in this Province. Imagine, when you are concerned about having a drink of water. Mr. Speaker, we have to address those in many communities around this Province. As a matter of fact, there is one community in my district, Beachside, which thankfully, through the minister's help, he recognized a very serious problem this year past; the community of Beachside. When we talk about not being able to drink the water, this particular community could not even wash their clothes in the water. It was that bad - the colour and the smell in the water - they could not even wash their clothes in it. The only thing they could use the water for, in Beachside, was to flush their toilets. That is how bad it got, Mr. Speaker. Talking about the quality of water, people in this Province, in this pristine Province, where we brag about the pristine environment that we have - which we should be able to - but you cannot take a drink of water from your tap.

Mr. Speaker, our renewable resources - I think a couple of members mentioned this earlier tonight. When we talk about our renewable resources and the forestry, there was some debate in this House a couple of days ago on the act. I think my colleague from Green Bay was up talking about the renewable resources of the forestry and the environmental impact on those. Many people throughout this Province, people who are not in the industry - people who go out and enjoy their time in the woods, either hunting or just leisure time spent in the forestry in our Province - realize what a gem we have here. In most parts of rural Newfoundland you can walk fifteen minutes from your house and you are into the wilderness, you are into the woods. People appreciate that. They take long walks in the forest. I know in Labrador West, when I was there, you could leave on your skidoo from your back porch and be in the middle of nowhere within minutes. People appreciated that wilderness in the wintertime and in the summertime. We wonder what effects and protection, and how strong this particular piece of legislation will bear on the forest industry.

We look at the fishing industry; my colleague from the Straits & White Bay North raised, many times, about the fishery and how important it is to this Province, and how it is the backbone and the history of this Province. How strong is this piece of legislation when we talk about protecting the fishery? Yes, we have a developing offshore oil, which we are all pleased to see and we hope there is more development, but how tight are we in making sure that our waters are protected? Because the fishery is the renewable resource, the oil industry is not. That is what we have to remember. How strong and how much teeth does this piece of legislation have to protect that particular industry?

The use of pesticides and chemicals in the Province; I remember this year past some of my constituents calling because there was spraying going on the brush that was cut on the side of the road. We had to have some questions answered to that. Was it okay to use that particular type of pesticide? Is it safe? Will it get into the streams? Those are issues that were raised.

Then, of course, we have some developments which are about to occur which we call the mega-projects, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about, in particular, Voisey's Bay; the smelter, hydromet. What are the implications for us, as a Province, in the long-term when it comes to those type of things?

There are a lot of concerns in this Province and more. I have only listed some of them. When we get to debate in committee and we start to list so many of the concerns that we have with this particular piece of legislation we all owe it to ourselves and this House, each and every one of us, to have a long, hard look at this, each clause, clause by clause. You have to wonder, if we spent so much time tonight in our overview of looking at this piece of legislation before we get into clause by clause and the particulars of this particular piece of legislation, we have to wonder, are we giving it - a lawyer's term - due diligence? Are we giving it the time we need to give it in order to look at it?

In particular tonight, Mr. Speaker, when we were talking about one amendment earlier tonight, the Child Advocate Act, we found one particular word on that particular amendment, and after - I do not know the time, we could check the time - maybe forty-five or fifty minutes back and forth on a concern we raised on one word - and as a good House should do, as a good Legislature should do, the minister got up and acknowledged that we could change one word. He addressed the concern raised by the Opposition and the member from the New Democratic Party. We addressed an issue and we settled it.

Then we look at this Bill 45, if I am not mistaken and remember right, there are seventeen parts to this particular piece of legislation, 125 sections. Parts range from the application and the environment, education, research, right on down through regulations, the offences, the penalty and repeal; right on through 125 sections, seventeen parts. We just spent half an hour, at least - I tell you, the Minister of Municipal Affairs did a good job on points that were addressing anything to do with municipalities, Mr. Speaker. He spent twenty minutes on that. We let him go on. We gave him leave to discuss some of those.

Mr. Speaker, there are concerns. We are going to be asking the minister - he is going to have to be ready for a lot of questions, a lot of concerns, amendments, which the Member for St. John's South has raised already. I guess our biggest concern is this, that at the end of the day, when we stand to vote on this particular piece of legislation in the House, that all those concerns that have been raised and debated, one by one, one clause at a time, so that each person in this House, when the final vote is in, everybody can feel comfortable that one of the most important pieces of legislation that we are about to pass in this House of Assembly, by this Legislature, is as strong as it should be, that it was not a rush job. It was not something that we packed together - I think the member for St. John's said, a cut and paste job. It should be a good job where we started from the foundation and worked our way up, one act at a time, one clause at a time, so that we address each and every concern in this piece of legislation. That is what we are here for. Whether it is 9:20 in the night or whether it is 9 o'clock in the morning, the concerns and the clauses, clause by clause, is all of our concern. It is laws and regulations that we are going to make that is going to affect somebody five years from now.

One of the biggest concerns raised by the Member for St. John's South - and certainly clause-by-clause, each section, we will address it to the minister - is the discretion of the minister, and that is nothing towards this particular minister, Mr. Speaker. That is not to say whether he is the best Minister of Environment we have ever had or the worst. It is not for us to judge. That is for the people of the Province to judge. It is nothing towards the Minister of Environment. The fact is for anybody - if the Member for St. John's South were sitting in that seat in four or five or six months from now as the minister, probably then the best Minister of Environment ever, then we have to wonder, with the discretion that he has, is that right? Is that the best way to enforce this legislation, Bill 45, so that it has the most power and the most strength to address the concerns that we have discussed here to date. In the second reading, Mr. Speaker, it is an overview, it is concern, but as we step into each and every clause and we address the minister, the minister who has so much discretion, clause-by-clause, can he answer all those questions?

I notice the minister has been over there taking notes on clause-by-clause and he realizes how much power he has in his hands when we finally stand in this Legislature and vote on this very important piece of legislation. Does this minister, as good or bad as he is, like I said, maybe the best, maybe the worst, the people will judge, but any minister, any of the forty-eight members in this Legislature who may be the Minister of the Environment some day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you.

To the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I appreciate your time.

Mr. Speaker, I will just say to the minister, in all seriousness, it is a very, very important piece of legislation. It is a big act to pull together, because basically it is five acts. It will address some of the biggest concerns in this Province's history, probably. Certainly, when we get to clause-by-clause in Committee, we will be addressing specific questions to the minister, on his discretionary power, on this particular piece of legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased tonight to rise and support my hon. colleague in second reading of the Environmental Protection Act, which is a very comprehensive act, as everybody has agreed.

This rolls in the Environment Act; the Environmental Assessment Act, 2000; the Pesticides Control Act; the Waste Management Act and the Waste Material Disposal Act.

Mr. Speaker, we take this bill seriously on this side as well. Just a few guiding principles. In terms of the reason why we bring this act into being, it is to achieve some of the principles of environmental protection and also to ensure that we have a sustainable development in this Province.

One of the issues in bringing an act like this in place is to ensure that we have protection of human health. Maintaining a clean and healthy environment helps to ensure that protection. We can protect human health by prudent management of the substances released into the atmosphere.

This act covers a wide range of different topics. Government has always taken a precautionary approach to dealing with the environment. We always want to ensure that, when we are dealing with the environment, we do it very prudently; but we also have to know that we cannot shut down the whole prospect of sustainable development. We have to allow development at the same time we ensure the protection of our environment.

Mr. Speaker, some of the previous speakers indicated the issues around mining, the issues around contaminated sites, the old air force sites, and I will speak about that a little bit in a few minutes, because there are not many around and we certainly want to ensure that these kinds of things do not happen again because they are very expensive, and they are very expensive as far as the environment is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, stewardship - because we all own the environment. The environment belongs to all of us, so we have to ensure that we all do our part to ensure that the environment is protected and used wisely.

Pollution prevention is another issue that we need to ensure because that becomes a very expensive matter, as we find out, in terms of trying to clean up oil spills, clean up contaminated sites, clean up old American sites, clean up mines such as Hope Brook, and those kinds of issues. They are very expensive if we do not look at pollution prevention.

We need to use our water resources wisely. As we know, as the previous speaker mentioned -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: No, Walkerton was a wake-up call for us, and the Saskatchewan situation was another wake-up call.

We have to understand what kinds of pollutants are going into our water supplies, that will impact the water that we drink and the water that we use for other things.

There are many, many things that the environment applies to: water fowl, animals, fish, anything you want - people. All of these things are impacted by how we handle our environment. Of course, as I indicated earlier, we are all stakeholders in the environment. We all have to play our part in terms of protecting the environment while still allowing the world to be active, and also understanding that we have to have developments such as forestry development, mining development, and the like. We still have to fish.

We have to understand some of those things in terms of how we deal with the environment; the kinds of things that we have to ensure. That is what this act is set out to do: to give us a greater protection. It is set out to give us a greater management capacity in terms of how we handle the environment and how we deal with the environment.

Some of the parts of our act, Mr. Speaker, where it indicates that the polluter pays, I think that is the right thing to do. I believe that if we have a greater management of that particular aspect, that we will see less and less abuse to the environment that we want to protect, want to see, and want to continue to have pristine in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I come from a part of the Province that has a vast area of 110,000 square miles. I think, for us to have to indicate that five or six inspectors have to ensure that all of that area is protected, we have to provide our own management for the protection of that particular area. If we are outfitters, we have to be our own policemen. If we camp in the area, if the mines are in the area, we have to ensure that what we are doing is in our own best interest. We have to educate people so that everybody looks after the environment and we don't only depend on the environment officers that we hire, as government, or that companies hire. We have to be our own policemen and we have to do a better job of it.

This legislation, Mr .Speaker, is what is called enabling legislation as well. That gives some flexibility to the enforcement of the environment and to the protection of the environment. It does not leave the rigid areas where you can only do this and you can only do that, because different parts of the Province require different types of management in terms of environmental cleanup and environmental protection, and environmental management. We have to have some leverage in that area to allow the department, whatever that department might be, to ensure that the environment is being managed and protected properly.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the Member for Baie Verte, indicated there were seventeen sections, or something, to this act. There are a lot of sections to this act. It is very comprehensive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventeen?

MR. McLEAN: Seventeen, yes.

It is very comprehensive, and it applies to many, many different areas. It talks about waste disposal, a number of areas of waste disposal. I can relate back to my previous life when I was working in the Labrador area. We even started at that time to combine dump sites. In the area of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, we made one dump site our of five. That was back in the late 1980s, Mr. Speaker. That was the beginning of what we thought was a proper process to ensure that we were looking after the environment and we were treating the environment with respect.

In my own area itself, the Lake Melville district, we have one dump site for three communities. We do have problems. We have problems with the Churchill River. There is raw sewage going into the Churchill River and we are trying to deal with that over the next little while. This act will ensure that we deal with these kinds of issues on a timely basis.

In terms of contaminated sites, Mr. Speaker, I guess back to about the early 1940s, the sites started to crop up, especially across Labrador. They were called NORAD early warning sites. You can go up there now and there are still remnants of those sites. There is a lot of garbage left around. There are a fair number of places where it is going to cost massive amounts of money to get in and clean up those sites. These sites were all established by the Americans under an agreement with Canada, and we are left with the costs of cleanup of all those sites, and the federal government is paying out millions and millions of dollars. In Goose Bay alone, we have a little Kuwait formed from oil spills that they have had there since the early 1940s when they put the big tanks in. We have managed almost fully now to clean up that whole site but it has cost about $5 million. Saglek is another huge site, Mr. Speaker, that is going to cost something like $12 million to $18 million to clean up. Those are the kinds of things that, through an act like this, we have to ensure that these things do not happen any more. We have to ensure that when we do developments they are environmentally friendly, that they treat the environment with respect, and that we all understand that the environment is not only for us, not only for our children, but for generations to come. I think we have to manage that in the appropriate way, and this new act goes a long way in terms of determining that.

Mr. Speaker, air quality is another issue. We have a lot of buildings, a lot of older buildings that are full of asbestos, through insulation, through pipe coverings, through siding and all of the like. Those are all issues that will be ensured, through this legislation, that we will have to clean up, and that will give us a much better prospect for air quality for our kids to go to school.

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, let me say that this legislation is a very progressive piece of legislation because it is piecing together a lot of ripples that we had, and it is going to make the supervision, management and enforcement of environmental requirements much simpler, much easier, and also much more manageable, Mr. Speaker. I certainly support this piece of legislation as a very, very good progressive piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: If the hon. member would yield to me for just twenty-five seconds?

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

MR. LUSH: I just want to tell hon. members that I am so pleased with tonight's activity that I make a motion, under Order 11, that we not adjourn tomorrow at the regular time.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise, too, and say a few words on the legislation before the House this evening. I would like to say that the environment is becoming more and more important as time goes on. The environment is not looked at today, Mr. Speaker, in the same light as it was viewed a few short years ago.

We have an obligation here in this House, and we have an obligation as adults in our society, to make sure that the environment is looked after so that our children and grandchildren can inherit the earth, hopefully, in a much better shape than it is at the present time.

Some of the things that were mentioned earlier I can relate to, such as the raw sewage that is going out into the bays around this Province. I am sure that many of the people in this House this evening can relate to the fact that, when they were growing up, they probably swam in the salt water surrounding their communities. Right now in lot of communities around this Province that is not possible to do. The mess that has been created by raw sewage going into the harbours and the bays around this Province is sickening, for lack of a better word, and cleanup needs to take place immediately so that the raw sewage that is going out into the harbours and the bays - and is interfering, by the way, with an aquaculture program - has to stop as soon as possible.

I would like to start off again, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the environmental problems that we face today concerning that are not necessarily the fault of the present Administration or the past Administration or the previous governments going back over the past twenty years. What in fact happened is that the environment was not a priority until a few years ago. I think everybody in our society holds a share of the blame for creating many of the problems that exist today.

If you look around this Province, in through the isolated areas, if you want, not too many years ago there were numerous car wrecks all over the place. I am happy to say that, from the areas that I frequent, that is not the case today. You may see a scattered one, but it is not like it used to be a few short years ago.

One thing that I know irritates me, and I am sure many others who frequent the great outdoors that we are blessed to have in this Province, is when you are in a particular location and just when you start to think that no one who was every here before in this particular spot that you are occupying at the moment, you look through the woods and see a plastic bag, a coke can, an empty sausage can, or things of that nature, and it sort of deflates the feeling that you had about the lack of pollution in this Province.

I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that we have to expand also the number of items that we have right now that we are using as recyclable. That has to be expanded so that more items can be included and stop the waste that is going into the landfills and into incinerators around this Province.

The Member for Lake Melville talked about some of the sites around the Province, the former military sites. I understand there is some cleanup taking place in Northern Labrador this summer, at a place called Saglek, a former NORAD site. With the number of chemicals that are around these areas, people have to be really qualified in order to do the cleanup because they have to understand and know the dangers that are inherent when they are working on cleanup of these sites. PCBs, for example, a carcinogenic, are, in many sites around this Province, widespread. It takes special clothing and special knowledge in order to work on the cleanup of these materials.

Mr. Speaker, the water, the air and the ozone layer are becoming increasingly important to people of this country and this Province. For example, a recent survey by an environmental coalition said: Canadians regard environmental issues, such as water, the air and the ozone, as having clear implications for their own health. People understand you have to protect the environment because, at the same time, we are protecting our health. That is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that we all have in common, whether we be rich, whether we be poor or whether we be in between. We all have to breath the air and we all have to drink the water. That is a concern right across the board, Mr. Speaker, for everyone in every walk of society, no matter where they fit on the scale.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we can look at another area of the Province where this government has been stuck with a $10 million bill to clean up the former Hope Brook site. The owners of that mine closed the mine after making good profits for many years, packed up all their equipment, moved it out of the Province to be used in other locations, and left us on the hook, the taxpayers of this Province, with the cleanup bill.

The Member for Baie Verte talked about the asbestos and the environmental issues that were there, particularly during the 1970s, up until 1978, Mr. Speaker, when the Steelworkers Union in Baie Verte conducted a four-month strike, the longest strike in Canadian history even to this day, on occupational, health and safety. The environmental issue in the community was a big factor, Mr. Speaker, in their decision to take that strike, because the whole community, the entire community, was being affected with the tailings, the dust, the piles of waste, and the asbestos blowing freely in the air throughout the community.

When we look at the iron ore industry in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, we have had our environmental problems there as well. I am glad to say that there has been much progress made in that area thanks to the fact that the iron ore company, in particular, has switched to a wet-grinding system, and that both mines in Labrador West currently engaged in a seeding program on their tailings lines, while we are not satisfied that it is progressing as fast as we like, at least an effort is being made and progress is being made.

Mr. Speaker, we also look at the area of St. Lawrence, the radiation in the mines there, and the number of lives destroyed, the number of families it left to fend for themselves after their husband or brother or loved one had died as a result of radiation in the mines that they were being exposed to.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of issues concerning the environment in this Province that we can look to and see that a lot of work is needed. I say to the minister, that there has to be a good system of enforcement because the act itself or the regulations are only as good as the enforcement will make them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks, and certainly we look forward to debating this bill further, clause-by-clause, as it goes through the next reading.

Thank you.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise tonight to have a few minutes on this excellent piece of legislation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - that the hon. Minister of Environment is bringing forward. I have to say, this Minister of Environment that we have is doing a good job bringing forward progressive legislation. This government has been bringing forward progressive legislation all session, Mr. Speaker, and this is another example of it. When you see what we are doing, in the sense that we are combining a number of acts, we are making it less complicated for people to understand, we are making it easier to administer, and we are also bringing in a water resources act which will be a great help to the public of the Province, Mr. Speaker, I think that is very positive.

Mr. Speaker, when you look also at recent history, at what we have been doing as a government when it comes to the water supplies of the Province, the Department of Environment and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs have been working to deal with the water supplies in the Province, to improve the water supplies in the Province. There has been a lot of progress made this year. I would say probably the most progress ever made, as a matter of fact, in recent history, when you look at the number of investments that we had made as a government in helping communities. I think it is a very high number. It is approaching almost $10 million now, the minister was telling me the other day. So, there is a lot of new investment.

Look at the example, Mr. Speaker, of Stephenville. In Stephenville, we have a new water supply in the last twelve months, a $10 million investment by this government with the municipality. We have a brand new water supply which the people there are very happy with, and is an example of new investment, good investment, in the environment in protection of water, in enhancing the water supply, Mr. Speaker. In Stephenville Crossing we have a new water tower just put in place, a combination of funding of $850,000 between our government and the municipality and the federal government. Again, there was a need there to address that concern and we were able to do so.

We are working on all these issues, especially with water supplies across the Province, in a diligent way with the municipalities, with the local service districts. We are working with them to try and finance the improvements that are needed. They are big demands, Mr. Speaker, but this government has made it a priority to try to deal with these problems. It is quite evident because the facts speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, here tonight there was some mention about the former bases. When you look at, in Stephenville, the former U.S. Air Force cleanup, we discovered, when we were looking at what was happening with the oil underground over in Stephenville, a number of underground pipelines. We tested the underground pipelines and we found that there were some problems. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and our Department of Environment were able to get together and work with the federal government, and now that base site is pretty well close to cleaned up with the underground pipelines. That has been all pretty well cleaned up. There is still a remediation program going on. Again, a problem was identified, actions were outlined and they were taken by the government as another example of cleaning up the environment. That was a major problem that we faced, but we were able to do it. Right now, the Stephenville town is a beneficiary of that decision. We have worked to do that, and I think there was over $4 million spent, Mr. Speaker, in the cleanup activity for the municipality, within the municipality, by the federal and provincial governments, to deal with what was perceived to be a long-term environmental problem. We have seen that cleaned up.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to note that there has been some discussion here this evening - when we talk about environmental protection and the environment we are talking about forest practices. There has been some suggestions about the forest industry and how, supposedly, this industry is not a friend, I suppose, to the environment, or that it is not carrying out its responsibility. I want to go on the record and say, Mr. Speaker, the forest industry is important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I will tell you, there are a lot of good forestry practices going on. As a matter of fact, it was just less than two years ago that Abitibi-Consolidated received an environmental certification, ISO 14001. It was the first time in Canada that an Abitibi-Consolidated woodlands had achieved that type of certification. That would require an independent audit of their forestry practices. I was talking to the auditor who was coming in on an ongoing basis and checking to see if Abitibi is carrying out these forestry practices in the appropriate fashion.

When we talk about the industry, I think we should also balance what is going on out there in the real world in the forest industry. Yes, there is harvesting of forests, Mr. Speaker, but there is then reforestation, there is thinning of the forest to allow that forest to come back, and 75 per cent to 80 per cent of our forest is thinned, Mr. Speaker. It is a thinning process that is involved; it is not replanting. So a lot of that is natural regeneration. These are important issues when we look at environmental protection for the future. They are very important.

When we look at the recycling program that has been brought in, Mr. Speaker, we have seen new jobs created in the economy, we have seen a lot of schools get involved in the recycling program that the Minister of Environment has ongoing now. I would say there are hundred of schools in the Province right now that are involved in raising money through recycling, whereas they were not able to do that five or six years ago, and they are now doing it. I have been to a number of schools where they have the recycling receptacles and bins all over the place, where people and the children bring forward their recyclables. It is a good, positive initiative which is seeing the environment get cleaned up from some of these items which we did not have a process to do before. So that has been a positive environmental initiative that this government has undertaken. There is more to come, Mr. Speaker. With this Minister of Environment bringing forward this very positive, pro-active legislation we are going to see that happen.

I also want to highlight the fact that this legislation, the copies of these documents, were sent out to the public on September 19. We had public hearings all over the Province. I think the minister attended almost every public hearing all over the Province all fall. There has been more time, I would say, to read this legislation, probably, than any other legislation we have had to deal with in a long time, Mr. Speaker. I do not really see the point when they are talking about the lack of time to debate their opportunity. That cannot be, because obviously they would have had this legislation for the last two-and-a-half months and certainly would have had been able to check it out.

As a matter of fact, some of the legislation is really just updating. I believe the Environmental Assessment Act is really being put into the Environmental Protection Act, and that is an excellent act we brought forward in the last year-and-a-half, which is really doing a good job. Environmental assessment legislation is probably the best environmental assessment legislation in Canada right now, Mr. Speaker. It does us very well. It protects the public from industrial development in the right way, and it also allows industrial development to occur but in a way that is sustainable, in a way that makes sure that our environment is protected. It allows for sustainable development to occur, and that is very important.

I am sure the Opposition attended the hearings. I am sure they did, and hopefully we will hear if they have other suggestions about the bills. I am sure they are going to support them at the end of the day, because this is very positive legislation. It is very positive and we want to see this brought forward, as we have brought forward a whole range of legislation in this session, very positive legislation, for the public to deal with.

Municipalities are working now with our Department of Environment and our Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in a very proactive fashion. I would say it is as co-operative as I have ever seen since I have been in this House, Mr. Speaker. We are working with them to do regional landfills, evaluations at this point on the Avalon Peninsula, as described by the minister. We are also looking at the West Coast, doing the same thing. In Central Newfoundland, we have been looking in some areas there.

There is a real concern by the public, and by municipalities in particular, to try to address these issues, and a lot of co-operation is going on. What this legislation is going to do is allow for that co-operation to continue. We are looking forward to seeing that occur so that we can see more progress made on these issues, because it is important that it is made. It is extremely important because, in the portfolio that I serve at this point, in tourism, it is extremely important to have good environmental legislation that we can talk about, that we can brag about, to people who are from away who are looking at coming to our place. It is important that we have decent environmental protection, environmental legislation. It is important that we protect certain areas of our Province, reserves in our Province. It is important that we look at national parks for Labrador, that will be coming shortly and will really put Labrador on the map in a major way. That also means that we have to protect, and will be protecting, large tracts of land in Labrador, that great wilderness that is on the planet. We are looking forward to seeing that, once we do protect it, there is an economic opportunity to attract thousands of people to Newfoundland and Labrador to come visit the great wildlife that we have, Mr. Speaker, the great outdoors that we have, the great recreation opportunities that abound in this Province.

We are getting into winter product marketing for our tourism industry, but that will only occur with proper environmental legislation that helps us, that backs us up all the way. We certainly support this legislation because it is important for the people of the Province to have this type of legislation. Just as we are bringing in endangered species legislation in this session, these are good pieces, strong pieces, of legislation that will allow us - and they are complementary - to help market our Province. It will allow us to be able to show that we are forward thinkers in this land that we inhabit. It is very important that we show leadership in that way. We are very pleased to see that occur.

We are delighted - I am delighted - with the fact that this legislation has traveled the Province, that it has had a good look by everybody and it has had two-and-a-half months in the public eye. Mr. Speaker, we look forward to seeing that occur. Again, another tremendous piece of legislation by a government that is bringing a lot of legislation in that is really thinking about the future, that is looking forward to the future, developing the economy, developing the opportunities that the environmental industries of the Province are working with us hand in hand to look at new opportunities, and that is very important. We look forward to seeing that occur and we look forward to seeing this legislation get its due consideration as we go forward.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I think I have really put forward my good thoughts on this. I have to say, they have been very good.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I know, Mr. Speaker, that it pains the Opposition to see another good piece of legislation. I know it is not easy. I know it is difficult. It is hard when you have to get up and say, we do not think it is that good because it is not that good.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is very positive and it can stand up to anything across Canada when it comes to environmental protection. We look forward to seeing it. The Member for Windsor-Springdale said it was good legislation, so that is good to hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: At the public hearings.

MR. K. AYLWARD: At the public hearings. We are glad to hear that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is very important.

The thing is, Mr. Speaker, it has a sound basis for going forward. We are also going to see, as part of the legislation, enforcement enhanced, as the minister has outlined in the legislation and in his speaking notes. We will see enforcement enhanced because we are going to see the ability of the minister to be able to designate more officers to deal with infractions and so on. It is important that, in our big land of Newfoundland and Labrador, that occur.

Mr. Speaker, knowing the time, I think I will adjourn the debate if the hon. speaker will allow me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It now being 9:58 p.m., I will adjourn debate until tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.