December 9, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 49

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome a number of groups to the House of Assembly today.

First of all I would like to welcome, on behalf of all members, Mrs. Gwen Mercer, President of the Avalon Chapter of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who is seated in the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well I would like to welcome ninety students from three of the Canadian Issues classes in Mount Pearl Senior High. These students are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Darrell Penney and Mr. Jim Locke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome ten participants in the Youth Service Canada program. This is sponsored by the Lower Trinity South Development Association. They are accompanied by teachers Betty Tuck and Patricia Cumby, and assistants Francis and Mildred Glynn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the consent of hon. members I would like to draw to the attention of Members of the House the swearing in today of the hon. Mary Elizabeth Heneghan to the Federal Court of Canada. Beth Heneghan is the granddaughter of P.J. Lewis, a former member of this House of Assembly, and has practiced law in St. John's since 1980. She is, I think - members will note - only the second appointment to the Federal Court of Canada from Newfoundland since Confederation in 1949, and the first woman appointee. I think it is worthy of note in this House of Assembly. I should add that it is a very well received and popular appointment amongst the Bar and Bench of this Province. We wish to congratulate her on her appointment and wish her well as a judge of the Federal Court of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the comments just made by the Leader of the NDP. Indeed, Beth Heneghan is a distinguished lawyer and practitioner of the law, and has recently been elevated to the federal court, the circuit court, which will travel around the country and thus will be located in the city of Ottawa.

Madam Justice Heneghan has been a stalwart and effective advocate on behalf of her clients. I confess today that I have been on the receiving end, as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on one occasion of her effective and energetic and, I'm happy to say, on that occasion not too persuasive, but just about, representation.

I know that all members take a measure of pride in seeing such a distinguished individual, a citizen of our Province, a lawyer, take on these important duties. This reflects well upon the whole of the legal community of our Province and it is with pride that we wish her well in her new endeavor.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We join, I'm sure, with all members of this Legislature in congratulating Madam Justice Beth Heneghan. I had the privilege and the opportunity to attend the swearing in ceremony this morning in Courtroom One of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. It is indeed an honor that such a distinguished lawyer, a native Newfoundlander, has now been appointed a member of the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada. As was expressed this morning, the federal court, as the Premier indicated, is a circuit court, to some extent, but it is also both a bilingual court and a bi-jural court dealing with aspects of the common law and the civil law of Quebec.

We certainly join with all members, I am sure, in recognizing this great distinction and congratulating Madam Justice Heneghan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

l0

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks government has heard - individual members; indeed, I have as an individual member and as Premier - from individuals and groups concerned about the extension of opening hours for bars in the Province during the period of the New Year's celebrations.

Recently, I had correspondence from the local chapter of MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and I am very delighted to acknowledge the President of the MADD Canada Avalon Chapter, Mrs. Gwen Mercer, who is in the Speaker's gallery today, and who joins us today in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mrs. Mercer wrote me several weeks ago voicing her concerns about these extended hours on behalf of the chapter and asked that government consider a different approach.

We have listened to those concerns, and today we are responding to those concerns.

I am pleased to inform the House today, and through the House the people of the Province, that government has decided to limit extended bar hours on New Year's Eve to an extension of three hours, not the six which were proposed by the Liquor Corporation that would have caused, indeed, bars to have been open around the clock.

Simply put, the Liquor Corporation will now grant a three-hour extension for all licensees who ask for it on New Year's Eve. By adding those three hours to the normal weekend closing time of 3:00 a.m., we believe this limited extension provides licensees with adequate opportunity to tailor their product to the New Year's Eve schedule and for any special millennium functions they may have planned.

I want to acknowledge today that the provision we are announcing today was exactly the suggestion made by MADD with respect to bar opening hours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: We believe it is a good suggestion. Government is supportive of the efforts of organizations such as MADD to educate the public about the consequences of impaired driving and to encourage socially responsible use of alcohol.

I want to ensure all residents of the Province that enforcement of existing penalties for misuse of alcohol will not be decreased during the holiday season. I am very confident that our law enforcement agencies in this Province will continue to do an excellent job in minimizing alcohol related incidents.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Mrs. Mercer and to all of the participants of the organization MADD, which I think is doing an outstanding job in reminding us all, those of us who partake in alcohol refreshments on occasion, those of us who have the opportunity and responsibility to legislate, that I believe the contribution you make is an important one, and I believe the suggestion you have made is a useful one. That is why we have acted upon it.

I want to say, in your presence here today, and while making this announcement to all the people of the Province as we enter this holiday season - we shared some cheer last night with the Opposition members, who indeed provided that cheer to us, the first of the annual traditional right here to spend a few moments in a non-partisan environment - that this is a time to be with families and it is time to celebrate, but it is also a time to exercise great caution.

Our loved ones are near and dear to us, family members, in particular our children, those who are driving for the first time, those who are perhaps of legal age for the first time; let this announcement today not only be an announcement of a bit of sanity and a rational approach to the celebratory season, but let it be a reminder to all of us to exercise our Christmas season with caution, care, and prudence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, join in and congratulate Mrs. Mercer on her efforts as President of the Avalon Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I think we can never be too cautious or exercise too great a control over something that has had a devastating effect, as I am sure everybody here can attest to, and by adding three hours and not adding an extra three beyond that. I certainly hope that people who have been out and drinking too heavily could use that extra three hours to sober up rather than get drunk. That would be a good use of that time, I would say.

I think, with reference to the statement here, enforcement of use of alcohol not to be decreased, I certainly hope that will not be the case during not only Christmas season but other holiday seasons. There is a tendency, I think, historically to increase consumption of alcohol and increase the risk. During those periods, if at all possible, certainly an enforcement aspect - hopefully there will be increases in enforcement and tighter controls to ensure that the public safety is protected in the long term.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, would like to acknowledge and thank MADD on their initiative for suggesting this change, and as well acknowledge government's responding to them in a like manner. It is important that the enforcement of driving while under alcohol influence be kept down to a minimum. I think the extension of three hours certainly grants enough time to people who may want to bring in the new millennium in a special way but, at the same time, I think by not having a free-for-all bar, so to speak, with a cut-off time in place of an extra three hours, also sends a message that there is time to bring things to a conclusion and not to overdo them. I think this message that is being sent out will certainly go a long way in people's minds to make them realize the hazards of drinking and driving, and practice a safe holiday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to confirm that, with our October and most of our November tourism performance numbers now in, we are still on track for non-resident visitation to top 400,000 people for the first time in our history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: The final numbers cannot be calculated until year end but, with the usual strong Christmas season, we expect we will still meet our original forecast of approximately 400,000 people who will have visited the Province by December 31, spending somewhere in the vicinity of $260 million. This will translate into growth in non-resident visitation of 8 per cent over last year and 31 per cent since 1996.

Mr. Speaker, this continued strength is good news for the Province as it heads into the year 2000 and the Vikings!1000 Years: Make the Journey celebrations. The success of the travel/tourism industry in general, and the success of the accommodation sector specifically, can be attributed to a number of factors including a heightened awareness of the tourism product promoted by special celebrations and events such as Cabot 500 and Soiree ‘99 and the upcoming Viking!1000, and the overall expanding economy fueled in part by increased business travel.

This increase can be further viewed by specific modes of transportation which visitors use. For example: Non-resident auto visitation increased by 10 per cent for the first ten months of this year. The number of passengers visiting the Province by air charter is up by 14 per cent for the first eleven months, and scheduled air passenger traffic flying into the Province is up by 8 per cent for the first ten months of this year. Direct international arrivals at the St. John's Airport has increased 9 per cent for the first eleven months. Total airport activity at all major airports is up 9 per cent for the first ten months of this year. Marine Atlantic's motor coach traffic from May to October is up 18 per cent this year. Cruise ship activity is up 71 per cent this year. Car rental revenue at the St. John's Airport increased 11 per cent for the first ten months of 1999.

Mr. Speaker, data provided by Pannell Kerr Forster in their report, Trends in the Canadian Hotel Industry, shows that the Province's occupancy rate reached 69.6 per cent for the first nine months of 1999, an increase of 10 per cent over 1998 levels. In St. John's, the occupancy rate reached 73.9 per cent for the January to September time period, an increase of 12 per cent over last year's record level.

Mr. Speaker, we are especially pleased with the figures released recently by Pannell Kerr Forster's report regarding hotel occupancy rates. According to the report, Newfoundland and Labrador continues to lead the nation in growth in hotel occupancy rates for the first nine months of 1999. Growth in occupancy levels were also seen in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, while the overall national rate dropped 1 percentage point.

The increases in occupancy rates achieved in Atlantic Canada outpaced those achieved in other regions of the country. Meanwhile, the growth in Newfoundland and Labrador's accommodations section was 2.5 times greater than the growth experienced in the rest of Atlantic Canada, and ten times that of the growth in the country as a whole.

Not only are we continuing to lead the country in growth in hotel occupancy levels, we are also doing so at a time when the overall growth rate in the country as a whole has dropped. This is a remarkable indicator of the tourism industry and the overall economic environment in the Province as a whole.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a leader in this country as we enter the new millennium, and I am confident that the momentum will continue during Vikings! 1000 years: Make the Journey, and will create new historic records next year here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for advancing me a copy of his ministerial statement. Now we know he has been out crunching the numbers and the numbers are good, the numbers are great, I say to the minister. The tourism industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the Province. With a record of only being a short while in the ministry, I say to the minister, and in all honesty, you have done a fairly good job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: But!

MR. MANNING: But, I say, with a record like this I have to ask the question that the minister has asked himself but cannot get an answer for. I have to ask him: Mr. Premier, why don't you give him Marble Mountain?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: With the record of achievement that I have before me here today, and the record of failure that we have raised in this House over the past couple of days in regards to Marble Mountain, I ask: Why isn't Marble Mountain under the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation where it should be, and under this minister?

Yes, there is no doubt about it, we have a great tourism industry in this Province. Many people have played a part in it, from the government to the many people that are out and around the Province, the crowd that have put their money to action in building the accommodations. We have great historic sites here. We have much that we can sell to the world. There is no doubt about it, Newfoundland and Labrador is being sold to the world. People are traveling here from all over the world because of our culture, our heritage, our historic sites, our accommodations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: They are traveling here because we have something to offer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - and the tourism industry is now part of the global economy. We are not competing with someone down the road. We are competing with the rest of the world, and only by working together, through government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. MANNING: The minister is willing to give me leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. MANNING: I can have all afternoon now, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that this is only by government working hand in hand with the entrepreneurs that are out and around this Province and developing a tourism product here that will be the envy of the world. We have much to offer in this Province. A star grading system, brought in a couple of years ago for our accommodations, has done wonders for the accommodation sector. I am very familiar with the tourism industry, as the minister is fully aware. I say all the celebrations, whether it was Cabot, Soiree `99, Vikings 1000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: No, I am not that pleased, Mr. Speaker.

I just say that many people have contributed to what we have. In all seriousness, many people have contributed to a great tourism product in this Province. It is something that we all can be proud of. I think that we have something to offer, whether it is through these celebrations that we promote our Province, such as Cabot, Soiree `99, or come home year celebrations. We had a come home year celebration in our hometown this year and due to the minister getting called out on an emergency call, if we can remember that day, he did not get to make it. Maybe the next celebration we have in our area he will be welcome to come.

I will just say that it is great to see that the work and the efforts of many people in the Province has paid off. I look forward to a further growing of the tourism industry. I want to remind the minister that I take size 38.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister of Tourism to tell us what kind of a tourism grant he just put in the riding of the member who just spoke.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I figure one more Christmas party and all these desks can be put together.

It is great to hear of the increased tourism in the Province. I think it says a lot about the promotion that has been taking place over the last number of years. I certainly welcome the addition of new monies to our economy. After all, it has been said we live in the best country in the world, and this Province has to be the best part of that best country.

In light of the tourism industry, I think it becomes more important to have a new ferry service on the Gulf so that when people go back to their homes, at the end of their vacation, they have a lot of good things to say instead of negative things about the ferry. I think it is also important that we start to consider improved services on the ferry from Lewisporte to Goose Bay so that people, when visiting this area of the country, can come in and make the round circle in through one way and out the next or the other way around.

I think that with all the tourism we have had in the past few years, the increase in tourism, and with what is expected in a few years to come, I do not think there is any answer - but the question now is answered - that the condos in Marble Mountain will be open on a daily basis.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise before the House today to inform my hon. colleagues of a new business endeavor in this Province.

This afternoon, I will be participating in a news conference for the announcement of the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation.

This company is a unique partnership with Taiwan and Newfoundland and Labrador businesses, which will identify industrial development opportunities in the Province.

The company is supported by a major shareholder, the Yao-Hwa Investment Fund in Taiwan, which has executed a share purchase for $7.39 million Canadian that will give the fund a non-majority position in the company.

This partnership came as a result of a relationship that developed between my department and a businessman from Taiwan, Mr. Tim Lo.

My predecessor, Minister Foote, played a key role in this ongoing relationship while in the Industry, Trade and Technology portfolio.

Following a government visit to Taiwan, led by Minister Foote last year, and a subsequent high level Taiwanese delegation visit to the Province in June of this year, a new business partnership has been developed.

During the course of our relationship with Taiwan, we introduced Taiwanese business leaders to our Province's private sector business leaders. Today, we see the successful result of this interaction. A new company has been established, Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation (NLDC).

In fact, I just returned yesterday from a business visit to Taiwan to finalize the arrangement, and to witness the formal establishment of the company and receipt of the funds.

The head office will be here in St. John's, and there will be a branch office in Taiwan.

My department has been pleased with the results of this endeavor to date. This initial investment serves as a starting point to study the feasibility of economic development opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It clearly demonstrates what we have known for a long time - that the world sees this place, this Province, as a place of opportunity.

Our intention now is to let private enterprise do what it does best: to operate this company to the best of its ability and to build a stronger economy in this Province through identification and implementation of new business opportunities.

My department will, of course, work closely with NLDC to offer advice and assistance wherever we can.

I would like to welcome today Mr. Tim Lo, our Taiwanese partner, and Mr. Brian Dobbin, the Newfoundland and Labrador partner, to the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MS KELLY: They have both worked diligently to bring this idea to fruition.

I invite my hon. members to join me in welcoming this new company to our Province and in wishing them every success in helping to develop our economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister today for a copy of her statement in advance, and to also thank the minister today - which we kind of got away from in this House - I am glad that the minister today read her statement in the House rather than rushing off to a press conference to announce it ever before it was mentioned in this House.

Minister, I would to like to say as well that we are also very, very pleased to welcome these two gentlemen to the House today. We are very, very pleased to see new endeavors started in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and hopefully this will create employment which is much needed in our Province. I can only ask you that if there are some special arrangements which have been made with this company, if there is anything in taxes and that sort of thing, over a period of time you will table such documents in the House.

Again, I thank you for a copy of your statement. This is, to me, at least a little bit of good news.

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

MR. HARRIS: We certainly join in welcoming the investment interests from the Taiwanese company and the two gentlemen to the House today. If $7.39 million represents a minority interest, then we can be very pleased that the full amount of capital will be used for investment in this Province.

I have a little concern of the name of the company, Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, however. It is perhaps confusion with our former Crown corporation and a former corporation called NALCO which operated in the early sixties. I am a little concerned with the confusion this might create in the minds of the public and other investors as well. I certainly hope that this company is able to find worthy investments for their capital and create jobs and economy activity in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the government is introducing in the Legislature today a bill which amends the Electrical Power Control Act and the Public Utilities Act. I would like to take this opportunity to place these amendments in context for hon members - more particularly in the context of the changes in our electrical industry over the last few years.

There has been an electrical industry in Newfoundland and Labrador for about 100 years. By the earlier 1960s, power was still in short supply and many communities still had no service at all. Government, as a matter of public policy, became a major industry participant in the 1960s with the development of the Bay d'Espoir generating plant and the provincial transmission grid. For the next thirty years, into the early nineties, we continued to have sufficient supplies of power for both our residential and commercial uses and for industrial developments through an ongoing program of plant construction by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. During that time, decisions on what plants to build were made by Hydro and the elected government of the day.

In 1994, government investigated the possibility of privatizing Newfoundland Labrador Hydro. Our neighboring province, Nova Scotia, had just done so the previous year; but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador clearly indicated they are more interest in continuing to own and operate our own utility more so than the residents of Nova Scotia were. The government of that day heard the voice of the people, and Hydro continues to be owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Likewise, this government also listens to the people. This government has no intention whatsoever of privatizing Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: In fact, the amendments contained in this bill are designed to restore Hydro to what government believes, and what it understands the people to believe, a Crown corporation should really be. Over time, amendments to the various pieces of legislation which govern the electrical industry have gradually moved Hydro in the direction of commercialization, with a concentrated focus on the corporation itself and its bottom line for profit, to the point where government, by law today, can no longer use the efforts of the corporation in the best interests of the general public. Through these amendments that are contained in this bill, government will restore its ability to have Hydro carry out projects which are in the best interests of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow the Cabinet to exempt specific projects from the need for approval by the Pubic Utilities Board, as is required today. At present, this approval process is not able to adequately consider and give weight to the special function the people demand of their public utility. The Electrical Power Control Act and the Public Utilities Act, as currently written, require Hydro to undertake only those projects that best serve the bottom line profit objective of the corporation and no other public interest is able to be considered. This bill, which recognizes the special role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its unique ability to act in the best overall interest of the Province, is in keeping with the approaches employed by almost all other Canadian jurisdictions which still own their own electric utilities.

Mr. Speaker, in short, the current legislation, as it stands today, was developed to accommodate the potential privatization of Hydro. This government has no such intention and is therefore providing in this bill for the proper functioning of a publicly-owned utility which the people of this Province fully support.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

There is an interesting phrase on the top of page 2 of this statement and it states briefly, “Likewise, this government also listens to the people.”

I remind members opposite that if it were not for the constant pounding on the issue of the privatization of Hydro by the Tory Opposition of the day, where would we be on that issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This government only listened to the Opposition and to the majority of the people of the Province at that time and then the government of the day changed its mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask another question, Mr. Speaker. When government says that this government listens to the people - it was only after the pounding on the issue of the bulk export of water by the majority of the people of this Province and this Opposition, it was only then that this government listened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am nervous because yesterday, what did this government do? I will tell you what it did. It removed the requirement for concurrent processing of ore from the rich ovoid and the less rich underground. It removed the requirement that all the nickel concentrate be processed in this Province, and on this very important matter it removed the requirement that a debate be held in this Legislature before the finalizing of a final agreement with Inco. Therefore, I continue to be nervous; and it is only when we see the legislation will we be in a position to fully debate this proposed legislation coming before the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I should remind the Official Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps I should remind the Official Opposition that the first opposition to the privatization of Hydro came from this part of the House and this hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome the announcement by the minister that this government has no future intention to privatize Hydro, and I also -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I also agree, and many of my speeches in this House on the privatization have had to do with the need for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to in fact be an instrument of public policy in this Province, and in fact an engine of economic growth such as Hydro-Quebec has been for the people of Quebec, for the engineering community of Quebec, to build the expertise and develop the ability to conduct other economic activity. So, I support that wholeheartedly.

This does not mean that the public policy purposes, whatever ones they choose to visit on Hydro, will all be supported by me and by my Party, but the thrust of this approach and the thrust of this legislation is totally in keeping with the approach taken by the New Democratic Party.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 17, the NEOS group, a consortium of three different companies, made an offer to purchase the shares of FPI. At that time, they also informed government of their position and wanted to know what government's concerns would be. The Premier and myself clearly informed them that we, as a government, were not interested in the shareholders of either one of the companies, that our main concern was the best interest of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular the best interest of the people in the communities where the present FPI plants exist. We informed them that was our position, and unless we were convinced otherwise, the 15 per cent would remain on the legislative books.

Clearly there has been a lot of public debate over that over the last number of weeks. The companies have gone out there and tried to convince the people in those communities that their takeover of FPI would be in their best interest. As a result of that, there has been a lot of communities and a lot of people out there concerned about the position and what would happen at the end of the day.

Just a couple of days ago we met again with the NEOS group - they wanted to inform government of their position - and we clearly said that the people of the Province have not been convinced that to remove the 15 per cent would be in the best interest of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result, yesterday, the NEOS group have withdrawn their offer and they now will not proceed to ask government, or to try to convince the people out there, that they will be moving any further or convince government to take their 15 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the people of this Province that the 15 per cent will remain as is, on the books, until government otherwise at some point in time in the future would be convinced to make a change. That change will only be made when we are convinced that it is totally in the best interest of the future of the fishery and the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly welcome the news on this side of the House. This debate has finally reached some conclusion. There has been a lot of fear and uncertainty out there in the fishing communities. We went forward and met with the proponents - we met with FPI, we met with NEOS, we met with the FFAW - but most importantly of all we went out and met with some of the people who were directly affected.

Down in my district, I suppose, is probably an area other than the Burin Peninsula that would be most affected. That is where the fears were the greatest and they had some real concerns. Just a few days ago, we put out a news release which clearly stated our position and what we would like to see met in order to have the 15 per cent share cap removed. We stand by that commitment, whether it is NEOS coming to look for the 15 per cent cap to be removed or whether it is FPI. We have come a long way in the industry. We have gone through some very uncertain times. Now that there is some regularity and some degree of comfort, I suppose, for the people to take part in this industry, I do not think now is the time to lift the 15 per cent cap. If we ever do, we should make sure that the communities affected are protected.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am obviously very pleased that government has adopted the position on the 15 per cent that was taken by our party and by me as early as November 10 or November 11. It has certainly shown, contrary to some people's opinion, that the 15 per cent rule has a very important place. What it has done here is allowed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to speak, particularly from the communities - and the 8,000 petitioners who signed petitions that I have here today - of FPI, to point out that the takeover bid in this case of the NEOS group was not going to be in their interest and that, in fact, to keep that place will provide them with some security over their future in the event that another proposal comes forward that would involve a takeover of FPI.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Minister, you have been quoted as saying that the Voisey's Bay project will not qualify for the ten year tax break granted to mining companies under an act which we all know as An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax Act. Do you intend, Mr. Minister, to bring an amendment to this House prior to the Christmas adjournment dealing with this very important issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I'm really glad that the Official Opposition is asking a question on behalf of the New Democratic Party with respect to taxation and royalties and so on, because the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked that question three years ago, if not four. The answer was clear,that there would not be a tax holiday. Whether or not the law will change or whether or not there will be a special contract arrangement with Inco, if we ever have an arrangement with them, will be determined at the time. It has always been known. They understand that. That question was asked and raised in the House two weeks ago and answered, asked last week and answered.

Will there be a bill presented before Christmas on that issue? No, Mr. Speaker, but I can guarantee you one thing. This government, on this side, will not vote against a motion like the opposition parties, both of them, did yesterday that called for a long-term mining operation in line with the environmental assessment report, open pit mining and underground mining, full processing in the Province to finished nickel. Yesterday, both parties opposite voted against trying to attain those objectives in a contract with Inco.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why do it that way? Why leave it to an agreement? The simplest thing, the easiest thing, the clearest way to deal with this issue, is simply enter into an amendment. I can assure the minister it will receive full support from every single member on this side of the House. Why do you opt for uncertainty, Mr. Minister? Why do you not choose the simplest way, the safest way for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and amend that particular piece of legislation in this Chamber, the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

 

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, sometimes I understand the questions but I am sure that they do not listen to our answers.

The question, if I understood the first question properly - because again, words are somewhat important - was: Is the government going to bring a bill to this House before Christmas? I answered: No, that if we decide to do it, it will be sometime later if we ever get an arrangement, and we might never do it because we might do it in a special arrangement.

The supplementary question is: Why has the government chosen to do that? Why has the government chosen to have a special arrangement? I said no such thing. I said the issue, like all the other issues with respect to Inco and Voisey's Bay, is not decided. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing. We have a little better consistent idea than the Opposition does.

In the morning yesterday and in the night before the Member for Baie Verte was saying a pre- condition for the Opposition with Inco was that there should not only be a nickel processing facility but that he was going to reopen the call on behalf of the Official Opposition that there be no deal unless there was a copper smelter in Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader then presented a motion, there was no mention of a copper smelter because they do not know what their position really is. At least we will be consistent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the minister is all over the place. I will remind the minister this is a serious issue dealing with the taxation of mining operations in this Province. Yesterday, I believe, the Premier indicated we may have a deal today, tomorrow, it may take weeks, it may take months. We could easily be on recess. We could have a deal after the adjournment of this Legislature prior to Christmas, or immediately after Christmas. Why do we run the risk of uncertainty, I say to the minister? Why are you taking chances? You are rolling the dice on this issue. Why, Mr. Minister, don't you enact the proper legislation and get this matter dealt with?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I guess, there really is no question, because again I have tried, in my own usual calm way, to answer the question. The question is: Would we before Christmas - I understand ,and someone can correct me if I am wrong; this being December 9, we are talking about fifteen or sixteen days, a couple of weeks - bring a bill to this Legislature to change the taxation and royalty regime with respect to mining projects in the Province, all of them? Because remember this, and it is an important point to make, that when we change the law it is a law of general application for every single mineral and mining prospect in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it may be - I am sure I challenge the Opposition to think about this because they might come to a different conclusion. It may be that if they were the government, by some fluke of circumstance, if they were ever to become the government, that they might want to have a slightly different arrangement with a very rich and large project like Voisey's Bay as opposed to a small but still important and profitable project like Nugget Pond.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Are we going to change the law and have general application rules that apply to everybody? We are considering it. If we do change the law, it has to happen here; it will absolutely happen here. Will it happen before Christmas? No, Mr. Speaker. Will it happen some time? I don't know yet.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, and it has to do with the Voisey's Bay project. It has been reported in the news that the royalty regime has been determined by government with respect to this project. Will the Premier tell the people of this Province what royalty regime will apply to the people's ore deposit in Voisey's Bay, Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite that it has not even been determined that we have a project, and there has been no determination as to a royalty regime because you cannot have an agreement on royalty unless you have an agreement on the project. As I have said many times, unless and until there is absolute certainty on all of the components of any arrangement but more importantly the question of processing concentrate to a finished nickel plate or product in this Province, there is not going to be a deal, let alone a royalty regime.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Voisey's Bay Nickel reports to the Environmental Assessment Panel indicated that the revenues to the provincial Treasury over the life of the project would be about $417 million compared to the $4.9 billion that the federal Treasury would receive, partly a consequence of the equalization payment scheme.

Can the Premier advise this House what progress has been made in achieving a change in those equalization formulas as they would affect royalty regimes, as they will affect the revenues of this Province for a project like Voisey's Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: The member opposite knows that the equalization formula is a ten province and national government formula. I would be quite happy if I could convince the other provinces of Canada and the national government to bring about a different equalization regime as it applies to Voisey's Bay, or as it applies to a lot of other matters for development; but, if the hon. member wants to undertake to take up a discussion with the NDP Government of British Columbia, the NDP Government of Saskatchewan, and the NDP Government of Manitoba, if he can bring those three governments into line for a new equalization regime, I will certainly work on getting the concurrence of the Atlantic Canadian Provinces; I think we can get that. Then our big stumbling block will remain the PC Governments of Alberta, Ontario, and elsewhere in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We already have received the unanimous consent of the federal NDP at convention in September, to that proposition. I have already raised the matter with the new Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Gary Doer. I would be happy to work further with the government to try and resolve this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier indicate whether or not he feels that a situation where we have, losing dollar for dollar in equalization payments any benefits - or most of the benefits - of the Voisey's Bay regime, whether that is acceptable to his government and whether he thinks that it should be acceptable to the Liberal Government of Canada?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for this country to take a look at the equalization formula and see if we can change that formula. I think you only need to look at what happens in the European Union where, for example, Ireland was able to secure a ten-year commitment to a steady level of equalization and to use that ten years to build the infrastructure of that country. Whereas we have in Canada a formula where you have, basically, for every extra dollar earned, seventy-five or eighty cents clawed back. It is a problem, but it is not a matter that can be changed by the actions of one government or, for that matter, the federal government. It requires the agreement of all of the Provinces of Canada.

I can honestly tell the member opposite that governments of every political stripe, based on their region - including NDP governments - have said no to changes because we have currently in the country an attitude that is based on: What's in it for me? How do I act in a manner that promotes my own best interest as a Province? versus a time in this country when there was more of a mood to share the risk, share the rewards, and share the opportunities.

I would be very honest in saying that I doubt that Mike Harris in Ontario, or Ralph Klein in Alberta, or, for that matter, the Government of British Columbia - because I put it directly to the Government of British Columbia, which is an NDP government - are willing to make that kind of change right now.

Mr. Speaker, I will make one other comment and I would conclude with this: The Leader of the NDP said that the federal NDP is committed to a change, but the federal NDP said they were opposed to the Prime Minister's position on the constitution; but yet Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan, of course, supports the Prime Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on a very serious and urgent matter. The community of Harbour Deep, which I know very well - I was lucky enough to serve as their member for some years, as equal with the member, and I still keep very close relationships with those people - they have called me today, and they have written letters, and asked me to bring this situation forward to the House of Assembly, to place it here on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago there was a near tragedy, I say to the Premier in all seriousness. There was a near tragedy in this Province just off Harbour Deep, when the ferry service there, the Lady Rosella Regina B, had some mechanical problems and went in a spinning motion into White Bay under very rough conditions. That caused a forty-five gallon drum of gas to tip over. There was gas floating around the deck.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: There was also a near fire inside the cabin where some thirty people were at the time. We know how near a tragedy that was. That is how they describe it, as a near tragedy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I ask leave to finish the description, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the people were terrified. As we speak today, the people of Harbour Deep right now have that boat chained onto the wharf, and they are holding it there today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the people of Harbour Deep are terrified of the situation they face there today. I am asking the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I will ask the minister, since I was cut off by the Premier and so on to describe the situation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I will ask the minister: Will you immediately provide alternate air service to the community of Harbour Deep?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I realize also the urgency of having the ferry service re-established in Harbour Deep. In fact, before I came to the House this evening, I instructed my officials to make sure that ferry service is running this evening. She may be chained on out there, but action has to be taken. There are people in that community who need services. That service, as far as I am concerned, will be running this evening. There is nothing to stop that ferry from running. She had sea trials yesterday. She was down for one-and-a-half hours yesterday itself.

The issue that the hon. member is talking about happened on December 3. It was hung up for three-quarters-of-an-hour off Harbour Deep. The Coast Guard was notified. It was done as a precautionary measure. She proceeded into Harbour Deep, one-and-a-half miles offshore. We had problems with it at that time. Like I said, the Coast Guard was notified. Every action was taken; but, other than that, yesterday she had mechanical breakdown. It was fixed. She was ready to go as of yesterday evening. The people in the community chained the ferry to the wharf but I have instructed my officials to have that ferry released this evening so that all the people in Harbour Deep will be able to take use of that service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, some fifty people are now stranded in Harbour Deep. Some twelve students who cannot get to their exams are stranded in Harbour Deep. There are people who had to be flown out this morning - a man with Hydro who was sick and they had to airlift out. The people of Harbour Deep are refusing to board that boat, when even the captain said he wouldn't have his own children on the boat. That is how bad it is.

This service goes to somewhere around the first week of January. My next question is, and the demand the people of Harbour Deep are looking for, is: When the service resumes this spring, will they have a safe boat to travel on?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, back in the fall of 1998 we had officials meet with the stakeholders in the community of Harbour Deep before the extension was made for the ferry service there. In July of this year we had Mr. Walter Pumphrey, our director of Marine Services in Central Newfoundland, go to Harbour Deep and meet with the stakeholders. In October, two months ago, we had the same gentleman back in Harbour Deep to meet with the residents concerning the ferry services. No problem.

Out of seven months running on that service we had five-and-one-half days of downtime. We have sixteen services around this Province. If any member in this House was in my position today and could guarantee the people of this Province that there would not be any mechanical failure if they were minister, then you can take my place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Reverend Roberta Woodman wrote me a letter yesterday and faxed it to my office. I cannot read the whole letter, obviously. Please do something now before it is too late. That is how she described the situation.

The minister and every person in this Province knows about the mechanical failures. People of Harbour Deep would like to know, after years of complaints - and some three years ago, there was a similar situation, with the Reverend on board at the time. It has being going on for a long time. Why has it taken so long to take this into check?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I just outlined three meetings since the fall of 1998 with the stakeholders in the area. There were no complaints. None. In the last seven months, there were five-and-one-half days of downtime. Yes, the people called me at that time and I put other measures in place to make sure they were accommodated. I put a helicopter service in place. The same thing will apply in a couple of weeks' time when the ferry comes off. I will put an air service in place for the people of Harbour Deep for this winter. In case of an emergency now, I will put a helicopter service in place for the people of Harbour Deep.

Those people have been consulted. If the captain on that vessel wants to go talking to people in the community, telling them things that they are not willing to share with me, that they are not willing to share with the owner, that he is not willing to share with the Coast Guard, then I cannot help that.

My response to that is this. If the same captain said that he is not telling me or my officials -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[There was a technical malfunction.]

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) like I said from the outset, Mr. Speaker, I realize the urgency of a ferry service in Harbour Deep and anywhere else in this Province. I have made sure, over the past year, that on three occasions my officials were in that community to check with those people. I made sure that in the last two days the officials were in there and looked after it. I'm going to make sure today or tomorrow that the vessel is going to be released so that the people in Harbour Deep can avail of that service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

[There was a technical malfunction.]

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, the member opposite - and I would invite him to respond to it; I think it is important - has made an allegation that a captain of a ferry service has alleged that the ferry service is not safe enough to put his own children on the boat. The captain has a legal responsibility, enforceable under the Criminal Code, for the safety of a passenger vessel. If any captain made such a comment, a substantive comment, that captain would be subject to legal prosecution. I want to ask the member, in the interest of the reputation of the captain, to clarify whether or not he has heard such a comment from the captain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[There was a technical malfunction.]

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. There are dozens of people all over this Province who are having to face extreme hardship in getting dialysis. Some have to relocate their families, leaving these families and friends behind in many of the cases. Others drive for hours to get to a hospital and they are even wiped out from the travel alone.

A forty-nine year-old gentleman who I visited at the Health Sciences Centre hostel drives for three and one-half hours to get to St. John's every Sunday evening and returns home on Friday. This man, who is in the gallery today I might add, had to exhaust all of his life savings. He had to spend the money he saved for funeral expenses and he had to resort to social assistance. While staying at this hostel they even give this man vouchers for his meals but they will not even give him cash to buy food that the doctor recommends he needs for his diet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister: Why won't your department provide this life saving dialysis services to more locations in our Province?

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

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

We on this side of the House, and on behalf of government, do recognize that there is an increased demand in the Province for dialysis service. As a matter of fact, I understand that the demand for dialysis service is increasing at the rate of about 9 per cent a year. That, obviously, is putting pressure on the number of services we have established. The hon. member will recall, however, that within the last two years we did establish a new service in the Grand Falls, Central Newfoundland, hospital. We do know, we are aware, that there are representations coming forward, ongoing, from other centres for the establishment of dialysis services.

That issue, by this government, is under review and we will respond as soon as possible, and within the context of the appropriateness, giving high consideration to the high level of service that dialysis is. When we put a service in place we want to be sure that it is not only machinery that is available but that there is the technical and medical expertise to go along with that so that it can be operated properly, at all points, at all times, in the interest of the best possible level of health care that we can deliver to the people who have to use that service, unfortunately.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister admits there is an increasing number needing this service and that would certainly justify - and the Minister of Health and Community Services is always saying she is looking for reasons, and giving them here why she cannot do something. I asked her to look for reasons why she should do something.

I have received calls and letters from people in Baie Verte, Bonavista, Carbonear, all over this Province. Under the Central East Health Care Institutions Board jurisdiction alone -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is now on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister stated in this House on March 26, she would consider dialysis if numbers warrant. I want to ask her this. Under the Central East Health Care Institutions Board there are thirty-seven people requiring dialysis, twenty-one require haemodialysis, and there are sixteen on home dialysis. I ask the minister if he would tell us what numbers would they consider sufficient to warrant such service.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The numbers of people requiring the service of dialysis is tied somewhat to the type of dialysis service that is being requested. There are three or four different types; there is the haemodialysis, there is the peritoneal, there is the home dialysis. There are at least three different levels of services available for dialysis patients depending upon their need and depending upon their level of illness or requirements. The number of people required to provide a specific type of service is not a constant figure. It varies with the type of service that is required.

At the end of the day, we will provide additional dialysis service in the Province as soon as we are satisfied that there is a requirement and that we can meet that need with the appropriate level of medical and professional backup services to ensure that there is a safe delivery of that service, bearing in mind always, as I said earlier, the best interest, health care-wise, of the people that need it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is burying her head in the sand while medical advances are passing her by. The Health Care Corporation two weeks ago said: It is very common for dialysis services and clinics to be located in non-acute care hospitals and in non-hospital settings. This has been the case in our Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, and supplementaries should require no preamble.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of this statement, that this has not been the case in our Province but can be seen in most parts of Canada and the United States, in light of that fact: Why, Minister, has this Province not provided reasonable access to these services as other parts of this country are doing?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the hon. member will have to acknowledge - I am sure he will acknowledge - that in the past two or three years this government has improved the level and the availability of dialysis service in the Province substantially. That having been said, we also acknowledge, as he has put forward, that dialysis services can be provided in the community outside of tertiary care units. That particular issue is very much under consideration at the moment and our response will be as timely as we can possibly make it and at the highest possible level of service that we can appropriately deliver.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Minister, I recently found out that the public forums to be held by the educational panel you pointed to review curriculum and personal matters related to the delivery of school programs is by invitation only. Is that what you intended, minister, when you wrote the terms of reference for this panel?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have two very credible individuals leading the process, Dr. Ron Sparkes and Dr. Len Williams. What I have asked them to do is make sure they consult, in as much as it is possible, with all of the stakeholders in the Province with respect to the delivery of education in this Province. How they choose to do that is entirely up to them, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I would take it then from your response, minister, that these public forums are by invitation only. Would these public forums as well be open to, let's say, the press?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the two gentlemen who are leading this process know full well what they are doing. Again, I have left the process to them. Clearly, I can understand where they are coming from if they are doing it by invitation only. When you consider the number of stakeholders in this Province there is no way that everyone could be invited in, but I would expect what they are doing is trying to ensure that there is representation from every stakeholder group in this Province.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, if there is anything in the last week that I have learned, it is that words are important. I will not tell you where I got that from, but words are important. I ask the minister: If forums are by invitation only and not open to the general public, not open to the press, by what measure can you say that they are public forums?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: You had better be careful there. I won't vote for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the two individuals leading this process are doing a very commendable job. They have carried out extensive consultations throughout this Province with a number of stakeholders, trying to ensure that everyone who wants to be heard will be heard either through the consultation process - where they have had the meetings - or either through the focus groups, or they have a website, or they have accepted written briefs as well as oral presentations. I leave it to these very credible individuals to decide how the process should be carried out.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the House of Assembly, and the petition reads:

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

WHEREAS the areas of the Province administered by the Peninsula Health Care Corporation do not have dialysis services available, and the people in our area who require regular dialysis services must often relocate permanently to St. John's and incur the financial and emotional costs of being uprooted to get the health care they need in order to live; and

WHEREAS it is our understanding that the working dialysis units are being sent out of this Province to other countries when the local need is great; and

WHEREAS it is a principle of Canada's medicare system that people should have reasonable access to basic health care services without suffering discrimination on the basis of where they live;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to approve the stationing of a dialysis unit in the area serviced by the Peninsula Health Care Corporation and also provide staff, training and resources to ensure the regular operation of this dialysis unit;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is another in a series of petitions that I have been standing here presenting on behalf of the people who reside in the Peninsula Health Care Corporation boundaries, asking and pleading to government that they would look at stationing a dialysis unit somewhere within the region of the Peninsula Health Care Corporation so they would not have to uproot and move to St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, there is a gentleman here in the gallery today who has spent four-and-a- half years traveling from Bonavista Bay, three-and-a-half hours away, I say to the Premier, take his clothes on a Sunday afternoon or a Monday morning, take his food, load it aboard his pickup truck, and have to travel to St. John's to live in a hostel. That has been this man's life for four-and-a-half years now.

He is not coming to St. John's to go to work. He is not coming to St. John's on vacation. He is coming to St. John's in order to continue to live. He is not asking that we place a dialysis unit in Bonavista and one in Clarenville and one in Burin. His plea is that it be located somewhere in the area serviced by the Peninsula Health Care Corporation where he can get aboard of his vehicle and travel in order to get health care, and travel back to his home on a daily basis.

This gentleman has found himself having to spend all of his life savings. He has found himself having to take money that he has put aside to look after his funeral expenses in order to be able to live today. He finds himself now on social services; a man who was out and worked all his life and contributed to society. All he is asking is to give some degree of living back to him so that he might get up in the morning, go and get his dialysis treatment, and return to his home in Open Hall, Bonavista Bay.

I don't think that is too much to expect when we hear the government opposite get up and talk about how well we are doing, that we can cut back now on income taxes being deducted from people in this Province. While people embrace that, and it might be popular, there is still a greater demand and a greater need that needs to be looked after.

Mr. Speaker, another gentleman right from my home district had to bar up his house, move to St. John's, rent an apartment, buy second-hand furniture, in order to access this same dialysis treatment.

It is my understanding that there are new dialysis units that have been placed in the Health Sciences Complex, and the dialysis machines that were already in existence there were taken and shipped out of the Province and out of the country altogether.

Mr. Speaker, the need is great, the need is now, and I think the plea is for government to react and to place a dialysis unit somewhere in the health care peninsula boundaries.

The critic for health stood and asked questions today in the House, and put forward numbers. He is asking if there is a magic number that must be reached before a dialysis unit is placed somewhere in the Peninsula Health Care Corporation region. I am not so sure that we should be looking at numbers. We should be looking at need and, if the need is there, we should respond to that particular need.

This particular individual - and I have to refer back to the gentleman who was here today - has found himself having medical problems other than dialysis. He has visited me and I have arranged meetings with the Department of Human Resources and Employment to put forward a plea where he might be given funding instead of food vouchers. Right now he gets food vouchers for him and his wife to eat in the cafeteria at the Health Sciences Complex. I don't have to tell you what type of food is being served in cafeterias in this city. His plea is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: His plea is, Mr. Speaker, if I could just have a minute to clue up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, maybe we should be looking at giving him funding rather than food vouchers so he might be able to go out and buy a meal that his doctor has told him he needs in order to maintain his health, rather than eating the food that is served in the cafeteria. Not even that has been acknowledged.

Mr. Speaker, my plea is to ask government to look at this need and respond to it now. The need is great, and it should be done immediately.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am pleased and proud today to stand and continue the support the Member for Bonavista South as he brings forward, on the floor of this House many times, the similar situation I face in my district, another rural district in this Province.

The gentleman has to drive some three-and-a-half hours from Bonavista South to be able to have this service. Every single day in this House we could come in with a list of people with similar situations, and some of them with even worse situations. The bottom line is that every single person in this Province, because of our geography and because of the distance from major health centers and so on, should be able to access this particular service that nobody wants to be on. If anybody knows somebody in those similar circumstances, you will know what I am talking about.

I have sat with people in my district - Mr. Ron Dempsey and his wife, from Fleur de Lys - who described the situation as they had to travel some three-and-a-half hours. You could see the frustration and the pain on their faces as they described the financial stress and the emotional stress related to this.

In another situation in my district, a man in La Scie, some four hours drive from the center, who has actually moved out of his home and moved into a cabin at Badger Lake so he would not have to drive so far to avail of these services. That is how ridiculous it has gotten. I talked to his daughter just a few days ago, and it is getting worse.

That is the point behind all of this. It is not getting any better. There are more cases every single day, and if anybody knows somebody who avails of this service, they know what I am talking about, as I said before. To sit down and watch somebody who has worked all his life, as the member said, and who is at an age now, of the people I know, anywhere from forty-five to fifty-five to sixty years old. They worked hard all their lives and now to even have to face this - to go through this is bad enough but, as the member said, at least to have a bit of dignity.

Another thing I would like to mention, and I brought up here before when the Premier was in the House on this particular petition last year, that even if it was not immediately that we were going to have these dialysis machines all over the Province, then at least for the interim, for the short term, that the government seriously consider some kind of financial compensation to help these people with their expenses: the drive, the expenses of accommodations that they have to put up with, and all of those things. The government could show some compassion by at least offering some compensation for these people who find themselves in this particular situation.

It is a real shame when you sit down with these people and hear the stories. It should not happen in this Province, not in this day and age, when people see money spent on other things, and we could go on with a long list of that but we do not need to. We should stick with the issue of a dialysis machine and how it affects the lives of the people who need to use it. It is a real shame when we cannot at least compensate them to care of some of the economic stress. I hope, in the long term, that we will be able to put some of these machines in more strategic locations so that in the longer term, I guess, we would take care of some of the emotional stress caused by this situation.

I fully support my colleague from Bonavista South. I am going to continue to present these petitions, and I am sure he will get up to continue to support me, and likewise, until we get the message across. I believe and I am hopeful that the government is listening to this, that they are listening, indeed listening. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, as we hit the new millennium, that we are going to see a change of heart by the government to at least address this in the first term, which is financial compensation, but hopefully in the long term so that we have more of these machines throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to say a few words in response to the petition that the hon. Member for Bonavista South has presented today, because it is really a continuation of the issue that was raised by the health critic during Question Period with respect to the expansion of dialysis services in the Province. I wanted to say just a couple of things. Certainly, there is nobody on either side of the House who would argue with the tremendous stress and the enormous difficulties that it causes a person's individual life, and by extension their family, when they have to avail of dialysis services.

One of my probably two or three best friends that I have ever had and ever will have, has recently been on dialysis for the past two years. Fortunately, they were able to get a kidney transplant last year and it is working very well. That is probably the best hope for somebody who has to be permanently on a dialysis machine. I understand from a personal level and certainly from being in the department previously what it means to be attached to the service of a dialysis machine.

We have expanded over the past two or three years some of our dialysis services both in the hospitals that currently have them, such as the Western Memorial Regional hospital and the Health Science Centre. We have also gone into Grand Falls. I want to say, by way of some level of assurance to the people who were responsible for signing this petition, that the issue of expansion of dialysis services is very, very high on the list of considerations for this government of things to do soon. I cannot add more to it than that, because the issue has to be dealt with carefully. We have to be certain, as I said earlier, that when we put dialysis service in a community, whether it is a hospital based service at a high level tertiary care hospital, or whether it is a service that can be provided depending on the requirement of the patient outside of a hospital, we have to be certain that the first consideration has always got to be the health and the well-being of the person who is using that service; because dialysis is not a service that can be provided unless we have the appropriate level of supports in place - medical supports, nurses and sometimes a backup of doctors - to ensure that they can respond to a patient's needs quickly if required.

Let me say to all of the people in the Province who are asking for an expansion of dialysis services, it is very much a topical item with us, as in government, at this point in time. We are looking very seriously, very closely at the issue. While I cannot say more than that, I can say that there may be some other announcements, certainly between now and budget time.

That is not a commitment; it is simply an indication that we are looking very seriously at it and we are trying to analyze where and to what extent we can improve the expansion and extension of dialysis services for the well-being and for the better health care provision of all of the people in the Province who unfortunately need that service.

We support the petition to the extent that it asks for the maximum level of service available to the closest possible point of a person's home. I appreciate the indication that was given by the hon. member when he presented his petition. He said the individual to whom he referred is not suggesting we want a dialysis service in every community, because he obviously knows that would not be realistic, practical, or even needed. Within a reasonable operational distance from a person's home, this service, I believe, should be provided to the maximum extent possible. This government is very much, as I said earlier, dealing with that issue as we speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to speak to the petition as raised by -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I was just going to add my support.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. minister wishes to speak to the petition, she would have to have leave of the House in order to do that.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for by leave by this hon. House.

I, too, have been hearing my colleagues across the way raising this petition over the past few days and weeks regarding dialysis service. I can say that I would have first-hand knowledge of the necessity and urgency of which you speak, having gone through the crusade with the late Brian Quigley from Grand Fall-Windsor.

As my colleague the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs already said, there is a great urgency right across the Province now, particularly due to an aging population. We are facing a situation where we have an increase since last year, of 9 per cent more people looking for that service. It is more than just actually finding a place in a hospital and putting in machines, because it takes a professional team to operate that service once it is there. We in Grand Falls-Windsor did have a commitment from the south and central health foundation to assist in the fundraising for the equipment. Actually, we wondered when we installed that equipment if we would have enough patients to keep it running. What we are finding now, since the equipment has been installed, is that there is actually a lineup of people wanting to use that service. It is in full use all the time. We have a list of other people wanting to get on. What we have found too is that people are moving to Grand Fall-Windsor so they could be close to that service.

The Member for Baie Verte indicated a couple from La Scie who had moved around Badger and set up in a cabin so they could be close to the actual services in Grand Falls-Windsor. I want to say to the Member for Baie Verte today that I had occasion to assist your constituents on a couple of occasions on other matters, and I know who you are referring to. I am aware of their situation.

I have to speak from a government's point of view. The matter you are raising today and the matter you have been raising is of great concern to this government. It is one of the high priorities when we are looking at health care needs in this Province. What I am saying is that you do have support, I'm sure, from all sides of the House for the dialysis service for other parts of this Province. We will be taking this matter into close consideration in the upcoming months and days leading into the new budget.

As the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs said, w cannot make any comments at this time, or any promises. We do consider the need and we will certainly look at it with great priority.

Thank you.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask leave of the House to revert to Notices of Motion? There was a little activity on the floor of the House when you called that and I missed it. With the indulgence of the House, I ask for leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

Notices of Motion.

MR. MATTHEWS: I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill titled, “An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mt. Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Assessment Act.”

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: We will resume Petitions.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition signed by some 8,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians whose prayer has been answered. The prayer of the petition says:

We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately announce that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will maintain the current legislative restrictions with respect to the ownership of Fishery Products International.

Mr. Speaker, this is only a part of the petition, because there are some 3,000 or 4,000 other signatures on this petition, mostly from the FPI communities, but also some additional petitioners from the area of Valleyfield. Since the announcement was made on November 5 of the proposed NEOS takeover, there has been much consultation and discussion about the consequences of such a takeover and about the 15 per cent rule.

These petitioners are the people whose communities, lives and futures depend on a very stable fishing enterprise. They say a number of important things in this petition which it is important - despite the fact that government has announced its intentions on this particular proposal - to underline. They say that a debt free Fishery Products International was created with public funding and as an instrument of public policy. That is a very important point, number one, that it was a debt free company that was set up, unlike the companies that went bankrupt or were about to go bankrupt because they were so dependent on debt. FPI, as a publicly traded company, was dependent upon the equity of the ownership of the shareholders, which allowed it to be able to ride the vicissitudes of the market, the ups and downs of the market and prices, and also, in fact, to ride out the worst thing that has happened in the Newfoundland fishery in 500 years, the moratorium which was announced in 1992. That was the strength of the company that was not dependent on debt. The petitioners whose lives and future are dependent on the fishery underscore this as the first most important point.

Secondly, approximately 3,000 processing plant workers and 300 deep sea fish harvesters were employed by FPI, and more than 3,000 inshore fish harvesters sell their catch to the company. So the size and the extent of FPI is very important. They also say that the proposed takeover of FPI would result in an undue concentration of ownership in the fishery.

Problem number one was the undue concentration. Problem number two is that the concentration of ownership, control and power in the fishery would be adverse to the interest of all the people of the fishing society and not in the public interest.

There is a very important difference between the widely held shareholdings of a publicly traded company where people who own the shares may be mutual fund managers, may be Members of this House without even knowing it, have an RSP which has some ownership in some shares of FPI. The only interest of these shareholders is three things: Should they buy more FPI shares, should they sell the ones they have, or should they hold on to them? They are not interested in whether it is fish or whether it is television sets or whatever that FPI produces. What they are interested in is the value of the shares and that is a very different point of view than the proposed takeover by people in this particular NEOS group.

With a 40 per cent ownership by the Nova Scotia interest of the Risley group, with a 20 per cent ownership by the Icelandic group, and a 40 per cent by the Barry group, they would bring to that, in addition to ownership, their own interests as shareholders: a Nova Scotia interest, an Icelandic interest, and an interest of another company who had their own agenda about FPI's assets. In fact, they would very likely have been required to sell off, within a year, $90 million worth of those assets. We would have seen FPI that has been built up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, for a minute.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to stand very briefly and pass a few comments on this petition. Even though it is a little late coming the member did the right thing by standing up and taking the wishes of his 8,000 or 6,000 people who saw fit to circulate a petition and bring it to the floor of the House of Assembly.

There is one thing we have to remember, and I suppose it is why people have embraced Fishery Products International. I remember very well when we had the restructuring of the fishery back in the early 1980s. It was a situation where what was happening within the fishing industry of this Province was almost cruel. There is no way it could continue to exist and be productive in today's business world. It was a situation where the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada put millions of dollars into the restructuring of the fishing industry. While the directors of Fishery Products International might say that the debt to the Province and to the federal government has been repaid, they are telling you the truth there when they say that the debt was repaid. It was a debt that was identified by the Province and by the Government of Canada that they deemed they needed to be repaid. I can tell you that there are still millions of dollars of taxpayers money in Fishery Products International that will never be repaid. It was put there during restructuring. It was not identified as a debt to be repaid to government, but it was your dollars and my dollars and the taxpayers' dollars of this Province that saw this restructuring take place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was your government.

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure it was a government that I am part of the same party today. It was a good move to make. While the 15 per cent cap is there and we are saying that it should not be lifted at this time, we, as a party over here, have said we are not totally against lifting the 15 per cent cap if there are some commitments left. Other people have said that the 15 per cent cap must be removed. Why shouldn't we remove it? There is no such restriction on Voisey's Bay and other companies that are operating in the free marketplace in this Province.

I say to people opposite and to people in this House that the fishing industry cannot be compared to some of those other industries. It is an industry that we do not control ourselves. The destiny of the fishing industry is being controlled in Ottawa. While we control processing, we have nothing to do whatsoever with harvesting, setting the total allowable catch, setting the dates of seasons for the different species to be harvested, and that is why it is so different.

The fear people had about this takeover is that 60 per cent ownership would exist outside the Province. The fears were there. They were not willing to grasp onto the proposal that was put forward. They were scared because they have come a long way. They have moved from being down here, Mr. Speaker, not allowed to go to work at what they normally did, to a point just a little bit higher. They are moving. A lot of people today are back into the industry. While they are not working full-time, they are being able to secure enough employment to look after their families, and that is very important.

I think the government did the right thing. In fact, they probably should done it a little bit sooner, but I do not blame them for wanting to find out and to listen to all the proponents and to listen to the concerns of the people before they made the decision. It was a situation that couldn't continue to go on much longer. There were a lot of fears out there, a lot of fears in my communities: Bonavista, Port Union, Catalina, Elliston. A lot of fears that maybe all the things and how far they have come may now suddenly be unraveled again. Somebody might say: You should be jumping with joy, there was $20 million worth of construction announced for your district. If it had been under a different situation we would have been dancing in the streets in Bonavista and Port Union, because we need the employment, we need the economic generator down there. The only way it is going to come is through the fishery. That is the only way you are going to see economic activity in the communities and towns like Bonavista, Port Union and Catalina.

We can talk about tourism till the cows come home, we can talk about other manufacturing entities that we would like to identify in the Province, but rural Newfoundland and Labrador will only survive on the fishery. You will see nothing else go to most of those communities to employ those numbers of people as the fishery has done. While the numbers are not nearly as high as they used to be, and while we see sales in excess of $900 million this year in export value, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - at least we are moving, and we are moving in the right direction. Hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later and we can see many of our people get back into this industry again and provide for their families, rather than have to take the ferry and go to the other side of the pond.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am both pleased and proud today to stand and present a petition of hundreds of people from the Baie Verte Peninsula. The prayer of the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula, Newfoundland;

Whereas eleven communities are accessed by Route 414 known as the La Scie highway; and

Whereas the highway is in deplorable condition, large potholes, ruts and very bad road bed conditions; and

Whereas this road is used by trucks from the La Scie plant, tourists and school children commuting by bus, to name a few;

Therefore the undersigned do hereby ask the government to place the La Scie highway, Route 414, on the roads program and undertake the upgrading and paving of the said highway.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and present this petition. It was put together over the last several weeks by the people in the area who got support from the entire Peninsula, some twenty-one communities. I'm also pleased to say that the MP for the area, Mr. Gerry Byrne, is in support also of the people of the area on this particular piece of highway because he knows that area. I see that the Member for Bay of Islands is nodding his head because he knows the area too, and he knows the La Scie highway. The minister himself was down there sometime back in February, I understand, so he also knows it. Officials in that department indeed have said that it is one of the worst paved roads in the Province. There is no doubt about it. I do not know the exact age, but it somewhere around thirty years old, close to twenty-five -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which road is it?

MR. SHELLEY: The La Scie highway. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people have complained about it for a long time. This is over half of the Peninsula. The Baie Verte highway has been done under the Roads for Rail program, and I want to make this point clear. I believed then and I believe now that that particular road, being a major trunk road that it is for over eleven of the twenty-one communities on the Peninsula, should have been done when the Baie Verte highway, route 410, was done under the Roads for Rail Agreement.

We can go back through the history and talk about who was the MP at the time - of course, our current Premier - and who was the MHA and so on, but we do not need to do that. We have to look forward, not backward. All we know right now is that the road is one of the worst in the Province. We have the La Scie highway which the minister was down -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to correct the minister for his own sake. He drove down the Baie Verte highway which has just be done under the Roads for Rail when he was minister as a matter of fact, but the La Scie highway which turns off, which served eleven communities -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: The minister did not understand the geography of the Baie Verte Peninsula, but he does now.

Route 414, I say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, the Baie Verte highway, but not the La Scie highway. We have to make that clear, and make sure we make that point clear today. Route 414, commonly known as the La Scie highway, serves over the half of the Peninsula, over fifty kilometers. This is a major trunk road. It should have been done when the Roads for Rail program was done. It was missed. We are not going to get into reasons of why and who was there and so on. We have to look forward.

The fact today is that La Scie and that area, and the eleven communities down that highway, has some very prosperous increasing activity, economic-wise. The La Scie plant picked up this year in its capacity and the word is, Mr. Speaker, and we hope it is true, that it will increase again next year. We also have an increase in tourism and development. In Fleur de Lys and in La Scie are some of the ones that are going to be some of the most critical sites for the development of tourism on the Baie Verte Peninsula. There is no bigger a turnoff - to turn the tourists off, I mean, not the turnoff on the La Scie road - than to go over a bad highway. A lot of times these tourists turn around and go back.

The La Scie highway is bad. I am glad the minister is in his seat, and he has driven down there in February, I do believe. That particular road, which is a major trunk road, certainly is in bad condition. The local MP there has supported it. I know people from all eleven communities on the highway, but besides that, from all over the Peninsula, realize that. Besides the fish trucks and so on going to the plant in La Scie, and the tourists, we also have an increased number of children on the roads because of educational reform.

I would like to add to that that we have Nugget Pond that comes off that particular highway, which is one of the lowest cost-effective gold producers in Canada right now. There is trucking and so on going on because of that. There are all kinds of reasons that this road is certainly behind when it comes to being done. We have had to really look forward and not backward, as I said before. I think this should be on a priority.

I understand there are talks ongoing now - the minister can confirm this - for maybe a new national transportation initiative, something similar to the Roads for Rail. It is not quite the same, but there was a transportation initiative that is ongoing in discussions right now. Mr. Speaker, certainly I'm sure the minister would agree that the La Scie highway would have to be a priority under that national roads program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: We really hope, on behalf of the people in this area, the entire Peninsula, that we will see that road done in the very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and give a few words of support to the petition put forward by my colleague from Baie Verte. It is a concern not only in the Baie Verte area - that is the one we are dealing with today - but indeed throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the road conditions that we have. This petition is signed by people, as the member put forward, from twenty-one communities on the Baie Verte Peninsula. It is not an isolated concern but it indeed involves twenty-one communities.

As the member put forward, it is an area of the Province which has seen a great increase in the different parts of the fishing industry. Indeed, from a mining perspective, the Baie Verte Peninsula has been known far and wide for many, many years as having a great mining industry in that area which creates a lot of traffic to and fro as, I guess, with any part of Newfoundland and Labrador at the present time. We heard earlier today in a Ministerial Statement about the growth in the tourism industry, the amount of traffic and the amount of motorists we have on our highways due to our evolving tourism industry. There is no doubt about it; the Baie Verte Peninsula is reaping the rewards of a merge in the tourism industry also.

We had a couple of agreements that were signed back a few years ago known as the Regional Trunk Roads Agreement and the Roads for Rail Agreement. As the member stated, we are in the process now of hopefully signing another agreement that sees some major infrastructure, road infrastructure, highway infrastructure, put in place throughout the Province, and indeed have improved the safety of the people who are on the highway. I guess if there is anything that is uppermost in all of our minds, as members of the House, and indeed as members of the general population of the Province, safety if the number one concern that we all have.

It is great to see that this issue is coming forward today. A few months ago we heard the minister, and indeed the Premier, say that this year in particular was one of the greatest and the largest road construction projects that was ongoing in the Province since Confederation - due to the fact that a fair bit, about 90 per cent, of the funds that were being utilized were brought to us under the Regional Trunk Roads Agreement and the Roads for Rail Agreement that were signed, I would like to say, when the national government was of a Progressive Conservative stripe. Mr. John Crosbie, who was the minister at the time, made sure that these great agreements were put in place that see, as I said earlier, some great road infrastructure put in place throughout the Province.

I am very pleased to see that MP for the area, Mr. Byrne, is supporting the petition that is put forward by the MHA. It is a concern not only, as I said, for those people in that area but indeed throughout all the area; because we have to be conscious of the fact that we have to put safety first, and in order to put safety first on our highways we have to improve the highways. Therefore, that is why I am pleased to stand today and support the petition put forward by the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 20, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Forestry Act”. (Bill 35)

I believe the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi adjourned debate. I hope he only has half a minute left.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I do want to say a few words today on the Forestry Act and talk about -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I was going to do some first readings, and my colleagues here were talking to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You have to do that; that is something you have to learn real fast.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to do first reading on Motions 5 through 9, inclusive, so that we can distribute those bills as soon as they are printed. These would be: Bill 47, Bill 46, Bill 49, Bill 48 and Bill 51, so that the hon. gentlemen opposite can have some material to read - up all night.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act”, carried. (Bill 47)

On motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Medical Act”, carried. (Bill 46)

On motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act”, carried. (Bill 49)

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

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act”, carried. (Bill 48)

On motion, Bill 48 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act", carried. (Bill 51)

On motion, Bill 51 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Order 20.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to say a few words about Bill 30 now before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Sorry, it is not Bill 30; it is Bill 35.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Government House Leader, who so graciously asked for leave from the hon. member and the House to interrupt my speech, now accuses me of losing my place because he so rudely interrupted me with my consent. I must say that graciousness works both ways. I am sure the next time the hon. Government House Leader is looking for the same kind of consideration, I am sure we would be happy to give him the same kind of courtesy and consideration that he unfailingly gives me. I understand there may be an opportunity tomorrow morning for the same kind of courtesy.

I am pleased to say a few words about Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, because it is about one of our more important industries, and one that has played a significant role in the development of the interior of Newfoundland starting back to the turn of this century and prior to that, at least in the sawmill industry in the Corner Brook area of the Province and also in the area of Gambo, with important sawmill activities.

The large and huge development in this Province in the forest industry has come with the introduction of the pulp and paper industries, first with the AND Company in 1909 and then with what has now become Corner Brook Pulp and Paper in Corner Brook. These important industries play a terrific role in employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the forest industry, in the paper mills themselves, and in their communities.

One feature of the development of our paper mills in this Province has been very unfortunate, and that feature, aside from some of the working conditions over the years that have had to be fought against, is that their development of the communities in which they operated - particularly the Grand Falls-Windsor, Badger, Central Newfoundland and the Corner Brook area, and other areas of their timber limits by the Bowaters interest and others that followed them - were very much a single product industry.

We have taken the forest and regarded the forest as only being fiber and fit for the making and the manufacture of pulp and paper. What that has resulted in - it may have resulted in good profits for the shareholders and owners of these mills and some employment along the way, but what it failed to do, and what these companies fail to do, was provide an integrated approach in the development of the forest resources and to diversify into other products.

We have not had the kind of diversity that should have come from the kind of resource that we have had at our disposal in the forest industry. It is a diversity that would have spread itself throughout rural Newfoundland - in particular in the areas such as Green Bay, White Bay - where we have such huge, vast forest resources and a great deal of need for jobs and employment. We have instead ended up, in many respects, with a seasonal industry in the logging camps, supporting a year-round industry in Corner Brook, Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor.

We have to re-examine how all of this came about and what the consequences are for the current industry. We do see a renewed interest in diversification, in new product development, in entrepreneurship, in education and knowledge about marketplace and how they can be serviced from places even with the transportation problems that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have to re-examine our polices and try and find ways of ensuring that the forest resources of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are used to maximize the employment and economic opportunities while maintaining a sustainable forest industry and a sustainable forest itself with proper policies for reforestation, silviculture, and sufficient government support for these policies and programs; as well as expecting the companies, particularly those companies which have benefitted so handsomely from the forest resource to themselves, to put back into the forest renewed resource in the form of replanting trees, in the form of silviculture policies that renew the forest without destroying the biodiversity that exists in nature and without detracting from other aspects of our wilderness, our streams, our ponds, our lakes, our wildlife, our bird life, even our insect life, to the extent that it does not destroy the forest.

What we have seen happening, however, is a policy that has been followed all over North America, up until recently, that of clear-cutting. Clear-cutting is a method enforced by this government on people, even against their wishes, when they know that selective cutting will itself provide for a more proper use of the forest itself, provide a more sustainable approach to forest harvesting, and represent a form of respect for nature that is not found in forest policies that emphasize clear cutting and a monoculture replacement through the silviculture policies.

We have to examine these policies, examine them and the destructive tendencies of that policy, because they do have to change. When a logger, a wood lot owner, or a wood harvester knows that he or she, with their enterprise, can go into a forest lot and pick the trees that are ready for harvesting, or that ought to be harvested because they are over mature, selectivity take those out, use them to their maximum value and let other trees grow to their full potential, and do that on a continuous and ongoing basis in a management area, that should be an acceptable approach and policy.

It is ridiculous, it is ludicrous, for this government to tell that person that he must go in and cut down every single tree; that he must go in and kill that forest, cut down every tree, flatten it to the ground, regardless of the consequences. Because that is the policy of this government. That ought not to be the policy of this government.

I hear laughter on the other side. No, there are not great forests in my District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. There are houses, though, that are made from lumber. That lumber comes, and should come, more from the forests of this Province than it does from being imported from the Province of Quebec, I say to the Member for Lake Melville. As to the policies of our forests, our urban areas are affected by our rural areas, our whole society exists in an interdependent fashion. It is just as legitimate, I say to the Member for Lake Melville, the Minister of Government Services and Lands, it is just as important for people in urban parts of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand the interdependence of the forest and how it works with nature as it is for people in rural Newfoundland, and perhaps more important.

I have no hesitation in learning about this area and speaking about it from the basis of knowledge that I learned from the people who I talk to in the forest industry: loggers, sawmill operators, people who work in the pulp and paper mills, people who work in the sawmills, who I talk to, who tell me about their concerns, about their industry. I am quite happy to repeat them in this House of Assembly in the hopes that we can improve the forest policy.

I saw an article in the paper the other day where sawmill operators themselves are seeking improvement to management policies, sawmill operators in the area of Deer Lake and Cormack, in the District of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. They are meeting with the minister, expressing their concern that they are trying to run integrated forest operations and having difficulty with the policies of this department and of this minister.

We have to change. We have to recognize. I am going to quote from one of the owners of Welco Ventures Limited in Cormack who says he: can't find any place where you take saw logs to make newsprint. It is not allowed in other areas, and it is a lack of clear policy on forest utilization. He says: the rest of the world has policies that dictate that you shall take saw logs so the paper companies do not have much choice. Here we do not have that.

There are some historic reasons for that, and there are probably legal reasons for it as well. Perhaps we ought to find some creative solutions, some amendments to our laws and our policies, that ensure that when a tree is harvested, if it is suitable for a saw log, that a saw log is made from it and that the balance goes into the pulp and paper industry, so we do not see products that could have a value-added to our economy be used for a single purpose that has less value. You would think that over the last seventy-five years of forest management, forest policies and the pulp and paper companies' operations in this Province that by now someone would have realized and have put a stop to the practice of using saw logs to make pulp and paper.

Surely, the end result of value-added in the forest industry through lumber, through lumber products, can provide a higher quality of life in rural Newfoundland and Labrador through the forest industry. We see this government in a sense allowing the companies to single-mindedly pursue a policy of producing pulp and paper, and pulp and paper alone, and turning over our forests, our policies, our regulations to allow that to happen. We want to see some changes.

In addition to seeing clear cutting and the negative effects on the environment, we also see a policy of supporting by this government, and by the Government of Canada through ACOA, the development of harvesters and the kind of destructive techniques that they undertake, without really any environmental assessment of their consequences and effects. We allowed that to happen without the Department of Environment even having any say. This resulted not only in the loss of jobs in the forest industry, but also in practices that were destructive to our environment. This has to be re-examined and the expansion of the use of harvesting equipment has to be curtailed because we do not want to see our forests effectively mined. We should not be mining our forests.

It is a renewable resource and we have to do everything we can to ensure that not only the forest itself is renewed, but also the whole ecosystem, of which the forest is a part. That involves the forests themselves, the wildlife, the rivers, streams, lakes and ponds that surround these forests and depend on proper watershed management for an adequate and clean and clear water in these lakes and streams and ponds so that fish and other habitats of these lakes and streams can live, and that they can be enjoyed by the population of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is not good enough to say that we do not allow cutting within a hundred meters of a lake if the rest of the watershed around that lake is bereft of trees because of a clear cutting policy, so that the only thing you have is a rim of a hundred yards around a lake with a watershed effectively destroyed. Because a clear cut cannot retain the water and moisture that it has to do in order to have a proper stream flow.

We have to examine these policies. We have to do what is being done in other parts of this country, and in other countries, and look at other means of sustainable harvesting. We see some of the Aboriginal groups in this country look at the relationship between the forests and mankind in a way very different, with a great deal of respect for the environment and nature, such as we sometimes have left behind in this Province.

We want to see a healthy forest industry but we also have to have healthy forests. We have to have a healthy ecosystem in order to sustain that industry. We cannot kill the goose that lays the golden egg, nor can we treat the forests as if it was a resource that we can take out and, sixty or seventy years later, have another go at it. There has to be a method whereby we can, on a sustainable basis, on an ongoing basis perhaps, take out those trees that are ready to be harvested and try to find ways to do that in a economical way, and use the technology for that instead of getting bigger and better machines to take out the forests that are there.

We have seen that happen in the fishing industry. A response to changes in the size of the fish stocks meant the response was to get bigger boats, to go farther offshore, to have higher capacity, to make more efficient fish killers out of our boats, our equipment and our technology. That was the response and it led to disaster. For the last seven or eight years there have been similar warnings about our forest industry from the watchdogs of the environment, from others concerned about forest policy, that we are in danger of having our forests respond and be decimated in the same way that our fishery has.

It is a very important area of our Province, a very important policy area, and I hope that this government will undertake a significant review of its forest management policies with a view to ensuring that integrated sawmills - such as those in the Cormack and Deer Lake areas who recently met with the minister - have the opportunity to know that there are clear policies in effect that are going to ensure some stability in the sawmilling industry and provide raw material for not only the kind of lumber that is used in building, the kind of raw lumber that we use from time to time, but also that we have finished products, that we are doing the kind of value-added work that can make the forest industry a very significant player in our economy, or more significant player in our economy, and provide more opportunities for rural communities, for young people in this Province, and for our educated workforce.

It does take raw material on a sustained basis but it also takes an educated workforce, knowledgeable in forestry practices, knowledgeable about markets, knowledgeable about entrepreneurial skills and ability, to raise funding to undertake new enterprises and new developments, and it takes an enlightened policy of government to try and make it all happen.

I am speaking in support of the amendments to the Forestry Act which will provide for more authority for forestry officers to conduct their activity. I support that, but we also have to re-examine our policies and policy directions and expect more from this government in terms of managing our forest resources.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Forestry Act”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 35)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 21, “An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee Act”. (Bill 42)

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Justice is out, let me just start off the debate here -

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me.

MR. TULK: I am sorry, go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 42, “An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee Act”, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee Act”. (Bill 42)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is make valid certain enforcement proceedings against the Crown in certain limited circumstances, and updates the language in the bill to reflect current law under the Judgement Enforcement Act.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments with respect to Bill 42, An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee Act. As the Government House Leader indicated, this bill amends “...the Proceedings Against the Crown Act to provide that particular enforcement proceedings may be valid against the Crown in certain limited circumstances.”

When one reviews the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, we must also be mindful that unlike what this amendment does, which is to indicate where certain proceedings may be valid against the Crown, the original act gives examples and illustrations of when proceedings may be invalid against the Crown, as to when an individual, a group, an organization or private citizen may not have the right to proceed against the Crown for a particular reason.

There are certain aspects that perhaps are used, I would think, in the majority of cases when a citizen acts against the Crown of the Province, and it has to do with the whole issue of the liability and tort. Of interest is section 5 of the act, the Proceedings against the Crown Act. It states that: Not withstanding section 12 of the Interpretation Act, the Crown is subject to those liabilities and tort to which, if it were a person of full age and capacity, it would be subject.

Then it goes on in that particular section, section 5, to give examples as to when the Crown may be liable. The section lists four: In respect of a tort committed by officers or agents; in respect of a breach of those duties that a person owes to his or her employees or agents because of being their employer; in respect of a breach of those duties attaching to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property, and under a statute or regulation made or passed under the authority of a statute. So it clearly outlines when the Crown may indeed be liable to a private citizen in this Province.

This particular section, however, deals specifically with section 24 of the Proceedings Against The Crown Act, and the amendment indicates, “No enforcement proceeding, execution, attachment proceeding or similar process shall be issued against the Crown.”

Section 24.(2), “ Not withstanding subsection (1), a garnishment, attachment, or similar process that is otherwise lawful may issue against the Crown for the payment of money owing or accruing as remuneration payable by the Crown for goods or services.”

Subsection (3), “Notwithstanding subsection (1), a garnishment order may issue against the Crown according to section 4 of the Public Officials Garnishee Act.”

Again, we see even in this amendment the application of the act, both allowing an individual to pursue against the Crown and, at the same time, denying the individual to proceed against the Crown in certain prescribed circumstances.

There is very little that can be added. As the Government House Leader indicated, this particular section is minor in the sense that it just codifies the point that was made in the earlier section; however, it is important to note that the Legislation, in and of itself, does two things: It gives an example when a person may enforce a right, and at the same time it gives an example as to when a person may in fact lose the right of action against the Crown in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just say a few words about the act amending The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee Act. That has been some uncertainty in the law in terms of what happens after one is successful in an action against the Crown. There was a need for some clarification of that law, and this bill attempted to do that.

Clearly, if a person has a right to sue the Crown - or the government, I guess, we are really talking about, when we are talking about proceedings against the Crown, the official name - when someone sues the government, the one sues Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Newfoundland in the case of the provincial government, which is why it is called The Proceedings Against The Crown. There must be a means of enforcement in statute, because otherwise the Crown is held to be exempt from actions of garnishment of this nature, so there has to be a statutory provision to provide specifically for enforcement proceedings against the Crown. It is a strange way of doing things, with section 24.(1) in fact asserting the ancient rule that you cannot execute process again the Crown but in fact allowing an attachment against the Crown when one has a particular result from an order for the payment of money by the Crown which one would get from court.

It is a necessary provision to codify that law and to clarify that law to the extent that it is done here. Secondly, there is also a clarification that the public officials also have the effect of ensuring that people who are designated as public officials also maybe have their salaries garnisheed for the failure to pay their debts or obligations as a result of a court order. I think there has been some confusion from time to time about the consequences and details of that, and I think it is necessary for clarification again on that point. This act does that and also provides for rules that may be made prescribing the procedures for garnishment under the act and administrative charges for such garnishment under The Public Officials Garnishee Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on this bill I would move second reading, Bill 42.

On motion a bill, “An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee Act”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 42)

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

MR. TULK: Order 19, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act”. (Bill 30)

The Minister of Tourism and Culture has been waiting here so patiently to get this very worthwhile piece of legislation on the Order Paper, so I decided we had to call it. I know that the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's has at least two minutes that he wants to speak on it.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act”. (Bill 30)

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this bill which we are proposing today will propose two amendments to the bill. One which will provide the minister with the authority essentially to deputize officers and put them in a position to enforce the provisions of this act. This essentially would allow us, in areas of wilderness reserves or ecological reserves or sensitive areas that are so designated by statute - they would have the same powers as an RNC officer with respect to power to arrest and confiscate various machines and objects that are unauthorized to be in these areas.

Secondly, the bill will be amended to allow for an increase in the fine structure which has not been increased since, I believe, 1980.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are looking for more money, more (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Really, we would rather collect zero money from this bill. What it is, is an inducement to people and a deterrent for people to stay out of these areas where they are unauthorized to be. I think it does have (inaudible). The personal fines are seriously increased, as are the corporation fines. There is also a penalty for a prison term up to, I think, six months. Yes, up to six months, not less than one month for a third offence.

Mr. Speaker, what this does is, it sets out two amendments which allows us deputize officers across the broad spectrum of government, whether they are fisheries officers, conservation officers, wildlife officers, et cetera, and empowering them with the same powers as the police force, and also increasing the fines as a deterrent.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today and say a few words on Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserve Act.

In order to gather some information on the bill, I decided to go out into the wilderness and have a chat with some people. I had a great chat with the Member for Topsail, out in the wilderness. I would say he was lost, too, but I had a great chat with the Member for Topsail out in the wilderness. The Member for Bellevue, I had a chat with him out in the wilderness also, but I came back to reality because -

AN HON. MEMBER: He was lost, too.

MR. MANNING: He was lost, too, but I came back to reality because this is an important bill. It may be short in words, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Words are important.

MR. MANNING: - words are important. While this bill is short in words, as I said, and some other colleagues have said this also, words are important.

The minister talks about giving officers the right - “An officer appointed under subsection (1) has and may exercise within a reserve, a provisional reserve or an emergency reserve the power and authority of a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary for the purpose of this Act.”

I definitely have no problem at all in having the law behind the people who go out and defend our laws, in saying that these people need to have the law behind them in order to go out and defend the laws of the Province.

The part of this act that certainly causes me some major concern - and definitely is something that I think we should certainly debate here in the House, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this - is basically section 25.(1), “The minister may appoint officers who shall exercise the powers and perform the duties that are conferred or imposed upon them by this Act or the regulations or assigned to them by the minister.”

Mr. Speaker, I have really some major concerns with the fact that the minister may appoint. I really have a concern that the minister will have, at his whim, to appoint officers who will go out and defend the laws of this Province. I really do, because the record of this minister appointing is not all that good. I really have a concern.

I was visiting my district -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Pardon?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible), would you sit down?

MR. MANNING: I would say that could be up for a very heated debate in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Tourism, when I was out around my district the week -

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: I would just like to know what changed the hon. gentleman's mind about the Minister of Tourism because, I tell you, the truth of the matter is, I figured today during Question Period or Ministerial Statements, or whenever it was, that we would have to put on a bit of music so they could get out and waltz around the center of the House and love each other up. I became scared. I would like to know what the hon. gentleman has changed his mind about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: I say to the Government House Leader that I am in a lineup because there are a good many trying to move up to the Minister of Tourism and get in the love-in. There is a lineup. The Government House Leader asked me if I wanted to get involved in a love-in, and I say there is a lineup, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Tourism, with all due respect on this bill - because this is what we are discussing, Bill 30 - with all due respect on the bill, we have a bill before us that gives the minister the power to appoint officers, “...who shall exercise the powers...”

As I said before I was so rudely interrupted by the Government House Leader, I have a major problem with the Minister of Tourism being given the power to appoint officers at his whim. I am very concerned about that for a simple reason. As I stated earlier, I am very concerned about the Minister of Tourism having the right to appoint people, because his records of appointments thus far are not that good. I say, with all due respect, his records of appointment are not all that good. It is a concern that certainly is raised through this bill.

There is no doubt about it, that we need some laws in the land that will protect our wilderness areas and ecological reserves. Right in my own district I have the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve, one of the greatest tourist attractions that this Province has to offer, just a few minutes from my home, and it is important that we protect this. It is important that we protect this, it is important that we protect these ecological reserves. Not only for our tourism development that we push forward so much, but indeed for our own people, the people within the Province, our children and our grandchildren. These are sacred places to me. I think they need to be protected. To see a bill coming in that will reinforce that protection is certainly welcome on this side of the House.

In regards to the offenses and the amount of fines that a person will be fined in contravention of the act, that is certainly something of a concern to people. We have to be able to send a strong message to the people that contravening the Wilderness Act is going to cost you. It is going to cost you money, it is going to cost you possibly, time, imprisonment, whatever the case may be. It is all according to how important it is.

In our wilderness areas, in our ecological reserves, we have many endangered species. Again I refer to Cape St. Mary's. Out in the Ecological Reserve there, the harlequin duck is an example. It is important that we have protection in place that will protect these wilderness areas and, indeed, protect the wildlife that is within these wilderness areas.

I can see that the Minister of Tourism was very interested in the wilderness because he spends a fair amount of time in it. I can see that he would be very concerned about that.

Definitely, I think that through the fines, the amount of fines, that we have and through the possibility of imprisonment that we will certainly get the opportunity, through this act now, to just re-enforce the message to the people of the Province that we are serious as legislators, that this government is serious, and that this House is serious, in protecting our natural areas, protecting our wilderness and our ecological reserves. It is very important.

I want to get back, if I could, to the appointment of officers. Because when I look at the act, even though there is a short amount of words here, there certainly is a concern I have in regards, once again, and I reiterate it, to that. Because I think it is important that the minister may appoint officers. I am concerned about that for the simple reason that I am just wondering is there anybody left in the Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Anybody.

MR. MANNING: Is there anybody, I say in all honestly to the Minister of Tourism - if he was listening, Mr. Speaker, but he is busy there now with the Minister of Government Services and Lands - left in the Province who did not work on the Liberal campaign who has not been appointed to something? That is the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: When I look at this act coming forward today, it says in clause 2: “The minister may appoint officers...” If the minister, in his response when he is closing the debate, would answer this: Is there anybody left in the Province who worked on the Liberal election campaign that has not been appointed? My records show me that most of the people -

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: There are two more left, are there? Are they going to be appointed officers under the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are the authority on wilderness, Fabian (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, you are up in the wilderness area. There is no doubt about that. Don't talk about wilderness when your shoulders are hitting off the back wall. Look at the Member for Humber East, the minister wannabe, down in the front feeling the seat. He need not worry about it. Don't get warm, I say to the minister, because you are going back up in the wilderness area where you belong, I say to the Member for Humber East. I am trying to make a few comments on the bill, Mr. Speaker, and the minister wannabe is getting all excited.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is paying attention.

MR. MANNING: I say in all honesty that I am very concerned about the fact that the minister may appoint officers. I say to the minister in all sincerity: Is there anybody left in the Province that worked on the Liberal campaign who has not been appointed? I say to the minister, when he gets up to have closing comments, if he would answer that question. That is a very simple question and I am sure that the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't have any in my district (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: You don't have any in yours. All yours have been appointed.

AN HON. MEMBER: All taken care of.

MR. MANNING: All taken care of, I say to the Member for Humber East. It is too bad you cannot take care of yourself. You have a problem taking care of yourself, let alone take care of the crowd in your district.

Mr. Speaker, under clause 2 it reads: “Section 25.1(1) The minister may appoint officers...” I asked a question and I am not getting the answer. I am getting answers from the people that are in the wilderness area. My question is: Is there anybody who worked on the Liberal campaign that has not been appointed yet?

MR. EFFORD: I would hope not!

MR. MANNING: Okay, I just wanted to make sure of that. I am surprised the Minister of Tourism is after quieting down there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: So he is going to be appointed under this act?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MANNING: Okay, he is not going to be appointed an officer.

Mr. Speaker, when I was out around my district over the last few weeks I had a constituent of mine who asked me if I knew anything about the Soiree `99 puzzle. I had to answer five questions in order to win this. In order to win this I had to answer five questions. From the goodness of my heart and in the Christmas Season I decided I would bring that off to the House of Assembly. I'm going to ask the five questions and the person who answers them correctly, I'm going to pass on this puzzle to.

The first question I had to answer was this. What attributes does a person need in order to obtain a position with the special celebrations agency of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I should have told you, these are multiple choice questions. I am sorry about that.

The choices are: (a) knowledge of the tourism industry and its positive effect on the Newfoundland and Labrador economy; or (b) worked actively on the past two Liberal election campaigns?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, (b)!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Okay, Mr. Speaker, we got that one down. The Minister of Fisheries is one and one now with the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Question number two. Okay, get ready with your buzzers. What criteria does a person have to pass in order to receive a paid position with the Vikings 1000 celebrations? The choices are: (a) a skill testing questionnaire about the Department of Tourism initiatives for the new millennium; or (b) two weeks of volunteer time on a Liberal election campaign?

MR. J. BYRNE: I say (b).

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries is two and two with the Member for Cape St. Francis. I'm going to back it up now to check out your history lesson. This is a little history lesson, I say to the minister. What knowledge did a person have to possess in order to obtain a position with the Cabot celebrations in 1997? The choices are: (a) know who John Cabot was; or (b) worked on the 1996 Liberal election campaign?

MR. J. BYRNE: It's (b)!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Okay, Mr. Speaker, three to three with the Minister of Fisheries and the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Number four. What background did a person have to have to acquire one of the positions with the Soiree `99 celebrations? The choices are: (a) an excellent knowledge of our Confederation status within the Dominion of Canada; or (b) must have worked on at least two provincial Liberal election campaigns?

MR. J. BYRNE: I say (b)!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, it is four to four. We have a tie so far.

The fifth question I was asked, to win this great prize, is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Hold it, I have to ask the question. We are tied between the Member for Cape St. Francis and the Minister of Fisheries. The fifth question - and he's looking at the answers, and I'm not pleased that the Minister of Tourism is letting - you are all excited.

What abilities does a person need to acquire in order to take a ride on a Department of Tourism's chuck wagon? The choices are: (a) know how to spell tourism; or (b) work on a Liberal election campaign?

MR. J. BYRNE: I say (b)!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, we have a tie between the Minister of Fisheries and the Member for Cape St. Francis. With that we are going to have a tiebreaking question. The race is down between the Minister of Fisheries and the Member for Cape St. Francis. The tiebreaking question is a lengthy question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: The crowd in the wilderness area keeps shouting out. There is another fellow in the wilderness area. Stay calm. We have an act to deal with you today.

If you are in the business of lighting, in the business of sound, in the business of organizing major events, and you want to avail of the opportunity to make a dollar through all of these celebrations over the past several years; what do you have to do in order to get in on the action? The choices are: (a) submit a price quote through the public tendering process; or (b) work on a Liberal election campaign.

MR. J. BYRNE: It's (b).

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, that is it. I would ask the Page to come forward. Would you bring this over to the Minister of Fisheries? I congratulate the Minister of Fisheries, he is very knowledgeable of the Liberal election campaigns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I'm sure he will spend all night now at the puzzle. If he can figure out the puzzle as quick as he can figure out the answers to the questions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: He is in the Premier's seat!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. gentleman was in the wrong seat at least temporarily.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Opposition House Leader wish to speak to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: On the point of order. I think it was an anticipatory action there and therefore it should be ruled out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the minister speaking to this point of order, or is this a new point of order?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) the questions, but I also take great pleasure for another reason. If the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis had won it he would never have been able to put it together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Perhaps, before proceeding, the Chair should point out that while the hon. member was engaging in his game the Chair noted that neither one of the members who were participating were in their proper seat at the time, which means they should not be recognized. In all fairness, if there are any prizes to be given out I would suggest they should be given to the Chair.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would say I certainly thank the Minister of Fisheries but I say the Member for Cape St. Francis, from my knowledge, is a shareholder in the company that devised the puzzle.

I certainly thank the Minister of Fisheries for his involvement. I knew all along that the Minister of Fisheries has great knowledge in the Liberal election campaigns. Because of the knowledge he has achieved over years of working out in rural Newfoundland - I stress this to the Minister of Mines and Energy; and he made a few trips down in my district, come to think of it, trying to sway a few votes here or there, but it did not work - on Liberal election campaigns, his loss of judgement for one moment that time, in that chair, will come to pass. Because of that election experience he has, he will take his rightful place in that seat in not too long a time. I say he will be there and the Government House Leader will be slapping him on the back saying: You did a good job, John. Even though he is supporting Roger. He will try to get in on you too. The Government House Leader's biggest fear is that he is going to go back up in the nosebleed section. That is what he is concerned about, but he needn't worry about that, I say to the Government House Leader.

I just want to get back to the bill, An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act. I have to say that it is an act that certainly, hopefully, will be able to enforce the laws of the land but at the same time protect the wilderness and the ecological reserves that we have in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: The Member for Humber East, the ‘sandbagger,' is down in the front row now, Mr. Speaker. A minister wannabe.

I just say that I am glad to see this bill come forward. I hope that the measures that the government have put in place here will be exercised over the next number of years in order to enforce the laws of the land and in order to protect the wilderness and the ecological reserves of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on Bill 30, An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act. In terms of the substances of the act itself and the notion that we should have substantial fines for violation of the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act, and in fact increase those fines, is an important one. The protection of our ecological habitat, particularly our ecological habitat through wilderness reserves and special wilderness reserves, is very important. We cannot have a situation where those who have great wealth and ability to pay fines and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) no one else (inaudible) great wealth (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about whether or not people have impunity from breaking the laws because of their ability to pay fines, or be penalized by what happens when they break the law concerning wilderness and ecological reserves. There are people who think they can take the law in their own hands and that the law does not apply to them. That cannot be countenanced in a democratic society. We have to have laws that apply equally to all people. By recognizing that it may be required, in order to enforce the law and provide proper penalty, that substantial fines have to take place, I think we have to recognize that serious fines ought to be available for blatant breaches of our laws.

In speaking on the bill about the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act, I have to say that as a matter of policy this government and its predecessor have been very remiss in failing to meet its commitment and the commitment of other provinces across the country to set aside a substantial or significant proportion of its land mass and its area for wilderness and ecological reserves. The goal, established -

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible) Little Grand Lake.

MR. HARRIS: I will get to Little Grand Lake in a minute, I say to the Member for Humber East.

It has taken twenty-five years for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to get around to protecting the Little Grand Lake reserve. The minister says it took four months for him to do it. It may be that that minister was in power for only four months before it was announced but there has been a twenty-five year struggle, on behalf of those supporting the setting aside of wilderness and ecological reserves, to get the government of this Province to adopt a provision such as the protection of Little Grand Lake.

We are way behind other provinces. The Province of British Columbia, for example, with its vast area of forest and wilderness, has set aside in excess of 12 per cent of its area for wilderness protection. I think we have to recognize that sometimes vast areas of land are necessary to support a particular habitat. A loss of habitat is the greatest single threat to species on this planet. A loss of habitat causes species to dwindle and not to be able to be sustained. We see the pine marten, for example, needs a large area of habitat in order to continue to exist. We have to protect special areas in order to allow that species to exist as part of the ecology and part of the biodiverse system in our Province.

We have lost species in this Province. We have lost the great auk, not through the fault, I would say - and I think it needs to be said - not to be blamed on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The great auk was lost in this Province because it - unfortunately for it - lived in vast numbers on one particular island on the Funks. It was an available source of protein to traveling seamen, explorers, fishermen and other travelers who would stop by the Funks and load up and kill the auks for their eggs, for the protein, for the feathers, and destroyed that species. It was, at one time, in numbers that were insurmountable.

There are a number of species that have been destroyed because their habitat has also been destroyed by development, by mining, by civilization, I suppose we call it. Whether it is civilized, in fact, to destroy the habitat of a species and prevent it from existing is another question entirely. I would say, in fact, it is uncivilized. The mark of a civilization such as we hope to have in this Province is one which protects our habitat, protects our unique ecosystems, protects from development and from exploitation, significant proportions of our Province that this Province has committed to.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard Ministerial Statements in this Province by government, praising itself for its activity in this area, when in fact we have the second-worst record in Canada for the protection of habitat. We have about 2 per cent of our Province under protection as opposed to the 10 per cent that has been set ten years ago and committed to by this Province in other ways, too, in protecting the nineteen significant, unique ecosystems in our Province. They are not yet protected.

While we may have cause and reason to be pleased that the Little Grand Lake area has been protected, we have a greater cause for concern because of the slow pace at which this government is moving to meet its commitments to the ecology, commitments to the wilderness, to our natural resources, and to try and preserve a significant portion of those resources so that our children and our children's children can know what nature is like in its pristine environment.

Not all of nature ought to be subject to exploitation and development. There ought to a portion saved -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't even call that a heckle. I wouldn't even call that worthy of a heckle.

We must preserve a significant portion of our wilderness, of our ecology, for future generations. This government is not doing that. I would urge the minister to use his energies to convince his colleagues to take on this as a priority instead of wasting his energy in useless comments in the House of Assembly.

We don't very often talk about this issue in the House of Assembly, so I do want to take the opportunity when we are looking at the Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act to state, for the record, the necessity of this government - and this government doesn't have the whole responsibility. The previous government didn't take very much action either in terms of the protection of wilderness areas. We do have the legislation in force that allows it to take place, but we do not have enough of our wilderness protected. We cannot wait until it is all destroyed. We cannot wait until there are no takers for any economic development before we decide to preserve a particular area.

We have areas on the Avalon Peninsula that are now being clear-cut, that ought to have been preserved as examples of dedicated forests, that are being destroyed as we speak by a logging operation that is going to destroy a particular area. This is something that is going on under our very eyes when, in fact, it could have been protected from exploitation by an act of this government, but it did not happen.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting the legislation and in supporting the powers of government to appoint officers and to enforce legislation, we must also ask government to, in fact, provide protection for our wilderness that it has not done. It has not done what it undertook to do in protecting the wilderness areas of this Province, the unique ecosystems that we have, and have been identified and presented to government time and again, and yet this government has failed to act.

Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out to me that we are getting very close to the normal adjournment time. Therefore, I would adjourn debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.