May 10, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 24

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to remember the life of Canon George Earle who passed away this morning at the age of eighty-six. Born in Change Islands, Canon Earle studied at Memorial University College, Queen's College and the University of Durham in England.

Canon Earle was a long-standing pillar in the Anglican Church of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result of his service, he was installed as Canon of the Cathedral in St. John's in 1971. Canon Earle's dedication to his Church and the people in it is to be commended and is to be recognized, no less recognized than Canon Earle's dedication indeed to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole.

Aside from his role as a clergy, Canon Earle was a major figure in education in this Province, serving as principal of Queen's College at Memorial from 1957 to 1965. From 1965 until his retirement in 1979, Canon Earle served as Provost of Queen's College.

Aside from his professional roles, Canon Earle also made significant contributions to this Provinces's volunteer and arts communities. He was involved with a number of arts institutes and organizations, including the Kiwanis Club and the Canadian Mental Health Association. In his retirement, Canon Earle was chosen to portray a character in Yarns from Pigeon Inlet. Indeed, in that regard he was an inspiration, we know, for the Leader of the Opposition in his own significant performances recently. He published two Newfoundland folklore books.

I know I speak on behalf of all members of the House when we pass on our condolences to Canon Earle's friends, and more importantly to his family. We say that his was a life well lived and indeed an inspiration to all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador. He will be remembered by all the people of this Province, and he will be remembered fondly.

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

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

Indeed, on this side of the House, we would like to make unanimous, certainly, our sending condolences to the family of Canon Earle. There is no doubt that this Newfoundlander lived an exemplary life, a life of service, a life of example for many people, and contributed greatly in many aspects to the life of Newfoundland and Labrador culturally and historically in a broad sense.

I certainly join with the Premier, Mr. Speaker, in asking you to send on our behalf, as Members of the House of Assembly, our condolences to his family and to ensure that this place will remember him fondly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to join in the remarks of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in recognizing the significant contribution of Canon George Earle. He was indeed a Newfoundland and Labrador treasure by his life and his personality, his character and his contribution to our Province. In addition to the comments of the Premier here of course, I think we all know that Canon Earle was a well-known public speaker, a terrific humourist, and a major transmitter of our culture to new generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I would join in asking that we pass on our condolences to his family. I know a couple of his children were at university when I was. We all remember Canon George Earle very well and I hope he will be remembered for many years to come in this Province.

Statements by Members

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to take this opportunity to inform hon. members that last night the House of Commons voted unanimously to endorse a private member's motion presented by NDP Member of Parliament Yvon Godin on unemployment insurance benefits for seasonal workers. The motion as passed by the House reads as follows: That in the opinion of this House the government should take immediate action to review employment insurance benefits for seasonal workers.

The vote on the motion took place after three hours of debate, spread out over six months, on the impact of UI reforms on seasonal workers. Although government members rejected an NDP sub-amendment that would have seen cross-country hearings on the subject, it is hoped that government will respond quickly to the spirit of this motion and implement substantial changes to the unemployment insurance system.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, when we changed the rules of this House this fall, knows full well that what we did was set down, and it was agreed by all sides, that those things would be used primarily for members' statements about their own constituency and so on, and not to make political statements on the performance of governments, on the policy of governments, or to take positions.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to refrain from doing that, and in the absence of him doing that, I would ask that the Speaker rule him out of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the member's statement is about a matter that was passed in the House of Commons unanimously last night. Clearly, if it was passed in the House of Commons it is not a matter of contention. It is a matter which the Standing Orders recognize. It is a matter of local, national or international interest. Certainly the rules with respect to UI are of substantial interest in this Province. The fact that the House of Commons has passed a unanimous resolution obviously means that it is not contentious.

Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader does not want to hear what the House of Commons in Ottawa unanimously has the say about unemployment insurance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - then I suppose that is up to him, but it is certainly within the (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, clearly the statement presented by the hon. member, in the opinion of the Chair, does not meet the criteria that was set down for members' statements. I ask hon. members from here on in to make sure they follow the guidelines that are set down in the Standing Orders when they present members' statements.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to pass along my congratulations to the Burin Peninsula's community newspaper, The Southern Gazette, on twenty-five years of providing local news to its residents at home and abroad.

The Southern Gazette printed its first issue on May 29, 1975, and since that time have chronicled the massive changes that have taken place on the Burin Peninsula. Local news coverage is vitally important to so many of us in this Legislature, and I am pleased that The Southern Gazette has reached this milestone. I congratulate editor, George MacVicar and all Gazette staff, past and present, for their efforts in chronicling the living history of the Burin Peninsula.

Walter Litman once said: For the newspaper is, in all literariness, the bible of democracy, the book of which people determine its conduct.

As we recognize the efforts of the Burin Peninsula's local community newspaper, I want to send my wish for a long and successful future to The Southern Gazette as they continue their quest to provide news and matters to Burin Peninsula residents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: I was waiting for the phone call, I guess, that Graham had that particular (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today the winners of the Provincial Occupational Health and Safety Recognition Awards. The awards are the initiative of the Department of Environment and Labour and the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. The Recognition Awards are offered to all employers within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the purpose of the awards is to recognize the efforts of individuals and organizations in the prevention of workplace accidents and injuries.

The Award of Merit is given to an employee or employees who, through alert and correct action, has saved some person life and/or prevented a serious workplace injury. This year's winners are Thomas Knott and Rex Carter. These two individuals helped save the life of an employee of Chaisson Construction who was completely engulfed when a twenty-foot high stockpile of Class A material fell on him.

The Award for Outstanding Health and Safety Committee/Representative is given to the most proactive workplace health and safety committee/representatives that identifies concerns and implements recommendations, performs safety audits, and demonstrates leadership in their workplace. This year's award winner is the Occupational Health and Safety Committee of Health and Community Services- Eastern Region. This committee is very proactive in its promotion of safety activities throughout the organization. The committee has established a Safety Talk Program, provides employees with guest speakers to present health and safety topics, conducts workplace inspections, and distributes promotional materials to employees.

The Health and Safety Program Award is given to a company whose leadership and commitment have resulted in the implementation of an outstanding health and safety program. This year's award winner is Newfoundland Power - Eastern Region. This Company, with the support and commitment of its Occupational Health and Safety Committee and all its employees, have demonstrated an excellent health and safety program.

The Minister's Award of Excellence is given to a company that has demonstrated over time an improved safety record, enhanced product quality, improved training courses and overall company success. This year's award winner is Hotel Newfoundland. The Hotel has successfully reduced the frequency rate of lost time accidents in the workplace from 65.79 in 1993 to 4.8 in 1999, a reduction of 92.7 per cent in the frequency rate. The Hotel initiated a communications campaign followed by the introduction of the Safety Training Observation Program in 1994.

The awards were presented at the ceremony today at the Fluvarium. The ceremony was organized to highlight North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, which runs from May 15 to May 21. The theme for this year is: Work Safely for a Healthy Future.

I want to congratulate the winners of this year's awards and I applaud everyone who was nominated for an award, because it is through their continued hard work that we are making workplaces safer.

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

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

First I would like to thank the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't panic again, now that I am on my feet. Relax!

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement beforehand. We, on this side, would also congradulate Mr. Thomas Knott and Mr. Rex Carter for their help in saving a life. We would also like to congradulate the winners of the Award for Outstanding Health and Safety Committee/Representative, the Health and Safety Program Award, and the Minister's Award of Excellence; and we would encourage the groups to keep up the good work. Also, we would encourage all individuals in the Province to keep in mind the North American Occupational Safety and Health Week which runs from May 15 to May 21, 2000.

Again, the minister is right and proper in making these awards and recognizing these people in the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We, too, congratulate the winners of the awards. It has taken a long time in this Province and in this country to get laws in place that will protect workers while at work, and it is only fitting and proper now that the NAOSH committees in each workplace adopt programs that will enhance the right of workers and the protection of workers.

I guess the greatest award of all for any worker is to be able to come home at the end of the work day free from injury, and to be able to retire at the end of a work life free from injury and disease that happens from time to time in different workplaces around this Province. We applaud any efforts made by government, employers and workers in this Province that further enhance safety and health in the workplace.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the work of Dr. Sam Ratnam and the group of researchers at the Province's Public Health Laboratory. Through the assistance of the Faculty of Medicine of Memorial University and the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, our researchers have devised a study which sees them leading the charge in the fight against cervical cancer in this country.

Cervical cancer is the second most frequent cause of cancer death in women worldwide after breast cancer, and it affects about 500,000 women around the world each year. In Canada, nearly 1,500 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed each year, with about 450 women dying from the disease. In 1997, in Newfoundland alone, there were about 450 women diagnosed with pre-cancerous signs in the cervix, fifty-eight of whom were confirmed to have invasive cervical cancer.

Dr. Ratnam and the group at the Public Health Laboratory in St. John's have been recognized both nationally and internationally, including by the International Society for HPV and Cervical Cancer, for their leading-edge work in designing a study which combines the well-known Pap smear test with another test for viruses known as the underlying cause of cervical cancer - HPV for short.

Recently, the Laboratory screened just over 2,000 women between ages eighteen and sixty-nine years using the two tests. The conclusion of the study is that a combination of the two tests, rather than one in isolation of the other, could significantly improve the chances of detecting pre-cancerous cervical signs to about 100 per cent. The standard Pap smear test alone had a pick-up rate of just 50 per cent when used by itself. Women, then, can be treated early, and hopefully avoid full blown cervical cancer in the future. Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province in Canada to offer the HPV test on a trial basis through gynecologists in the Province.

Prevention plays a very important role in our overall health and well-being. The work of local researchers in preventing cervical cancer is critical. On behalf of all hon. members, I wish to commend the people at our Public Health Laboratory for their important work in this area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly too echo the sentiments in recognizing Dr. Ratnam and the work with researchers, with the Public Health Laboratory and the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, and the Faculty of Medicine at Memorial. Areas where we can have early prevention is very positive in people being able to deal with this and go on and lead a long productive life; not alone in detection, I say, but when it is detected, doing something about it.

Before I came to the House I spoke this morning with a lady from Fair Haven, for example, who had cancer surgery two-and-a-half years ago. That lady was told in January that the cancer could now be back in her liver. She has been scheduled for surgery and it has been cancelled continuously, and now she is being told it could be pushed back until June because of bed closures. This is a woman who had cancer before.

I spoke yesterday with a sixty-one-year-old woman from St. John's who had a mastectomy four years ago. She has been told she has to wait six months to get a mammogram. That is the standard, basically, after having a mastectomy on one of the breasts, now again the possibility - and she can't get a mammogram. There is no point of having diagnostic equipment if we can't put people in there and get them diagnosed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no point in diagnosing people when we can't give them the surgery or the help they need. It is not just -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Leave denied by the Member for Bellevue, the district that the lady spoke to me from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister in recognizing the importance of the level and standards of research that are undertaken in this Province. Dr. Sam Ratnam and many others in the university and the scientific and medical community are conducting important research in this Province and, obviously, in the area of cervical cancer and other cancers. The importance of early detection has been well recognized, and I am delighted that we are playing an important role in that here. I do have to say as well that once you have early detection you do have to have early treatment and early responses to the problems that you have, and that is where we fall short in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My first question today is for the Minister of Mines and Energy. For the past two years we have been calling for an update on the Lower Churchill talks. We have asked questions in this House with respect to the status of the negotiations on market price, on floor price, on the transmission line, on where engineering work will be done, the status of aboriginal issues related to that, or conclusion of aboriginal issues.

Yesterday the Minister of Mines and Energy talked about how they are going to negotiate with somebody else now. Could he elaborate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh yes. The minister talked about: Maybe we can negotiate with somebody else and that the talks with Quebec Hydro should be suspended and we will move elsewhere, maybe in New York or somewhere else in the US. Could he elaborate? Is he prepared to say today what he almost said yesterday, that the Lower Churchill talks are in fact dead and that the Province is negotiating or about to negotiate with somebody else? Could he elaborate on his statement please?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I said yesterday in answer to a question was - and the question was whether or not the project deal was dead. I said no, there are other potential partners for this project, including some of the major enterprises in the US, and if we don't do a deal with Quebec we may do it with other people. There is more than one potential partner in this project and we intend to pursue those if this does not go ahead.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: More than one potential partner. Minister, I would like to ask you another question. Your boss here for the last two years has been talking about the reasons, the logic of dealing with Quebec and why we should pursue it. If there are more potential partners for this project, when did you start to realize that? Have you spoken to any of those potential partners? Will you talk about those potential partners today?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning we have known there are many potential partners for this project. What we have said from the beginning is Quebec, being our neighbour, where we share a transmission and borders, is a logical one. If it does not make sense to do a deal with Quebec, if there is a better deal for the Province with another partner, we will pursue that as well.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Two years ago in this House I asked the question: Why is it, if deregulation is so good, we have to deal with Quebec? If we have the ability to partner with other groups or other people to develop the Lower Churchill, why is it we have to deal with Quebec? The answer was that the only people that we could deal with were the people of Quebec and Hydro Quebec. That is what the Premier said.

I would like to ask you, Premier: What is the status of negotiations, now that you are back? Can you get a handle on your minister and the omni-minister of health who seems to be the minister of everything in everyone else's absence? Could you tell us finally, please, now that your minister has let the cat out of the bag, what is the real status of negotiations with Quebec? If it is off the rails, why don't you go before the public and at least be truthful and give it the decent burial that it deserves?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he really does not understand negotiations.

The first thing you do when you negotiate is you look for the highest value in a transaction. One thing that Quebec Hydro has is that they can add value to the transaction. They have water that they were looking at shipping across the border that could be mutually milled and sold back to the market and would enhance the value of the project for us all. So they were a natural partner, and they were the logical ones that we would explore it with first. If we cannot reach an agreement on the value of the transaction and the distribution of it, then there are other partners for us there to consider as well.

That is where matters stand presently. We are still negotiating with Hydro Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: Excuse me, let me finish the answer.

As with any deal, if there are one hundred items on the table, fifty are easily resolved, forty are tougher, and the last ten are the most difficult of all. When you get down to those it sometimes may be impossible, sometimes it takes a longer period of time. From our point of view, we would rather have the right deal than a fast deal, whether it is with Hydro Quebec or some other potential partner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is clear what has happened here: Paul, you got yourself in to this, now you get the rest of us out of it. That is what is going on here.

Let me ask him this question. The people have a right to be skeptical about the government's sudden discovery of a new potential investor in Lower Churchill, in view of the fact that things aren't going as we planned with Hydro Quebec and the Province, the sudden spin now of information during a provincial by-election that may be it can be developed in another way.

Minister, what evidence can you give to the people of the Province that this is not just political rhetoric, but yet just another spin of information about a deal that is not going anywhere and doesn't have the potential of going anywhere?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting to watch the Leader of the Opposition in the House today. He almost looks in a celebratory mood. Joy, joy, joy, there is a possibility the deal may not be going ahead. He is smiling. He is happy. He is cracking jokes. He thinks it is wonderful.

This is the same Leader of the Opposition, the same gentleman, who up until a few days ago was telling the people of the Province: They are about to sign a deal, they are going to sign it any day. There is no transmission line. The deal ought not to signed. We will rise or fall on a transmission line. Today, he is saying: Can you give this thing a proper funeral, it is obvious there is no deal?

The Leader of the Opposition has only one interest, and that is in seeing progress denied or progress delayed. The fact of the matter is these negotiations to this point have yielded for Newfoundland and Labrador, to this point in time, a guaranteed winter availability contract which has restored $1 billion of revenue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over the life of this contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker these negotiations thus far have resulted in the recall of 130 megawatts of power. Since 1998, there is already flowing to the treasury of this Province $70 million cash already in hand from that recall sale, worth another $600 million over the life of the contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are exploring a development with Quebec. Because New York State can't divert water from New York into Labrador, in the Smallwood Reservoir. Only Quebec can divert water. That is the reason we talked to Quebec first.

That doesn't prevent us from exploring all of our options and making the best deal we can, in particular by making it clear that we are prepared to talk to another partner if the deal on the table with Quebec is not acceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is good negotiation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier says it is interesting to watch the Leader of the Opposition. It must be, because at least I am here to be watched is all I can say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask this question to the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now, this is a serious matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the question.

There is serious concern, obviously, amongst the public. Since 1998, after the original announcement, the framework agreement that you announced on March 8, 1998, on five different occasions as Premier you have promised to give an update to the people of the Province. Are you saying now that you are prepared, at least in this Legislature, to give a full update on the status of the negotiations on Lower Churchill with the Province of Quebec on the framework in terms of diversions of water? Are you saying that you will give an update on what the outstanding issue is regarding market price or floor price? Are you saying that you are going to give an update on the contentious issues regarding where the procurement work will be managed, where the engineering work will be managed? Are you saying that you will finally give the people of the Province an update on what the status of these negotiations are?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition makes reference to the fact that I wasn't in the House. Indeed I wasn't. I was with the other premiers from Atlantic Canada at a meeting, a trade mission, of the Atlantic premiers and New England governors and with the Prime Minister. If the Leader of the Opposition believes I should not have been there he should stand and say so. Prior to that I was in Houston, together with the Premier of Nova Scotia, presenting on behalf of this Province our position as an emerging oil and gas player. If the Leader of the Opposition believes I should not have been there he should say so. I can only say that if the Leader of the Opposition is advertising that when it comes to the markets of the world - were he in this job and he is not - but were he in this job he would miss those meetings, then all I can say is thank God he is in the job that he does best, Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he doesn't do that all that well.

When it comes to Churchill Falls let the flip-flop, let the transparency, of the Leader of the Opposition be clear. This is a Leader of the Opposition that has tried desperately for the last three or four weeks to rally the Province against the deal: They are about to sign the deal and there shouldn't be a deal without a transmission line! Because Mr. Peckford came back and told him how to be a good little Leader of the Opposition. Fight against the transmission line!

Mr. Speaker, while he has been chasing a shadowy transmission line we have been chasing a good deal, but until we have one we won't sign!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: That is a classic example of answering the question.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see shake, rattle and roll going on in the Legislature because that is all we get. We have stood and asked questions for four weeks on a very substantive issue that you sold yourself on, sir. You were the one who was going to sign the deal, you were the one who was going to bring home the bacon, and what do we have? Nothing in the frying pan to show for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask you this question, Premier. Nothing in the frying pan to show for it, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: This is the Premier and the government that sought a mandate to conclude, successfully, negotiations with the Province of Quebec on a Lower Churchill deal. All I am asking for, Premier, on behalf of the people of the Province - because they want to know - is what the status of those negotiations are two years later. How much money have we spent on those negotiations, either from the public treasury or from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? When are you and the Premier of Quebec going to meet to see if there is going to be one, if there is not going to be one? If that is the case, when is it that you are going to move on to something real and substantive, to deliver something, finally, to the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me see if I have this right. This is the same Leader of the Opposition who a few days ago was up shouting, bawling and screaming that the Province was about to sign a deal, and the deal shouldn't be signed. I think I have even seen some clippings, headlines saying: Don't sign deal says Leader of the Opposition. Now he is up saying: When are you going to sign a deal?

Is this the same leader? Are you one of a twin? Can you keep your stories straight?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speakers, the only leaders who are in the frying pan in this Chamber are the leaders on the other side. They get about a year or two and then the caucus decides to have a wiener roast. I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition to watch their matches and keep them out of their hands. The summer season is coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: When you have nothing to say, what do you do? A good offense is the best defense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear where I stand on this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

A final supplementary. Doesn't the Premier remember, a week after he signed a deal in this Legislature, standing up and saying: Do you support this deal that I have negotiated with Quebec? Do you support what I have done for the people of the Province?

Does he remember my response? If he doesn't, let me remind him. I said at that time that I would not endorse, I would not embrace, nor would I condemn until I saw all the details. Fortunately for the people of the Province, the reason we have the details is because of questioning in this House.

I will ask you again. The media are right there. You can comment to them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask you a very simple question: At what point are the negotiations with Quebec? Does it look like the deal is off the rails? Does it look like there will be a deal, as you said there would be? And if not, when will you be in a position to tell the people of the Province what is the real status on the Lower Churchill negotiations with the Province of Quebec? Pretty straightforward, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking about the status of these negotiations, and indeed the Minister of Mines and Energy has indicated in the last several days where these negotiations are. He has indicated there is not likely to be an MOU in place this spring, and that for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a reason we gave, I think, a month or so ago when we talked about the development of a new market in the United States which is reference-based marketing, zonal marketing, and the pricing mechanism in ensuring that if power goes into the U.S. market that we just do not get the first price across the boarder. We get the maximum price as a share, as an owner, as a majority owner of that project as it goes, for example, into the New York marketplace.

Those are the kinds of the issues that we are trying to deal with today. The reference-based or zonal-based pricing is a phenomena which has come about as a result of deregulation primarily taking place starting last fall, the fall of 1999.

Zonal-based or reference-based pricing is in place, for example, in the New York market. It has not matured yet in the New England market. We are talking about a multi-billion dollar agreement. Until we understand not just what it takes to produce power but also to price power in a way where we get a fair return on the rent, we are not about to proceed with undue haste. That really is the major issue.

The Leader of the Opposition has raised the concern about a transmission line. He has said that he believes there should be no deal unless there is a transmission line. We have said a transmission line should only be part of a deal if it makes sense, and there is a fundamental difference between both sides of the House.

The Minister of Mines and Energy has done a tremendous job in a previous role of overseeing the fiscal evolution of this Province, one from a huge deficit to a balanced set of books, one that has seen our economy go from -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - worst in the Province, worst in the country -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - to the fastest growing in the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in the Minister of Mines and Energy, and the Leader of the Opposition should have full confidence as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. The minister has hinted that government is ready to approve the Hibernia partners' request to increase annual oil production.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Increased production at Hibernia will shorten the life of the well and reduce royalties, tax revenues, jobs and other economic benefits that the Province would receive over the productive life of the well.

I ask the minister: Has Hibernia agreed to a new package of benefits that will compensate the Province for those particular losses?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated recently, we have received a proposal from the proponents at Hibernia to deal with the Province's losses and we are considering it.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In the past, Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously has referenced the term royalties. I ask the minister: How significant are those changes, and will they compensate not only for the lower gross royalties that result from faster depletion of the well but for other economic benefits that will be affected, such as tax revenues and reduced benefits from a longer period of employment?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raises a whole lot of issues that are really something I don't care to discuss at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: What I am only prepared to say at this time is that we have been negotiating with the owners as to what, if any, should be an adequate and proper compensation to the problem for the increased production of oil. When a decision is made, either yes or no, we will make it known publicly, and hold a press conference and announce what it is.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask the minister: Why would the Province enter into a new presumably richer royalty regime with Hibernia before the federal government agrees to reduce the claw back on equalization? Ottawa now claws back seventy-five cents on every dollar that we get from Hibernia. Three-quarters of the benefit of any changes you now make will go back to Ottawa.

The federal Finance Minister says he is prepared to reduce the claw back, or even eliminate it for a period of time. Why not wait, I ask the minister, for Mr. Martin to deliver on his by-election inspired promise before you do anything to change the existing arrangement with Hibernia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike the hon. member, I would not refuse additional royalties from the oil companies, waiting on the federal government to change the equalization program.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, recently we saw the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announce a reduction in the harvesting levels of snow crab on the East and the Northeast Coast by approximately 15,000 tonnes. This reduction was brought about by DFO doing a bottom trawl survey last November, with results showing a reduction in biomass and poor prospects for recruitment in this current year. I ask the minister if there were any snow crab recruitment surveys carried out inside the fifty-mile zone? If so, would the minister inform the House of the results of those surveys?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: To the best of my information, there were no surveys inside of the fifty-mile zone.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is also my understanding that there has been no scientific study done in the inside, inshore areas. New inshore fishing zones created just last year, I say to the minister, are meaningless unless quotas for the zones are based on existing stocks in that particular zone. Since the minister has already stated publicly that he is against crab permit holders being issued licences, I ask the minister, is it now his intention to remove small boat fishermen completely from this industry by making it impossible for them to survive by the drastic cuts placed on them by the unfair allocation of a reduction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been around this House of Assembly for fifteen years and I have never heard such foolish questions come from a critic on fisheries in fifteen years. To say that we are opposed to small boat fishermen is absolutely false. Are we opposed to the cut in the crab quotas? No, we are not opposed to the cut in the crab quotas. It is being cautious, based on scientific information about the trawl surveys they did last year.

Conservation must apply first, before anything else. If a precautionary cut can take place for one year, it is better to do that now and take a 15 per cent cut than to fish the crab to extinction, like they did in Alaska, and we will have no fishery at all. Which makes better sense?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, that is the problem. He has already admitted that there has been no study done. There is no scientific information.

If the minister is so intent when he continually talks about helping the small boat fishermen survive in this industry, I have to ask him to explain how he can be so silent in allowing 15 per cent of fishermen being allowed to harvest 85 per cent of the snow crab total allowable catch, while 85 per cent of the fishermen are allowed to only harvest 15 per cent of the total allowable catch? I say to the minister, is this his idea of the fishery of the future? If it is, where does the small boat fisherman fit in?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important question. I think the people of Newfoundland have a right to know where the member opposite stands, because the fact of the matter is -

MR. FITZGERALD: Where do you stand?

PREMIER TOBIN: I will tell you where I stand. I am the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who put the small boats in the crab fishery. I am the one that issued the first licenses and put them in in the first place, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just asked a question which has the affect, in a very difficult time, a time of cutbacks, of divide the fleets. Because what he just said is he does not want the full-time and supplementary fishermen to continue fishing. I want to ask the member whether or not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: No, let me ask the question. I want to ask you a question, because you are playing a game of pride and prejudice division in the fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, one correction. The minister didn't issue licenses, he issued permits to those small boat owners. The other point is, I say to the Premier, the facts I stated are true, that 15 per cent of the fishermen harvest 85 per cent (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of order.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I put my answer by concluding in saying that the kind of question that has just been asked is really an attempt to divide the fleets. It begs this question: Is the member asking government to take the position that all of the supplementary and all of the full-time crab licenses should be cancelled? Because if his position is we should take the full quota, subdivide it equally amongst everybody, then he should have the courage to stand and say that. If his position on the other hand is that in reducing quotas we have to be careful to give a break to those most vulnerable - that is, the small boat fishermen - then I agree with him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. In January of this year Husky Oil Company and TransAlta began commercial operation of a 215 megawatt cogeneration plant in Lloydminster, Alberta, using natural gas at a capital cost of $160 million. This government has been pursuing for over two years an 800 megawatt electricity in-feed from the Lower Churchill at a projected cost of $2.2 billion. Given that these numbers show that natural gas cogeneration could have electricity generation costs of about one-quarter the cost of transmission alone from Gull Island, what efforts has this government made to pursue the natural gas alternative for electricity generation that would have the additional benefit of an onshore gas and petrochemical industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, because the question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Leader of the Opposition.

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry. Perhaps it was just wishful thinking on my part.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I see my entire caucus is not with me on that.

That is a valid question. That is a sensible public policy question. The question is: If it is cheaper to generate electricity through conversion of natural gas through electricity than it is to build a $2 billion transmission line from Labrador to the Island, shouldn't the government be looking at that option? The answer to the Leader of the NDP is in fact we are.

There are four natural gas studies now underway. They are being done in partnership between the Province, the federal government, the Newfoundland Offshore Industries Association, and a number of the major players in the offshore oil and gas sector are also doing studies. The whole purpose of those studies is to demonstrate: is it viable, should there be pipeline or non-pipeline solutions in terms of getting natural gas ashore or harvesting natural gas, and can it meet long-term, in terms of benefits to the Province in our electricity needs, the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador?

If the answer is yes it can - and we have to await the outcome of the studies - then clearly we would be foolish, as has been suggested by the official Leader of the Opposition, to commit ourselves, as he has said: It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, efficient, inefficient, feasible or not feasible, if there is no transmission line there will be no Churchill Falls, even if we go bankrupt building it.

Mr. Speaker, not since Frank Moores exploded powder on both sides of the Strait of Belle Isle have we seen such a foolish policy!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Premier. Given that the short-term failure of the Churchill River project negotiations and the fact that the transmission line appears, at least from the federal government's point of view, to have been a non-starter for almost two years now, shouldn't the government have been moving faster so that we could be looking at the possibility of a gas pipeline? Along with the project that is about to develop, the White Rose project, what is government going to do to ensure that every consideration is given to bringing gas onshore quickly so that we can have electricity generation as needed, an onshore gas industry, and hopefully a petrochemical industry to follow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the NDP again for his excellent question which, of and by itself, points out the absolute shallowness of the position being taken by the Leader of the Official Opposition, which is: It doesn't matter if we have gas, it doesn't matter if gas can come ashore, it doesn't matter if we can develop a new multibillion dollar industry, it doesn't matter if gas is cheaper than a transmission line, we are going to have a tinker toy set no matter what, or we are not going to have a development.

The Leader of the NDP is quite right to say to government: We need to move quickly, thoroughly and in an exhaustive fashion to examine all of our natural gas options. I thank him for pointing that out, and I assure him that we will exercise and exhaust every bit of intelligence, energy and effort we can make in pursuit of this most noble goal that he has put before the House of Assembly today.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Minister, for two consecutive days in the House you have used the following comparison to defend your government's commitment to education. At a time when we had 162,000 students in our school system we had 6,648 teachers in the system. Today we have 60,000, and we still have 6,300 teachers. The minister is comparing the number of teachers in schools today with the allocation provided in 1972, nearly thirty years ago.

Minister, is this your type of educational reform to get the educational system back thirty years?

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

MS FOOTE: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

 

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

 

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to table the report of the Public Tender Act exceptions for March 2000.

 

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

 

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today this private member's resolution. It is an important resolution and it is one that hopefully will be given the attention that it deserves by all members of this House.

 

I will just read it into the record:

 

WHEREAS the Government of Canada in 1999 passed into law Bill C-82, An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Impaired Driving) and that law came into effect on July 1, 1999;

 

AND WHEREAS Bill C-82, as enacted, requires the courts to prohibit those convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol from driving a motor vehicle for a specified time;

 

AND WHEREAS Bill C-82, as enacted, also recognizes that some provinces have initiated, in conjunction with these prohibition orders, the use of an Ignition Interlock Device installed in a vehicle which intermittently requires a driver to provide a breath sample for in-vehicle alcohol content analysis and disables the vehicle's ignition if the breath sample fails the alcohol content test;

 

AND WHEREAS the use of an Ignition Interlock Device gives the public greater assurance that an offender re-entering the driving population will drive only when sober;

 

AND WHEREAS provinces with the Ignition Interlock Device have reported that the re-arrest rate among offenders using the device is appreciably lower than that of jurisdictions not using the device;

 

AND WHEREAS drunk driving is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada and is the largest killer of youth;

 

AND WHEREAS drunk driving is a serious criminal offence and must be treated with the full force of law and not merely as a matter of social impropriety;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the provincial government to implement the use in this Province of the Ignition Interlock Device to help protect the public from death and disablement caused by drunk driving.

 

This particular resolution, and the wording of it, is largely due to the efforts and hard work of a well-known organization here in Canada, namely, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It has indeed been an effort on behalf of that particular association that has led to this Province, I suppose, debating this resolution as we are doing this afternoon in the House of Assembly.

 

It is important to note as well that in other jurisdictions in Canada, both in the Provinces of Alberta and Quebec, the Interlock Device system is now available and can be considered as an option by the trial judge when dealing with sentences as a result of impaired driving charges and convictions. I understand that it is only a matter of time before this particular consideration is given in the Province of Manitoba, so we will, in fact, have three jurisdictions in Canada. I understand as well that some thirty-seven or thirty-eight states in the United States now have a system using the Interlock Device.

 

It is important to note as well that all of this stems from legislation that was addressed in October of 1999 when the federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada tabled in the House of Commons the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled, Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving.

It is important to note as well that there were a number of significant recommendations in this report leading to Bill C-82 . It talks about and addresses tougher penalties for impaired driving, but it is interesting to note as well that it deals specifically with the very subject matter and basis of today's resolution. Bill C-82 amended the Criminal Code to require sentencing judges to consider as an aggravating factor, a blood alcohol level exceeding twice the criminal offense level and to specify that judges can order convicted impaired drivers to undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol addiction and to use an Ignition Interlock where such programs are available.

 

It is interesting that our federal counterparts, I guess, the lawmakers of the federal Parliament in this particular Bill C-82, have recognized the importance of steps having to be taken to protect the rights of innocent citizens and victims by imposing stiffer penalties to those individuals in our society who take it upon themselves to drive a motor vehicle while they are legally impaired.

One way that can be done, I say, one way that this very serious problem in our society can be addressed, is to perhaps work with the very credible association known as Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

 

In addition, in discussions that I had only yesterday with the Minister of Government Services and Lands, in some way to work with and encourage a committee, which I understand is presently ongoing and which has been stuck presumably by the minister and his department, a group of professional individuals who are well-versed in the problems associated with impaired driving in our Province. Perhaps in addition to that, in response to Bill C-82, a committee has been struck to look at a number of features and a number of ways and means that can be introduced to the court system in this Province, or alternatively to the motor vehicle registry in this Province, as a means to allow the trial judge to deal effectively as an option in sentencing as a result of a repeat offender for a person charged and subsequently convicted for impaired driving.

 

What this resolution does, it recognizes several things. It recognizes the spirit and the thrust of Bill C-82, an act of the federal Parliament of Canada. It recognizes the good work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and in particular the Newfoundland branch led by Gwen Mercer and Richard Murphy. Ms. Mercer is with us in the gallery this afternoon.

 

It also recognizes, I think, the approach that has been taken by the minister in ensuring that a committee is struck to deal with a variety of issues dealing with the impact and consequences of impaired driving which will include this Interlock Device, which is the basis and subject matter of today's resolution. It encompasses all of this.

 

We can send a strong message, it seems to me, if we, as members of this hon. House this afternoon, hopefully, preferably in a unanimous fashion, by accepting the wording of this resolution; because what that will do is, it will send, I think, a very clear message to a body of people, a body of professionals who have now been put together with the minister's assistance, to recognize the fact that in addition to a number of areas and issues that had to be addressed by this committee in response to a serious social ill, namely impaired driving in this Province or indeed in this country, but it will send a message that in particular the hard work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving dealing with this Interlock Device will be specifically addressed.

 

That is the benefit, I say to the minister, and I say that to all members on both sides of the House, and hopefully the impact that this resolution will have. It will basically send a message to government, and to this committee in particular dealing with this particular issue, that the Ignition Interlock Device would be a very meaningful and effective option that would be available to a trial judge; that, when considering a sentencing option and a sentencing alternative to a repeat offender, an individual who just treats this law as if it were nothing, will be forced to treat it as a serious breach of how he or she should conduct himself or herself in society, and the trial judge will have, as an option available to him or her, the application of an Ignition Interlock Device which has been, as I have indicated earlier, accepted in two other Canadian jurisdictions, ready to be accepted in a third province, namely Manitoba, recognized in some thirty-eight out of fifty states of the United States. It goes to show, it seems to me, that it is an option that is taken seriously in many other principle jurisdictions and is one that we, as lawmakers, perhaps should take equally seriously.

 

I would encourage all members to accept the spirit and the thrust of this resolution and, in so doing, recognize the work that the committee is doing but in particular recognize the good, hard, genuine, well-spirited work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving who feel that a resolution such as this will draw the necessary attention to this particular type of conduct that many people in our society unfortunately just treat as minor and unimportant.

 

I would encourage all members on both sides of the House to accept the wording and spirit of this resolution and hopefully, in a spirit of unanimity, accept this particular private member's resolution.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I am sure that members are going to be quite pleased at the fact that I am standing here today to speak in support of the resolution. I just want to take a few minutes to talk about a few of the issues and the initiatives that have been taken to deal with the issue of impaired driving over the last few years.

 

I, too, would support the hon. member's mention of Ms Gwen Mercer, head of the MADD Association, which is the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, especially in this Province. They have done an awful lot of work towards this initiative and also dealing with the whole aspect of impaired driving in the Province. Without those kinds of organizations, I don't think we would advance as quickly as we have to deal with the issues because we need all the support we can get out there when we deal with these kinds of issues.

 

The interlock ignition system is one initiative that government has been considering over the last couple of years. We have done a number of things in terms of the Highway Traffic Act to deal with penalties for impaired driving. We understand that the Interlock system is one of those initiatives that the Criminal Code has now included in their amendments. In Alberta and Quebec the provincial governments have initiated the legislation that will allow them to have the Interlock system as an option that the courts can use.

 

In the process of reviewing the situation with the Ignition Interlock in this Province, what we have done in the last little while is initiated a committee that is made up of the Departments of Government Services and Lands, Health and Community Services and Justice, the RCMP, the RNC, and also the Newfoundland Safety Council. Just recently I met with Ms Mercer and I have asked that they be a part of the committee that will deal with the issue of the Ignition Interlock.

 

I think some things we have to remember when we are looking at this particular initiative is the fact that with the Criminal Code of Canada now using the Interlock system as an option we are basically required to take a very serious look at that. We did look at it a few years ago, but the technology and a number of other issues didn't permit us to take a serious look at that. Under the Highway Traffic Act, what we have done in the last couple of years in the amendments that we have made to it is increase the suspended periods for impaired driving. The Criminal Code last fall also increased the penalties for the first, second and third offences.

 

We are moving in the right direction in all areas of trying to deal with the impaired driving aspects that we have. I think one thing we have to remember, and we should all remember it, is that every time there is a driver on the highway that does not have full control, that means our highways are not safe, not only to the driver but to all the other motoring public who are in vehicles on the highway. I think we always have to be cognizant of that. We have to deal with that issue every time we get an opportunity. This is one opportunity, I believe, that we will see after the resolution today, to really get into high gear and look at this whole initiative of the Ignition Interlock system.

 

One of the things, I think, we have to consider when we are dealing with the Interlock system is that we have to understand that this only takes place, and this is only an initiative for, convicted, impaired drivers. We are also focusing on the repeat offenders. That is what this program is designed to really take a serious look at.

 

One of the things we have to do in this Province, because we are not as big a province as either Alberta or Quebec which have greater numbers than we have, is the availability of this particular service in the rural areas. That is what the committee will be looking at, the ways and means that we can deal with this Interlock system in the rural areas, in the outlying areas, in the isolated areas, because if we are going to implement this program in this Province we have to ensure that we have all of the bases covered.

 

Another aspect that we are looking at is the affordability. There is a cost to this. The convicted impaired driver is always the person who pays the cost of this particular system. Liability is another issue that we are looking at. As to the application in this Province, is it going to be a voluntary thing or is it going to be a mandatory thing? The committee will be looking at all of these issues in terms of the Ignition Interlock system.

 

Perhaps I could just substantiate some of this by the statistics that we have dealt with over the last number of years. I will just give you the comparisons between 1995 and 1999. In impaired driving offences, in 1995 this Province recorded 2,071 cases. In 1999 we incurred about 1,007 cases. So we are moving in the right direction with the particular initiatives that we have taken over the years, but we can see other areas such as the Ignition Interlock system that may enhance this and drop these stats even further, which is the initiative that we have to take. We would like to see these stats at zero. We know that it is impractical to see it at zero, but as close to zero as we can get.

 

For people who are stopped for twenty-four hour infractions, in 1995 there were 2,072 cases and in 1999 there were 1,349, which is a substantial drop, but still not down to a level that we feel is acceptable.

 

Under the Criminal Code, for driving while disqualified, in 1995 there were eighty-two cases in this Province and in 1999 there were thirty-three. All of our statistics are showing that we are moving in the right direction. Under driving while disqualified under the Highway Traffic Act requirements, in 1996 there were 238 cases and in 1999 there were 280, which is going in the wrong direction.

 

In dealing with the impaired driving situation, our statistics show that approximately 10 per cent of these cases are repeat offenders, so we really have to bear down and start dealing with these in a very serious manner. They are chronic. We have to start looking at much stiffer penalties and perhaps even alternative ways of dealing with them. This is one. One of the things that the Interlock system will do, and has done in Alberta and Quebec, it has reduced the period of suspension provided that they meet all of the requirements when they go through the Ignition Interlock program.

 

Here again I would perhaps encourage everybody, if they get an opportunity, in order to see how the Interlock system works Ms Mercer brought in a short videotape that I viewed the other day when I had a meeting with her. It is really interesting to see how that particular program works. I would suggest we all try to look at that particular video in order to get a good feel as to how the program works. It is kind of difficult to stand here and detail how the program works, but it is an effective program. One of the things that it does, if it works and if the drivers comply with it, over a period of time it reduces the actual sentence that they have to carry out after their convictions.

 

My understanding is that both sides of this House are going to vote on this resolution, I think the work that all of the groups out there have done, MADD in particular - very headlined in terms of taking the initiative to deal with these things. There is also a Students Against Drunk Driving Association out there that we deal with as a department, and of course the National Safety Council has always been a good partner in this, and the police forces. These are the guys who are out there collecting all of this information and also out there arresting these people.

 

We have had great cooperation from all of the groups that are trying to deal with this. I believe a resolution such as this will only enhance our opportunity to move forward in a much quicker manner in terms of dealing with Ignition Interlock system. I will commit, on behalf of the government, that we will work as diligently as we can, and with all the partners and all the stakeholders, to ensure that we reduce the risk on own highways of impaired drivers. I stand here to support the resolution today, Mr. Speaker.

 

Thank you very much.

 

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

 

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the resolution before the House concerning the effect or the consequences of Bill C-82 enacted by the House of Commons. This legislation can provide another option to sentencing judges with respect to how to provide a proper deterrent and a proper protection of the public, probably more so, with respect to the consequence of impaired driving charges in our Province.

 

We have seen over the last twenty or twenty-five years, I suppose, a very significant change in the attitude towards impaired driving and impaired driving offenses. I was in law school more than twenty years ago now so I have seen the changes over the years, not only in the attitude towards impaired driving by the courts in sentencing, in the laws themselves, and in the effectiveness of the laws as they relate to impaired driving.

 

What we have seen in that space of time, and going back a little bit further, is a significant change in the attitudes where one time, although it was always an offence to be driving while impaired, it was in some cases considered socially acceptable. It was considered a fact of life. People would make jokes about it, how people were driving all over the road, and it was treated with some humour. That was the state of public attitudes towards drinking and driving, and that has started to change. It has changed significantly, and now it has changed to the point where there is a strong feeling of lack of tolerance legally, socially and otherwise of people driving while impaired. We have seen that in changes to our own law. We have seen that in recent changes to the ability of our police forces and peace officers to give an immediate twenty-four hour suspension for a level of alcohol content that is less than the criminal point of .08, but nevertheless, significant enough to cause some impairment. So we have seen recognition of that fact.

 

One of the problems that we have, one of the things that we have seen is that there is a fair amount of recidivism, if you will, of people who are once convicted of an impaired driving offence. We see that people go back a second, third and sometimes a fourth time with offences, despite the fact that the laws have also changed with respect to how second offences are treated, how third offences are treated. There are automatic jail terms now for a second offence of impaired driving or refusing a Breathalyzer. This has also provided an additional deterrent but it has not stopped it. It hasn't prevented recurrences of impaired driving offences for those who have a proclivity to continue to drive while impaired or while suspended or, in fact, may ignore the law entirely. Some of that is due to total social - I was going to say sociopath, because people are not prepared to accept the rules and want to do whatever they want regardless of the law. Some of it is a matter of people who have serious addictions to alcohol and once they drink they drive. I am not saying that that takes away any blame, but what it does is it makes our roads less safe for those who have a habit or a proclivity to both drink and drive.

 

We see this as a motion that would enable our courts - if it is passed, adopted and studied by the Minister of Justice and his officials as to how it might be implemented and where it might be effective - it seems to be another option that should be available to our court system to deal with particular offences and particular offenders who come before the courts as a result of drunk driving offences. I see it not as something that would apply to each and every case but something that would be available to the judge, such as the other sentencing options that are there, that are available, that can be considered by a court as to what the appropriate mechanism is and what the appropriate sentence might be. I believe that judges should have some flexibility in appropriate sentences, and while everybody doesn't agree with each and every sentence before the court, obviously there is a principle of judicial independence that should be adhered to.

 

I am thinking right now of the controversy in Ontario where it is being moved - I don't know, it may have even passed - where the Ontario Legislature is seeking to have some sort of annual report card on judges who fail to give the maximum sentence for every offence. I don't think many people know, for example, that the maximum sentence for break and enter is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence for break and enter into a dwelling house is life imprisonment. So, somebody, like some unfortunate person who broke into my house a couple of years ago and did not take very much of anything, would be liable to a sentence of life imprisonment; and, somehow or other if he is not given life imprisonment, that should be the subject of public debate and discussion.

 

That is obviously not what happened to this particular individual who was given a sentence that was appropriate to the circumstances. That is not something that I see. I do not see this as something that would be an automatic thing in each and every case, but that would be a sentencing option available to the courts.

 

I know that the organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and Ms Mercer, who has been a valiant advocate of proper and appropriate sentences for people who are involved in impaired driving and are before our courts, I think that much good work has been done to raise the attention of the public to the consequences of impaired driving. We have sad situations all across this country, and certainly within this Province, where people are innocent victims of impaired drivers, whose lives have changed forever and in some cases ended tragically by the actions of an impaired driver. Anything that can be done appropriately to reduce the number of drunk driving cases should be considered by this House and certainly by the courts when imposing sentencing.

 

I want to say that I believe this motion to be a good one, that can be supported by me and my party in giving the courts an additional way of dealing with offenders who come before the courts, and I know that the Minister of Justice will listen to what members of this House have to say about it in terms of us reflecting to some extent the public mood and that of our constituents as to what we deem to be appropriate ways, directions in which the law could go, which our own courts could go and our own Department of Justice could go, in achieving a desirable result of attempting, as the resolution itself says, to help protect the public from death and disablement caused by drunk driving.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

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

 

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand here today and say a few words in support of this most commendable resolution that has been put before the House by my colleague from St. John's East.

 

I must say I am encouraged, and I should say this right off the top as well, by what I think is unanimity in this Chamber for once. It is not often we are unanimous on an item.

 

MR. TULK: Do you know what? That is twice in a week.

 

MR. RIDEOUT: Twice in a week, my God.

 

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) waltzing around (inaudible).

 

MR. RIDEOUT: The next thing, we are going to be waltzing up and down the aisle. I am going to be waltzing and dancing with the Minister of Fisheries, and the Leader of the NDP is going to be waltzing with the Premier -

 

MR. E. BYRNE: He was already today.

 

MR. RIDEOUT: - as he was already today.

 

Anyway, on a serious note because this is a serious -

 

MR. TULK: I am not waltzing with (inaudible).

 

MR. RIDEOUT: No, you will have to waltz with Loyola.

 

On a serious note, it is alright to inject a little levity in debate from time to time but this is a very serious resolution and addresses a very serious - it is more than a serious issue in our society. It addresses a cancer on the body politic of the society in this country, because that is what, in my view, drunk driving and repeated drunk driving is.

 

You know, you see a state in this Province today and in this country where you have repeat offenders for this very serious crime. You see it to the extent that some of them do not give a darn whether they are licenced any more. They are unlicenced and impaired, uninsured and impaired. They are just menaces. It is just a cancer on society in this country, the attitude some people have toward this serious crime of impaired driving. The tragedy and the heartache and the sorrow that those people, by their irresponsible actions, bring on families and individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador is - really, I suppose, in a way, words sort of elude us in being able to articulate in the proper fashion the sorrow, the heartache and the pain that have been inflicted upon families in this Province and in this country by such irresponsibility.

 

I remember when I was in Ottawa attending law school, back between 1994 and 1997. I am not sure what year it was, but I believe it might have been 1996. A very good friend of mine, Senator Marjory LeBreton, had basically her whole family - her daughter and, I believe, one or two grandchildren - and a son-in-law very seriously hurt, but a daughter and one or two grandchildren wiped out. They were going from the Senator's home for a family dinner back to their own home when they were wiped out by a person who I am sure was a second offender, but it might have even been a third or fourth offender. That is the kind of horror story that all of us, I am sure, in our own way could bring forward and bring forth to this House.

 

That is why I found it so encouraging, for one of the first times in my life in dealing with this horrific issue of impaired driving, I was so encouraged a couple of weeks ago when the Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, represented in this Province by Gwen Mercer and Richard Murphy, came in and demonstrated to our caucus the evolution of technology in a way that perhaps will allow us to wrestle this sickness, this cancerous crime, to the ground.

 

I was never so impressed before, and I am always impressed with technology and the technological advances; but this Ignition Interlock Device, when they demonstrated how it works and how it could work to keep people from operating something that perhaps in more respects is more lethal than a gun. Because there is nothing more lethal than crashing down the highways in this country at 100 or more kilometers an hour with a drunk person behind the wheel. There is nothing more lethal than a vehicle. It is bound to happen, at some point, that people are going to be seriously hurt and perhaps, as we know in many cases, even killed.

 

I was really interested in seeing how this technological advance was going to be a help in perhaps not eradicating this disease from our midst and from our society, but hopefully a tool in being able to further to confine what irresponsible citizens among us are doing to themselves and to others.

 

This device, as I understand it, is personalized. The only person who can start up or engage the ignition of that vehicle after the device is installed is the person whose breath is stored on the computer chip in that particular vehicle. It is no good of me trying to hoodwink the machine by asking my friend to blow for me. That doesn't work any more. It has gone past that.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: You can borrow his car (inaudible).

 

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, he would be awfully stupid to loan me his vehicle.

 

What I am trying to get at is the advance in technology that has been made here with this particular machine. It is personalized to the individual, and it is impossible for any other individual to be able to jumpstart that particular machine and get the vehicle to work.

 

There are also safety features built into it. If you blow an amount that is past a certain point, then obviously you can't engage the machine and get the vehicle going. If you are into a long drive, I think after so many minutes it will prompt you to blow another sample

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Three minutes.

 

MR. RIDEOUT: Three minutes. If you fail, it will give you so many minutes warning to get over to the side of the road and pull off.

 

It is a great technological advance and I would encourage the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as quickly as possible to bring in the enabling legislation that would allow the courts, in this jurisdiction, to consider this particular device among anything else that the courts may wish to consider. We are not saying that the court has to impose the use of this particular device in every case. That is within the court's jurisdiction, having considered all of the facts before it, but it should be an option that the courts can impose in this jurisdiction. With the unanimity that we see in this House on the issue today, I would think it would be a piece of legislation that would pass through this House very quickly. I don't envision that there would be any great debate, any great division or any great contradiction among members on all sides having indicated that they intend to support this particular resolution today.

 

I believe that we all, as representatives of our various constituents, have a responsibility to educate ourselves into ways that we can eradicate, if possible, but to control, to the extent possible, hauling drunk drivers off our streets and our highways. There has already been too much carnage, there has already been too much suffering, there has already been too much pain, there has already been one death too many because of this irresponsible behavior by a few people - unfortunately, more than a few, but certainly a small percentage of our society. Nevertheless, a percentage that is enough to cause difficulty, pain, heartache and agony.

I am encouraged by the conduct of members in this Legislature today in their indication of support for this resolution. I too want to join with others who have spoken in complementing the association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and their officers who have taken the initiative, quite strongly, and rightly so, to bring this matter to our attention, to the attention of members on all sides of the House. I think they have done it with vigor, they have done it with determination, and I think the result today is that they have done it with effectiveness.

Finally, I want to complement my colleague for St. John's East in really taking the initiative to make sure that this particular matter got before the Legislature before we perhaps disperse over the next several days to go about our business for the summer. It was really a lot of lobbying and arm twisting, I can tell you, by him and our caucus. We only get a private member's day every second Wednesday, and every one of us have matters that we want to bring forth on Private Members' Day, but the fortitude, the determination and the lobbying of our colleague for St. John's East made sure that this most important resolution was the resolution that was dealt with today.

I commend that to the House, and lest I do any damage to the unanimity from the other side, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General it certainly gives me great pleasure as well to speak in support of this resolution. The Department of Justice is, of course, part of the committee, along with Government Services and Lands, that is dealing with this issue. There has been an ongoing dialogue with various agencies concerned with this initiative including the Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Newfoundland Safety Council. In fact, I have met personally with Mr. Ray O'Neill, the president of the Council, who has been so kind as to explain to me exactly how the device works.

Like the hon. Member for Lewisporte, who refers to instances where the effects of drunk driving are seen in terms of his friendships, I also, in the course of my twenty years of practice in this Province, have seen many instances where drunk driving has led to carnage on our highways, the emotional and mental distress that it causes to the relatives involved in this matter, and of course the economic cost involved in these instances.

I would concur, as well, that it is certainly on the agenda to bring forward legislation so that this very worthwhile and proper initiative can be implemented. I would also say that not only is government intent upon bringing about the appropriate legislation in a timely fashion, but once it is implemented I would urge the judiciary in this Province, once the mechanisms are put in place, to make liberal use of these provisions. There is absolutely no excuse or reason why anything that can be done of a preventative nature to prevent anyone from drunk driving should not be implemented. I wholeheartedly support this endorsement and can state for the record that it is certainly an initiative of my department, along with the Minister for Government Services and Lands, to have the appropriate legislative framework and legislation in place as early as possible to see that it is implemented.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If the member speaks now he closes the debate.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take this opportunity for a few minutes just to close debate on this resolution and state at the outset that it is indeed a pleasure to see members on both sides cooperating in such a manner, really for the benefit of all our citizens in our entire Province, because what this resolution does, it is a step towards added protection of the ordinary citizen.

When I hear the Minister of Government Services and Lands give a commitment in the way he did that will give real focus and attention to this important issue, and when I hear the Minister of Justice and Attorney General state emphatically that he will work closely with this committee and work with his colleague the Minister of Government Services and Lands, these are real commitments. For the first time in my life I in fact appreciated the term liberal, in terms of the fact that yes, there should be liberal usage of this as an option. A trial court judge should indeed be given the option to have this provision available to him or her in dealing with this very serious issue.

I do truly appreciate the commentary on behalf of both ministers, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and my colleague the Member for Lewisporte. It appears that we have all put politics aside on this very important issue and have dealt with it in a very genuine and real way to protect the ordinary citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador from - and I will adopt the word used by my colleague the Member for Lewisporte - the cancer and the menace that is caused by impaired driving in our Province, in our jurisdiction.

I thank all members for their contribution and I look forward to unanimous passage of this private member's resolution.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the resolution, ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary minded, ‘nay.'

I declare that the resolution has been carried unanimously.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could I would ask the Clerk - I know the Speaker said this was a unanimous decision, but we would like that so recorded, that it was a unanimous decision, so that we don't have to go through Division.

I think we have agreed that rather than waste the day, we will spend some time doing government business. We have now passed that matter. There is very little point in us debating the resolution put forward any further since we all agree.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I didn't say it was a wasted day. The hon. gentleman is always looking too much for the negative. I said "rather than waste the day." Now if he wants me to say: the rest of the day... Is that okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Words are important.

MR. TULK: That is okay, is it? Okay, very important. Rather than waste the rest of the day, because the previous part of this day was spent in a very good pursuit and saw the House come together on a very important issue, I say to the hon. gentleman, rather than do that, Mr. Speaker, we are going to revert to Committee of the Whole.

I would so move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

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

Committee of the Whole

MR. TULK: Are you ready, Mr. Chairman?

 

CHAIR: We are, Sir.

 

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I call Order 10, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994." (Bill 7)

 

CHAIR: Order 10, Bill 7.

 

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994." (Bill 7)

 

On motion, clause 1 carried.

 

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

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK: Order 11, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act." (Bill 8)

 

CHAIR: Motion 11, Bill 8.

 

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act." (Bill 8)

 

On motion, clause 1 carried.

 

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

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK: Order 12, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act." (Bill 14)

 

CHAIR: Order 12, Bill 14.

 

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act." (Bill 14)

 

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

 

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

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK: I think the Chair is being rushed too much. I think we need to relax a little bit.

 

Order 13, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act." (Bill 15)

 

CHAIR: Order 13, Bill 15.

 

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act." (Bill 15)

 

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

 

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, another example of the Apple Dumpling Gang.

 

Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Lands Act.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

 

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not sure if it is the Apple Dumpling Gang any more or if it is the Care Bears on that side of the House of Assembly. We have the greedy bear right there, we have the Premier as the good news bear, the Minister of Mines and Energy is the bad news bear, and the Minister of Health is the don't care bear.

 

This again is an example of years ago -

 

MR. TULK: What about me?

 

MR. J. BYRNE: If there is such a thing as an ostrich bear, it would be that man there. In the meantime -

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: You might have to give me some more yet today. This is only a full glass.

 

MR. MATTHEWS: Would you mind if I brought you a drink instead?

 

MR. J. BYRNE: I wouldn't attempt to drink it. I wouldn't be that brave an individual, I say to the Minister of Finance.

 

Back in the 1970s, the Crown Lands Act was amended to increase the reservations around rivers and ponds in the Province. The reservation used to be ten metres and the government of the day increased it to fifteen meters, to have access to the waterways of the Province for the individuals of the public of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that was a good thing to do. Right here, we see, "This Bill would amend section 7 of the Lands Act with respect to the buffer of Crown land around the waterways in the province."

 

In the last part of this here, under clause 7.(1.1) it says, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), where lands are granted, leased or licensed under this Part...." "...the strip of Crown lands around and adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river may be no less than 10 metres wide."

 

Why? I have to ask the question: Why are they doing this? Why are they amending it? Back when the previous Premier, Mr .Wells, was Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, he made some amendments to the Crown Lands Act which I opposed at the time and I still oppose, which gave people the right to apply for Crown lands right to the water's edge. At that time I opposed it.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going back a long ways.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: It is not that long. It was only seven or eight years ago that the previous Premier was here. The previous Premier, Clyde Wells, made that.

 

Back in the 1970s - now, I am not talking about that, but the more recent one when the Premier changed it. Why did he change it? Some people figured it had something to do with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Newfoundland Hydro at the time, to give companies access, and private companies who wanted to produce energy in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, to have access to the water's edge, which was normally giving access to the public of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

This amendment here, I would like the minister, when he gets up, to address this - I expect he will - to tell us why they are bringing this forward now. Why are they reducing the reservation on -

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: You are not. See, now the minister is confused, Mr. Chairman.

 

It says, "...the strip of Crown lands around and adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river may be no less than 10 metres wide." Previous to this it was no less than 15 metres wide. You are not increasing it; you are decreasing it, I say to the minister. If you want to increase it, so be it. If you are decreasing by 15 metres and you want to increase it, it should go up to 20 metres, not 10 metres.

AN HON. MEMBER: ((Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: You are not. Look, it says, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), where lands are granted, leased or licensed under this Part...." "...the strip of Crown lands around and adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river may be no less than 10 metres wide." So, a reservation could be 10 metres wide. You could have a reservation on the lakes and on the ponds of 10 metres, not 15 metres. If you want to increase it, you would go from 15 metres up to 20 metres, I would think.

 

Maybe the minister might want to withdraw this piece of legislation, if he is saying it should be increased, and bring it back in the fall sitting. I would like for the minister, when he gets on his feet, to answer the question: Why are you changing it now? In the 1970s when they changed the Crown Lands Act, they increased it from 10 metres up to 15 metres. Also, at that time, under section 134.(b) of the Crown Lands Act, they brought in an amendment to -

 

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Which bill are we talking about? Bill 15?

 

MR. McLEAN: Section 7.(1).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Section 7 (1). Are you reading the bottom down there?

 

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Maybe I am reading it wrong, but it says - imagine what people here think - "Notwithstanding subsection (1), where lands are granted...." "Where Crown lands that border on a lake, pond, river, the seashore or foreshore are granted, leased or licensed under this Part, it is considered, in the absence of an express grant, lease or licence of those Crown lands, that a strip of Crown lands not less than 15 metres wide around and adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river was not intended to pass and did not pass to the grantee, lessee or licensee."

 

Now, to finish on reading it, "Notwithstanding subsection (1)..." - which is what you are referring to - "...where lands are granted, leased or licensed under this Part..." -

 

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, what are you doing it for? What is it here for, I say to the minister? Finish reading clause 1(7)(1)(1.1) - "Notwithstanding subsection (1), where lands are granted, leased or licensed under this Part" - and go to the bottom, where it says: "the strip of Crown lands around and adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river may be no less than 10 metres wide." So the minimum becomes the maximum.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). They are grandfathering is what is there now.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is not what it says. Read it. That is not what it says, not I am reading here.

 

It says: "may be no less than 10 metres wide." When the minister gets up to respond to my concerns here, will he explain to me section (7)(1)(1.1) and the last paragraph on the very bottom of the page there which says: "the strip of Crown lands around the adjoining lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river may be no less than 10 metres wide." Get up and answer it, tell me what that means.

 

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

 

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I think if the hon. member would read section 7(1.1), it says: "Notwithstanding subsection (1)...," which identifies that there is a fifteen metre reservation. Now there will be a fifteen metre reservation with this amendment. The section reads: "Notwithstanding subsection (1), where land are granted, leased or licensed under this Part (a) for residential purposes..." If there is a house already there and the reservation was ten metres, we cannot change that now. We are not going to change that. We are going to grandfather that in, but any new applications will not be accepted for anything less than fifteen metres from the shore reservation.

 

Do you understand what I am saying? Any application that comes in now after this legislation is approved, and it is within a fifteen metre reservation, it will not be approved. It will be rejected and we will be indicating to the person that you have to pull your application back because we now have a fifteen metre reservation instead of a ten metre reservation. We have expanded it five metres from what it was under the existing legislation. Anything new will not be permitted within fifteen metres of the shoreline.

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: I will take the minister at his word about what he is saying the intent of this piece of legislation is, but it is not the way I am reading it, I say to the minister.

 

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: I hope you are right, if this is going to approved today. I will vote against it anyway. It will only be one. I will be on record just to cover myself, I say to the Minister of Education. I am curious -

 

MR. SHELLEY: In other words: I agree with you 100 per cent but you are wrong.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I don't agree with him. I will say if it is going to go through this House - they have the majority over there and they use it all the time.

 

I say to the Minister of Education that we are going to have a meeting on Friday. There is a very interesting meeting coming up. I hope she is going to be agreeing to with what I am going be saying at that meeting with respect to that new school in Pouch Cove.

 

I have to get back to this.

 

MR. SHELLEY: Relevance, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: The relevance is this, that the school is going to be built on pastureland and there is a river flowing through that property. Again, it could impact upon the right of way.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: That is extremely relevant.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Sure that is relevant. You can make anything relevant.

 

I will read it again; "Notwithstanding subsection (1), where lands are granted, leased or licensed under this Part (a) for residential purposes..." I will move to (c), where it says: "for the purpose of a grant, lease or licence under a lease, licence or permit to occupy issued before the coming into force of this subsection...," and so on. I still don't know, I'm still not getting it, I have to say to you, Mr. Chairman. There is something I am not getting on this one. I don't know if it is a mental block or I have been dealing with lands too much over the years, and dealing with Crown lands and know what goes on. I think what the minister is saying and the intent of this piece of legislation, he might in his mind have it clear, but I really don't think that this is saying it.

 

In the meantime -

 

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: You are not increasing the reservation, I say. The Crown Lands Act now - for any grants, leases, permits or whatever permits to occupy, you have to have a fifteen metre reservation now.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: It was enacted in legislation. It was so. Go check.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: It is, I say to the minister. Because I'm telling you, when I was in private business - and I worked over at Crown Lands for seven years, by the way. Anyway, I will take the minister at his word. He seems to know what he is talking about.

 

MS BETTNEY: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Speak up, I say to the Minister of Human Resources. What was it?

 

MS BETTNEY: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Which one are we talking about? Which minister?

 

MR. SHELLEY: All of them, right?

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment says that the minister always knows what he is talking about. I had to ask the question which minister because I haven't come across one yet, in the seven years that I have been in this House of Assembly, who knows what he is talking about. Now if you want to say that the minister thinks he knows what he is talking about, the one in the House of Assembly that would win that prize over everybody else, bar none, no contest, would be the Minister of Health. He is the omni-minister over there who thinks he knows it all. He has the answers for everything, but there are other ministers over there - the Member for Bellevue is pointing at me now. I say to the Member for Bellevue, if he is upset with people on his own side of the House, don't take it out on us. If you are upset with certain individuals over there don't try and take it out on us, because you have a face on you the past few weeks that long that you -

 

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) dirt road.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. So I say to the Member for Bellevue, keep quiet and I won't bring any attention to the fact that you are upset with certain people on that side of the House.

 

MR. SULLIVAN: He wouldn't even look after his constituent in Fair Haven. I spoke to her three times. (Inaudible) talk to the Opposition.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: I won't embarrass the Member for Bellevue with that one. Any individual who wants to read the Hansard of today will know what the Member for Ferryland is talking about.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: I won't say any more because he says he was trying to build me up.

 

Anyway, back to this issue.

 

MR. SHELLEY: You started that.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, see what you started. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment, and I noticed how quick she got out of it. She is like Statler and Waldorf in The Muppet Show, making the comments and then backing off.

 

MR. SHELLEY: What a racket she started.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

 

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bellevue says he was protecting his member. You shouldn't set yourself up like that. Don't, stay quiet now while you are ahead.

 

Anyway, with respect to this Bill 15 -

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: I know what you are talking about.

 

With respect to Bill 15, I am going on record now to say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands that when the vote comes I am going to vote nay on this because I don't think this says what the minister wants to say.

 

Who is in charge over there now?

 

AN HON. MEMBER: You know it is the omni-minister.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: The omni-minister is in charge. I say I am going to sit down now, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't get me going on that today because I am telling you, the Minister of Education is going to have 500 people in her office on Friday or Monday morning if we don't get what we want

 

MS FOOTE: There is a lot of room in my office.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: No, there is not enough for 500 people.

 

MS FOOTE: Yes.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: No, there is not enough for 500 people, I say to the Minister of Education. This is a very serious issue, I say, what is going on down there. I have only touched on it with the media. There is another little issue that I am holding back, I say to the Minister of Education, that I am going to make public. You need not worry. It is coming within the next forty-eight hours. I can tell you that, I say to the Minister of Education. She won't be smiling then, I can guarantee you that, when she has 500 people knocking on her door wondering why certain people are not being treated the same as others. That is what is going to happen, and she is going to be wondering why we have an elected school board.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: It is like this. Whenever I am up speaking the Minister of Education says that she supports me, that she voted for me. I know where she voted. She didn't vote in my district, but by the mere fact that she didn't vote in my district is supporting me, I say to the Minister of Education. It is a vote that wasn't there against me.

 

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Indirectly supported me. How is that? That is good. That is not bad.

 

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, with those few words I am going to sit down and hopefully - and today is supposed to be Private Members' Day. On this side of the House, again, I think that this side of the House is being so cooperative with the government, because we are here to point out the flaws in the legislation. It is starting to scare me here. The Government House Leader, when he -

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely, that is never going to happen. You will never question that. I can say to the members on the other side of the House, you will never need to question where I am sitting in this House of Assembly.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: I know what you mean. Don't even talk about that, that gives me the shivers altogether. The only time that I am going to be moving from this here, I am not going to be moving to my right or to my left. I'm going straight ahead on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, right across the floor, but it is going to be after an election.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going to be on that side of the House but not with the bunch that is there now. It is when we, on this side of the House, move to that side of the House after the next election.

 

MR. COLLINS: Jack, you are as far to the right now as you can move.

 

MR. J. BYRNE: Far to the right, yes.

 

Just for clarification purposes, the Member for Labrador West has said that I am as far right as I can go. Physically in this House of Assembly I am as far right as I can go, I say to the member. There are individuals to my right, sitting in this House of Assembly, and God granted me the space between the two desks. That was a godsend, I say to the minister. Those two individuals there should be over in the Speaker's gallery.

 

In the meantime, I am going to let the minister get up now and have his final say on this piece of legislation.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. J. BYRNE: It depends on what he says if I am getting up again.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I understand the member is having a real problem trying to understand this very difficult amendment that we are putting through on section 7 of the Lands Act. Let me just say to him, for clarification and on the record, that the existing ten metre reservation is being moved to fifteen metres, an additional five metres.

 

The fifteen metre reservation will apply, in the future not only to cottage lot development, but to all outfitting lodges and most other developments, with the only exceptions being able to remain in the ten metre reservation churches, schools, cemeteries, municipal buildings and municipal parks. Those are the only exceptions that will still be able to remain in the ten metre reservation. All other applications beyond this, when the legislation is approved, will have to be beyond the fifteen metre reservation. That means fifteen metres from the shoreline.

Hopefully, that will clarify for the member that this amendment improves the situation that we were dealing with during the Outdoor Resources Committee. A lot of people said we were trying to privatize the waterways by allowing people to develop on the water shorelines and things like that. We are going the other way. We are not going the way of privatization as the member might think. We are going away from that and identifying that you have to be further away from the shoreline in order to develop.

That is as clear as I can get it. I don't know how else to clarify it under section 7, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act." (Bill 15).

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, Order 14, "An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments," Bill 16.

On motion, clauses 1 through 12 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 13 carry?

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: I realize the Minister of Justice is not here, so maybe the omni-minister can pass along the concern to him.

I am just, for the first time, noticing clause 13. It says, "This Act applies to (a) a Canadian judgement made in a proceeding commenced after this Act comes into force; ..." - that is no problem - "(b) a Canadian judgement made in a proceeding commenced before this Act comes into force and in which the judgment debtor took part." That, to me, at least speaks in part of retroactive legislation, and every time I see retroactivity, or the possibility of retroactivity in legislation, you know, the antenna just goes up. I know there are times when it is absolutely necessary and it has to be done but, generally speaking, retroactive legislation is not good unless there is a good explanation for it.

I am not intending to hang up the Committee on this bill. I would just ask that perhaps the acting Government House Leader might undertake to have his colleague provide us with an explanation.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly see that is done. I have already had someone try to raise the Minister of Justice to bring it to his attention, and we might even have a further explanation before the day is out.

On motion, clauses 13 and 14 carried.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, we will continue on with the Order Paper. Order 15, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 17)

CHAIR: Order 15, Bill 17.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 17)

On motion, clauses 1 through11 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 12 carry?

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 17, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act. When the minister was on her feet the other day introducing this, she made a few comments and I made note of them. The biggest thing that is being impacted, of course, by this piece of legislation is clause 12.

When the new Municipalities Act came into play on January 1, 2000, it was nine years, believe it or not, in the making. They had the cooperation of the municipalities, the Federation of Municipalities, and they had the staff at the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs working on it. I remember standing in my place last fall and last spring and talking about the Municipalities Act and the changes to it, and how it would give more latitude to the municipalities to manage their own affairs. We all thought it was a great. I remember at the time standing in my place and saying that I hope that we would not be back here making amendments and changes to the Municipalities Act in the near future. We hoped we wouldn't have to do that. What has happened? The very first time that we sit in the House of Assembly, the very first session after the Easter break, we are here now debating twelve amendments or changes to the clauses of the Municipalities Act. Why? I have to ask the question: Why?

In the New Year, just after Christmas, before the municipalities had the leeway, if there was some councillor who could not make their tax payments for the year, they could work out a deal with the municipalities and pay $20 a month, $40 a month, or quarterly or whatever the case may be, and pay off their taxes. The council made a decision that they would not kick these people off the council. The Minister of Environment and Labour would know this. He was a former councillor, I think. What happened in the New Year when the new Municipalities Act came into place - gets a directive, I suppose, from the minister saying: Boot them all off council; 135 individuals who had donated their time for the well-being of their municipality, the well-being of the people in the town, and some of these individuals were embarrassed, I would say, to have the town - just carte blanche, gone. We do not have any discretion; you are gone. Not only that, because you were kicked off council you cannot run for council in September of 2001, and rightly so. I have to congratulate the minister on this. At least she found a solution to that problem. This is a good solution. At least now those individuals who were removed from council can have the opportunity, in September of 2001, to at least put their names forward, and if the people in the town want to decide to put these people back on council, they will be put back on council; but I think they should not have been in that position in the first place.

I suggested, the other day when I was discussing this piece of legislation, that maybe what should happen is that people who are serving on councils or who are running for councils, if they are elected to the town councils in municipalities in the Province, they would not have to pay their property tax on their residence. This problem would not arise, it would not have arisen, and it would encourage people to run; but the Government House Leader rightly pointed out a good point: that, if that is the case, some people could have a house valued at $150,000 in a municipality and someone have a house valued at $50,000 and it would not be fair to those individuals because they could be putting in the same time on work on councils. How that could be arranged, the property tax could be forgiven up to a certain amount. Once you went over that, you would have to pay the difference. That is just one possibility. I throw it out for discussion.

Anyway, I am not going to say much more on this. I think I addressed most of my concerns on this when I spoke on it the first time around so I am just going to take my place now and thank you for you time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are on clause 12 are we?

CHAIR: Clause 12.

MR. RIDEOUT: I want to make a point on clause 12 before we finish debate on this bill, a point similar to a point I made, I believe, on debate on the Environmental Assessment Act a couple of days ago. This is a piece of legislation that, if I am reading it properly, was enacted by this Legislature in 1999 and here we are amending that legislation probably less than a year from its enactment. I am not sure if it was the fall of 1999 because in the fall of 1999 I did not spend any time here, for reasons members know, but I thought I recalled being in the House when this piece of legislation passed, so it might have been the spring of 1999 when it passed. Nevertheless, it is a piece of legislation that within the last twelve months or so was passed by this Legislature and here we find ourselves back again today, as we are doing with a number of other pieces of legislation over the last few days, with fairly significant amendments. Significant to the extent that there are a number of clauses that have to be amended.

I am going to make this point once again, that if this piece of legislation - and this piece of legislation had a lot of public scrutiny but it did not have committee scrutiny. If this piece of legislation had been put before a Legislation Review Committee, I suspect we would not be here doing wholesale amendments today, about one year after the bill was originally passed. I think we are doing courts in this Province a disfavor. I think we are doing ordinary citizens of this Province a disfavor.

I believe there were hundreds of citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who had to resign from positions on municipalities -

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and thirty-five.

MR. RIDEOUT: One-hundred and thirty-five people had to resign their positions on municipalities in this Province because of what should have perhaps been picked in legislative review.

I think in doing that we are doing, number one, the citizens of the Province a disservice; and number two, we are unnecessarily putting courts in a position of having to rule against citizens in this Province. Because if they did not resign somebody would bring it to the courts. So why can we not be a little bit more careful?

I mean, after all, members, colleagues, friends, we are making laws here. That is what we are doing, these are laws. Once the law is made somebody is responsible for implementing it. To have to come back to this Legislature within twelve months of passing a significantly large piece of legislation, I think there is something wrong.

This is the second or third time I have seen it this week. It is the second or third time that we are amending legislation that is only a year or so old. I think it is time for us to get our act together. There is a vehicle to do that, and that is to have legislative review committees review some of this larger legislation. Not everything, I'm not suggesting that, but some of these larger pieces of legislation. Because I firmly believe that if a legislative review committee reviewed some of those pieces of legislation there is enough experience, common sense and wisdom on both sides of the House that a lot of those errors or omissions would become apparent and would be corrected right there and then in the appropriate committee, not having to bring back legislation a year or so later.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to support passage of the bill.

On motion, clause 12 carried.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, Order 16, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act," Bill 18.

CHAIR: Order 16, Bill 18.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: What would they do without me?

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this bill also. I did speak to this piece of legislation. I am not even the critic. Just imagine if I was, I say to the Minister of Health, the omni-minister.

When I spoke on this bill the other day the concerns I had with it was that the piece of legislation is giving so much authority to the minister. The minister can actually direct a council to remove an individual from council. Carte blanche. It says in clause 1: "... by order in writing (a) direct the municipal authority to take the action against that member that the minister considers necessary or advisable in the circumstances..."

To me, that is pretty well all encompassing. The minister basically can have a person removed from council or set the penalty. What is the penalty going to be, I ask the minister? I asked her the other day and it has not been addressed. It depends on any given situation. How much authority will the minister have? Will she fine the individuals? Can she say it is a $50, $100, $2000 or $10,000 fine for any given indiscretion or whatever the case may be? Can she say: You can be removed from council and you are not allowed to run for council any more in your lifetime? Can the minister say that? I am not picking out this minister, I am talking about any minister in the future. They can set the penalties for however the councillor or councillors may have offended the Department of Municipal Affairs, or they may have offended the new Municipalities Act that we were here today amending already.

To me, this piece of legislation gives too much authority to the minister. There should be some kind of a review. As a matter of fact, what do we have the courts for? It could be depending on the mood of the minister. Now I know they are going to put regulations in place. What criteria are going to be put in place? We don't know that.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I wonder what he thinks of this? He is the minister who is between the provincial and federal governments, and different provinces, and I suppose he should be should be playing a part in the goings on, the communications, or what have you between the municipalities. That is a form of government.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: No. Well, what do you do, I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now you went and woke him up.

MR. J. BYRNE: I woke him up.

I accomplished what I set out to do, I say, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McLEAN: I am some glad (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You leave me alone, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) former mayor too, aren't you?.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, you needn't worry. That is why. I was a mayor, Mr. Chairman, for seven years, so I know what impact that this could have on an individual. We just talked a few minutes ago about the piece of legislation with respect to the municipalities that went through the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: There is an awful lot of racket here, I say to the minister.

The previous bill, Bill 17, I spoke on that for a few minutes. We had a situation, I said earlier, where we had amendments to the Municipalities Act where councillors were kicked off council and the minister was bringing in legislation to allow them to run in September 2001. What if the minister - if this was the case, if this piece of legislation was in place - wanted to say that they could never run for council again in their life because they didn't have their taxes paid? What about that, I say to the Minister of Fisheries?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries said: Can you imagine councillors not paying their taxes? Minister, I say to you, maybe not all the people in this Province are in the financial situation that you are in. I know, previously, if a councillor didn't have their taxes paid they could work out a deal and pay it off over a certain period of time. The new legislation wouldn't allow that, I say to the minister. There are people in rural Newfoundland on councils doing their best, I say to the minister, who really couldn't afford it and they worked out a deal. What is wrong with that? Now we have a situation here with this piece of legislation that is going allow ministers of the future to lay down any penalties, for any given offence, and we don't know what they are going to be. What do we have the courts for? As the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said when he spoke on this, this is offensive for any democratic society. I thought - the last time I looked - Newfoundland was a democratic society, but it won't be much longer if we keep electing people like this to the House of Assembly.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to go on record to say those few words, to reiterate that this I do not agree with, and this I will be voting against, Bill 18.

Thank you.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act." (Bill 18).

On motion, clause 1 carried.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I was standing when you referred to whether clause 1 carried.

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

MR. HARRIS: If it needs to revert to it, I would ask leave to revert to clause 1.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave, we will revert.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, not that I couldn't talk about the enacting clause. I recall one night we spent three or four hours talking about an enacting clause in ten minute spurts between myself and the former Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Can I ask the members to my right and to my left to keep the noise down? The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the discussion.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly in Committee on this particular clause. There is only one clause in the bill. At second reading, in principle, I spoke yesterday and drew to the attention of hon. members, the Minister of Justice, the law clerks of the House, and other people, all members, the concerns that I had about the authority being given to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in this particular instance. I had hoped that some cooler heads would prevail, that somebody would have a look at this in the meantime on government's side, and consider changing this particular clause because it is, I believe, offensive to us as Members of the House of Assembly, to citizens in a democratic society.

The kind of authority being given here, number one, is very arbitrary, that the minister can order - the word "direct" is - but "the minister may by order in writing" direct. So the minister may order. The minister is given the power to order a municipal authority, as it says in (1.1)(a), "to take the action against that member that the minister considers necessary or advisable in the circumstances..." In other words, the minister can write a municipal council, a city council, a town council, and tell them what to do with a particular member. There is no provision as to what the limits on that are, no reference to whether that would include a suspension, a fine, a prison term or some other remedy. I don't know, it is open-ended. It doesn't say anything.

MR. NOEL: Hang them.

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says: Hang them. I suppose there would probably be some public outcry if the minister issued such an order, in most quarters anyway. Maybe in certain political quarters in certain parts of the country there might not be such a draconian response to the suggestion of hanging. I would submit that this is a power so broad as to be perhaps unconstitutional. I'm not giving a legal opinion here but I am speaking as a lawyer of twenty years' standing in this Province. I am speaking as someone who is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: To say that something is perhaps unconstitutional is not a legal opinion. It is an invitation to have a proper legal opinion done. It is an invitation to have a proper legal opinion done by the law officers of this House of Assembly, by the Minister of Justice who is responsible as Attorney General for the proper administration of justice in this Province and adherence to the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in all of our laws.

I think the Member for Lewisporte would agree that the responsibility of the Auditor General and the Minister of Justice of a province is to ensure, in so far as is possible, that the laws of this Province conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, don't give too broad powers to his own ministers, and in that respect should act a bit independently from the rest of the government and Cabinet in that regard. I think it is incumbent on this House to give further consideration to this particular piece of legislation before we consider passing it.

The first problem is that it is arbitrary. There are no bounds upon it. There are no limitations upon what could be included in the kind of orders that the Minister of Municipal Affairs could pass. As I said yesterday, this is not personal to the current Minister of Municipal Affairs. When I say current Minister of Municipal Affairs, there has been a dozen ministers of that department perhaps since I have been here since 1990. In fact, we have had three separate governments, with the same leader of two of them. There could be another minister in another government who might make use of a provision in an inappropriate way.

The second thing that I wanted to say in addition to its arbitrariness is the fact that this provision does not provide for any safeguards for the individual involved. I say to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if you want to give power to someone to effectively impose a punishment on someone, there ought to be some opportunity for that person to know what it is they are accused of having done, what it is that occurs in a report of an inspector that the minister wants to act upon.

If someone is dissatisfied with my behaviour as an individual, an inspector of the Department of Municipal Affairs comes and does a report and gives the report to the minister. We are saying to this Legislature, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are going to give that minister the power to act on that inspector's report and order the municipal authority to take action against an individual. That is going to be done without any safeguards which suggest that the individual ought to be made aware of the allegations contained in the inspector's report, given an opportunity to respond to those allegations, come back to the minister and say: Yes, this part of it is true but the various other parts of it that are contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 are demonstratively untrue. Before the minister even considers issuing any order, she should further inquire, hold a hearing or ask other witnesses, and consider other facts before such a thing can be made.

That is an elementary principle of justice, I think one that will be recognized by all members of this House who are not laymen. They might not be lawyers but they are not laymen in the sense that they do not understand. They understand how legislation works. They have been here in this House passing legislation, studying legislation, sitting on committees that consider legislation, debating legislation, and understand that there are certain principles that should be behind all legislation in this hon. House. One of the principles ought to be that you cannot impose a penalty on someone. You cannot be a judge of a particular matter without hearing both sides of the issue.

There is a fancy legal phrase for it. There is a fancy lawyer's phrase for it. We do not need fancy lawyer's phrases to understand basic principles of justice. In fact, they have gone so far in the legal profession as calling it natural justice, justice that flows from nature, that you would expect all civilized societies to understand that you cannot pass a judgement on someone without giving that person an opportunity to be heard in his or her own defense.

What we are doing here is saying that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will have the right to order a municipality to oppose some penalty on a democratically elected official without any obligation on behalf of the minister to make sure that individual knows what the allegations are, what the inspector's report says, what the possible consequences might be, and have an opportunity to respond. There may be factual errors. It may be that the inspector did not talk to all the right people. It may be that they left out particular evidence. It may be that they were not aware of certain facts. Maybe they did not have all of the facts before them, or they misinterpreted them, or they were listening to someone who was telling them lies, they were listening to someone who has already been found to be not telling the whole story and the whole truth. This would be akin to giving a minister of the Crown the right to depose an elected official.

It is a municipal authority, I grant you that. It is not the House of Commons, but what is to stop things from going further? If we contemplate a minister of the Crown who, after all, is appointed by the Premier - so, we have an appointed official who is brought into the Cabinet and given the responsibility as Minister of Municipal Affairs, and that person then has the power to direct a punishment against an elected official, including - subject to the approval of the Cabinet - the dismissal of that member and who knows what else, because there are not limits on it. That can be done by a minister of the Crown without any opportunity of the individual knowing the case (inaudible).

I am surprised we have not heard more about this. I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis, who, as a former municipal official, recognizes that there have to be some safeguards there for elected people to at least ensure - and I am not suggesting for a moment there would be no reason to have the authority of the minister needed to act in certain circumstances. I believe the initial intention in bringing this amendment forward is to ensure that disciplinary action could be taken against municipal officials or municipal members of councils for actions that occurred during previous regimes, during previous elected periods. That is fine. I have no problem with that either, just because a transgression may have been committed in the last week of one term of office that a person not ought to be subject to disciplinary action and potential action by the council because an election intervened and that person was re-elected.

I think there ought to be some provision there, but how can we say - perhaps the minister might take the point of view, and establish by action as opposed to by law, that any person she is dissatisfied with, and any person who may be guilty of an offence of some sort that she considers unsatisfactory, can order the council to dismiss somebody who may be guilty of an offence that has nothing to do with their municipal duties, who, because the minister decides that we have standards here and we can't have elected....

Let's say, for example, that a minister might decide we can't have people who are town officials or town councillors who are found guilty of offences such as the possession of marijuana. Let's take that for example. Let's say the minister decides that. Well, she can order the town council to dismiss somebody who is duly elected, based on this here, a transgression that has nothing to do with their duties, a transgression for which there is a division of opinion as to the seriousness of it within society.

When we start using examples like that, we see that you are talking about a provision here that gives rise to opportunities for a minister exceeding his or her power in determining what actions might be taken against officials.

I am looking a little more closely at the act. There is some provision that narrows it at least to some action that is in keeping with their own duties. I was looking primarily at provision (a). Nevertheless, it does give a very broad authority on behalf of the minister to - where, during a previous term, the member managed the affairs of the authority in an irregular, improper or improvident manner, the minister may make a order to order the municipal authority to take some action against that particular individual. It doesn't go as broad as I just stated, on further reflection.

Nevertheless, it is a very broad provision indeed. I think it is a provision that we ought not to pass in this House. I had hoped that someone was going to have a look at it over the last twenty-four hours. I wonder - I don't see the minister here - if anyone can speak on behalf of the minister as to whether or not that, in fact, has been done, based on the comments that were made in this House by several hon. members yesterday and repeated again today.

I wonder, can anyone tell us whether in fact that has been done? That there has been some review of this, that people have taken seriously the comments that were made in this House as to the extent of this legislation, and that legal opinion has been sought as to whether or not it ought to be amended to narrow the focus of it, to narrow the authority to provide for natural justice for officials that might be involved, so that we can be satisfied that passing this legislation will not offend - the principles of natural justice will not offend the principles of good law-making.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, if we could move to Order 17, Committee on the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill 19)

CHAIR: Order 17, Bill 19.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act". (Bill 19)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I understand we are going to move to Order 3 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) rise the Committee.

MR. GRIMES: Okay.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 passed without amendment.

On motion report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before you adjourn, I think I have the unanimous consent of the Legislature to give notice of a bill that I forgot to give before and that I would like to do tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill 25)

That is all I have to do, isn't it? I am so confused here now. The Opposition has me running around. Dizzy, dizzy!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I have to say to the Opposition House Leader that if ever there was an Opposition House Leader who could move legislation through this House and still get his points across, you deserve the medal for it. Now, there was one before you who was just as good.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

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