December 13, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 48

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings today I would like to welcome to the

gallery the former Member for the District of St. George's, Dr. Howard Hulan,

along with Mr. Drago Kersevan of Italy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and

Labrador recently presented Volunteer Medals to ninety-six exceptional

volunteers in special ceremonies at various locations across this Province.

I think we can all agree that this is just a small way to pay tribute to

these individuals who make such meaningful contributions to our communities. I

would like to give two examples of the kind of volunteers we have in this

Province and mention the medal winners from the District of Port de Grave.

Elizabeth Jerret, Bay Roberts; Elizabeth Jerret has served as a volunteer for

thirty years. She has taken administrative, executive and leadership roles at

the local, regional and provincial levels of charitable recreational,

educational and youth guidance organizations. Most notably, she was the driving

force between the formation of the Bay Roberts Heritage Society.

Vernon Petten, Port de Grave; Vernon Petten has been a volunteer for more

than thirty years. He has served his community as a member of his local heritage

and museum societies, as well as in various church and community development

organizations. He has travelled at his own expense to devastated areas of the

world to assist in educational development and disaster relief efforts.

In mentioning these names today, I realize that there are many around this

Province who also tirelessly volunteer their time to bettering their

communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in paying tribute to the

volunteers of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to note the recent passing of the late Mr. William R. Smallwood,

Q.C. who passed away on Tuesday, October 30, 2001. Mr. Smallwood had enjoyed

careers both in the legal profession and as a member of this House of Assembly.

He served as the Member for Green Bay in the 1960s and 1970s.

Bill served his constituents for some fifteen years. As the son of the hon.

Joseph R. and Clara Smallwood, certainly Bill was raised around politics, seeing

firsthand the involvement of his father in the Confederation (inaudible),

setting up the first provincial House of Assembly and serving as the Province's

first Premier.

Although well known in public life, local residents knew Bill as a neighbour

and a great outdoors person. Whoever showed up at his door on Roaches Line were

welcomed, and his home was yours. As an outdoors person, Bill could be seen any

day roaming the woods in and around Roaches Line, Ocean Pond area, an area he

literally knew like the back of his hand. He was a great lover of animals. As an

avid traveler he traveled, not so much I guess to see places as to meet people,

to understand their culture and their way of living.

His presence in my district will be missed, his passing a reminder perhaps of

a past era in Newfoundland and Labrador politics. Bill is survived by his wife,

Marcella, his sons; Andrew, Billy, Douglas; daughters, Leslie and Tanya, four

grandchildren, his sister Clara and his brother Ramsay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in offering

condolences to the Smallwood family on the passing of Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, too often we take volunteers for granted, too

often we fail to recognize the important contributions they make. With this in

mind, I want to join my colleagues today in recognizing those who have been

awarded the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Medal. In the district I

represent, David Brenton of Marystown and Marguerite Martin of Burin, were the

two selected from the many possible nominees.

David Brenton has been a volunteer for thirty years at the local, regional,

provincial and national levels. He has served as a town councillor, at all

levels of the Kinsmen Club and was a founding member of the local youth club.

His primary area of service has been in sports, particularly basketball,

softball, and recreation. He is a member of the Sport Newfoundland and Labrador

and the high school athletic foundation.

Marguerite Martin has been volunteering for over forty years. She has served

as treasurer of the Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary and has knit for the

Red Cross since WWII. She is active within her church and women's association,

has served on the local library board and as president of the senior citizen's

club in Burin.

Mr. Speaker, these are two people who provide examples of the power of the

individual to change things. Through their efforts they have had a tremendous

impact on the communities where they live.

I ask all members to join in paying tribute to those volunteers, especially

the two volunteer medal winners from Burin-Placentia West, in the Burin and

Marystown area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is my pleasure today to offer sincerest congratulations to two residents

of the District of St. John's West: Michael Duggan of Boyle Street and Taryn

Stone of Lamanche Place. Today, they received the Duke of Edinburgh Gold Award

from the Governor General of Canada, Her Excellency, The Right Honourable

Adrienne Clarkson.

This is a very prestigious award. It is valued by a range of organizations

and employers. It is non-competitive. The people who are participants set their

own standards. It is a real personal challenge, quite demanding and very

rewarding. I am certain that both Michael and Taryn felt most rewarded for the

efforts they have put in over the past year or eighteen months towards attaining

this award.

I am sure they felt very rewarded this morning when they received their

awards and I ask the House to join with me in sending warmest congratulation to

them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in this, the International Year of the Volunteer, people from

all across this Province have received the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer

Medal. I want today to pay tribute to the two volunteers from the District of

Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

Firstly, Lillian Parsons of Victoria. Lillian has been active in a variety of

volunteering roles for more than thirty years. She has served her town as a

councillor, as well as through church and community events. She has been

involved with minor hockey and the hospital auxiliary as co-ordinator of

volunteers.

Last, but not least, Doug Moores, Q.C., of Harbour Grace. Doug has served as

a volunteer for thirty years, contributing locally, provincially, nationally and

internationally. He has leadership roles in numerous sports, arts and culture,

health care, and business and development associations. He has made significant

contributions to the Conception Bay North Development Association, the Harbour

Grace Board of Trade and the Baccalieu Chamber of Commerce, among others.

Mr. Speaker, these two individuals exemplify the meaning of community service

and we are much richer because of their contribution. I ask members to join with

me in offering congratulations and thanks to these two medals winners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, with the concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member

for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I will move at a later proceeding, after Question

Period, that Mr. Fraser March be appointed as Citizens' Representative

effective February 1, 2002.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I might make just a few comments, Mr. Speaker, and I know

that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party,

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, would also like to make a few comments as

we have just unanimously welcomed Mr. March as the newest officer of this

Legislature. He is here with us in the gallery today.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that this proposed appointment has

been made, as I indicated, by the agreement of all parties. As you are aware,

Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to appoint a Citizens' Representative to

ensure greater confidence in the institutions of government. It is a priority

for government to create a greater level of trust, openness and accountability.

Mr. March, as our new Citizens' Representative, will have a mandate, Mr.

Speaker, to hear public concerns regarding the administration of programs and

services. He is independent of government and is free to make recommendations

which he feels are necessary in carrying out his duties.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. March is no stranger to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. His work as President of the Newfoundland Association of Public

Employees for more than a decade gave him a heightened awareness among not only

public employees in the Province but all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. He

was also a teacher for many years, Mr. Speaker, both in the regular day school

system and in the adult vocational system, and in recent years was self-employed

as a labour consultant. Mr. March's skills as an experienced negotiator and

competent communicator and leader will undoubtedly prove invaluable to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador in his new position.

We look forward, Mr. Speaker, to having Mr. March serve this Legislature and

the people of the Province in his new role as the Citizens' Representative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I commend government on this appointment. I cannot think of a

better person, actually, to be elected as the Citizens' Representative than

Mr. March. I told our caucus this morning there was overwhelming support

throughout our entire caucus for that appointment.

Mr. March, of course, as we all know, has always been a champion of the

people, and I think that this will probably be the pinnacle of an illustrious

career. We go back a long ways, back to political science class, actually, at

the university, which we shared with George Baker, so there were a few

personalities came out of that one, I can tell you, but those were great times.

They were Jerry Murphy's classes, I am sure you remember, Fraser. As well, of

course, I actually voted for Fraser as President of the Students' Union, so I

am prepared to publicly acknowledge that today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He is a wonderful individual, as the Premier has indicated.

He has taught and he has instructed for a decade. He negotiated, of course, and

was a renowned labour leader. Basically, he stood up for what he believed in,

and paid a price from time to time. I admire him for that. I think he is going

to serve us very, very well.

As the Citizens' Representative, of course, he does have to be the champion

of the people. He does have to be an advocate. We, as a caucus, have complete

faith and confidence in his judgement, and again we commend government for that.

He brings to the table a position as a student activist, as an educator, as a

negotiator, as a labour leader, and as a politician. I commend him for that as

well.

We think it is a marvelous appointment. I even think in his role in the

Freedom of Information Act, the role that he can bring there, and possibly if we

are able to agree on some of the amendments down the road, if he is able to have

the power to be able to order and enforce his judgements, then I think he is

going to serve the Province very, very well.

I wish him all the very best.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to endorse the appointment of Fraser

March. I want to congratulate him and congratulate the Premier on giving this

office the first representative who, I think, will meet the wide approval of all

people in Newfoundland and Labrador. He is a man with whom I think we have all

had personal relationships, going back with Fraser March. I think I first met

him in about 1967, when I was on the Student Union at Memorial University and

Fraser was the president. I think I worked on his first political campaign in

1968. So that is how far back we go in terms of knowing each other. From that

day forward, Fraser has always been known as a person who champions a cause of

people, whether they be fellow employees or ordinary people. I think there may

be only one group in this Province that have some regret that Fraser March will

be the Citizens' Representative, and that would be the home care workers in

the Province for whom Fraser most recently has been active in advocating on

their behalf. They may feel the regret that they have lost a champion, but I am

sure there will be others come forward to assist them in their cause.

I conclude by saying, I think it is a terrific appointment. I agree with the

Leader of the Opposition. I can't think of a better person to hold this

office, and I welcome him as an Officer of the House of Assembly and look

forward to working with him in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I ask, by leave, that we have to formalize

the appoint with a resolution under the act. If we could have unanimous consent,

I could read the resolution now and we could put it to a vote and make it

official.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have leave? Is it agreed?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that under

section 3(1) of the Citizens' Representative Act that

Fraser March be appointed as the Citizens' Representative effective February

1, 2002. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we dispense with the normal proceedings and put

it to a vote at this point in time, if it is agreeable with the House.

MR. SPEAKER: You have all heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

I declare the motion carried unanimously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the mood that we are all in and because it is Christmas, I may only have

one question for the Premier today. Of course, it depends on the answer.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General is required by law to table her annual

report with yourself, Your Honour, the Speaker of the House, by January 31 st

of each year, and release it at the earliest available sitting of the House. It

appears that the report will not be submitted in time for release during the

present sitting of this House and will not be released, therefore, before the

next sitting which may be in March of 2002.

Will the Premier agree to pass an amendment to the Auditor General's Act

today that will direct the Speaker to release the report to the members of the

House and to the public as soon as it is formally received by the Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that we would need to debate the bill, but I can tell you that I

would gladly give a commitment. As soon as the Speaker receives this next due

report from the Auditor General we will gladly, in the spirit of openness and

accountability that we represent and champion, have it released immediately and

then if we need to come back and actually debate a bill so it happens year after

year after year - but this report that the Auditor General, I understand, has

almost ready and prepared, could be released as soon as the Speaker gets it.

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.

I do appreciate the Premier's comment and the Premier's answer. Premier,

we have taken the liberty of preparing an amendment for your perusal today, if

you could consider. If it is satisfactory and if it could be passed by leave of

the House, we could do it today. If we could present that to you at some point

as soon as we finish Question Period that will be done.

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: That's fine. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will gladly have a look at it as soon as it is presented. Probably our

Justice Minister and a couple of others will review it quickly and if the spirit

of what I understand is there, and in the spirit of all of us, want access to

the information at the earliest opportunity, we will certainly give it

consideration later today by consent.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Dioxions and furans have been linked to cancer, birth defects, skin, liver

and thyroid problems, as well as reproductive problems. As persistent organic

pollutants they accumulate in living organisms and the environment. They move

through the food chain to humans, have long-term toxic effects and can be passed

from mother to child. This Province have emission numbers on the incinerators in

the Province. Instead of releasing them, we hear of them through a national

newspaper.

I ask the minister: Since Environment Canada have released their concerns and

declared both dioxions and furans as toxic substances in 1990, how many of this

Province's forty-odd incinerators have been shut down?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do not have the numbers in front of me of how many have been shut down to

date, but I can tell you he is referring to a report that was in The Globe

and Mail yesterday.

I want to make it very clear that this government's first commitment to

waste management in this Province is to shut down the Harbour Grace incinerator.

We have made a commitment to shut down all incinerators in the Province by 2008.

If it was up to me, Mr. Speaker, I would shut them down tomorrow, but to do that

we need to have alternative arrangements made for waste management. That is why

we are putting together a waste management strategy for the Province so that we

can effectively deal with waste and manage waste in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

As a result of Canadian regulatory guideline initiatives, dioxin and furan

emissions throughout the entire country as a result of incinerators have been

reduced by over 80 per cent. I ask the minister, how much have they been

decreased in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just outlined in my first answer what the Province is doing in terms of

shutting down incineration. I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we should be

very careful about what we are doing here in trying to cause alarm. What the

hon. member has in his possession is some numbers that were released by

Environment Canada without anything to substantiate these numbers. We have to be

very careful because the information that I have is that the full report is not

out until sometime in the spring of 2002. He should also keep in mind that the

information that he has is not from actual scientific monitoring. It is based on

a model that was created in a laboratory based on the amount of garbage

collected or burnt. Numbers are derived from that based on an emission number.

What he is talking about is not actually scientific monitoring. So we have to be

careful, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, our first commitment is to the people of this Province, to shut

down every incinerator in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The figures I am quoting are from Environment and Health Canada. According to

Health Canada, because dioxins and furans accumulate in bodies of both animals

and fish, the populations are in areas that co-exist with incinerators and

hunting and fishing are at a greater risk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Has this provincial government released to

people in areas where there are incinerators, guidelines, notices or warnings

about hunting and fishing and the health hazards to people who live, hunt and

fish in these areas?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the hon. member ought to know, incineration is not the only source of

furans and dioxins. There are other sources from industry accumulated around the

Province.

It is quite interesting. I heard the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

speaking here the other day on this very same topic, when the Member for St.

John's South put numbers in his head that we here in Newfoundland were

actually producing 40 per cent of all the emissions in Canada. This is the kind

of information that is absolutely false. It is absolutely false. It should not

be done. These numbers that have been put out have been done by Environment

Canada, not by the provincial Environment Department.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Environment has made

arrangements with the Conception Bay North Incineration Committee to collect the

information of the amount that they are burning. In terms of what the exact

emissions are, it is done on modeling.

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

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

You can argue with Environment Canada's number is you wish. I am not going

to.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: Why have you not released

warnings or guidelines to people who live in areas where there are incinerators,

about the health hazards of hunting and fishing in those areas?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I have said, we in this Province are on a mission of managing the waste

that we produce. Our first priority is to shut down all incinerators in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with the Harbour Grace incinerator being

the number one.

Thank you very much.

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

South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to ask the minister, while these incinerators are still in

operation, will you release warnings, notices and guidelines about the health

hazards of hunting and fishing in the areas where incinerators are currently

operating, to warn people of the health hazards?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I will certainly consult with my colleague, the Minister of Health and

Community Services, to take a look at where we are going. I believe everybody in

the Province recognizes that there is a problem with open burning, not just with

incinerators, Mr. Speaker. It is also a concern with open burning of garbage.

Mr. Speaker, we are, as I have said, moving to eliminate incineration in this

Province as soon as humanly possible.

Thank you very much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance.

Several Newfoundland entrepreneurs established a business with an innovative

product and they incorporated in March of this year. Win a Grand Incorporated is

in full compliance with

section 74.06 of the federal Competition Act of Canada

and the product they sell is a non-lottery product.

A police investigation back in May concluded that they have confirmed there

is no violation of any laws, including

section 206 of the Criminal Code;

however, the Atlantic Lotto Corporation, of which our Province is an owner, has

written the Newfoundland and Labrador Retailers' Association, forbidding them

to sell such products or they will remove Atlantic Lotto Corporation tickets

from their stores. I want to ask the minister: Will she verify in this House

today that the Atlantic Lotto Corporation has no authority over legal

non-lottery products?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The real issue here is: Is it a non-lottery product? There is some

disagreement, obviously. We believe it is. We believe that, because the revenues

from the Atlantic Lottery go into the public coffers of the Province to provide

services, we are challenging that. We believe it is a lottery item.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 30, and recently on December 10, her deputy minister wrote the

marketing director of this company indicating that neither the Provincial

Lotteries Act nor the Criminal Code of Canada gives Atlantic Lotto Corporation

statutory authority or control with respect to legal non-lottery products sold

in stores.

Mr. Speaker, an estimated $3 million of economic activity is generated by

every 1,000 boxes of those tickets that are sold ,and 95 per cent of that stays

here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister

tell the Atlantic Lotto Corporation to stop threatening hundreds of Newfoundland

and Labrador businesses and desist from its unfair and illegal actions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the revenues from Atlantic Lottery should be put

into the public coffers of the Province so that we are able to provide public

services. The member opposite, who knows, and who stands on his feet every other

day and asks for money for paving in his district, or roads, or this or that, or

health care or hospitals or whatever, knows that this Province needs the

revenue. Our argument is that it is a lottery product and therefore it should

not be sold. We believe - and we are getting our own legal opinion on it to

verify where we are coming from on this - we believe that we should be able to

maintain those revenues to provide the public services of the Province, and we

stand by that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Failure to act is condoning and facilitating unlawful practices of a

government-owned corporation and could result, I might add, in a class action

suit on behalf of hundreds of businesses here in this Province.

I want to ask the minister: Will the minister immediately inform Newfoundland

and Labrador lottery retailers that the government will stop the Atlantic Lotto

Corporation from taking any punitive action against retailers in this Province

who sell legal non-lottery products?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr .Speaker, the issue is that we believe they are

lottery items. They are not non-lottery. Because you put a recipe on the back,

or whatever it is, as the member is referring to, does not mean it is not a

lottery ticket. Our view is, these are lottery tickets. We believe that we

should be able to use the revenue to put back into our provincial coffers to

deliver publicly-funded services in this Province, and we will stand by that,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Currently,

Mr. Speaker, there are ten people in the St. John's health care region alone

who are in the hospital, medically discharged, but waiting for home care so that

they can go home. Some of them have been there since August, waiting to go home

and waiting for home care services that have not been provided by this

government because they are on a waiting list.

Will the minister today, being the last day that the House is scheduled to be

opened, assure these people that they will be able to go home for Christmas and

have the proper home care that they need? Can the minister say this today? She

said, on December 5, she needed a few days to review these cases.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very difficult situation, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

understands, and we have had several conversations on this issue. My department

has completed a review of the emergency and urgent cases which exist not only

here but across the Province. I would hope within the next few days to be able

to determine whether or not we will be able to work with the boards to be able

to do something in those cases, but I cannot say today that I can respond

positively in this regard.

As the member knows, home care is a service that is provided by our Health

and Community Services Boards, and in this regard I must work with the boards to

try and resolve this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, certainly it is a difficult situation but if

someone has been in the hospital since August or September, medically discharged

and cannot go home, been on a priority list since then, waiting, presumably, for

someone to either die or give up home care to be able to get access to the

service, that is not good enough.

Can the minister not say that these people who have been waiting since August

or September, and the others - there are ten people. We are not talking about

hundreds of people. Ten people in the St. John's region. I think there are

less elsewhere. We have been trying to get the figures. Can the minister not

give them a guarantee that they will be treated as an urgent priority, and will

be given home care within the next three or four days? Can the minister do that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, what I can say here today is that I will do my

very best to ensure that this issue is resolved before Christmas. I know that

these cases are considered to be very urgent, by all of us: by the boards, the

Health and Community Services Boards, by the officials in my department, and

also, of course, by the Health Care Corporation and the other hospitals which

have responsibility and are actually having to accommodate people who have been

medically discharged.

At this time, my officials are working on it. I am working on it actively. I

hope to have the matter resolved within a couple of days. The next few days is

the best that I can say, Mr. Speaker, at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal

Affairs.

This past weekend, while in Labrador West, many residents expressed a number

of concerns facing them on a day-to-day basis. One such concern was the highway

between Labrador West and Goose Bay, particularly at certain times of the year.

They described the road, Mr. Speaker, as impassable from time to time, resulting

in the hindering of business development and the limiting of job growth by

restricting the transport of goods and materials across the region.

I ask the minister: What steps has he taken to ensure that road conditions

are maintained to the point that would protect the economy and secure the

day-to-day lives of local residents?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. Is he referring to the

Trans-Labrador Highway or Route 389 going down to Baie Comeau, because there are

two totally different sections that impact on our economy? Mr. Speaker, the

section from Lab City to Goose Bay is the

section that we maintain as a

Province. I am not quite sure if he is accurate in saying that the road has

been, at times, closed. In the last few years, since we have done the major

upgrading of $65 million worth of work on that particular

section of highway -

there is one

section that needs topping. Mr. Speaker, that is a

section of

highway of about 200 kilometers between Ranger Lake and Ashuanipi Lake. That,

Mr. Speaker, will be dealt with in this coming construction season to ensure

that the topping of that highway is in the same shape as the new

section between

Churchill Falls and Goose Bay. We can ensure then that it will not impact on the

transportation back and forth between Lab City and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on another transportation

matter, Mr. Minister.

The residents of Labrador are unanimous in the expression of concern over the

exorbitant costs of airfare to and from Labrador with other parts of the Island.

This is a real issue and has to be addressed, I say to the minister, by all

levels of government.

In view of this week's federal budget, could the minister tell this House

and the residents of Labrador what discussions your department has engaged in,

with your federal counterparts and other possible provincial ministries, which

would help alleviate this most restrictive impediment to the people of Labrador

generally?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the member from the other side that we are no happier about the

security levy on this side than they are on that side.

Mr. Speaker, I just had word this morning that this particular levy will also

be incurred on Twin Otter service which is a service up and down the coast. We

will be discussing this with our federal counterparts, and I can tell you we are

going to be very aggressive in dealing with this particular issue, because we

believe that it is another charge that we don't particularly need. We have

been downgraded in our transportation service and we will be dealing with this,

Mr. Speaker, with the Minister of Transportation in Ottawa as well as our

Transportation Department here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I say to the minister, this issue is critical and it does require some

aggression. The issue is critical to the needs of the people of Labrador, in

particular, I say to the minister, those residents who, for health reasons, must

travel to St. John's, for example, for care and treatment.

I ask the minister: Is he prepared to specifically address the concerns of

those people to ensure that their care and their treatment is not being blocked

by these exorbitant travel costs between Labrador and other parts of the Island?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I again appreciate the hon. member's question. Let me tell the hon. member,

and the members on the other side, that we are dealing on a daily basis with the

airlines, with the transportation initiatives that we have in place and with the

health boards, to ensure that medical service is not impeded by the lack of

service that is provided to the Labrador part of the Province. Also, Mr.

Speaker, we always try to encourage the airlines to offer lesser cost services

when people have to travel for medical reasons. Mr. Speaker, not only for the

patients, but we also try to do it for the escort that a lot of times has to be

used with a patient to come to St. John's for a particular service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, on November 29, the Minister of Works, Service and

Transportation stated in this House that Bill 25,

An Act To Amend The Public

Tender Act, was introduced because the Auditor General recommended that this

legislation be brought forward. Can the minister tell the House where and when

the Auditor General recommended that this legislation be introduced?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The officials within my department do a lot of dialogue with the Auditor

General's department. In meetings that the Auditor General had with my

officials he indicated that we should bring in this amendment to the Public

Tender Act because the things that we do with our emergency work on our marine

services is not an emergency thing. It is a rule, actually, because of the

nature of our marine services. Rather than do an exemption to the Public Tender

Act we should amend the Public Tender Act so that we do not have to go to public

tender.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I say to the minister: Isn't it true that the Auditor General has never

recommended that any changes be made to the Public Tender Act with respect to

this proposed Bill 25? Won't you admit that here today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this government and this department is very

concerned with providing efficient service to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, in the isolated communities around this Province where the only link

with the mainland part of this Province is a ferry. We do not want a ferry to be

tied up for any great length of time, so we can provide a good service. What we

are saying in this amendment to the Pubic Tender Act is this will make the

department more efficient and be able to provide the service to the 750,000

passengers that use our ferry services every year. If this Opposition is against

that amendment, I suggest you vote against it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Why won't the minister answer the question? He never went near the question

with that answer, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister again: Where and when did the

Auditor General recommend that this legislation be brought forward to amend the

Public Tender Act, and if he has information why will he not table it in this

House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know how more clearly I can say it to the hon. member. The

discussions that the officials had with the Auditor General's department -

within my department with the Auditor General's department - have recommended

that we do an amendment to the Public Tender Act. I do not know what the hon.

member is trying to prove. All they want to do is to shut down the ferry service

in Newfoundland and Labrador. If that is what they want, vote against the

amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I ask the

minister if he would inform the House if there is any money budgeted by his

government to defray the cost of sports teams travelling outside Newfoundland

and Labrador to represent the Province in sports competitions?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

We have increased our budget in the last couple of years to assist with

sports groups in the Province for them to develop sports within the Province. We

have a very limited funding for sports events for outside the Province but where

we can we try to do our best with the budget we have. Our budget has been

increased within the Province. As a matter of fact, this year we will also be

having the Winter Games in Gander, where we are going to have the largest number

of athletes participating. We are looking forward to Gander hosting. I am not

sure what exactly the member is getting at, but where we can we try to assist

for outside the Province. Again, we have a lot of sports groups and we do our

best within the Province. We concentrate there most of the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister if he would inform the House what criteria is used to

decide who is in and who is out? Maybe he would also like to admit to the House

if funding is only available to people from Liberal districts or used at

election time to sway the electorate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, he is at it again. He is trying to

politicize sports in the Province. He issued a press release about the girl's

hockey team for the Gander Games coming up. The day he issued the release

condemning the government for not having fixed it, we announced the same day,

about an hour later, that we had it fixed. He is at it again. Let me tell him

that we look at every request on a fair basis. Our officials, by the way, are

doing a great job. I tell you, we had the best results at the Canada Summer

Games than we have ever had this summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I tell you, we put every dollar into our sports people in

this Province. I will tell you something else, they very much appreciate it, not

like the member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier is on a point of order.

PREMIER GRIMES: On a point of order, just to ask for leave for a minute

to deal with the request for the amendment today. What I would ask to facilitate

the work with respect to the Auditor General's Act is that the Auditor General

is one of, what will be four Officers of the House. We have the Auditor General,

who is an Officer of the House. That is why the reports are tabled in the House,

because the person is an Officer of the House. We have the Chief Electoral

Officer, who is also the Commissioner of Members' Interests, who table the

reports in the House because they are Officers of the House. We just named the

next Officer of the House, who will be the Citizens' Representative. We are

also, hopefully, going to be back here shortly after Christmas naming the fourth

Officer of the House, who will be the Child and Youth Advocate.

I would ask if, maybe, the Official Opposition and a representative of the

NDP could work with our Justice Minister to get a more encompassing amendment

that would allow all of the Officers of the House to table the report to the

public even if the House is not open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: That is fine, Mr. Speaker. We would be prepared to do that

today if the Leader of the New Democratic Party is available as well. If we

could deal with that this afternoon and have it dealt with, unanimously, today.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, certainly we would be happy to cooperate with the

Minister of Justice and a representative of the Official Opposition to ensure

that all reports that are made by the Officers of the House can be available to

members as soon as they are given to the Speaker.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I table the exemptions to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: - the Public Tender Act for the months of May, June, July,

August, September and October. I would hazard a guess that a lot of them in

there are exemptions so that we could provide efficient marine services to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to table today the Annual Report of the Multi-Materials

Stewardship Board ending March 31, 2001.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to table today, as per

section 5 of the Social Assistance Act, a

report on the Income Support Program of the Department of Human Resources and

Employment.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we continue with the routine proceedings the Chair

would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today a former member for the

District of Port de Grave, Mr. John Efford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the gallery the Mayor of

the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, Mayor Walwyn Blackmore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

MS BETTNEY: The question which was tabled by the Member for Trinity North

which requested that I provide information showing the long-term debt of all

Institutional and Community Health Boards as of March 31, 2001. I am tabling

that information, the capital debt and the operational long-term debt as of

March 31.

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

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

I want to table the information requested by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi regarding the breakdown of the Waste Management Trust Fund allocations of

funding to community groups, municipalities, businesses and others for

development and implementation of waste management initiatives since the

inception of the Waste Management Trust Fund, July 20, 1999.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we are going to get into some third readings today

and we would like to call from Orders 3 to 13. They would be Bills 21, 22, 26,

28, 33, 35, 41, 57, 50, 34 and 46, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, the following Bills 21, 22, 26, 28, 33, 35, 41, 57, 50, 34 and 46

read a third time, ordered passed and their title be as on the Order Paper:

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

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax

Act." (Bill 28)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Endangered Species."

(Bill 33)

A bill, "An Act To Facilitate Electronic Commerce By Removing Barriers

To The Use Of Electronic Communication." (Bill 35)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection of Farm Practices In the

Province." (Bill 41)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Historic Resources Act." (Bill 57)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2."

(Bill 50)

A bill, "An Act To Permit An Action By One Person On Behalf Of A Class

Of Persons." (Bill 34)

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to discuss Bills 54, 40 and 59.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 54)

On motion, clauses 1 through 14 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 15 carry?

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some concerns about clause 15. In Committee of the Whole, I guess,

this is the appropriate place to raise concerns about a particular clause.

Clause 15, as it is proposed, says the following, Mr. Chairman, "Subsection

34(2) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:..." So, if we

pass this particular clause, what I am about to read will become the law of the

land. (2) "An employer shall pay the wages to which an employee is

entitled..." in any or one or more of the following ways: (a) "in

lawful currency of Canada;..." - in other words, in cash; that is not too

much of a problem - (b) "by cheque or order drawn on a bank in which the

employer maintains an account; or..." - generally, that is not much of a

problem - (c), "in accordance with subsection (3)."

Section 3 is this,

"An employer may pay an employee's wages by direct deposit into an

account of a bank of the employee's choice."

Mr. Chairman, the problem with this

section - and I hope the minister and

government will be open about it - is that, however small it might be, there are

still people in this Province who do not maintain a bank account and who, for

whatever reason, have no intention of maintaining a bank account. They might be

small in number. They might be few in number, Mr .Chairman, but there are some.

If an employer decided, for whatever reason, that he was going to go to direct

deposit without the employee's consent, then there is a problem. It should be,

it must be, with the employee's consent.

Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the committee that reviewed this

legislation, the report of the committee recommended, as I understand it, that

this particular clause contain the wording: with the employee's consent.

Now, there is no problem with an employer moving to a direct deposit system

to pay wages and other monetary benefits owed if the employee consents to it,

but if the employee does not consent then it would be wrong for the law to allow

the employer to proceed to do it anyway. It would be wrong. It would be an

imposition on the employee without the employee's consent. It would be forcing

something on the employee that the employee may have a great deal of difficulty

living up to.

You know, Mr. Chairman, it is not as easy to open a bank account in this

Province today as it was just a few months or a few years ago. Do you know that

you cannot walk into a bank today, or any other financial institution, and

demand to open up a bank account? Do you know that you have to phone a bank

today, make an appointment with an employee of a bank, to come in at a certain

time with picture ID and all that kind of stuff, before they can even open an

piddly little bank account for a student anymore? Do you know that is what you

have to do in this Province today in a chartered financial institution? Now

there are some people -

AN HON. MEMBER: It would hard to open one in Old Perlican, I would say.

MR. RIDEOUT: How do you open one in Old Perlican where they are just

closing out the Scotia Bank, if some employer in Old Perlican decided they were

going to move to a direct deposit system?

I do not want to belabour the point, Mr. Chairman, but I am prepared to

belabour the point because there is a fundamental right involved here. The

fundamental right is the right of the employee to agree. If the employee agrees,

then I have no problem whatsoever, and if that wording is in the legislation, I

have no problem whatsoever, I will sit down and that will be the end of it. But

we should not and we must not put employees in a position in this Province

where, in order to access the wages that they have earned by the sweat of their

brow, in order to access the wages that they have earned by their daily word,

that they have to open a bank account.

Some people might prefer to continue to put their money in a sock, Mr.

Chairman. That is their right. If they want to stuff their money under their

mattress, that is their right. It should not be the right of an employer to

dictate, without the employee's consent, how they are going to receive the

remuneration for their wages.

If the minister is going to insist on leaving out the words, and the words

are very minimal, with the consent of the employee, that is all that is

necessary and I understand that is the way it was recommended to the government

by the committee that worked on this legislation: with the consent of the

employee. If the minister is prepared to do that then I am prepared to say that

is the end of it and sit down, but if the minister is not prepared to take some

advice on this, if the minister is going to dig in her heels and be unmindful of

what we are saying and the legitimate concern that we are expressing here, then

I tell the minister and the government they will have a rough ride for the rest

of this day and however long it takes on this particular clause.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to speak on clause 15, which is a matter of some great interest to me

because it affects all employees in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

whether they be government employees or private employer-employees. Right now

the law is that if you are an employee you have to be paid in certain ways. You

have to paid either at your place of work, during working hours, or paid by

delivery of money to your home, or by deposit into your bank if you have one.

Those are the only three ways that you can be paid.

With respect to the method of payment, it has to be either in lawful currency

of Canada or by a cheque or a money order drawn at a bank. That is the only ways

in which you can be paid. Now, this amendment being proposed will allow an

employer to dictate that they will not pay you by cash or cheque, that they will

only pay you by depositing money into a bank or a credit union. You get to

choose which bank or credit union but you do not get to choose whether you are

going to be paid in cash or cheque or not.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is wrong, that an employee, whether a

seventeen-year-old or eighteen-year-old going to work at a takeout for $15 or

$20 a week or whether it be a person who lives in Hopedale, Labrador, or in Old

Perlican, or in Frenchman's Cove, that person has the right to be able to get

their cheque in their hands so that they can go and spend it.

Most people, Mr. Chairman - I do not know about members of the House - most

people in rural Newfoundland, when they get their cheque, they take it to the

grocery store or they take it to the supermarket to change the cheque to get

their food and their groceries to put them on the table. They do not feel like

necessarily driving twenty miles or thirty miles to a community with a bank to

get access to their money, so that they can buy their groceries or pay their

bills or look after their obligations.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is bad legislation. It forces employees in a

situation where it should not have to. Now, it is all very well for anyone to

say well, we are in the modern era and everybody has a bank account, yadda,

yadda, yadda, but I do not think that is the case, Mr. Chairman. Everybody does

not have a bank account, and neither should everybody be forced to have a bank

account. There are many people who do not have bank accounts or, as the Member

for Lewisporte said, in some cases have a lot of trouble getting access to a

bank account, cannot get a bank account.

Banks will not give you a bank account these days, if you are a bad credit

risk. Banks will not give you a bank account, if you are a bad credit risk. They

do not want trouble from people who have bad credit problems or bad credit

histories with a bank. Now, this legislation is going to say that the employer

can choose whether they are going to pay this. Are we going to have, for

example, Mr. Chairman, if Voisey's Bay goes through, are you going to have

Inco deciding that they are going to do electronic transfer up in Sudbury or

Toronto and pay somebody who happens to live in Rigolet or Hopedale by a direct

deposit to a bank? Where is the bank going to be? In Happy Valley? In Nain?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister says that is a matter of the employee's

choice. What if he lives in Old Perlican? He does not have a choice, does he,

because there is no bank in Old Perlican; they are just closing it down. There

is no bank on Bell Island; they closed it down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It wasn't the people of Bell Island's choice that the

bank close down, I say to the minister. It was against the wishes of the people

of Bell Island that they close down the bank. There is no bank on Bell Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister is saying they cannot pay the employee that way.

I understand that. That is the law right now. They cannot pay the employee that

way right now, but this amendment will now say that the employer has the right

to pay by direct deposit, whether the employee consents or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Alright. That is exactly what it says, "An employer may

pay an employee's wages by direct deposit into an account of a bank of the

employee's choice."

Now the minister is saying that if the employee does not choose to have one,

they have to pay it in another way. If the minister's

interpretation is

correct, and there is good argument to that point, I know the Legislative

Council has said that may be an

interpretation that would fly, what I am saying

to the minister, and to members opposite, is: Let's spell it out in the act.

The minister shrugs. I guess that means he shrugs in agreement. Let's say

it in the act. Let's say: With the consent of an employee, an employer may pay

an employee's wages by direct deposit into a bank account of the employee's

choice.

I do not think that is a startling amendment. I do not think it is a

startling change. It is not a change in the current law. It provides for direct

deposit. In fact, some members of this House receive their paycheque through a

direct deposit to a bank if they so choose. If this legislation is passed today,

tomorrow or next week sometime, then the government could turn around tomorrow,

or next week, and say: As a result of a policy change we are only paying

employees of government through direct deposit. Tell us the name of your bank

and we will deposit it there.

That is what I am trying to avoid, Mr. Chairman, by making it clear to an

employee - whether it be a seventeen-year-old or an eighteen year-old working

part-time for a fast food takeout, or whether it be an employee of Inco or the

Iron Ore Company of Canada, or any other employer, that they can go by direct

deposit if they want - all the employee has to do is sign a form - but if the

employee does not consent and wants to take either a cheque, or cash - I think

we have gone past the point where an employee is entitled to insist on cash - an

employer can pay by cheque or by cash, both of which are considered to be lawful

tender, and both having the protection, I say, Mr. Chairman, of either the

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Credit Union Act, that an employee

can have that right. It is not up to the employer; it is up to the employee.

That is the amendment I am proposing. In fact, I would like to move, seconded

by the Member for Labrador West, that subclause 15(3) be amended by adding the

words "with the consent of an employee" before the words "an

employer" at the beginning of subclause 15(3).

I have the amendment in writing. The minister already has a copy of it. I can

make it available to the Clerk. The labor critic for the Official Opposition

also has a copy of the amendment. I would ask the Chair to rule as to whether or

not the amendment is in order and then I would like to speak to the amendment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Labor.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With reference to clause 15, I would like to advise the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi - pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue and say again that

with reference to clause 15 of Bill 54, the amendment, as presented by the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I do concur with.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Okay, so we have the amendments as written.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to take thirty seconds to thank

the minister for concurring in the amendment that was proposed by my friend from

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and supported by us. I think it is a good day for

democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador when this kind of thing can happen.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: We will just move on and come back. Call the next clause.

Prior to voting on clause 15, we are going to consider the other clauses of

the bill and come back and vote on the amendment later.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand that the Law Clerk has a suggestion that the wording, as

proposed to the amendment, might better be worded a different way so we will set

that aside for a moment. I should say though, for the record, that the

Legislative Council has had this proposed wording earlier today. It was not this

particular council, but the wording has been around for a day or so.

Mr. Chairman, when this bill was called in Committee I was conferring with

the minister on the proposed amendment that is now before the House. I wonder if

we could revert to clause 9? I think we went past clause 9 while I was

conferring with the minister. I wonder if we could have consent to revert to

clause 9?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave to convert to clause 9?

AN HON. MEMBER: I can't hear (inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The members to my right are saying that they cannot hear what is going on. I

would remind the members to my right, I cannot hear very much myself for the

noise coming from the right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank members for consenting to revert to clause 9.

Clause 9 of the bill, Mr. Chairman, refers to overtime provisions under the

Labour Standards Act. Under the current Labour Standards Act, clause 9 provides

that time off be given in lieu of overtime under certain conditions as laid out

in the proposed amendment. What it also does is take the existing

section 25 of

the act and renumbers it as Clause 25(1).

The issue that I want to refer to is the issue of whether or not the new

provisions for overtime ought to appear in the act. Right now the current

regulations to the act says that overtime is time and a half the minimum wage.

If the minimum wage were, for example, $5.50 an hour and an employer paid $8 an

hour, the employer might say: Well, we pay $8 an hour but we don't pay

overtime on this job. So, if you are working fifty hours a week you will still

get your $8. Now the minister has said that the policy is going to change. The

new policy based, on the recommendations of the Labour Standard Review Board, is

going to be time and a half the regular rate of pay. That we agree with. I think

that is a very positive and progressive move.

The real problem is with the current

section 25 of the act. The current

section 25 is a very convoluted - and follow this if you can, Mr. Chairman, it

says: Where an employee works in excess of the standard working hours as

permitted by this part - which is forty hours a week - the employer shall pay to

the employee the rate of wages for overtime that may be set out in the

regulations by a prescribed formula which may differ for different classes of

employees in different undertakings or part of them. Now that does mean

something to a lawyer but you then would have to go and get some regulations and

look up and see what the regulations are.

One of the major recommendations of the Labour Standards Review Board - what

we are talking about here is the board appointed by the government with

representatives of labour, representatives of employers and independent people,

to go around the Province and have hearings and come up with a report. They made

a recommendation that all employment standards, with the exception of the rate

of minimum wage and exemptions from the standards, should be set out in the act

and not in the regulations. What does that mean? What that means is if the

Legislature should set out this, not the Cabinet by regulation, and an employee,

who wants to know what the rules are, can look at the act and see what the act

says.

That same

section that is now going to have this very convoluted thing in

section 1 will have in

section 2: That an employer may compensate an employee

for overtime by giving an hour and a half off for every hour worked for

overtime. The problem is this, the employee reading that then goes back to say:

Well, what is overtime anyway? There is no provision for overtime other than

this convoluted existing

section 25.

What I have proposed to the minister and the minister's officials - and I

think it is agreed that this is what the intention is - that this is no longer

tied to the minimum wage. The time and a half of the regular hourly rate is no

longer tied to the minimum wage at all. It is not a part of the rate of minimum

wage. It is one and a half times the regular hourly rate. That is now going to

be the rule - and it will not be the rule unless the government follows through

on changing the regulation. Now I don't distrust them on that, but the policy

issue that came out of the Labour Standards Review Board was that labour

standards and the time-and-a-half of regular hourly rate is a labour standard,

should be in the act and not the regulations. The only thing that the

regulations should deal with is the rate of the minimum wage. So we now have a

new labour standard, and that new labour standard is, that any overtime be paid

at time and a half the regular hourly rate and there is provision there for time

off in lieu that we are now introducing.

I have another amendment that I have proposed to the minister and to the

minister's officials which would have the effect of changing that existing

section 25. It would now read as follows: That where an employee works in excess

of the standard working hours as permitted by this part - that is what is there

already - the employer shall, subject to subsection 2 and 3, which is time off

in lieu, pay as overtime paid to the employee one and one half times the regular

rate of wages of that employee. The new

section 25 would now flow very

sensibility from the time and a half regular hourly rate in the first part to an

opportunity, if there is agreement between the employer and the employee, to

take time off in lieu of overtime.

I know the minister is looking in the longer run at further changes to the

act, but this is one that he can fix now. It now will read very sensibility,

that if an employee - this is a matter of controversy, I have to say to hon.

members, it has been for years, as to what the overtime rate is. Now, with my

proposed amendment, it will appear in the act and not require someone to read

the act and say: Well, what does that mean? Then have to go and find regulations

or make phone calls or do other things.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very sensible amendment that

would avoid the confusion and would comply - I have to say, not only would it

comply with the recommendations of the Labour Standards Review Board, but it

also complies with the consensus of employers and employees, which occurred

later on in the fall, as a consensus that was brought about by both the

representatives of the employers' council and the representatives of the

Federation of Labour and others who participated in these discussions. So all

parties are agreed that all employment standards appear in the act and not in

the regulations. Here is one labour standard that we are making some amendment

to right now. We are fixing up the provision for overtime. We are following the

recommendations of the Labour Standards Review Board. We are following the

recommendations of the consultative committee in terms of allowing for time off

in lieu of overtime where an employee so consents. I am making a very sensible

suggestion, that an employee who is now able to access the new act after it is

passed into law by looking at it on a government Web site, where it will appear,

can look at that and say: Now

section 25 deals with overtime and its say,

overtime is time-and-a-half the regular hourly rate. Instead of that, Mr.

Chairman, an employee would look at something that talks about the rate of wages

for overtime maybe being set up with regulations by prescribed formula which may

differ for different classes of employees.

I think this proposed amendment is a very sensible one, and I want to move

the amendment to clause 9, seconded by the Member for Labrador West, that clause

9 of the bill be amended by deleting the existing clause and substituting the

following, which would read, that

section 25 of the act be repealed and the

following substituted, and set out in that is the new proposed

section 25(1) and

the existing sections (2) and (3) which are contained in the amendment. I would

like to make that motion, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps the law clerk could consider

that.

There may be other speakers who want to speak on that, but perhaps we should

have a ruling as to whether the amendment is in order first.

CHAIR: The Chair will take a moment to consider the amendment, to see if

it is in order.

[The Chair takes a moment to consider the amendment.]

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has determined that the amendment, as presented, is in order.

The hon. the Minister of Labour.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the member opposite, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi, for making the amendment. I understand his concerns and I appreciate his

comments here today. What I would also like to say to the member opposite is

that, the issue he has raised is already guaranteed, in effect, in what we are

putting through here today. I also want to say to the member that the whole act

itself, the Labour Standards Act, Bill 54, needs a complete overhaul. As he

described, a lot of the language in it is convoluted and we want to make it more

user-friendly, Mr. Chairman.

So I am committing here today, in our annual consultations and through

Legislative Counsel, that there will be a rewrite of this act. If the item that

he is raising today is a concern, once we meet in our annual review I will

certainly take that into account and incorporate it into the new act, if that is

a problem at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I accept the minister's commitment; however, you know, we recognize that

the legislative process itself is, frankly, a slow one. We had the Labour

Standards Review Board appointed in 1999. It had meetings throughout 1999 and

2000. They made a report and the report wasn't acted upon for a long, long

time. It took the Employers' Council and the Federation of Labour to come to

the department and say: Let's get moving on this. Then it took a whole other

process to get some sort of consensus from those groups as to which

recommendations were going to be accepted. Now, we are here today with some

amendments to the act.

We are dealing with something that everybody knows, and everybody agrees - I

mean, the minister has just agreed that what is there now is convoluted. It is

not user friendly. It is not comprehensible, frankly, to an ordinary person

reading the act and will now be reading a new

section of the act which has three

provisions all related to overtime. Two of them you can understand, and the

other one you cannot. The two that you can understand will deal with the ability

to take an hour-and-a-half off for each hour of overtime worked. The one that

deals with how much you get paid for overtime, you cannot understand. It doesn't

make sense. It doesn't tell you anything except that there may be a formula in

the regulations that might apply. You know, the parties have already gotten

together. They have already identified. I do not think the parties to the

consultation process have actually seen this, the act itself, and determined

whether or not it complied with all of the recommendations that they made,

because it clearly does not comply with recommendation three, which was that all

employment standards with the exception of the rated minimum wage, and exemption

from the standards, should be set out in the act and not in the regulations.

Mr. Chairman, that is a circumstance that I think can be changed right now so

that next year, after Christmas, an employee who wants to know what the rules

are with respect to overtime, can look at one

section of the act and find three

rules. The three rules will be as follows: rule one, if you work overtime, you

get paid time-and-a-half through regular rate of pay; rule two, that you can

take time off in lieu of overtime if you and the employer agree; rule three,

that there is a certain period of time in which that time off has to be taken.

That seems to me - and I recognize the minister is committed to consultations

with people over the next while, and the next annual review and so on, but I do

not know if this will be considered a priority enough, or important enough or

whatever by itself, to even be considered by this group.

Although, I recognize that there have been two recommendations coming out of

the Labour Standards Tribunal, which is the one that had all the hearings and

listened to all the people, and came back with recommendations. They made two

recommendations. Recommendation number one was, in fact, that the Labour

Standards Act be replaced with something to be called the employment standards

act. Well, that is fine. They are going to wait on that, and that is fine.

Recommendation number two was, that the new employment standards act be drafted

and employers. That has been supported but there is a long-term plan associated

with that because that is not something that can be done overnight. It takes

some considerable period of time, as part of a long-term plan, to say okay, we

will take this legislation and we will try and write it so it legally has the

same meaning, but it is easily understandable.

If you look at the priority of the recommendations, recommendation three is

that the labour standards be contained in the act and not the regulation. This

is a new labour standard, one that did not exist before the minister committed

to changing it. Let me say this: One thing that the minister did say is wrong.

What we do here today will have no effect on the rate of overtime. The only

thing that will have an effect on the rate of overtime is what the Cabinet may

do when it changes the regulations down the road. So, what we pass here today

will not affect the overtime rate. It will still say, if we pass this

legislation without amendment, that the rate for overtime may be set out in the

regulations by prescribed formula which may differ for different classes of

employees, in different undertakings, or part of them.

Are we going to have different rates of overtime and different formulas for

different employees, for different classes of employees in different

undertakings or parts of undertakings? I hope not. I do not think so. But if

what we pass here today what the minister is proposing in her amendment, what we

will have is a situation where there is no overtime rate at all other than the

one that is in the existing regulation which says that it is one-and-a-half

times the minimum wage.

What the minister say is wrong. We need this amendment in order to include

the time-and-a-half for overtime standard into the act, which was recommended by

the Labour Standards Review Tribunal.

CHAIR: We are voting on the amendment to clause 9.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: We are voting on the amendment to clause 15.

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

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

As a result of the discussions with the Legislative Counsel, the amendment

that was proposed by me and read out to the House has been proposed to be

changed slightly. Perhaps the Chair would read the amendment as reworded. The

minister has a copy of the reworded amendment, as do I. I am assuming that

everybody has seen it.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps you could read it out so that all members would know

what the new wording is to that amendment.

CHAIR: That is what the Chair was about to do.

"That clause 15 of the Bill be amended at the proposed subsection 34(3)

by adding immediately after the word "wages" the commas and words,

"with that employee's consent."

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

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: There are another several words that the Chair has left out,

at least on the version I have with me, which says -

CHAIR: Not on the

section that I have.

MR. HARRIS: - immediately after the words "wages...".

CHAIR: Perhaps the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would like to read

what he has and I will compare it with what I have here.

MR. HARRIS: What I have is: That subclause 15(3) be amended by adding the

words and commas, "with that employee's consent" immediately after

the word "wages".

CHAIR: Yes.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 15 as amended carried.

On motion, clauses 16 through 44 inclusive carried.

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

carried. (Bill 54)

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, Order 16, Bill 40.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act,

1991." (Bill 40)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few very brief comments on a couple of sections. Rather than get up on

two or three occasions, I will be very brief. I have addressed many of these

points in second reading and I just want to reiterate that we do not have a

problem with those specific clauses there, but I think it is certainly

noteworthy to indicate support for clause 4 of the bill and I will make some

general comments on this particular one, rather than do it clause-by-clause, I

think, in the title of the bill. When the minister called it earlier, I stood.

To allow for return of contributions made by employees with interest at a

rate prescribed for periods of pensionable service, a terminating employee with

at least five years of pensionable service..., I think that option was not there

before and I think it is important to at least allow that particular choice

there that was not there before. I think it gives certain flexibility to an

individual to be able to make that decision and not have to be legislated with

only one condition. It now gives an alternative or gives a choice to them. That

is certainly positive there.

Also, under clause 7(6), "A former employee with at least 5 years

pensionable service whose employment terminated before this Act comes into force

and who did not receive a refund of contributions may, before becoming eligible

to receive a pension under this Act, make the same election as a terminating

employee under

section 9.1."

They would have that option under this particular one, so we are certainly

supportive of that. We think that is also a positive piece of legislation here

in that.

There are a few other points, I think, that reflect conditions and

appropriateness. For instance,

section 30 of the act on the pension benefits

there under the Family Law Act, so rather than belabour the point, Mr. Chairman,

I will just indicate our support for all particular clauses here and I will not

have to be up on each specific clause.

On motion, clauses 1 through 9 inclusive carried.

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

carried.(Bill 40)

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, Order 17, Bill 59.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 and The

Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill 59)

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 through 5 carry?

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Once again, I want to make a specific point here. I think what it does here

in this particular clause2 of the Public Service Pensions Act, in clause 2 of

the bill, subsection 23(2) of the act, right now, basically, people out there

who report that they are drawing a pension to government would have it clawed

back if they are receiving Canada Pension. When they indicate they are getting

Canada Pension at age sixty, they will start clawing back a percentage of their

Public Service Pension, basically. If government did not know until you were

sixty-five that you were drawing Canada Pension, it would then claw it back

then; so basically it was not a level playing field. It was depending on the

honour system, if you indicated it, or whether the department was going to be

aggressive in finding out that you were drawing a pension. I think what this

does here now, Mr. Chairman, is the right thing by indicating it is the same for

everybody now, that when the age of sixty-five occurs, that clawback would be

initiated.

I asked a question at an earlier stage, and I am not sure if the minister can

answer it now. I know I asked it in second reading, and I did not have an

opportunity to research it, to be honest with you. I am not sure if the minister

did, when I asked the question. What about somebody who does not retire at age -

let's say keeps working at sixty-five, does not pay into Canada Pension for

instance, or keeps paying in and works beyond sixty-five and still draws their

pension? Is that going to be clawed back then automatically at sixty-five, or

must you be receiving your pension to have it clawed back? That's just a

question I would like to have answered.

If I would have had the opportunity, I probably would have called and

followed on this specific thing. The minister says it automatically would start

at sixty-five whether you are getting Canada Pension or not. In other words, if

someone decides that: I am not going to get Canada Pension at sixty-five, I am

not drawing any benefits on Canada Pension, even though I am sixty-seven or

sixty-eight. We are going to find out that the Province is going to start

clawing back on your Public Service Pension even though you are not getting

Canada Pension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but I said to the Premier last year: somebody could

have qualified for a Public Service Pension or one of the government pensions,

could have taken that early and gone to work somewhere else and working on some

other job, paying in premiums and might not be drawing down on their Canada

Pension. Would they then be clawed back on their Public Service Pension or

whatever plan? I think the minister said they would be, so in other words it

would be the same. Once you hit sixty-five you are deemed as if you are drawing

it, and automatically it would be clawed back. That is my understanding from

what the minister said.

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

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

If you are drawing down a pension and you are at age sixty-five, you have the

deductions taken out at age sixty-five. It is an automatic thing that will

happen. Like the legislation, that is the way it is. If you are working and you

are not drawing down a pension, then you are obviously not going to have the

deductions if you are not receiving a pension. Is that what you are asking?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, okay, just so we are clear. If you are receiving a

pension and you are sixty, you happen to let the Department of Finance know at

some point, then you would have had the deductions taken out at age sixty. Now,

what we have done is, because it is virtually awash in terms of the monetary

impact, everybody will have their deductions taken at age sixty-five and it will

be consistent right across the board.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No, I fully understand that, minister, what the bill is saying here. I am

quite clear on what the bill is saying. Somebody could be working today at age

sixty-seven but drawing a Public Service Pension Plan or one of the government

pension plans or they could be working at some other job, or gone to some other

occupation and working and paying benefits and drawing a salary from that. The

question I asked was: When they are sixty-five - and I think the minister said

yes. Once you are sixty-five you are automatically getting clawed back that

amount as if you are getting Canada Pension, whether you are or whether you are

not. That is what the minister said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is what I understood there. It is not relevant

whether you are working or not. If you are working at a job in which you

qualify, the government pension is relevant but you could be working at another

job - retired when you were fifty-five, fifty-seven, fifty-two, gone somewhere

else and went to work at another job, as many people are doing today, it is

going to be taken back automatically there. I would assume the reason for that

would be when contracts were negotiated and rates were paid, they were paid

under the consideration that there would be a Canada Pension available to that

person at age sixty or sixty-five - we will now deem - therefore maybe you would

have had to pay in higher premiums if you were not going to get a Canada

Pension. So we are going to take back a portion of that, claw back on your

pension because of that. That's my understanding of the rationale behind that.

In any event, it is not -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is not relevant to that legislation.

MR. SULLIVAN: It may not be relevant to it, but one thing: that I support

this clause on the grounds that it was an honour system. If somebody decided to

tell the Department of Finance: I am drawing my pension at sixty; and someone

else drew it at sixty but did not tell the Department of Finance, one person got

clawed back and the other one did not. Therefore, it was not even. At least

right now everybody is treated the same. It is automatic. That is one of the

positive aspects of that particular legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them

referred, have directed me to report that Bills 40 and 59 passed, without

amendment, and Bill 54 passed, with amendment, 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, bills ordered read a

third time presently by leave.

On motion the following bills read a third time, ordered passed and their

titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Uniformed Services Pensions Act,

1991." (Bill 40)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 54)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The

Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 59)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 29, Bill 60, second reading

An Act To Amend The Economic

Diversification And Growth Enterprises Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 60, Order 29.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly do not want to take a lot of time today, I say to the minister,

but I want to make a few comments on Bill 60, and say, I guess in this phrase:

It is with cautious optimism that I approach this bill. I support any initiative

or any notion that, first of all, acknowledges that in rural Newfoundland -

which we have discussed for a number of days - there certainly needs to be some

attention - with some interest that we support any initiative or notion that

would improve the economies of rural Newfoundland. I say that in a very

constructive way.

I say to the minister, as I read through the bill and see the initiatives

that it takes, and it moves a bit further on where we refer to it as

double-EDGE, Mr. Speaker. I guess the real proof will be in time in history, as

we move on with this to see that it works. All I can say is that I hope in six

months from now or a year from now that we can stand up and talk about positive

things that have happened in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The bill onto itself, is not the total answer. I guess anybody would agree

with that. Just today, just this morning as a matter of fact, I did an interview

regarding rural Newfoundland and some of the questions about infrastructure in

rural Newfoundland.

It is quite true, as councillors and mayors tell me, in these smaller

communities around Newfoundland and Labrador, with initiatives like this, they

can maintain infrastructure within their communities. The line is repeated over

and over by mayors and councillors and town clerks who I talk to at the rural

level, if they are going to have any chance at all at economic rejuvenation

within these smaller communities, they have to at least - to have any chance at

all - maintain, if not improve on, their infrastructure within that community.

Whether you are going to attract the business that hires five people or fifty

people, all those investments depend on whether that community can offer basic

infrastructure, anywhere from roads, water and sewer, right on up to schools

availability, recreation within the community and so on. That is also a part of

the puzzle. That is why, in this particular interview this morning, I stressed

the point that if these communities are going to have any chance at all of

rebounding, initiatives like this with EDGE, hopefully that will attract

somebody that would come to that community. Well, Mr. Speaker, part and parcel

of that is the fact that these communities have to maintain an infrastructure.

You cannot have a town that is falling down around you, and expect to encourage

an investor to come into that community.

Mr. Speaker, I used another example this morning of a community when it sees

its first bit of pavement come into the community. Besides the actual economic

investment - because I have always considered it as an investment, not a cost,

when you put basic infrastructure in a small rural community - it is an

investment, because down the road in that community, their spirits are lifted,

they see something happening.

I guess no matter which government is in power, when a rural Newfoundland

community sees an improvement in their basis infrastructure, they have faith

also that the government of the day, whoever that may be, is supporting rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, some communities are worse off than others, if you want to

look at it that way. Communities that have some chances and have some interest

in different companies, whether it be big or small, to come into that particular

community, well, good for them.

I just had another case in point in my district, the community of Little Bay,

which has a mussel farm and a mussel plant there that is not in operation right

now - there were some previous problems with the previous owner - but they have

a chance. They have a chance if they can have this plant up and running. They

can put twenty, thirty or forty jobs in the community of Little Bay. Well, that

is their Voisey's Bay. That is what is important to them. They are not looking

for the mega projects. In a lot of cases, indirectly, they are not really

interested in mega projects. They are interested in what is going to work in

their small communities, what is going to allow them to live in the communities

that they want to stay in, maintain their homes and call home. They want to stay

there. If they have some chances, they have to have the opportunity to invest

within their community, start something like this mussel farm and plant in

Little Bay, which would not take a lot, and hopefully at the end of the day that

small community of Little Bay can provide a decent living for the people who are

there.

I could go on with many more examples, the point being - and I will not

belabor this today; I am going to look at it with cautious optimism, support it

with cautious optimism - hopefully, whoever sits in this House in a year from

now or two years from now, that they can stand up and say there was something

positive happen, and somebody actually went to work in some small community.

This is going to be the proof. This is where it is going to come down to -

when a mayor in some small community can stand up and say: We have attracted an

investor. It is a small project, but it is putting ten real jobs in small town

rural Newfoundland. That is when we can start to see the positives here in this

Province.

I have said many times - and I know the minister agrees - as goes

Newfoundland so goes rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the point. If we

can rejuvenate the smaller communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, and give it

back its pride of living in small town rural Newfoundland and Labrador, then we

have done something positive for this Province. I believe that is when we will

see this Province as a whole revive and get up to where it should be. With the

resources we have today, there is no reason why anybody in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador should not be working.

While we say that we support this, we caution and we will watch it roll out

to see where it goes, because we have to support any chance at all and anything

that adds an element, a possibility, of investment in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, then we have to support it. But we have to also keep in mind, Mr.

Speaker, that the basic infrastructure in those small communities have to be

maintained, I say to the Minister of Transportation, and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, with whom I have had some good discussions, they know that if

those small communities are going to avail of anything that this bill may

provide us in a year to two years from now, they cannot be beating over rough

gravel roads, or unpaved roads like the ones going into the community of Harry's

Harbour where they have just developed a beautiful trail down there, but

tourists turn away because they do not want to go down over the gravel roads.

The same in Little Bay, the old pavement that is there, people, tourists, turned

away this year from driving down the road because they did not want to go down

over that road. Then the La Scie Highway, I have said so much about that. The

minister knows full well that we almost actually had a mine close down there

this year because the basic infrastructure of a road was not there. That would

be a sad statement for this Province, when a gold mine would have to close down

because the road was too rough to travel over.

Mr. Speaker, I guess to conclude on this, we do support it with optimism, but

with cautious optimism, that this bill will be a part - in whole there are other

elements, as I mentioned, the infrastructure that comes with it - of the answer,

but it could be a small part of the answer. Everything has to come together so

that we can say to people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that if you believe

that you have a future there and you want to attract investment, the government

who provides the basic necessities of water and sewer and roads is going to

support you in your efforts to attract and make a living for yourself in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have said many times before, those people have lived there for years, are

proud of where they live. They do not want a handout; they want a hand up, to be

able to do it on their own, to be able to say they live there and provide for

their families. I do not think that is too much to ask. I think it is possible,

if everybody works together, and hopefully this particular piece of legislation,

Bill 60, double-EDGE as it is so-called, will provide some of those communities

with a ray of hope that they will attract some investment and that they can go

on living in a place that they call home.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am glad to be able to make a couple of comments about Bill 60. I have to

say at the beginning that I do agree with the minister in his introductory

comments as he talked about creating prosperous regions. I thank him for

acknowledging the Trinity North area, and more particularly he referenced

Clarenville as being one of those centres that has had some prosperity. He and I

have talked about this many times and I, too, acknowledge that we cannot have

industries in every nook and cranny in the Province. It is important to

establish some strong economic regions. I agree wholeheartedly with that

concept. As the minister talked about yesterday, I have to acknowledge that,

yes, Trinity North, fortunately, happens to be one of those kinds of regions of

the Province.

I just want to talk a little bit about how that actually works. One of the

things that the minister did point out, as we talked about strong economic

regions - let's talk about some of the things that make regions prosperous. It

is fine to talk about having a community at the centre of that economic region.

Yesterday, the minister pointed out that the Mayor of Clarenville had been in

talking about all the great development that was going on there and how the

potential existed for future development. One of the things that mayor was in to

talk about was infrastructure for industrial development in that community.

Right now, Clarenville, for example, is at a point where it can no longer

expand -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. A point of order.

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

Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: I made no comment yesterday about the Mayor of Clarenville

being in here. I don't know who he has me confused with.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs made

the comment about having the Mayor of Clarenville in to visit, to talk about the

expansion of an industrial park. Right now the Town of Clarenville is in a

position where it can no longer expand in its industrial or commercial base

because it is hampered by not having adequate water and sewage supply into an

industrial development area.

It speaks to the notion that if we are going to create economic centres then

we need to have strong infrastructure. It is important that government, in its

commitment to capital projects, recognize that it has to provide the necessary

infrastructure for communities to grow and prosper, and Clarenville just happens

to be the community that is at the centre of that region. But one of the things

that the minister talked about is, he referenced economic zones as having a

strong network of viable communities in its region. I just want to use a couple

of examples. Last year I was down in Hodge's Cove, down in the Southwest Arm

area of Trinity North, meeting with the local service district and the fire

department, and fundamentally these individuals have said: We enjoy living in

rural Newfoundland. We want to stay in rural Newfoundland. We do not ask for

very much. What we really want is a little bit of money to maintain our water

supply systems, and we want a decent road to drive over. We have people living

in that area of the Province who are working in an oil refinery in Come by

Chance, making a good living and taking their $40,000 and $50,000 vehicles over

roads and they are beating them up, because we do not have the necessary road

infrastructure to allow them to continue to live in Hodge's Cove and that area

of the Province, and commute into Come by Chance to work, and commute into

Clarenville and area to gain services like banking, shopping and so on.

If we are going to talk about creating strong economic zones, allowing people

to live in small rural communities, while having some degree of prosperity in

the region where they can travel to work, we need to have that kind of

infrastructure. Last night was the premiere of the movie The Shipping News ,

and that was the second movie to be shot in the Trinity area - Random Passage

and The Shipping News - but last year, Mr. Speaker, a couple of days

before that movie crew was moving in there, the community recognized that the

roads that these people had to drive over to get to their accommodations just

were not fit to send a vehicle over. Thank you to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, but it was a mad rush a couple of days before the

crew arrived, we were down there trying to make the road passable for people to

get in to shoot the movie. That area has developed into one of the most popular

destination points for tourism in the Province. The Minister of Tourism has

already commented many times about what a great destination point that is. The

problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the roads in that area have not been paved for

some thirty years. So, one of the most popular destination points for tourism in

the Province does not have the necessary road infrastructure to allow people to

travel in there. That is important, to maintain economic regions, but the

critical thing is employment.

Out in Trinity North, it finds itself in a unique geographical location, in

that it borders on the District of Bellevue which has a fair degree of

industrial development. Right now, there is close to a $500 million investment

out at Bull Arm, an investment of what has been taxpayers' money gone into

that site, and the big question today, Mr .Speaker, is whether or not there is

going to be continued industrial work at that site. If we are going to put in

place a massive infrastructure like a $500 million fabrication site in Bull Arm,

to be the model and to be the future of oil development in this Province, then

it is important that the Province, who now has ownership of that site, continue

to very aggressively market that site as a major fabrication site for the

offshore oil and gas industry. But if, in fact, that site is not going to be

used for future fabrication projects, it is important to use that site for other

kinds of applications, and I suggest to the minister that we look at that site

as having tremendous potential to continue to provide well-paying prosperous

jobs in that area.

So, if you look at creating and having had, in this Province, sustainable

economic zones, a couple of key things are important. One is to have the centre

where there is a lot of employment, to be able to make sure that people are able

to be gainfully employed, make a reasonable living, and to stay in those

regions. The second thing is, we need the necessary infrastructure to allow

people to stay in the communities in which they now live. We do not need in this

Province, large numbers of people moving from small communities into central

points. What we need to have is a network of small viable communities that has

the necessary infrastructure. An infrastructure Mr. Speaker, in most of these

communities simply means a decent road to drive on and clean, safe water to

drink. That is basically and fundamentally what we are talking about when we

talk about infrastructure. Infrastructure in small rural Newfoundland is not

massive. It is very simply, roads to drive on and safe water to drink. In order

to be able to have people stay in those areas, in that kind of environment, they

need to be able to make a living. We need to have economic development and jobs

- whether they are commercial, industrial or whether they are in agriculture or

in the tourism industry, we need to be able to allow these people to make a

living.

Mr. Speaker, in as much as we support any initiative that provides for and

attracts economic growth and development to this Province, it is important to

recognize that these people, these organizations and these companies will only

relocate to an area and establish themselves and be able to attract the

necessary people to work for them if the communities in which they live and the

communities in which they are asking their employees to live, will have the

necessary infrastructure and services to provide for a safe quality of life for

them.

My suggestion to the minister is: in addition to this particular initiative,

it needs to be augmented with a commitment to providing the necessary

infrastructure to allow people to live in those communities. Secondly, the

necessary support to foster economic development so we can create sustainable

jobs, sustainable well-paying jobs so people can have a reasonable standard of

living.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to speak to this particular bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the positive comments that I

have heard from the other side. I was tempted to ask leave to move that we not

even put the bill into Committee, that we call this third reading, but my friend

from Kilbride said: Now Beaton, don't go carrying on with that kind of stuff.

So, I will respect his wishes and just move second reading.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification and

Growth Enterprises Act," read a second time, order referred to a Committee

of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 60)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 20, Bill 53, second reading of

An Act To

Amend The Child Care Services Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child Care

Services Act." (Bill 53)

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

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak today about the proposed amendments to the Child Care

Services Act. The purpose of these amendments is to really clarify the intention

and the direction of our Child Care Services Act. This act was passed by the

House of Assembly on July 5, 1998. It came into force on June 1, 1999.

Mr. Speaker, should I stop? I understand the Opposition are having real

difficulty hearing me.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. member could take his seat?

Members indicate that they are having difficulty hearing the member speak. I

am just wondering if it is possible to have the volume turned up on the speaker?

The technician indicates that he is going to turn up the volume on the

minister's mike. Let's try it again and see how it works.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these amendments is to clarify

the direction and the intent of the Child Care Services Act. This Act was

originally passed by the House of Assembly on June 5, 1998 and came into force

on June 1, 1999.

In March of 1999, Cabinet approved the new child care services regulations,

Mr. Speaker. These took effect upon proclamation of the act. This new

legislation repealed the existing Day Care and Homemaker Services Act and it

really reflected a major change in government policy. For the first time in this

Province legislation supported infant care in child care centres. It also

allowed for child care in private homes to be licensed, should the provider so

choose.

With the proclamation of The Child Care Services Act, the Province has been

able to enhance and solidify supports to children, families and communities. Of

course, through the National Child Benefit Program and the Early Childhood

Development Initiative, we continue to make significant improvements in our

child care services.

The programs that are supported include a significant increase in child care

subsidies, equipment grants, training for those working in child care and

monetary supplements to early childhood educators. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in just

four years the child care budget has more than doubled. It has grown from $3.1

million in 1997, to a current annual expenditure of $6.8 million.

The Department of Health and Community Services and the regional health and

community services boards have continued to consult and collaborate with our

community stakeholders since our legislation was introduced in 1998. As part of

that ongoing consultation, areas were identified that required amendments to the

act in order to achieve the original policy directions.

The proposed amendments to the Child Care Services Act are really intended to

address these issues. Specifically, the amendments will now allow flexibility in

the number of children which can be cared for in a regulated private home, up to

a maximum of eight. Under normal circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the maximum number

is six children. This amendment will enable the director of child care in the

region to approve one or two additional children to attend on a limited basis

under special circumstances. They can, however, only attend up to a maximum of

an hour-and-a-half a day or one full day a week. It is really intended to

address the circumstance where perhaps a child of the family or even another

child requires just an hour or so care after school, and under the existing

regulations that could not be accommodated. This provides more flexibility, but

as I indicated, it would be approved individually by the director in each region

reviewing the circumstances of the care provider and the situation, specifically

one-on-one.

The second process that we would like to also amend is the warrant process.

What we are suggesting is through this amendment, we would remove all references

to Justices of the Peace. What we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, through the

amendment is that only judges will be able to issue warrants on the basis of

reasonable grounds that a person is contravening or has contravened the Child

Care Services Act. We feel it is appropriate for judges only, to decide on this

matter given the intrusive nature of the warrant.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the amendments will clarify the roles and

responsibilities of family child care agencies. These agencies are licensed by

health and community service boards to approve and supervise family child care.

This authority to approve was not clearly articulated in the act. Consequently,

we are defining that much more clearly through this amendment.

During the consultation process, it was identified that clarification was

also required in some areas which give the minister authority to make

regulations. These include clarity in exempting certain programs. For example,

it was found that recreation programs required different standards than child

care services programs. The amendments enable regulations to be developed

allowing a transitional phase between the old legislation and the new

legislation. These areas include things like building requirements, educational

requirements and group sizes.

Mr. Speaker, again, as I indicated, it is purely to be able to allow a smooth

transition from the current situation to the new requirements, in order to

assist some of the difficult areas that we were experiencing after we had the

act proclaimed.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislative amendments do not alter the intent or

the purpose or the essential policy direction that was originally approved by

government, and will facilitate, I believe, continued and improved

implementation of our programs and services related to providing licensed child

care in this Province. The changes reflect feedback from stakeholders in the

Province where possible, and are necessary to complete the transition to our new

child care service arrangements in this Province.

These consultations, that we have conducted almost continually since we

brought in the act, have also identified a need for change to our child care

service regulations. As a result, officials in my department are now re-drafting

these regulations and, where possible, we will be addressing other emerging

concerns that have been expressed concerning these regulations which, hopefully,

will provide greater flexibility. We are now in the final stages of drafting

these regulations and we will be presenting them to these stakeholder groups

very early in the new year.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my House colleagues that these amendments do not

reflect a policy shift from the intentions of our Child Care Services Act. We

continue to be committed to providing children and families of this Province

with options for the provision of child care. We believe this act will allow

this to happen, and that by making the amendments, which I am putting forward

today, it will further clarify areas of the act and allow for more flexibility

in others.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

As the minister said, the amendments to the Child Care Act are sort of a work

in progress. I realize that this is a living act and that it is going on.

There are a couple of things that I would like to speak to, however. One is

the regulations of which the minister was speaking. The Child Care Act was

passed and assented to on June 5, 1998. Now, as far as I know - and I have not

heard anything different lately - the regulations that are supposed to be drawn

up around this act are also in the works since that time. In May of next year

that will be four years that these regulations are presently being drawn up.

There are some very big gaps here. One is regulations around children

twenty-four months and under, in terms of getting into licensed child care. So,

what happens with the mothers and with the children here is that they have to

resort to private homes. Not that there is anything wrong with private homes,

and in many instances excellent care is provided there; in most instances I

would like to say. It would be very nice for parents of children twenty-four

months and younger to have the option of being able to go to either a licensed

daycare or to a private home.

I understand that Nova Scotia has had some regulations around children

twenty-four months and younger for quite some time now. The demographics are not

that different in the Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of Newfoundland.

It is beyond me why the department, or why the committee which is drawing up

these regulations, has not been able to get in touch with somebody in the

department in Nova Scotia and say, you have had this on the go for quite some

time now, you have had regulations around children under two years of age, what

is working, what isn't working, and put a grid down on that and come up, very

easily, with regulations around children under twenty-four months. I know that

any regulations that we draw up pertaining to children have to be

copper-fastened for the protection of children. As I said, I don't see the

difficulty in getting in touch with other provinces who have these regul