November 19, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 31


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a long time resident, volunteer and friend of Wabush and all of Labrador, Mr. Joe Roberts, who recently passed away.

Born in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Mr. Roberts moved his family to Labrador in 1965. Since that time he has become involved in many aspects of this community. He was involved with the Boy Scouts Movement for eleven years. In 1973 he assisted in the formation of the Labrador West Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corp and, as a civilian instructor, he served with this organization for over fourteen years. Joe was also a driving force behind the establishment of the local arena. He was actively involved in fundraising which made this arena possible.

As well as his tremendous contribution to the youth of the area, he was also involved with many other activities. In 1967 he became a member of the Volunteer Fire Department and for the next twenty years he dedicated his time and energy to this organization. He also held an executive position with the Newfoundland and Labrador Fire Chiefs Association. In 1981, Joe was a founding member of the Wabush Ground Search and Rescue which later evolved into the Canadian Rangers.

In terms of municipal politics, Joe Roberts served as a member of the Wabush Town Council and also as Western Vice President of the Combined Councils of Labrador. Joe was also involved in many other community activities including; the Labrador 400, the local Carnival, the Curling funspiel, the Recreation Centre, education committees, and many other initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador is a better place because of the dedication and commitment shown by Joe Roberts, and he will be missed by many. I ask all Members in the House of Assembly to join me in sending condolences to the Roberts family. Rest peaceful Joe, you have earned your rest.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday night past I had the pleasure of attending Grenfell Handicrafts launch of its new line of Grenfell coats at the Grenfell historic properties in St. Anthony. Grenfell Handicrafts has been producing garments and giftware for over 100 years with great success. However, the Board felt it was time to add an updated look to the line of coats already being produced. With much respect for the past history of the coats, and always keeping mindful of the fact that Grenfell Handicrafts produce coats for people like Pope John Paul II, Grenfell Handicrafts is taking another step forward.

Award winning designer, Karen Pottle of Exploit Designs, was hired to design a new line of coats. Most of Karen's inspiration came from an exhibit of Grenfell mats that was at the Newfoundland and Labrador Art Gallery. The curator, Paula Laferty, an expert on Grenfell hooked mats, met with Karen and discussed the uniqueness of the designs.

It was with this in mind that Karen took what Grenfell had as exclusivity, and turned it into products that only could be made by Grenfell, thus making it a brand name with elements that are only owned by Grenfell.

Some of these elements of exclusivity are a designed button that has the look of a wooden base with a husky dog into the shank of the button. The button was found in a private collection of Paula Laferty. The button was reproduced by a local carver, Sheldon Richards, in moose antler. By the way, Sheldon Richards is of St. Carols. The carved button was then sent to Montreal to a Montreal button maker to reproduce for the Legacy line of coats. These will only be produced for the new Grenfell coats. All coats will carry a metal based id tag on the outer pockets indicating the Grenfell Legacy name.

Mr. Speaker, there are three styles of coats that were launched on Friday night past. The Grenfell Legacy Jacket, The Expedition jacket, The Lady Anne jacket. Some of the people who attended the conference on Friday and Saturday in Plum Point would have had the opportunity to see one of them.

Mr. Speaker, they are on display at Grenfell Handicrafts facility in St. Anthony. On November 29 they will begin production at Mediwear on Change Islands, and within six months they will begin production in the St. Anthony area. There are plans for Grenfell Handicrafts to take part in the Annual Christmas Craft Fair in St. John's from November 21 to November 24 at the St. John's Convention Centre, and I am sure they will be met with great approval and great success.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Board of Grenfell Historical Society and Grenfell Handicrafts, Gary Newell, President, Jill Hillyard, Dr. Fitzgerald, Michele Hodder, Sam Elliott, Randy Cull, Wayne Noel, Steve Knudsen, and Cathy Cabot-Letto the Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody will join me in congratulating the board for a remarkable job. It is just another example of some of the great things that people on the Northern Peninsula are doing in carrying on a tradition of over 100 years.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate local author and Telegram columnist Ed Smith, whose latest book from Flanker Press, From The Ashes of My Dreams, has attained Canadian Best Seller status meaning it has 10,000 copies sold.

The book, which chronicles Mr. Smith's experiences dealing with quadriplegia from a broken neck suffered in a car accident in 1998, is a funny, inspiring publication and something that everyone should read in order to comprehend the challenges that are faced by persons who have disabilities, and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I was very fortunate as the past Chairman and CEO of the Canadian Paraplegic Association to see Mr. Smith receive the Adrian Battcock Award last week at a fundraising dinner for the CPA here in St. John's. This award recognizes an individual with a physical disability who has displayed, on a continuous basis, the qualities of integrity, perseverance, leadership and outstanding achievement. I am also pleased to point out that my colleague, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, is a former winner of this award.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to thank members on both sides of the House who participated in that dinner that night, and who have shown their appreciation to people with disabilities. On behalf of the Canadian Paraplegic Association, I thank the members on both sides of the House who showed up that night.

Mr. Smith's accomplishments are a reminder to all of us that persons with disabilities can do remarkable things. On behalf of all members of this House, I congratulate Mr. Smith for the success of his book and his receiving the Adrian Battcock Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today to be associated with the comments made by the Member for Torngat Mountains concerning a resident of Labrador West, Mr. Joe Roberts. I would like to add to what the Member for Torngat Mountains said by saying that Mr. Roberts was indeed well respected and a role model in our community, a community that is much richer in the life that we have today as a result of Joe's efforts in volunteering in almost every aspect of our community.

I am sure that the Premier and many members of his Cabinet have fond memories of their meetings with Joe, because I do not think there was ever an occasion when a Cabinet minister came to Labrador West that Joe did not see to it that he had them here for at least some period of time. I am sure that he was well respected by them as well.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to acknowledge the statement by the Member for Torngat Mountains and offer our condolences as well to Joe's family.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to pay tribute to the late Mr. Ambrose Chubbs of St. Lewis, who has recently been awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award for his work in the area of Community Development. This award recognizes an individual whose work has made a lasting contribution to the economic development of a community or whose work over an extended period of time has consistently empowered people to foster economic growth at the community level.

Mr. Chubbs was nominated for the award by the Town Council of St. Lewis for his accomplishments and his inspiration to the community as a whole. During his lifetime, Mr. Chubbs was a devoted community volunteer, serving on numerous organizations and committees, including the Town Council of St. Lewis, the East Shore Development Association, the Southeastern Aurora Development Corporation, and at the time of his death he was the mayor of the community of St. Lewis.

Mr. Chubbs also played an active role in attracting new investment and economic activity to the area. He was a pioneer in the development of the Labrador Snowmobile Winter Trails Initiative and was also instrumental in making the economic case to have St. Lewis connected to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join myself in expressing condolences to Mr. Chubbs' wife Lillian, his sons Brad and Byron, and his daughter Benita. Mr. Chubbs' work and individual efforts have made tremendous contributions to this Province, and especially to Labrador.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide hon. members with an update on this Province's position related to the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

Let me reiterate at the beginning that Newfoundland and Labrador has always supported and will continue to support measures that will address climate change. Climate change is a serious global problem and this Province must do its part to address the issue. We remain committed to working with all provinces and territories, the federal government, business, industry, and the general public in developing a truly Canadian approach to climate change initiatives.

On October 28 of this year, this Province's Energy and Environment Ministers attended a joint ministers' meeting in Halifax to discuss a national approach to addressing climate change. While I was pleased that all provinces and territories were able to come together with one voice on key principles in formulating a national plan, I was very disappointed with the federal government's dismissive attitude and their unilateral declaration that the Kyoto Protocol will be ratified by the end of the year, regardless of any issues, concerns or proposals put forward by the provinces and territories.

Mr. Speaker, the draft federal plan on climate change is not a realistic approach to address the concerns of Canadians. I, along with several other premiers, have asked the Prime Minister to convene a First Ministers' Meeting to discuss Canada's approach to the Kyoto Protocol and to ensure that a realistic climate change plan, a plan that will ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity for input, is developed. The Prime Minister has stated this meeting will not take place before ratification.

There are too many uncertainties and unknowns associated with the draft federal plan on climate change for this Province to support the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol at this time. We have concern with the process. We have concern with respect to the possible outcomes. We have concern with respect to impacts on the Province. We are concerned with the impact on our investment climate, our offshore petroleum industry and our continued economic growth. I am calling on the federal government to reconsider the principles of the Kyoto Protocol, specifically the three principles advocated by the provinces and territories but not supported at the federal level.

The draft federal plan is incomplete and requires additional work, refinement, negotiation and consultation. This work cannot be completed in a matter of weeks. To base a ratification decision on a vague and incomplete plan is, in our view, and irresponsible action.

I am committed, Mr. Speaker, to do what is right for a clean and safe environment. However, I will not support a federal protocol that could be detrimental to Newfoundland and Labrador. If this is the case we will look at all our options, working in the best interest of the people of the Province. I remain committed to ensuring a responsible and sensible balance between economic development and a meaningful plan that can address climate change in a realistic manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the record, our caucus also supports a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, if it can be done in a strategic manner that does not negatively impact our economy. What I am at a loss to understand today is, which side of his mouth the Premier is speaking out of. I got this, I guess, maybe half an hour ago. The draft federal plan is incomplete - this is what he said just seconds ago - the draft federal plan is incomplete and requires additional work, refinement, negotiation and consultation. This work cannot be completed in a matter of weeks. To base a ratification decision on a vague and incomplete plan is an irresponsible action. Well, what kind of a responsible action is it, Mr. Speaker, to have the Lower Churchill agreement signed within days in this Province? What is this Premier going to do? He is going to give away our cheap, our renewable energy, rather than create jobs in this Province. He is going to give away our -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: We are debating a Ministerial Statement which has to do with the subject matter of Kyoto and nothing to do with any other agreement. What is foremost though, Beauchesne quotes: Ministerial Statements are supposed to be brief, non-debatable, and the answers are supposed to be the same. So, Mr. Speaker, on two accounts: the hon. gentleman is debating a Ministerial Statement, which he is not supposed to do; and secondly, commenting on something that is not relevant to the Ministerial Statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have just seen the Government House Leader rise and demonstrate again the parliamentary fantasyland he is living in. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the Lower Churchill agreement, the Kyoto agreement and the impact it will have on oil and gas, on green credits, on the Lower Churchill and Upper Churchill agreement, is directly associated with the Ministerial Statement that the Premier just made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear, and the Government House Leader would do well to read on. The reason he didn't is because he would have swallowed himself whole in the process.

Beauchesne is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that ministers and premiers, while giving a Ministerial Statement, either the Leader of the Opposition or any critic thereafter is given half the time to respond directly to the Ministerial Statement. In this instance, that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition would do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: A last question, Mr. Speaker: I wonder would the Government House Leader be so kind, since he has just chewed up the Leader of the Opposition's time for responding, to give leave, to let the Leader of the Opposition continue his argument based upon that Premier's statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order: Again I want to remind hon. members that Ministerial Statements are not debatable, however in this House there has been some latitude in the past. I guess the response that any individual or critic will give, it is not up to the Chair to decide. If it is not parliamentary or if it does not follow the rules of our own Standing Orders, then certainly I would rule it out of order. At this point the hon. member has not made any statement that would be considered (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The words of the Premier, "To base a ratification decision on a vague and incomplete plan, is an irresponsible action."

I would suggest to this hon. House that it is an irresponsible action to proceed with the Lower Churchill in face of this Kyoto Protocol. In all fairness to the Premier, his agreement was announced on August 1, but the Protocol was announced in September. He proceeded in the face of that and he is giving away our cheap, renewable electricity -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: - and the alternatives are burning fossil fuels or even tires - what has been suggested in this Province is what is going to burn. See how that cleans up the environment, Premier.

The Premier speaks of a dismissive attitude and their unilateral declaration on ratification. Welcome to the real world. Now you know how we feel in this particular House. Now you know how we felt during the Voisey's Bay debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: There are too many uncertainties and unknowns associated with the draft federal plan to support the ratification. We have concern with the process, we have concern with respect to the outcomes, we have concern with the impacts on the Province, we have concern with the impact on our investment climate. That is why we are speaking on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on Voisey's Bay and on the Lower Churchill.

Thank you for using my words!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Kyoto Protocol was ten years in the making and was adopted by Canada, with the leadership of Canada, in 1997, five years ago, and in 1998 discussions started with the Province. We have not heard boo from the Premier until about six months or so ago when Premier Klein started speaking about it.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, over 75 per cent of Canadians support equal or exceeding the Kyoto proposals on the reduction of greenhouse gases. Less than 20 per cent have their heads in the Alberta tar sands, along with Premier Klein, and it seems that our Premier is one of them. It is time for this Premier to get with the program, to recognize there are economic advantages for this Province in adopting the Kyoto plans, making sure there is fairness for all provinces, and starting to use this plan to create jobs and new technologies in this Province, instead of importing in five years, which we will be doing, wind-generating power technology from Alberta or Quebec, instead of doing it ourselves here in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: That is a solution that we should have, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House this afternoon to inform members that I, along with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Gerry Reid, and the Minister of Health and Community Services and Minister Responsible for the Strategic Social Plan, Gerald Smith, attended the first ever Northern Peninsula Employment and Economic Summit held last Friday and Saturday in Plum Point.

The Summit brought together representatives from two Regional Economic Development Boards, the Cormack-Grenfell Strategic Social Plan committee, municipalities, District 2 and 3 School Boards, Grenfell Regional Health Services, Western Regional Health Care Board, the private sector, and other community stakeholders. It was a tremendous two days in which we had the opportunity to learn more from the area residents about their concerns and their view of the economic challenges being faced by the Northern Peninsula.

I was impressed with the leadership, vision and commitment shown by all participants, and I was especially pleased with the positive focus and the ‘can-do' attitude that prevailed the entire two days. The Summit Chairs, Colleen Kennedy and Cyril Taylor, and their committee are to be congratulated for their foresight in organizing this event.

The Northern Peninsula was one of the hardest hit regions of the Province as a result of the closure of the groundfishery. Government is very much aware and sensitive to the circumstances of communities on the Northern Peninsula and has been working very hard to address those circumstances with the communities themselves, primarily through the two Regional Economic Development Boards in the area. The two REDBs have developed long-term Strategic Economic Development Plans for their areas with the input of all key stakeholders on the Northern Peninsula: individual communities, rural development associations, local business associations and many others. Government has invested over $40 million to date to support the implementation of these Strategic Economic Development Plans and the priorities contained there, as identified by the communities themselves.

A recurrent theme throughout the entire Summit was that of the residents and communities coming together to solve their own problems. The solution of the economic and employment woes of that region have to come from within the people themselves, and they have to be presented with a unified voice in pursuit of a common vision in the future. Government is prepared to work with area residents to implement the solutions that they recommend.

The focus of the Summit was indeed positive, the tone was positive and the feeling in the room for the two days was very upbeat. Residents of the Northern Peninsula are a proud and determined people, and it is clear that they will not let the challenges they face overcome them. I look forward to working with the people of the Northern Peninsula as we collectively move forward to address their concerns.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I, too, attended the conference on Friday and Saturday, Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague from St. Barbe, Mr. Wally Young, my colleague from St. John's East, John Ottenheimer, and Mr. Jack Byrne, our colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right, that it was a very upbeat and forward thinking two days. The people who attended the conference did want to try and look beyond the problems and the challenges that they have been facing there for the past number of years. They wanted to get beyond the fact that it is the area with the highest unemployment rate in the Province and the area with the highest out-migration rate in the Province. But they also, Mr. Speaker, wanted to get a message through to politicians and the bureaucracy alike, that the situation on the Northern Peninsula is very critical, and the reason that they came together for the approximately two-day period just this past weekend was just because of that; because it is critical. It is the first time that these people have really gotten together in about fifteen years in this kind of venue. That just tells you how desperate they are getting there, that they finally put down the swords they have been rattling between themselves for so long and decided that they needed to work together in order to be able to face some of these challenges and to overcome them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while the minister may have gotten the optimistic message that came out of it, the hopeful message that was there, the forward looking message that was there, but I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he also got the message from the people on the Northern Peninsula that they are sick and tired of their resources being taken for somebody else. They are sick and tired of seeing their people going out of this Province. They are sick and tired of having to listen to the radio, and listening to me and listening to everybody else, say that they have the highest out-migration rate and the highest unemployment rate in the Province. They are sick of being paupers in the midst of plenty, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: - and that is what the biggest message was in that conference, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, are very pleased to see that this has taken place. I assume it took place with strong representation and support for community development principles on the Northern Peninsula.

It is kind of ironic, Mr. Speaker, that this peninsula has been represented by cabinet ministers in the Liberal government opposite for the last thirteen years. In fact, represented in Ottawa by Brian Tobin and now have a cabinet minister in the federal cabinet from that district and yet, they still have to go to this effort to try and put forth their ideas and their notions of what needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, now that this has taken place, now that the people are coming together, it is very clear that what the people of the Northern Peninsula need are real and substantial responses from this government and not to be taken for granted as they have been in the past.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to update members of the House today about our economic performance in a sector that affects practically every part of our Province, everyone of our constituencies, and that is the tourism sector.

Tourism has grown steadily over the past decade or so, with especially marked and sustained growth over the last five years. The spending associated with these visitors last year reached almost $300 million. This is for the visitors from out-of-province, an increase of 22 per cent since 1998.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: When you add, Mr. Speaker, the tourism expenditures for the visitors with that of the resident expenditures they total $620 million per year.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say today that almost all tourism indicators point to another very successful year in 2002. In fact, our tourism operators in the Province are indicating an extremely successful season.

Inquires for tourism information have increased 35 per cent over 2001. Non- resident automobile visits are up by 15 per cent this year. This is, in turn, driving visitation rates up at a number of facilities and sites in all of our regions.

To the end of September, Marine Atlantic traffic was up by 13 per cent over this time last year.

Mr. Speaker, in July and August of this year, accommodations in the Province increased by 7 per cent. In fact, the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau considers this showing to be the best showing for July and August performance since the John Cabot 500th Anniversary Celebrations in 1997.

A few other indicators of note, visits to the seven Visitor Information Centres are up by 16 per cent. Our provincial parks have seen an increase of 17 per cent and, Mr. Speaker, the visits to our ten provincial historic sites are up by 45 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: This year, Mr. Speaker, the cruise sector has experienced a 4 per cent increase in total passengers and an increase of 30 per cent in ports of call.

While most of our key provincial tourism indicators look positive, air passenger movements are down by 7 per cent. However, Mr. Speaker, Deer Lake is the exception to this trend. It was the only major airport in Atlantic Canada to register an increase in activity during 2002. Over 114,000 passengers went through the Deer Lake airport during the first nine months of this year. That is an increase of 7 per cent over 2001.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Positive performance of our tourism sector is due to a number of factors. We are seeing a return on our investment in the industry through such initiative such as the Juno Awards, Access North 2002, Targa Newfoundland and Labrador, and the television and film successes such as Random Passage, The Shipping News, and Rare Birds.

This year, we hosted a media FAM tour for the Travel Journalists Guild. We also hosted writers from the Boston Globe, New York Times, Canadian Press, Backpacker magazine, and Fly Fish America, to name just a few. With our industry partners, we have hosted over ninety travel writers in this year so far.

The Canadian Tourism Commission estimates that for every dollar invested in tourism marketing, there is an estimated $10 return in new tax revenue to the provincial economy. In the 2002 provincial budget, the department's tourism marketing budget was increased by $1 million. When you include the Atlantic Canada Tourism Partnership and additional funding through CEDA, this bings our total available marketing budget for the 2003 program to just over $6 million.

Our 2003 marketing plan will continue to focus on markets in Ontario, the Maritimes and the Northeast U.S. because they have been identified as offering the best potential. Our people in the Strategic Product Development Division will also be working on the product development challenges, such as market readiness, demand-driven development, and improved infrastructure and services.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the growth in our tourism industry has been the result of hard work by many people in my department and the partnerships created within the industry. All of these efforts, combined with our core destination marketing and innovative advertising campaigns, have helped us reach a point where our presence is felt on the world's stage. Our unique tourism product, along with the dedication of those who work in the industry, makes us well-positioned for continued growth in this sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement here today. I say that we, on this side of the House as well, are aware of some of the good things that are happening in tourism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I see it firsthand myself in the district that I represent, in Bonavista South, when I look and see the number of visitors to places like Bonavista, Port Union, Catalina, King's Cove, and I know from my neighbouring colleague here down in Trinity.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are still falling short of some of the things that might be able to be put forward in order to increase on this because, yes, tourism is an anchor that will certainly help rural communities in this Province. When I look at the length of the season where we maintain infrastructure that the provincial government is responsible for - and I am thinking about our provincial parks, for example. The Argentia ferry service was put in place, from my understanding, to primarily promote the tourism industry. It is shameful that we closed down our provincial parks weeks before this ferry service alone even ends. It seems like we have given up on the shoulder season when a lot of people still like to travel.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we should do more advertising. Yes, we have only reached the tip of what this department can put forward and support in this Province, but when I hear of $127,000 spent in a business publication over in Europe to support tourism, I am wondering if we are even promoting the industry in the way that we should. When I see the condition of our roads in this Province, when I see the condition of the roads on the Northern Peninsula, when I see the condition of the roads on the Bonavista Peninsula, I am wondering how some of those tourists - the message that they take back when they leave this Province to talk about their visit here. I have heard it firsthand myself, the deplorable condition that the roads are in leading to some of those major tourism attractions.

When I look at signage in this Province as well, only the other day - there is a program on radio, I think it might be every Tuesday or every Thursday morning in the summertime, where they talk to tourists visiting the Province. Three of the things that you consistently hear -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - is the lack of signage, the bad road conditions, and government facilities (inaudible) and those people being unable to accept them. Those are some of the things we might be able to improve on.

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

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

It is encouraging to hear the minister state that tourism is on the increase, but I want to say to the minister that tourism in Labrador needs a lot more than lip service.

When you take out three-page ads in national magazines with not one mention of the Labrador portion of the Province in it, the FAM tour operators tour that you spoke about, not one person travelled to Labrador to advertise what Labrador has to offer.

When we talk about the winter snow trails for snowmobiling, which is on the increase, it is something that needs to be completed that this government has not paid enough attention to over the last number of years.

I say, Mr. Speaker, when we talk to tourists who travel the Trans-Labrador Highway, they talk about no washroom facilities for 600 kilometres of road and no pull-off sites so they can look around and see the area. There is absolutely no means of communication whatsoever in the event where something could happen. The damage to their vehicles that they incur; these are all detriments to increasing tourism, I say to the minister, and it is something that this government has to pay attention to. It is going to take a big commitment from government to improve it, despite all of the hard work that people in Labrador are doing to promote tourism in our area.

The minister is also aware of quite a mess, I would say to her, on the Quebec-Labrador border when it comes to outfitters -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: The minister is also aware of a big mess on the Quebec-Labrador border, around Schefferville, between the outfitters who hunt there. That is a detriment to promoting tourism in this Province, I say to the minister. It is something that her government and her department has been aware of for many, many months and have yet to take any corrective action.

Yes, it is encouraging to see tourism increasing, but I say to the minister, while much has been done, there is an awful lot that remains to be done in Labrador to make an improved situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as a result of questions, four matters were confirmed: One, that there is no redress on the Upper Churchill, that the Premier and his government have quit on us and have quit on this issue. Two, the Premier failed to use Quebec shortage of power in the next ten years as a lever to renegotiate the Upper Churchill. Three, the Chairman of their own Royal Commission, Vic Young, has said that such an action would be a sad day for this Province; and four, the Premier already has another multi-million ad campaign planned on the back of Newfoundland and Labrador to launch this giveaway.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. According to media reports last night and this morning, the term of this agreement, the agreement on the Lower Churchill, will be forty-five years from the completion of the project which means that it would expire in the year 2055 at the earliest. Would the Premier please confirm that the term of this contract is, in fact, forty-five years or more and takes us fourteen years beyond the expiration of the Upper Churchill agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me confirm one thing for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Leader of the Opposition, Members of the House of Assembly and every single person in Newfoundland and Labrador, for those who want to find reasons not to proceed with Gull Island and Lower Churchill, trying to have the Government of Quebec agree at that bargaining table to reopen the Upper Churchill contract will mean that it will never be done until after 2041. So, if you want a reason not to proceed and not to even have a discussion about the possibility of developing the Lower Churchill for another thirty-nine years, then that is the position that has to be taken.

What this government has done, Mr. Speaker, is found a way to go ahead with developing the Lower Churchill while leaving all of our options open, including any that might be found for us through the Royal Commission, to challenge the Upper Churchill contract in any other venue, any other avenue, any other recourse at any time. But, if it is to be done as a precondition, every time that has been put to the Government of Quebec the answer has been absolutely no. For one reason, because the former, former, former, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Peckford, who is back making statements about it, went to court, challenged it and lost. Every time since then, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has gone and said: let's reopen it. They said: your government challenged, your government went to court, the court reaffirmed the validity of the contract and we will not be opening the contract for any purposes of saying, because we want to do a new deal, we will do a new deal on its own merits if it makes sense.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the number one reason. If anyone wants to use it, and I say it quite clearly so people understand, that there would not even be a discussion. We would let the water run to the sea for another thirty-nine years with no benefit to anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, under any set of circumstances, with that particular point of view. If that is the view of the Opposition, which I believe it is, supported by one of their great heroes, Mr. Peckford, then, by all means, we have a circumstance where for thirty-nine years nobody should even talk about any development on the Lower Churchill or any circumstance if that is to be a precondition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the term of a contract, if we are fortune enough to get one that works for Newfoundland and Labrador, will be long enough to pay for the debt of building it, to pay for the operations of it, and to make it profitable for Newfoundland and Labrador from the very first year of operation. Otherwise, we will not do the deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: If I might summarize, the answer is: Yes, it is a forty-five year deal.

Not only have we quit on changing the worst deal possibly in the history of North America, we have now in fact extended it another fourteen years.

Mr. Speaker, my four-year-old granddaughter, Abby, will be sixty years of age when that expires. My great-great-grandchildren might see the light of day, providing there isn't another Liberal government between now and then that is going to give the rest of the shop away.

Mr. Speaker, I also heard this morning that the Liberal caucus was quoted as saying that the Province of Quebec - our great benefactors, the Province of Quebec - are generously providing the financing for the project, and I assume out of the goodness of their hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why can't the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador do this project ourselves, with a guarantee from the Government of Canada? Did you not know that the Government of Canada has guaranteed two companies? One company, Bombardier, got this amount of money on a federal guarantee, and Nortel, a company that is nearly gone, also got a guarantee. Why don't we do it ourselves and not rely on Quebec?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is taking his cue from the former Conservative Premier, Mr. Peckford, who raised these issues in Open Line land earlier today. Nice to see it is repeated in here, because - and it is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, the last time when I was mentioning Mr. Peckford, he is a bit sensitive about it because he is a real idol of his - he said: At least Peckford was a fighter. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador remember how much of a fighter he was when he said, upon resigning: I no longer have the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is how much of a fighter he was for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, when it came to his own people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again, even before - a typical tactic that we are well aware of now with the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition, they are against development. Everybody understands it. They are still against Voisey's Bay even though 70 per cent of the people are for Voisey's Bay. The people are working, commitments are being met, progress is being made, we are moving on. The Opposition is still against it, probably still trying to find ways to frustrate it in certain ways.

Here, Mr. Speaker, with respect to financing, they will put out the hope again that maybe the Government of Canada - just like, I guess, for the great dream that is in the Blue Book to be released some time about the tunnel from Labrador to the Island, that is obviously the number one priority for the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, he assumes that project, $2 billion, just for electricity hookup, many more billions if it is going to be vehicular traffic, that it is going to be paid for, I guess, by the Government of Canada. That has been put to the Government of Canada many times. Frankly, just like with many things for Newfoundland and Labrador, they are not interested.

Mr. Speaker, you can lead out, lend out and put out the proposition that the Government of Canada would guarantee something; another reason not to do something, to wait for someone else to step in. What we are doing is this: We are arranging financing so that there is the least possible risk, and hopefully none at all, to Newfoundland and Labrador, to our credit worthiness, to the position of this Province, so that we can have a tremendous asset generating cash for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with no risk.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: I would put to the Leader of the Opposition, if that turns out to be the deal, because he suggests he knows nothing about it, will he support it? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker, because no matter what it is, he will be against it from day one -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.

PREMIER GRIMES: - just like he is today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I won't be remembered as a quitter, though, Premier, and you will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: It is interesting to hear that the Premier has said: No risk. We will hold you to that one, Premier. We will file that one away.

AN HON. MEMBER: A minute ago (inaudible). Now you are saying (inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: I am referring to myself.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line on all of this is that we are going to the Province of Quebec and we are financing this project with our own money, the $56 billion that they have stolen from us in the last thirty years!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Over seventy years they will take $56 billion. They are going to use our money to finance our project, so they can take it from us at the end of the day. That is what you are doing. Shame on you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Imagine, being bought with your own money. I just cannot fathom it.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Premier, one of the perceived benefits of this project is that it will be 100 per cent owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Would the Premier please tell the people of our Province whether there are any circumstances whatsoever whereby we could lose the ownership or control or any part of this project and those assets to the Province of Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again the Leader of the Opposition is being consistently inconsistent, just to remind him. He does not like talking about his idol, Brian Peckford, because now in the run of a couple of minutes he described him as a great fighter and then he turned around and said: I will not be a quitter like he was. So he described him as a fighter and a quitter in two or three minutes. I guess he is an idol but he does not care if he was a fighter or a quitter. He was a fighter one time, a quitter another time, but we will see how it goes.

Mr. Speaker, the question asked is a serious question, and all the details we have indicated. If we are fortunate enough to do a deal that benefits Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we will gladly present it and send all the information to every single soul. We know that the Opposition is already going to hire a battery of experts from all over the world to tear it apart and find loopholes. We are still waiting for the loopholes. I expect we will hear them in the next couple of days with respect to Voisey's Bay. They are all around somewhere. I guess they are going to be exposed very soon. Maybe he would like to start talking about those today as well.

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that unless you have your own money, because let's compare something to anything where you go and borrow for it, if you borrow for anything and if you do not pay your loan back, you are in default. There is nobody, ever, in the world, under any circumstances - Hydro-Quebec, any bank, any lender, the Leader of the Opposition would not do it himself. If I borrowed some money from him and made a commitment to pay it back -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and did not pay it back, whatever security I put up, I am sure, at some point, he would exercise on the security. There is going to be a loan. There is going to be a security. All the details will be available to the people of the Province in due time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A simple question. My question for the Premier is, quite simply: What about if there is a significant overrun on the cost of that project? If the Government of Newfoundland does not come up with the money to cover the cost of that overrun, what happens? Do we lose control and ownership of the project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated, we will gladly provide every single detail to everybody in the Province if there is a deal. Now the difference, Mr. Speaker, between the government that I lead and the Opposition, led by that leader, is they hope, just like they did with Voisey's Bay, that there will no deal. They are now trying to set a mood and a tone in the Province to have people frightened to death to even talk about it, because this might happen and that might happen and this should have happened and that should have been considered. All of those things can lead to another thirty years just like the last thirty years where the water runs to the sea and nobody benefits. That is the kind of debate, Mr. Speaker, that has left the Lower Churchill at Gull Island undeveloped since 1972, and we are trying to find a way to make it happen for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.

PREMIER GRIMES: - with no risk to Newfoundland and Labrador, but only benefits for all of us to share into sooner rather than later, rather than waiting another thirty or forty or fifty years before we even talk about it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we are being bought with our own money and now it appears that one of the basic principles of this agreement, 100 per cent ownership, we may not have it under certain circumstances. A basic tenet of the agreement is gone.

This Premier is being less than honest with the people of this Province. More proof that he cannot be trusted.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier advise if the project -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I was halfway through it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier advise if the project, which he said presumably was 100 per cent owned by the Province, which is now not 100 per cent owned by the Province, is to be 100 per cent managed by the Province through the construction and operation of the entire project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I can assure the Leader of the Opposition is this: that we have committed ourselves and will continue to commit ourselves to finding a way to make sure that we develop the project for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that it will be 100 per cent owned by Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition will spend all of his time trying to set the tone, trying to do the scaremongering, the fearmongering, as he has done before, a consistent pattern, Mr. Speaker. This is identical to the Voisey's Bay debate, the scaremongering before you start: they are going to give it away, it is going to be lost, we will not be able to control it, we cannot do it, we are incompetent - all of those kinds of things.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Obviously, we have the confidence; we have the ability to do it. I hope we can find a way to do it in the next little while rather than succumb to the same kind of attitude that has been over there that has left these things undeveloped for the last thirty years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: So, Mr. Speaker, we do not own it and we do not control it. No wonder -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: That is what he said. You had better start looking at this deal, gang!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: No wonder the Premier of Quebec, Premier Landry, has said that this is a blessing from heaven for Quebec, that Quebec will have a resplendent future. Those are his words, and he said it. We looked after Manitoba and Ontario and Voisey's and now we will take care of Quebec. Good for you, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I now direct this supplementary to the Minister of Justice, as it relates to financing, and he will ultimately be held accountable for this documentation and its contents and its liabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to please advise the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that if a dispute arises over financing with respect to this resource and what should be our project, which courts will decide those disputes: Quebec, or the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Premier earlier, if we are fortunate enough to get a deal with Quebec on the Lower Churchill, that question will certainly be answered. I don't think -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is going to ask questions, I would think he would have respect enough to listen for the answer as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, similar to the Voisey's Bay debate that we had here, any questions that he has are very legitimate questions and deserve to be answered. Similar to Voisey's Bay, when he indicated and held people personally accountable and said there were holes that you could drive trucks through - which, by the way, I have not seen any holes yet, and I issued an invitation to that last week - when the deal is made public, any and all questions that he has, as the Premier has already indicated, will be debated fully in this House and everyone will have a free vote on any concerns he has. Let me assure you that, whatever is there, he can rest comfortable that we will be protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again. Does the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know whether these disputes will be decided in the Province of Quebec or in our own courts, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me give some comfort to the Leader of the Opposition. I understand he is getting a bit agitated and has some discomfort today.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this: This government will make every single piece of information available to everybody in the Province. This government, in the meantime - just because there are some questions today from a group that wants nothing to do with this and is trying to poison the whole atmosphere and the mood in the Province even before we start the debate - is not going to be dragged into answering questions in isolation without the full information.

Mr. Speaker, we will provide all of the information, every single scrap, and then answer every single question in full context. We are not going to be dragged into a game by the Opposition, of talking about a single item in isolation that they will then run around for weeks saying: Oh, look at this! Isn't this awful! Isn't this terrible!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Oh, look at this! Isn't this bad!

That will not happen, Mr. Speaker. We are more responsible than that. We are not like the Opposition, who already have their minds made up that they do not want this to happen any more than they wanted Voisey's Bay to happen.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was the other side of the mouth we just saw. What he said half an hour ago was: I was very disappointed with the federal government's dismissive attitude and their unilateral declaration that the Protocol will be ratified before (inaudible) provinces.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: One standard for the federal government and another standard for you. Is that what you are saying here today, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are on the hook for forty-five years. We may not own it, we may not control it, and, if there is a dispute over money, Quebec is going to decide who the winner is.

I take no comfort in that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my next supplementary is for the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy, because only he can answer this question.

The minister has stated, and I quote, that: If we do a Lower Churchill project, the people of the Province need to know one thing, that from the first day we sell one megawatt hour from that project we will be getting the full market value of the power as though we were selling it in any other market available in North America.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister please confirm that he stands by that statement made on August 11, 2002?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The operation of the escalator clause that will operate against a floor price that we will start to sell our power for will indeed reflect market value as if we were selling it generally into the markets that would be available to us: Quebec, Ontario, Northeastern U.S., down as far as the New York market. That would be the reasonable extension of how we would reasonably be expected to go with our power, directly or indirectly.

So, yes, the answer is I stand by the statement because it is our intention to ensure that we get full value as though we were going directly to the market ourselves in another fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have said before, that my granddaughter, Abby, will be sixty years of age when the Lower Churchill contract expires, and she will probably have grandchildren herself, at that particular point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, imagine, a Premier who was not elected by the people is negotiating a contract that will impact my great-great-grandchildren.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier says he is going to have a free vote in this Legislature, why doesn't he have the ultimate free vote? Why doesn't he go to the people and why doesn't he call an election immediately?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Legitimize yourself, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand now fully, too, that the Leader of the Opposition is a believer, like his idol, Mr. Peckford, of calling elections of convenience. Get an arm band, do something, never mind if it is any good for Newfoundland and Labrador, never mind if it is appropriate or not, just try to make sure you get elected. Mr. Speaker, I tell you this, this government, the government I lead, will get elected because we have done the right things for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Because, Mr. Speaker, it will be crystal clear that the only interest we have is in serving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and doing something that is better for the people. Mr. Speaker, it is not that important to us who runs the government, which individuals are here, as long as they are doing the right job, as long as they are doing the right things for the people of the Province, as long as they are trying to do something for your grandchildren and my grandchildren, instead of being obsessed about maybe being the Premier for a day or two, or a week or two, or a month or two, or a year or two. That is not of interest to us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Premier. The Premier has said repeatedly today that we are stuck with a contract until the year 2041 on the Upper Churchill. Is the Premier not aware, I am sure he is, that there has been, since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1984, substantial changes to the Constitution of Canada which give us more control, more power, more authority over the export of electricity, over taxation on electricity, and control over the Upper Churchill contract? Why is this government insisting on saying that we are stuck until 2041 instead of doing something about the Upper Churchill deal now, either directly by government power or by a renegotiation with the Government of Quebec? Why is this government insisting that there is nothing that we can do about the Upper Churchill until the year 2041?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question. Again, so that we can make sure that the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and everybody else understands the answer, I have never, ever said that. The government has never, ever said that. I did not say that. I have never said it, and the fact of the matter is this. Every single option that is open to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, with respect to challenging the Upper Churchill contract, was open last year, is open today, will be open tomorrow, will be open after we sign a Gull Island contract. Every single one.

I do know of the opinions of Lawyer Hearn and others. I do know of the opinions of the retired Chief Justice LaForest about these particular implications under 92(a). We have studied them in complete detail. There are things that have been suggested for challenge before. The Royal Commission is looking at it in detail. Mr. Young is very interested in it, as is the whole Commission, as are every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

What I did say today, for greater clarity, is this: that if Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to be led to believe falsely, like they have been led to believe falsely before, that the sun will shine and have nots will be no more, that you can put a demand on Quebec and say: we will only develop the Lower Churchill if you will now immediately reopen and change the Upper Churchill contract, then there will not be a development of the Lower Churchill. That is what I said: There will not be a development of the Lower Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: I did not say there would never be a change in the Upper Churchill contract, and we are free to pursue options with respect to that at any point in time from now on into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with Section 32 of the Auditor General Act, I hereby table the report of the auditor appointed to audit the Office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is another in a series of petitions that I continually rise on and bring forward, and talk to the minister about the need for road work, and the need to upgrade and repave certain sections of the road network in my District of Bonavista South. This particular section of road which I refer to today, and which the petition refers to, is a section of road that the minister knows full well. In fact, I have had him down over it at least twice, and I have had the former minister, and the former minister before that, down over this section of road.

The whole section of road only consists of approximately six kilometres to begin with. Back five years ago we made an attempt to upgrade and repave this section of roadway leading from Birchy Cove to Bonavista. A total of six kilometres of road, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. It is five years now of attempting to complete this section of road. Every year there has been part of the work carried out. There has been ditching one year and a promise to do two kilometers this past year, only for the minister's department to change their minds and go down and do 700 metres of that section of roadway between Birchy Cove and Bonavista. Six kilometres in total in the beginning, and we are still looking to get six kilometres of that particular road done after five years, making five attempts to go down and do that particular section of road.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen schools closed in places like Upper Amherst Cove, Newmans Cove, Lower Amherst Cove. We see school students now being bused from all those communities down to Bonavista. The least we can do is provide a descent road for these buses, and seniors, and for people to go to work everyday or access government offices or health care facilities in Bonavista. The least we can do is provide them with a descent road to drive over in order to access either their place of work or their school, or in some places the only health institution in the area.

Mr. Speaker, this section of roadway has deteriorated to such an extent that you do not know if you are driving on the shoulder or in the middle of the road, because the sides of the road -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this section of road has deteriorated to the point that a lot of it is now a gravel road. So the plea from the people in the Birchy Cove, Bonavista, Upper and Middle Amherst Cove, up to King's Cove, that whole area, is to ask the minister to get serious about this section of roadway; go down there, complete it, and allow the people in the area a descent road to drive over and bring it up to 2002 standards.

Thank you.

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

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

I would ask the Minister of Labour and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women to pay close attention to this particular petition that I present on behalf of my constituents. The petition reads:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador amended the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Act under section 65.1(1) to reinstate benefits to a surviving spouse whose benefits terminated on or after April 17, 1985 due to his or her remarriage; and

WHEREAS this amendment under 65.1(2) states that no interest should be paid on compensation which would have been paid from April 17, 1985 to December 31, 1992;

THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to amend this flawed, discriminatory piece of legislation that denies the rights of individuals to collect retroactive benefits with interest they are entitled to receive.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this particular piece of legislation mostly impacts women. These are individuals who - as a result of having their spouses killed in an industrial accident - were disentitled to continue to receive Workers' Compensation benefits after they remarry. In the early 1990s, it was recognized that was in contradiction and contravention of the Charter of Rights and, as such, their benefits were reinstated. They were reinstated as a result of a challenge through the appeal process of the Compensation Commission. It was reinstated as a result of the challenge to the court. They won that, and benefits, in fact, were reinstated. The irony is that benefits which were reinstated and were paid back to January of 1993 did, in fact, pay not only the benefits, but the interest that was due those individuals on the amount of money that they were receiving.

Mr. Speaker, when this particular amendment was made, I believe the House did not intentionally discriminate against these women, but I think it missed a significant point. This was money that was owed to individuals and withheld. In fact, it would suggest that this money was withheld from them and should have been paid because it was their right to have it under the Freedom of Rights in this country. Unlike other debts government may have and they decided to, at some later date, reimburse people the money that might have been owed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to conclude?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

Just in concluding, I want to suggest that the minister consider this particular request, different than other requests, because this was money that was owed, and deemed to be owed, as a part of the Charter and these individual rights. I would ask that special consideration be given and that the interest be also paid to those individuals, in addition to the retroactive payment, but also they should receive the due interest.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time and consideration.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, a couple of things before we get into the Orders of the Day. The hon. the Member for Quidi Vidi submitted a resolution yesterday and asked if the House were prepared to approve that legislation immediately -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of things, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi yesterday submitted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. LUSH: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi yesterday submitted a resolution and asked whether or not the House would be prepared to approve the legislation immediately, and I said I wanted to see it. I just tell the Opposition House Leader that I have taken a look at it and we are prepared to give it approval. He might want a little more time. We could do it a little later in the afternoon.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be general agreement on both sides of the House with respect to the resolution that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has submitted to the Table and to private members yesterday for our perusal. If there is unanimity, then let's do it now is my view. Let's move ahead. Let the will of the House express itself immediately if there is unanimity, and I believe there is. So, if the Government House Leader and members opposite are prepared to do that, we certainly are as well.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the Government House Leader, I reiterate what was said by the Opposition House Leader, and there is a reason why perhaps we should do it earlier rather than later. There is a debate going on, as we speak, in the House of Commons about this issue and I think it would be timely if we could consider this now and perhaps have one speaker from each party here speak to it for five minutes or less, and then we could notify the people in Ottawa that this resolution has been passed. I think it would be timely to do it now, or if you want to pass it without debate I am satisfied to do that as well.

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since we are all agreed, there is no need to debate. We will just put the vote and approve the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution, as presented by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the resolution, ‘nay'.

On motion, resolution carried.

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

MR. HARRIS: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, could the record show that the resolution was passed unanimously by this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

Resolution carried unanimously.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of the following bills and, rather than do them one at a time, I will just name for Your Honour the bills that we want read a first time. They are as follows: Motion 4, (Bill 22); Motion 6, (Bill 30); Motion 7, (Bill 24); Motion 8, (Bill 26); Motion 10, (Bill 23); and Motion 11, (Bill 29).

I move first readings of these bills, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act," carried. (Bill 22)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders," carried. (Bill 30)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Service to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Cancer Treatment And Research Foundation Act, The Health And Community Services Act, The Hospitals Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 And The Vital Statistics Act," carried. (Bill 24)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association Act," carried. (Bill 26)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province," carried. (Bill 23)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 3," carried. (Bill 29)

On motion, Bills 22, 30, 24, 26, 23 and 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 7, Bill 15, the resumption of adjourned debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a few additional comments on this particular bill here. I know everybody, I am sure, in the House is interested in promoting safer driving and reducing accidents on our highways because I know there are not too many families and people who have not, in some way, been affected by accidents, either of a minor or a serious nature.

It makes me wonder, when you look at this bill and it says it is now illegal, basically, to have a cellular phone held in your hand, or speaking on the phone, when you are driving; I guess the use of them. Holding them in your hand probably might not be an offence, or maybe it is. Hand-held phones now are illegal.

What happens if you are holding a tape recorder or you are holding one of those two-way radios, CBs we used to have in cards years ago, or if you are eating an ice cream, or you have a dog in your lap as you are driving down the road? All these types of things, I might add and I say to the minister, can be an equally, if not greater, danger.

AN HON. MEMBER: If it is going to save one life (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, and I support it if we think it is going to prevent it, but is there legislation there? I asked the minister a few questions yesterday. I asked him: Isn't there legislation there right now, under the Highway Traffic Act, for imprudent or careless driving, that the officer can determine that to be imprudent driving, or careless driving, and issue a ticket for that purpose right now? I understand it is there.

I asked the minister, knowing this was coming, have they looked at police reports of accidents, and tried to get some indication of the contributing factor to accidents? If there is, I would like to see him table it here and put it forth.

I have asked him if he could put forth his research on this subject so we can see it. I know several members on his side who spoke were passed around - I think I saw several sheets being passed around for speaking. We haven't seen any of the basic research or any information put forth by this minister to us to show whether that is positive.

What about taxi drivers who need communication in doing their job? We know courier services use cellphones a fair amount.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are not banning (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, we are not. I will say to the minister, I am not saying we did. If she had listened to my comments yesterday, she would know I didn't say that. That is exempt, that is not included here. I made that reference. I am saying, these people use communications in their jobs. Courier people with messages and various things especially use them, and cellphones a great degree too. It is part of their job. All of those things add to your working day. Sometimes you receive a call, you pull in on the side of a busy street to make a call, and that might be more dangerous, pulling in in heavy traffic and obstructing, than probably proceeding in some cases.

So, it is an area that is not black and white, it is not cut and dried.

There is nobody in this Province against improving safety out there, nobody whosoever, but it is not an all encompassing safety measure by this minister. It is a very, very inclusive, a very small little tip of the iceberg to look at overall safety on our highways. Safety on our highways can be enhanced by ticketing people who are going half the speed limit on faster highways, or people who are going twice the speed limit, or people moving back and forth across the line for various reasons, whether it is looking at a book or a newspaper or smoking a cigarette. Lots of times accidents have occurred because someone dropped a cigarette and went to retrieve it; all of these types of items. So, should it be illegal to have a cigarette in your hand while you are driving?

MR. NOEL: It is in Germany.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister says it is in Germany, but not in this Province.

I am asking the minister: Has he looked at all aspects of safe driving? If he has, when he gets up to speak on the closing of this bill in second reading - I am sure in committee there will be lots of other questions we have to ask the minister on specific areas. I hope many of these will get addressed when he closes debate in second reading, some time today or tomorrow or the next day - well, not tomorrow, Private Members' Day - whenever he gets a chance to finish debate on this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, he hasn't convinced me, even though I think it would enhance safety and I think, in all probability, I will support this bill, but he hasn't convinced me and given me reasons why, from research and evidence, and he hasn't answered the bigger question, the bigger part of overall safety on our highways.

One of my colleagues, I think, made reference to it. The Works, Services and Transportation Minister: Wouldn't you think it would improve safety on our highways if we had work crews coming to work earlier in the year, in a climate like Newfoundland and Labrador, getting maybe a two-shift system or whatever, getting the highways sanded and salted earlier? Wouldn't that enhance safety more than the cellphone? There are some of the fundamental issues. Because we have a law on the books doesn't mean it is going to improve safety, Mr. Speaker.

The police forces have to have the resources to enforce that. They have to have the resources to do that. They have to have the resources to carry out their job. Today there is a very big strain on resources. Are there adequate people to do policing and protection for people? There seem to be increased numbers of break-ins, in some neighbourhoods in particular, as we have seen in the media lately. We have had CBS saying that we need high representation, and efforts were made in those areas.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I am not sure what he is saying across the way, but he did have an opportunity to speak on the bill. I certainly hope, in the next stage of this bill, Mr. Speaker, that he will get up and talk about the issues of safety pertaining to his department, on our highways. The condition of roads is one of the biggest factors. The proper sanding and salting and clearing of roads is one of the biggest factors in safety, and I would rate that ahead of cellphones or any other single thing in the Province. It is in the power of that minister to see that safety is carried out on our highways. That is a big factor.

Conditions of roads, potholes in roads. Roads eating away on the side, lack of pavement, ignoring infrastructure where we have gone from $14 million to (inaudible) to $20 million a year when we used to be spending $45 million and $50 million. We have left things so long. We used it for all other interests, and infrastructure suffers. That contributes to unsafe highways, Mr. Speaker, and they are more telling than many of the particular instances we are debating here.

Maybe we should be debating here in this House improved highway maintenance because in a climate like Newfoundland and Labrador it can be treacherous. I heard the minister on the radio - granted, sure, we cannot expect a truck to be in every place all at the one time, no doubt about it, but we do know that there has been a cutback in the number of vehicles in numerous areas. The equipment does not get up and running enough because of manpower resources. They are working on equipment that they cannot put on roads because they do not have the manpower to get it ready and working. That is happening. I think we should be focusing on areas within our direct control; areas where we can make an improvement in and a better service for the people on our highways. These are important things.

Last year it would have been advisable - and I think it might be done this year. It would have been advisable last year when a busload of fifteen, sixteen and seventeen-year-olds came into a hockey game in the Goulds and came in on the Witless Bay Line, and it was not getting plowed. They drove in and it got so deep - they shoveled all day long until nighttime. Later that night, hours and hours and hours later - not plowed and no sign up saying: road closed. If they are not going to plow it - and I think it is getting resolved this year. I spoke with officials, I might say, to the minister in the department. This is the type of thing that affects safety. There should be a notice. If you are not going to plow it or you are not going to maintain it, you shut it down and if you are going to keep it open, you maintain it properly. These are some of the things that are very important to people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try to keep (inaudible) line opened up.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. If you put a highway there and you paved it and it is a thoroughfare for businesses, for trucks driving across there, there are people going to work - a person going to work from Witless Bay and have to drive to Whitbourne to go to work across the Witless Bay Line. Trucks use it, stores, fish businesses, and you name it. Transport trucks and deliveries frequent that particular area. It is an important artery for access to and from my district. It is the only access to my district, basically, from that end without going through the City of St. John's. Could the minister tell me how we can get from that end -

MR. BARRETT: Take the bypass road. Come in the arterial road and go to the Gould's bypass. You should visit your district.

MR. SULLIVAN: You come off that bypass road, I say to the minister, and you go into the City of St. John's. From the end of that bypass road right into Middle Pond to Bay Bulls is the City of St. John's; plow that and they are responsible. You cannot get to Bay Bulls without going through the City of St. John's and going on their roads. If you can do it, tell me.

If Witless Bay Line is closed you have to go St. Mary's Bay, Trepassey and drive for four hours and come back to Bay Bulls. That is not correct, the minister does not know what he is talking about. He does not know it. I will give him an opportunity to stand up and tell me how he can do it. Tell me where the road is that can get me to Bay Bulls without going through the City of St. John's. I will sit down and give you time if you want to stand up and tell me. You cannot do it. It cannot be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Goulds bypass.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is saying the Goulds bypass. Does he know where the Goulds bypass is, I wonder? He does not even know where it is, probably. You come off the Goulds bypass and you go into the City of St. John's. You drive for several kilometres into the City of St. John's until you get to the town limits of the City of St. John's. Bay Bulls-Big Pond is within the town limits. I am saying that the City of St. John's roads, if they are not maintained, we cannot get access to my district without going through the City of St. John's; we cannot. If you want to use the Witless Bay Line, it is closed. They were given orders not to go in and do it on weekends. In other words, if someone is driving a transport truck and is working for a living, do not go on a road in this Province. Do not use it on a weekend. Stop and call ahead and say: Is this road open? Barricade it if you are not going to use it. Barricade it and do not put people at risk.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, by leave, for a few closing comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few minutes to talk about this new progressive legislation, this Bill 15. It is a very short bill. It does not encompass a lot. It does not read a lot of pages but it is a very important bill in this Province. Important, I think, in the respect that only just in the last two weeks I have heard of two very serious accidents in this Province that occurred while a driver was on a cellphone. I think this is very timely and I am very glad it is being brought to the House now, that we are being the first in the country to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: In listening to the Member for Ferryland, who just finished speaking, it was really interesting -

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to be first in some financial reports.

MS KELLY: The Member for Ferryland says he would like to be first in some financial reports. Well, that just goes to show what he thinks of public safety, I think, because this is a really important issue that really is not frivolous.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to withdraw that remark, making indications that I am not in favour of public safety. That is wrong. I have been on the record here in this House and she should stop making impugning motives and making direct attacks on this particular matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the minister.

MS KELLY: No, there is obviously no point of order.

But, in listening to his remarks, which I did do when he was speaking, he seemed to be talking about a lot of other issues besides cellphones. A lot of the issues were important, I acknowledge. He was talking about issues of public safety, when snowplows should be operating and then he got into break-ins in neighbourhoods and that, but I would like to say that I would like to speak specifically to this bill.

This is an important bill that I think all of us should be very concerned about getting through this House in an expedient manner. This has been an area of concern, actually, since the inception of cellphones back in the early 1990s. I think when they first came, they had very limited usage and they were not used as much in cars. Now that they have become a part of our every day life we have to realize that there are some problems with them that do need addressing.

When you see the result of a poll that was done by the minister's department, talking to the public and consulting the public about this, and when you realize that 95 per cent of Newfoundlanders agree that we ought to do something about hand-held cellphones in cars, I think it is time for us to act. They are a very serious diversion. I think that when you read comments like was in The Telegram - I believe it was last spring. I remember reading it there - where it said: When people drive a momentary lapse of concentration can have devastating consequences. You only have to talk to any health care professional - be it a doctor, a nurse, or anyone else who works in a hospital - to realize that they see the very serious consequences of what happens when hand-held cellphones are used in cars inappropriately.

I think the Canadian Medical Association were one of the first associations in Canada to go on record to ask governments in this country to ban the use of cellphones in cars. I think also the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Senior Citizens in recent years have brought it before their membership and they have agreed that this is a very dangerous practice and that something ought to be done about it, and this government is doing something about it.

I think that most individuals do not have a problem with cellphones being in a car. The problem they have is the inappropriate usage. I know I have heard of many instances where cellphones have been very, very useful instruments when they are used appropriately, especially in the case of emergencies; especially in an instance where you might be stranded on a highway; in the case of an emergency situation with your vehicle; or an emergency situation that you have witnessed, where someone has gone off the road and there has been a serious injury. Oftentimes, having that cellphone before the 1990s, it might have taken hours before you could have gotten to a phone to call for emergency care. Now with the use of a cellphone you can often have help there in the matter of minutes. It has saved countless lives, but the use of a hand-held cellphone has also caused the end of many lives. I think it is time that this was addressed, and that is the whole purpose of this proposed legislation. I think the benefits of cellphones in emergency situations have been very clearly documented, but I think we also know, as I have said, that they have caused some very serious problems also.

Also, we should point out that government is not doing this for the sake of penalizing people. I think government expects compliance, especially when 95 per cent of the people of this Province have said that we ought to be concerned about the use of hand-held cellphones. We know that penalties are not what is important here; compliance is what is important here.

I think you will see that in this Province, as we have seen with the use of seatbelts - because of the recognition and the intelligence of the general public, we will see that people will be curtailing their use and will not be using hand-held cellphones. We will probably have a very high compliance rate as we have had with seatbelts in this country. This Province has had one of the highest rates of compliance, after the introduction of seat belt legislation, of any province in this country and, as a matter of fact, has one of the highest rates of compliance in the world. We hope that this will be true also of this new cellphone legislation.

In closing, I want to commend the Minister of Government Services and Lands for bringing forward this very progressive bill that I am very proud to stand and support.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I, too, am delighted to stand today and offer a few comments on this particular bill, Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, an act to try to address some of the safety issues that come about when there is unwise use of cellphones while people are driving. In doing so, I acknowledge that I have had discussions with the minister on various occasions on this particular topic. I also acknowledge that I have talked with members of the medical community in particular. The minister just mentioned the Canadian Medical Association. I have had some of their reports that have been forwarded to me, and also, of course, the American Medical Association. They, too, have addressed this issue in some of their literature.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the influence of cellphones on driver situation awareness. In that connection, I want to share with members one piece of research done in England by Andrew Parkes in the transport research laboratory in England. He did a fairly extensive study on the use of cellphones and the influence that they have on driver performance. He did find that there were significant changes in driver performance, particularly at the beginning stages of a telephone conversation. Apparently the research shows that there is a greater liability for accidents in the first two minutes of the conversation.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that there is a lot of research that shows that there is not a great deal of difference between hand-held cellphones and those cellphones that are hands-free. In fact, I have a hands-free cellphone in my vehicle. I had it there for some time, and certainly I use it from time to time. I try to use it as wisely as I can. In fact, this very morning I was driving out over the Outer Ring Road and I was going to make a telephone call and I said: No, I do not need to do that.

Partly, this is because of the debate we are having here. It is called awareness. Be more publicly aware that if you do not need to make that telephone conversation at a particular point in time then maybe you should not. Maybe we should not. Although I do have a hands-free set in my vehicle, this morning I said: No, I do not need to be doing this right now. I should be concentrating on the driving task at hand. Partly, that is because we all have become a little more aware, a little more sensitive and using a little more common sense, you might say, in our driver performance.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the study by Andrew Parkes. I have a lot of research that I have been able to do on this particular topic and would be quite willing to share it with members of the House. I did mention that the most dangerous part is indeed the conversation itself. It is not the equipment; it is the conversation that distracts the driver. That has been well researched and has been attested to by any number of writers and researchers who have looked at this particular topic.

Mr. Speaker, a survey in the United States revealed that the vast majority - 84 per cent - of cellphone users believe that using a phone is a distraction and increases the likelihood of an accident. That research was done in 1999, and there has been a lot more research since that. However, the same respondents who responded to that particular survey also reported that 61 per cent of them used their cellphones while driving around and 30 per cent of them acknowledged they use the cellphone rather frequently. So, Mr. Speaker, even though they acknowledged that cellphone use - 84 per cent of them thought it was a distraction, yet 61 per cent of them use their cellphone sometimes and 30 per cent of them use it quite often.

Mr. Speaker, this is why we have to try to address the issue of safety. I acknowledge that the research shows in Italy, the country of Italy, only hands-free phones are allowed under the laws of Italy. We also acknowledge that there are laws in countries like Portugal, Denmark, Hungary and Spain, addressing the issue of the use of cellphones while driving. Outside of Europe, a hand-held prohibition exists in Israel, in Malaysia, and in some states of the United States.

We might be the first in Canada to go in this direction but we are certainly not the first in the world. There are many more jurisdictions, other countries which have adopted laws similar to the laws we are adopting today. In fact, in some countries there are laws against using cellphones period, for any kind of use, whether they are hand-held or hands-free.

Mr. Speaker, also there is research that shows the difficulty centres around what we call the situation awareness. When people are driving while using their phone, they are not paying attention to the traffic behind them in some cases. Research will show that. The drivers have difficulty maintaining a clear picture of the traffic situation around them while they are talking on the phone. Although the conversation is distracting, the research will show that in some cases it can lead to very serious situations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with members as well, in the time allocated to me, some of the poll results that I have here. It is a document called: In-Vehicle Technologies: Experience & Research. I will share with the House some of the research. This research was done in the U.S. and I will just pose a certain number of questions. I tell members the number of respondents and what the responses were. For example, to the question: Is it safe to talk on a cellphone while driving? The survey they did in this particular study had 1,069 respondents. It is interesting that to the question: Is it safe to use a cellphone while driving? Twenty-two percent of the respondents said that it was safe, but 75 per cent said it was not safe. So, of the people participating in the survey - 1,069 people - 75 per cent of these people said: No, it is not safe to use a cellphone while you are driving.

The second question in the survey said: Which of the following is your biggest safety concern associated with cellphone use while driving? In other words, what is your big concern? It is interesting that there were 988 people who responded to that particular question. Twenty-eight per cent said their greatest concern was the actual process of dialing the number; 2 per cent said it was actually answering the phone itself; 36 per cent said that they had difficulty holding a conversation; and 34 per cent said that the use of a cellphone caused them trouble when they began to write down notes while talking and holding a conversation while they were driving.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that there is whole range of difficulty that people experience. Some people thought the biggest problem was the actual dialing process. Some people thought it was answering the phone itself. Others thought the conversation was the difficulty. Then, other related tasks like trying to find a number in your notebook, trying to write down information that is given to you on the phone, while at the same time trying to be aware of the traffic all around you and also being aware of the traffic that is behind you as well. Therefore, you have safety risks that are brought on by the use of the cellphone.

It is interesting that, on another question: Under what conditions would you feel it is safe to use a cellphone? Sixty-four per cent said it is never safe; 29 per cent said, when driving under light traffic conditions like on open road, but 7 per cent thought it was safe any time at all.

Mr. Speaker, the great majority of people in this survey did indicate that they would be supportive of this kind of legislation that is brought forward here by the minister in this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to draw attention to the question that was asked in the same survey: Have you ever witnessed or experienced a close call or crash resulting from a driver using a cellular phone or from your personal use with a cellphone?

It is interesting that 16 per cent of the people in this survey of 540 people said they had witnessed an actual crash that resulted from the use of a cellphone; 64 per cent said that they had witnessed a close call. So we do know from the research that there is a concern. The driving public has concerns with the use of cellphones.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to, as well, address an issue of public education, because the survey also says that the great majority of people believe that if we had a better educational program that people would be more aware of the safety issues. Many people use a cellphone and they are not aware of the risks they take with themselves and those who might be in the car with them.

Mr. Speaker, the research, then, is clear. It shows that most people will support the initiatives that the minister brought forward in this amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. The minister's bill is grounded in actions taken in other countries. It is also supported by the Canadian Medical Association, and it brought in research by the US Medical Association, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister, however, that it is very important that he have a very good public relations program on this particular matter. This is something where we would support. We do not need the minister to put out a big ad where his picture takes up half the space, like the Premier did, but we do need for the public to know the research. As my colleagues have said, I wish the minister would share with us, as well, some of the research that he has referenced on several occasions with a percentage of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, but he has not shared that research with the House as my research had to be obtained through other sources.

I would have liked the minister, when he was tabling his bill, to have sent around to all members the questions that were asked in the surveys that he refers to and what the results were, as you can get from other sources. You can read the question, you can see how it was categorized and you can see the responses that were made to it. We should not have to rely on the research done elsewhere. If the minister has the research, then he should be willing to circulate it to all members. As a matter of fact, he should be willing to circulate it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and share with them the research that he has done when he was doing the background work to this particular piece of legislation.

So, I say to the minister, the general public of Newfoundland and Labrador will probably support this particular piece of legislation. We, on this side, will give it support as well because it is an issue of safety. Someone said earlier: If we can save one life, then this is worth it. Also, the public needs to know how others feel about using cellphones. Again I repeat that, although this particular piece of legislation is only dealing with the hand-held, we are still letting the hands-free use of cellphones continue. The research does not show much difference between hand-held use of cellphones and hands-free. Although, I agree with the minister this is a first step in the process, but the minister, I know, is well aware of the other side of the research, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to note here that it will take a little while for the public, I do believe, to get used to this particular change. So, we need to have some lead time.

Also, I do have concerns about losing four demerit points on your driver's licence initially. I think that is a bit rough at the beginning. I think there should be a graduated loss of points, that the first case where you have a ticket, you might lose two points on your driver's licence and then gradually you could lose more points if you have repeated offences. I do understand that the decision is up to the court. I do not think the decision on the demerit points though is left for the judge to decide. That is automatic. If you have a conviction, then you will lose four demerit points. I think that if there was a gradual lost of points then it might be just as effective to the enforcement of this particular piece of legislation.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I generally support this piece of legislation, saying to the minister that it is grounded on good research. However, I would like for him to share the research that he has, that was done in Newfoundland and Labrador, and also to remind him again that this particular piece of legislation should not result in immediate enforcement until we have had time to make the general public of Newfoundland and Labrador adequately aware, and that might take a little time. It might take several months. We have to have time for people to know that they should not be using their cellphones while they are driving, and also to let people know that, not only is the hand-held phone a cause of driver safety issues, but even hands-free can cause difficulties as well. The difficulties is not necessarily in the technology, the difficulty is in the holding of the conversation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak in support of Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Speaker, as others have said, both on this side of the House and on the opposite side of the House, this is a very specific and a very focused piece of legislation, which has one intent only, which is to increase the safety of the people on our highways by prohibiting the use of hand-held cellular phones by people while they are driving. It seems a little bit unusual in a sense, that with a bill with that simple an intent, that it would take this length of time to have the kind of debate that we have on legislation in this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to many of the speakers who have spoken here over the last two days, yesterday and today, and in essence the majority that I have heard, in fact all that I have heard, have supported this legislation. I am pleased to heard that people have supported the legislation, know what it is intended to do, and say that it is a good thing to do. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of time that has been taken in referring to a whole host of other issues, which I certainly do not intend to go into today.

I think all of us today who have used cellphones recognize that they are a very much a convenience for us. They are certainly a mode of communication that we appreciate, and we know that they enhance our convenience and in many cases are safety, but when they are put in our hands at the time when one is driving, then it certainly doesn't enhance safety. In fact, the statistics show that it is quite the opposite of that. I have to say that, even as recently as today, Mr. Speaker, when I was traveling, just a couple of hours before I came into the House this morning, I had the unfortunate experience of having a car pull out of a stop sign directly in front of me, and the person wasn't even looking at me. They did have a hand-held cellular phone and they were carrying on a vigorous conversation. Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of things that happen with this, and that is why, I think, four out of five Canadians suggest that this is the right thing to do, that they would prefer not to have people distracted and engaged in conversations of whatever nature on a telephone, using their hands when they are supposed to be behind the wheel of a car and driving safely.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, our Highway Safety Act can pick up and note driving that is unsafe and give our police force the ability to deal with that in many other circumstances. That is quite legitimate and I support that as well. Mr. Speaker, in this case, with the rate of expansion of cellular phone use and knowing, particularly, that more and more people and more and more young people are using these telephones as a primary source of communication, I think it is very important that we set a standard now for how they should be applied when it comes to driving.

Mr. Speaker, everyone who has spoken has had an experience with hand-held cellular phones, whether it is their own experience or someone who they have observed using them or someone close to them. I believe, as the Minister of Fisheries has indicated, if this action that we are taking to put a piece of legislation in place will result in us saving one life, if it will result in one less injury, if it will result in one less accident, for the sake of just keeping the phone call until you pull over to the side, making that phone call at that time, or shutting it off while you are actually driving a car, then I think that it is quite worth doing.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up a lot of time here this afternoon. I know that there is tremendous support for this piece of legislation. I have had many, many of my constituents and other people in the Province who have enquired about it since it was introduced in the fall, and people want us to move on with this, they think it is the right thing to do. I believe, likewise, it is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to stand and support it today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I want to rise today to make a few points on this. I won't prolong the debate much further. I would say to the minister, I agree this is an important and a serious matter. Many people in this House have already given their points in the debate that has gone on in this House today and yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and there are some serious concerns. We all, obviously, are going to support this bill, but at the same time I think it is important to know from the minister - I hope that when the minister closes the debate today that he will answer some of the questions that were raised by my colleagues on both sides of the House, some of the concerns with the research that has been done. This is new ground for all of us, and this will be the first province in Canada. It is, I understand, in one state of the United States now, minister. Is that right? There were reports that there were twenty states in the United States that have already done this, but I understand there is one and that is New York State.

For all of us who have used cellphones since they have come into play - because it is still fairly new when we talk about cellphones. I know myself, from my own experience - and that is where we can gain the most knowledge, I guess, from our own experience with cellphone use over the years - for myself, and for many members in this House, we travel quite a bit on the highways. I am certainly as guilty as anybody else of using a cellphone, a hand-held cellphone. There is no use in denying that. We have experienced it travelling on the highway, but there is a difference in travelling on the highway and in-town and in-city use. There is a lot of knowledge to be learned about the differences when we are travelling at speeds of 100 kilometres an hour or eighty kilometres an hour on the highway as opposed to driving around the city, like the minister mentioned today, with people going through stop signs and red lights.

We have seen it all, and nobody in this House likes to hear of one single accident. I think one of the ministers today talked about two accidents she knows of. I think it was the Member for Gander who talked about two accidents she knows of, where they involved cellphones. We can all stand here today - and it is quite simple. If this legislation and this law can help save one life then it is worthwhile. At the same time when we say that, when we all say support it, we also have to make sure we investigate it and the research is done properly so that we do the right job if it is, and which it is, new ground for all of us. We are talking about cellphone use.

Of course cellphones, to us, have made a great convenience. I know the way I travel around my district and around the Province, and being on the road so much, certainly the convenience of cellphones and how we use them has been important to use in our daily lives. I am sure that it is important to people in business and so on. I do not think there is any argument about the convenience and use of cellphones, but also the people who have experienced the use of cellphones on highways and in our cities can give some very valuable knowledge, I say to the minister.

I am sure you have heard from your own colleagues, their own experiences with cellphones and so on. I have said to my colleague from The Straits & White Bay North: one of the hardest, most difficult things when using a cellphone, especially on the highways, is dialing the number. You have all experienced that. The 1-709 and then the other digits, that is a pretty tough thing to do. Then we talked about - and I think the minister already mentioned this - the distraction of actually getting into a heavy conversation with somebody on the cellphone. It is all a distraction.

I think the Member for Gander also noted that we stick to cellphones, but we are talking about distractions when we are driving. I always said, although we agree with this, that education in driving, period, is what needs to be improved in this Province, and not just in this Province but all across our country; education in driving in general, not just on cellphones but how we handle ourselves.

How many people in this House were drinking a coffee or eating a sandwich while driving? You talk about conversations, conversations in the car with the people who are in with you, not on a cellphone. I am sure people who have children have experienced what it is like to drive with two and three children in a car. All of these things are distractions and they all will be there. You cannot out rule and make the perfect situation because, as we know, when you get into a vehicle of any kind, of course, and there are distractions, there is always the possibility for increased accidents. That is what I think we are getting down to today, in this piece of legislation, what this is going to do to make it a little bit safer for people to drive our highways. That is what this bill is all about, and we have all agreed that if this distraction, this added distraction of using a hand-held cellphone - if this can help us improve on safety on our highways, then everybody is for it. Nobody has the monopoly on safety in this Province. We all feel that we want to be safer on our highways, especially when we see so many accidents.

I disagree with the Member for Gander. She talked about how we are straying off and talking about other incidents, but the whole idea of safety on our highways should be addressed. Cellphone use, yes.

Also, the Minister of Transportation got a little bit upset when we mentioned about the road conditions. That is certainly a distraction. That is certainly a safety hazard, especially in this Province, when you think about those variables in this particular Province of the weather conditions we have, as we see where weather conditions can change so fast. You add to that the fact of the road conditions we have throughout the Province - for example, the La Scie highway or Little Bay highway, those kind of conditions where we have potholes and you are weaving in and out throughout potholes and so on. Those are all factors. When you add to that the distraction of the cellphone, I guess, at the end of the day, everything is dangerous when you are on the highway. That is something we have to think about.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to mention to the minister the enforcement. That is something that has been brought up and it is a good point. I hope the minister is going to answer some of those questions when he stands to close debate. We all wonder about that. We all say: Yes, let's bring in the law. We will do that in this House, and it becomes law. That is step one. Now the enforcement. I think it was the Member for Kilbride who mentioned, whatever law we add on top of the laws we have today, that is an extra workload for the departments, the RNC and the RCMP in this Province. It is an extra workload; it is something added to that. I know there are strains now within our own police departments in the Province and this is something added to it. Hopefully they can handle that.

Another question that was brought up, Mr. Speaker, is the whole idea of actual enforcement. These are some questions that I had asked to me yesterday, since the debate, and some points that were brought up by people I talked to yesterday evening. How, actually, do you enforce that - just take some practical examples, Minister - on the highway?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, we are going to attempt it. I am going to ask some questions now. If the minister wants to get up and ask some questions, he can. These are just some practical questions that people ask. You are going to try your best to enforce them, but what happens on a highway at eighty kilometres or ninety kilometres an hour when you are driving on the highway and somebody is using a cellphone and a police car is coming toward you? How real is it that a police car coming toward you at 100 kilometres an hour, you are going towards it at 100 kilometres an hour, and cellphone use is going to be detected and somebody is going to be stopped on a highway for cellphone use? It is a good question. In answering his question, I am sure he must have had discussions with police officers and people who are going to be enforcing these laws. What is the practical logistical sense of how these are going to be enforced? I want to know that.

Somebody asked me: What happens in the nighttime? How do you see into a car in the nighttime? It is hard enough. So in the nighttime it is tough enough. Also, when you get on a highway at those speeds it is tough enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It is practical.

Somebody mentioned about tinted windows, but if I understand right, Minister, they are not allowed to have a tinted window on the driver's side of a car anyway. That is just something else that was thrown out.

The point is - and you could go on with a list of these, I agree. We always try to enforce things, the same as you would try and enforce drunk driving and so on. All these make it tough on the actual enforcement of this law. We would like to see it enforced, as tough as it is. Some people question the four demerit points, whether that is reasonable or not. We all say it is reasonable if it is going to protect us and put safer conditions on our highways. I do not think there is any price on that, but it all has to be within reason. Those are some of the conditions that I have had brought up to me, that I would like to ask the minister about.

In a practical sense, if we make this into law and then we pass it through our enforcement agencies - the RNC and the RCMP - the practical sense of it and how it can stand up, and how it can stand up in court, how an argument can be - the same as when the seat belt law came in. Did you have your seat belt on or not when you were stopped? How many tickets were given out with seat belts? How much research, Mr. Minister, has been done with - what stats in this particular Province are directly related to cellphones and accidents? I do not know if I heard you in your opening remarks talk about that, but you must have that, the whole question of the research you have done within our own Province and then some of it that has been done across the country, but more particularly in this Province. I would like to hear more research on the statistics in this Province of accident-related cellphone use in this Province. I think that it is what a lot of people would like to know and understand better.

Mr. Speaker, I will not go on too much longer but just to say that if this is new ground that we tread, if this is a law that we are going to put into this Province, and we hope, as we believe, that it works and that it can be enforced, that you will see other provinces take onto this and then you will see it across the land. There is no doubt in my mind that as time goes by and with technology and how it advances day to day, that you will see technology advance in ways - I know right now there are speaker-reactive cellphones and so on, and voice-reactive cellphones; those things can be done - we will see technology catch up and do something, because they want to see people continue to use their products in their cars and so on. There will be advances in that, I am sure; but, as of today, if we can make this into law in this Province, the big considerations are that the enforcement is there, it is available, and that we are going to see a true result of safety on the highway, because that is what we are all interested in, safety on the highway, no matter what we can do.

Also, some of my colleagues have mentioned, and the other side of the House have mentioned, where does it go from there? What do you add on to this? What is the next step? That is why I wanted to hear, and somebody has already asked the minister, what the plan is, how we develop this and grow with this and make it better and improve it. Because if this is our first attempt, and it is our first attempt, as far as Canada, in this Province, then what are we going to add on to this? What are we going to learn from it? We are really, I suppose, beginning a phase of enforcement and new laws on cellphones that would move across the country and, of course, enhance safety not just through this Province but throughout the country.

So, there are questions there. I would ask the minister that he make note of the research that he has done in this Province in the acts related to cellphones but also what police officers - that is what I am very interested in, Mr. Speaker, that the minister tell some of his experiences and conversations and discussions he has had with the actual enforcement people who are going to be carrying out this law. What do they see as some practical problems that they see - and also the Attorney General, what he sees of this, as standing in court? How strong a case can it be - I suppose any argument is there for any law that is broken - but how strong does he see the cases for cellphones and people who are apprehended for this particular offence in this Province?

Those are some questions. As the minister said earlier, this is short and everybody is saying the same thing but, at the same time, it is new debate. I think it is a worthwhile debate because there are many times in this House, and many people think in this Province, that we disagree on everything. Well, that is not so. As a matter of fact, there are many times, I know in the last sitting of the Legislature there were amendments to legislation brought in by the government where we have helped improve on those and, in this particular case, this is one of them. This is one where we can all stand in this House unanimously and talk: if this is something that it is going to improve safety on our highways, which we need so much improvement on, then we certainly support it. But, at the same time, Minister, when this debate goes on, it does get connected to the next debate which is the overall education of our drivers in the Province and how much is there? How much education is there?

Just to, I suppose, conclude with this short story about education of some drivers in our Province, I was coming down the Northern Peninsula this last winter and a young person had gone off the road - talking about learning how to drive and winter conditions in our Province, and education for our young people, and driving. They were off the road, tipped sideways, and I helped them out of the car. I went up and spoke to the young person. I was going to offer them a ride back to the community. They were okay. It was not a bad accident, but they were off the road. I asked her what had happened. She said: the car began to fishtail and of course I hit the brake as hard as I could. Now, we all know that is the wrong thing to do in that circumstance. The point is, that there are many parts of education for our young drivers, and our older drivers. The people who are so-called experienced drivers could learn a lot from proper driving education.

As we talk about improving driving practices within our Province by taking away a distraction such as a cellphone, it is also good to think that if government is starting on this step, that they can also keep moving along with the education of our drivers. Some of the young drivers courses that are throughout the Province, they all enhance safety; and of course less accidents, less people who are hurt in accidents in this Province.

That is why we support it, Mr. Speaker. That is why we believe that this debate was worthwhile, for people to make legitimate points, to get the minister thinking on some different points of view. I am sure he has taken notes as the debate went on because I have watched him. I am sure he has thought about some other new things. That is why debate is worthwhile in this House and that is why we all should take the time to have input, whether it is five minutes, ten minutes or fifteen minutes, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I hope the minister takes notes of some of these. I hope he answers some of the questions that were put forward in the last two days on this particular piece of legislation and lets us know about his research in this Province where people are going to have to enforce those laws.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is certainly with pleasure that I rise today to support this particular bill and to congratulate the minister for having the foresight to introduce it into the House of Assembly last fall. Keeping in mind, Mr. Speaker, that when it was introduced last fall that we were leading the country in terms of implementing a ban against hand-held cellphone devices in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is with some interest that I look at this in terms of when the Canadian Medical Association in 1999 passed a resolution asking governments to place a ban on the use of cellphones to protect innocent individuals who are out there abiding by the rules of the road, driving with prudence and care. It is interesting to note, too, that members opposite are always interested in statistics. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that my wife and I are examples of statistics. Some seven years ago we were broadsided by an individual while on a cellphone; drove directly through a stop sign smashing into my vehicle, totally demolishing it, causing both of us to end up in the hospital.

Mr. Speaker, when you look and ask about statistics, I think you can talk to quite a few people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who have had some very traumatic experiences being in an accident while somebody was using a cellphone. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that a cellphone has its place, but in this particular piece of legislation we are saying that while you are driving you should not and must not be using a cellphone, a hand-held device.

It is also quite interesting that some of the members opposite are concerned that you may not be able to see a cellphone in the dark. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, concerned that you may not be able to see a cellphone at night. The fact of the matter is, that this government has recognized that it is a problem in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and all of the statistics will show, and all the information will show, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want this particular device banned while driving. This particular government, and the Minister of Government Services and Lands, has the foresight to bring this legislation here to the House so that it can be put into law and that people will not be permitted to use hand-held devices while they are driving.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is kind of late to talk about statistics. I mean this has been talked about since the 1990s, placing a ban on using cellphones while driving, and this government listens. We do what people want us to do. In this particular case, to place a ban on cellphones while driving.

It is quite interesting that all of the members opposite support this piece of legislation. Think about it, everybody in the House supports this piece of legislation, but every single one opposite wants to get up and talk about it.

I have been sitting here since yesterday and today - and there is not much time left, an hour-and-a-half or so in this day. Just think about it, Mr. Speaker, we spent almost two parliamentary days now talking about something that everybody agrees on. So, it is kind of interesting. Make no wonder that the people who are out there watching this on TV are saying: What are they doing? They have some twenty-three pieces of legislation that they want to talk about and they are going to spend two days talking about a piece that everybody agrees with. It is absolutely amazing.

Now the members opposite are over there heckling, saying: What am I doing? I am doing the same thing that they are doing in a sense -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: - that I have to get up and say to the people of the Province how ludicrous this is. How ludicrous is it that all of us in this House agree that this legislation should be passed but yet, everybody gets up on these? There is no need, Mr. Speaker. If we all agree and we all understand what we are doing, but nobody wants to stand up and say that everybody wants to get on TV here. Basically, that is what it is about, Mr. Speaker. The real thing about this is, we want to put through a piece of legislation here that is in the best interest of the people that we serve.

The Opposition can, if they wish, go through this particular piece of legislation right now. Let's get on with the job that we were elected to do here, and not get into a situation where everybody agrees on a piece of legislation that you have to get up and talk on it. If you have any questions on the legislation, that can all be done in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't even asked a question, have you?

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Here is what is interesting now. One member said: You have not had a question yet. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know the difference, that in second reading you do not ask questions. Questions are asked in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support this legislation as well as everybody else who has spoken here, but my voice in this particular matter is this, that we have a job to do here. So, if it is good for the people of the Province, that it should be done, and everybody agrees that it should be done, then we should get on with the job.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand in this House of Assembly and have a few words on Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

I am kind of pleased, actually, to be following the Member for Topsail and listening to the comments that he has made. I listened to a lot of people over the past two days. This is only our second day in this House of Assembly for this sitting, and the Member for Topsail was questioning why so many Members in the House of Assembly are getting up to speak on this piece of legislation. I should remind the Member for Topsail that we are Members of the House of Assembly. We are here to speak on legislation. Constituents in our ridings want to hear what we have to say on any given piece of legislation, why we support it or why we do not support it. That is what we are all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: If the Member for Topsail has a problem with that, then maybe he should have a look at where he is sitting.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on the record with respect to this piece of legislation. As I said, there have been many members speak before me on this piece of legislation and they made some very good points. I want to say upfront that I, basically, support this bill. I want to commend the Minister of Government Services and Lands for introducing this piece of legislation. To a certain extent I want to commend the minister, but there were members on this side of the House who made some very good points.

The Member for Ferryland - all made good points - but a couple of points I want to address is the fact that the Member for Ferryland and the Member for St. John's East talked about this legislation actually being covered now under the Highway Traffic Act. The results of this legislation could be covered under the Highway Traffic Act if it was being enforced. The RNC or the RCMP can actually now pull someone over if they feel - and give them tickets - the driver is driving in a reckless or unsafe manner. He can issue tickets at this point in time. But, from the other perspective - from the perspective, I suppose, of the Minister of Government Services and Lands - if we can take one unsafe situation off the highways where it tends to cause accidents, well then that in itself, I suppose, is reason enough to bring in a piece of legislation here.

Another point that the minister made, Mr. Speaker, when he was on his feet introducing this legislation was the fact that we are the first Province to be introducing such legislation to ban the use of cellphones while driving automobiles in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to say that it is good to see, for a change, that we are upfront and the first to be doing something. So often we see this Province following other provinces when they are introducing certain legislation, regardless of what it may be. It is felt oftentimes that if other provinces are doing it, it must be good, therefore we should do it. That is not necessarily the case all the time but in this situation it is good to see that the minister has the foresight to bring in this legislation, to introduce this legislation.

The Minister of Education, when she was on her feet, Mr. Speaker, made the comment that this is a public safety issue, to ban the use of cellphones in automobiles, and I agree with her, but there are two aspects of this public safety issue, of course. One is the fact that when a person is using a cellphone they can be distracted and may very well cause an accident, but if the statistics are right there are some 3 million cellphone calls made to 911 each year from cellphones in automobiles on highways or whatever the case may be when there is an accident.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I was involved in an accident some two years ago on the Trans Canada Highway. It had nothing to do with a cellphone, but I wanted to make the point that I was involved in an accident and went off the road. An individual came along and stopped, helped, and made a call from the cellphone to call an ambulance and the RCMP at the time. So, there are two aspects of it from a public safety issue, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also mentioned with respect to having discussions with insurance companies, with respect to the use of cellphones and accidents and the number of accidents when people are using cellphones and it is used as a distraction. What we need to know, I think, Mr. Speaker, is will the insurance rates drop. If there are fewer accidents within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador because this new law is put into place by this Legislature, well then, will the rates go down? I would like the minister, when he is up concluding debate, to address that. Would he let us know, with respect to the discussions he has had with insurance companies, will there be an applicable decrease in the premiums?

MR. NOEL: How would you see enforcing that?

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister asks the question across the House, how would I see enforcing that. Well, I am not quite sure what he means by that question. What I am asking, and I am not sure if he is clear on it, is, if the accident rate goes down - and we have statistics all the time, the government uses them. So, if the statistics with respect to the accident rate goes down, well then the rates should go down, the premiums should go down. There should be studies. I would imagine he would have that information at his fingertips. He indicated, Mr. Speaker, that he has that information, so I am sure he will address that when he gets on his feet.

Also, with respect to the cellphones themselves - and the minister has stated that the hands-free cellphones will be permitted at this point in time. Now, that may be looked at in the future. As a distraction - and a number of the members here have mentioned the distraction. When you are on a cellphone you are concentrating on the discussion that is going back and forth. You have one hand on the wheel and one hand at your ear with the phone in it. So, it can be a real distraction, there is no doubt about that. The hands-free cellphones now - and it has been mentioned here also - can be used. The cost, of course, is an obstruction to a lot of people. They are more expensive than the normal cellphone. We also have cellphones, Mr. Speaker, that are voice activated. In actual fact you can have an incoming call and you can answer and not have to touch the phone, or you can actually send out a call and not have to touch the phone either. You can have an earpiece and a little speaker. As a matter of fact Mr. Speaker, that is what I have personally at this point in time. I saw it some time ago, when these new phone came out, as a safety factor there was nothing could touch them, I suppose.

I mean, you talk about distractions in a car, some people mentioned here that maybe we should be looking at even banning the hands-free or the voice activated phones, but I have a bit of a problem with that. Oftentimes you have a passenger in the car, you are talking back and forth with the passenger and you would be looking away from the highway, whereas if you had the cellphone you would still be looking straight ahead on a conversation, so it would not be as distracting as a passenger in the car.

The Member for Ferryland mentioned about having pets in a car and how they could be very distracting to an individual. We have all seen it, people driving along with animals, cats, dogs or whatever the case might be, in their laps, with their head out the window causing a major, major distraction, Mr. Speaker. I have often wondered how they could be doing this. They might have a child in the back seat in a chair or a safety seat and have a dog or a cat running around the automobile. Again, it may sound foolish but it is factual. That is what happens out there.

There are many distractions. For example, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about the weather conditions on the highways. Weather conditions and road conditions have been mentioned here also. Again, it is a distraction. How far do we go? Are the Minister of Government Services and Lands or the Minister of Justice now going to put something in place that will penalize the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation if the roads are not done properly? It happens all the time. It was only this past Sunday - not this past Sunday, the Sunday before - that I drove out the new Outer Ring Road and came down on a ramp Sunday morning, between 10:00 and 10:30, and the roads were not even touched; not sanded, salted or plowed, nothing. So, is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation responsible for this? Are there enough plows on the road? Is there enough money being spent on salting and sanding the roads in the winter conditions? I know in my district, every winter and every fall when we start getting the bad weather, we have lineups from the top of Piper Stock Hill in Torbay back 3 kilometers because of salting and sanding. We have had talks about the mixtures changing with respect to the ratio with the salt to the sand over the past few years. Who is responsible? That is a distraction in itself, the road conditions, the weather conditions.

People smoking, lighting cigarettes; people eating in their cars as they drive along; people having a coffee. You see many people in the mornings - I do, driving by on Torbay Road - and you will see a lineup of cars going in to get a coffee. I mean, are we going to ban that? Those are the types of things we should be looking at, playing radios. These type of things, Mr. Speaker, need to be looked at in due course, I would imagine, and I would imagine the minister will be doing that.

The minister also mentioned penalties. I think for the first offence it can be anywhere from $45 to $180, at the discretion of the judge, and you could lose four points, which is four demerits, which sounds to be pretty stiff. One of the members on this side of the House made the point that, yes, four demerits may sound pretty stiff, but if you are going to teach the public that this is a safety issue, that it is not going to be tolerated, that if you are going to be bringing in legislation, you have to put something in place that you can enforce it or help enforce. So, if a person is hauled over and they lose four points out of, I think it is a dozen, is it, twelve points you have, now that is a third gone that quickly. I think that is something that is probably a positive thing. Therefore, we should commend the minister on that, I would think.

Members on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House talked about enforcement. When they were up we heard some joking, I suppose, or challenging back and forth from both sides of the House, but enforcement is a key issue in this legislation. We bring in legislation all the time in this House of Assembly. Sometimes I wonder if we are not legislated to death in this Province, but I suppose it is our job, we have to amend legislation all the time. When you bring in new legislation here, enforce it.

The Member for Baie Verte was up a few minutes ago and he talked about: If you have two police officers coming 100 kilometres an hour on the highway and a person going along with a cellphone to his ear doing 100 kilometres, seeing that individual in itself is a challenge. In the nighttime when they are driving, again it is an impossibility. Now, there was a crack made across the House that we would have to bring in legislation to require that the cellphones would have to be illuminated. I mean, how far do you go with it? I won't say who said that, but it was a comment made across the House. So, how far do we go?

The Minister of Justice made the comment and I made the comment about being legislated to death. I mean, you can really get carried away with this stuff. So, I think what we need to be looking at - if there are distractions on the highway when people are driving, we need to look at it all. Again I have to go back to the point the Member for St. John's East made, and the Member for Ferryland made, that these safety issues, or these careless situations that people have in their cars and automobiles when they are driving along the highway or anywhere along the local roads, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, as I said, animals with their heads out the window or having a cigarette or lighting a cigarette or having a coffee or having something to eat, the police forces, as I said earlier, the RNC and the RCMP, can haul those people in and give them tickets now. They can do that at this point in time.

Really, if you are going to bring in legislation to bring one distraction to an end, well then maybe we would be looking at, and the police should be enforcing, the regulations and the laws that are there now. That brings us right around again to the point that the Opposition House Leader made with respect to the RNC and the RCMP, with respect to the staff, the cuts in the RNC over the past few years. I think in the past six or seven years they are down eighty less in number. So, how can they really do their job? How can they go out there and do the streets, we will say, and basically do the job they are supposed to do, when they don't have the staff, they don't have the officers, they don't have the vehicles. I could tell you stories in this House of Assembly that would - I was going to say curl you hair but some people might laugh - but, Mr. Speaker, that would really amuse you; the things that are going on there now with respect to the staffing, the automobiles, the equipment, and those types of things with the RNC.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would make the hair stand up on the back of your head.

MR. J. BYRNE: Someone just said, it would make the hair stand up on the back of your head. Well, that could for me.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is that this legislation is going to be supported, it is going to go through the House of Assembly. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. We will support it on this side, at least I will. I think all members who spoke so far are speaking in favour of it.

MR. NOEL: The House might be closed by the time (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Government Services and Lands says that the House may be closed before we get a chance to put this through the House of Assembly. Now, it is kind of a good point he is making there because this House of Assembly has been closed since May. It could have been open in September; it could have been open in October. Who makes that decision? It is not this side of the House that makes that decision. We could have been discussing this. It goes back again to the Member for Topsail, who is questioning members on this side of the House getting up and speaking on this legislation, which we have every right to do, and we will continue to do that. So, if the Minister of Government Services and Lands wants full debate, and if the Premier and the government want full debate on the legislation before the House of Assembly, which I imagine they would want, then they should open the House earlier.

Mr. Speaker, that is about all I have to say on this now. When the time comes, I am sure we will be voting in favour of this.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members opposite do not have to get rowdy, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to be standing on my feet for twenty minutes. Not that I do not think the bill is important, because if it was not then I would not be speaking to it. I think it is very important for the health and safety of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I do not think that I need twenty minutes to debate the merits of whether or not we should pass this bill. All you have to do, and I think everyone in the House would agree, is ask yourself this question: Is it safer to be driving with two hands on the wheel, or two hands that could be on the wheel, or is it safer to be driving with one hand on the wheel and one hand with a cellular phone shoved up to your ear? The answer to that is obvious: Safety is with two hands on the wheel.

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the bill and I commend the minister for bringing it in. I listened attentively today as each of the speakers opposite took twenty minutes to discuss this particular bill. They bring in a lot of important points, even though some of them are not really pertinent to the bill itself. For example, the Member for Ferryland said yesterday: Well, we can bring in a bill to eliminate hand-held cellular phones, but what are we going to do about dogs in people's laps? Well, the way I see it, we can start with cellular phones and we can move to the dogs next week. I agree with the Member for Ferryland in that, as far as I am concerned, that should be eliminated as well. You are driving down the highway, and you look over and see a poodle or some kind of dog stuck out through the front window, in the driver's lap. As far as I am concerned, that should be against the law too.

There are a number of other things that should be against the law when you are driving a vehicle - like eating hamburgers or, as the Member for Ferryland said yesterday, the one in the ad where he is eating two hamburgers and driving. That is nonsensical, as far as I am concerned. You do not go down the highway with two hands stuffing hamburgers into your face and trying to drive.

I do not think there is anyone in this House today who would argue the fact that it is safer to be using a hands-free cellphone than it would be if you were not. I do not think anyone here would argue the fact. We do not need to debate that any further.

Another member opposite talked about slippery roads. We have to do something about slippery roads. Every winter in this Province we have accidents and some deaths caused by slippery roads, but I can tell the member opposite that you have a lot better chance of getting in an accident or being killed while driving a vehicle on a slippery road if you have one hand on the wheel and one on a cellular phone.

Believe me, and I am ashamed to say it, since we talked about introducing this bill in the House some time ago, I have done it twice myself. I ran two traffic lights as a result of picking up the cellular phone when a call is coming in to me, and talking on a cellular phone. I would go one step further. They can ban the use of cellular phones in cars, as far as I am concerned, no problem. I got along quite well in this world up until today without a cellular phone, until they were invented. Now, you do not get five minutes of rest while you are in a vehicle or anywhere else because it is constantly ringing. If you go to any function - whether it be a wedding or a reception or a firemen's ball - undoubtably you will hear the cellphone ring. I have not heard one at a funeral yet, but it will come.

As far as I am concerned, if you want to ban the use of cellular phones entirely in a vehicle, it does not matter to me. The fact of the matter is, if that call is so important that you have to make it and you cannot make it on a phone that is hands-free, or you cannot pull over to the side of the road and make that call for a couple of seconds, then the call is not worth that much anyway, so turn off the phone and do not use it at all.

We also talked about, how are we going to enforce such things? How are we going to enforce it? Members opposite give the impression that unless we can be 100 per cent sure that we are going to enforce every infraction, or every time someone picks up a hand-held phone in a car, unless we are guaranteed to catch every person who does that, every time, then we do not do it. That is the impression that I am getting from some of the members opposite, but that is absolutely ludicrous.

As the hon. Member for Mount Pearl said earlier this afternoon, she was at a light this morning when an individual ran a light while speaking on a cellular phone. Well, if the hon. member were a member of the Constabulary or the RCMP this morning, and we had this bill enforced, that individual would have had a ticket today, and maybe that individual would think twice before they ran a red lights with cellular phones up to their ears.

Madam Speaker, all I am going to say to this bill is that it is simple for me, and it is very straightforward. We are asking the question: Is it safer to ban the use of hand-held cellphones while driving, or is it safer to leave it there? It is straightforward to me, that it is safer not to be using a hand-held cellphone in a vehicle than it is to be using one. For that reason, I will be voting in favour of this bill.

Thank you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and make a few comments on Bill 15. First of all, I would like to congratulate the minister on bringing forward a very progressive piece of legislation and certainly bringing on much spirited debate, I say to the minister. For a minister that many people in the Province wonder what his job is, he certainly brings forward today what part of his job is, and how much spirited debate he has brought in this House with just this one piece of legislation. We certainly look forward to other pieces of legislation from this minister and hopefully the opportunity to stand and make a few comments, and certainly to bring forward concerns that we have.

Madam Speaker, when I went through this piece of legislation over the past couple of days, I remembered back when I was preparing myself for a driving test many, many years ago. I remember older people saying - some people saying - one thing you have to remember is, keep your hands on ten to two. Two hands on the wheel, ten to two, and you will be a safe driver.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, that many, many times my hands have not been on ten to two. Whether it is a cup of coffee, whether it is a cellphone, whether it is a newspaper, many, many times the hands have not been on ten to two, but I say that it is important that we look at this piece of legislation and say to ourselves: Will this piece of legislation stop all the accidents that will happen in the future? Will this piece of legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, hold on. You had your opportunity to say a few words.

Madam Speaker, I ask: Will this piece of legislation stop all the accidents that are going to happen in the future? Will this piece of legislation save all the lives, or some of the lives, that may be lost? No. But if it saves one life, if it stops one accident from happening -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, calm down. You are agreeing with me now. If you give me a chance to finish my few comments, I am sure you will agree with what I have to say.

Madam Speaker, it is important that this piece of legislation that we are bringing forward here today is the first in Canada. We are the first Province in Canada to adopt this piece of legislation. It is a progressive piece of legislation. If it saves one life, if it stops one accident, it will be well worth it.

I will have to get used to it myself. I will have to get used to it myself, not having a cellphone to my ear. It is a common practice for me, many, many times of the day, whether I am travelling in the city here or out around my district where the cellphone works. That is another issue. There is a fair amount of my district where the cellphone does not work. I think we should be looking forward to bringing in some type of legislation here in the Province to make sure that the whole Province has the opportunity to partake in this new piece of technology. There are many parts of my district where I cannot even use a cellphone, where the people cannot use a cellphone. That is an important issue for many people who spend a lot of time in the country, who spend a lot of time on the rural roads, especially at this time of the year, who get broken down, or whatever the case may be, and not have the opportunity to be able to use a cellphone.

Madam Speaker, I travel throughout my district many, many days of the week and the month, and I find that I do not have the opportunity to use the cellphone. If you have to use the cellphone, now we are going to have to get used to stopping on the side of the road, making your call, or whatever the case may be. I guess it is a matter like anything else . Go back ten years ago, or even before that, many of us never had the opportunity to have a cellphone in the first place so we had to get used to using it. Now we have to get used to stopping on the side of the road in order to use a cellphone, in order to save, hopefully, many, many dollars in accidents and hopefully save lives.

Madam Speaker, if I could get back to the accidents for a second, by bringing in this piece of legislation that the minister has put forward, there is research which has been done in other parts of the country and other parts of the world. That research has been done to show that if cellphones were not used freely that there would not be as many accidents as we have had. Therefore, I think the minister should be taking it up with the insurance companies here in the Province, and looking at a reduction in insurance rates for drivers here in the Province. If cellphones are not going to be part of that package anymore now - if the concern that insurance companies have with people using cellphones while driving is not going to be a concern anymore, well maybe somebody should talk to the insurance companies and see if we will be given a reduced insurance rate because of the fact that this piece of legislation is going to be passed here in the House. I think it is something that we need to look at, Madam Speaker.

Insurance rates themselves is another issue altogether. I have a situation in my district - which is less than a couple of hours from St. John's - a small rural community of 300 or 400 people, where people are paying the same insurance rates in many parts of my district - the same insurance rates are being paid, Madam Speaker, that they are paying here in St. John's where there are thousands and thousands of vehicles going down the main thoroughfares here in the city everyday. The people in many parts of my district are paying the same insurance rates that the people here in the metro area are paying. I think -

MR. NOEL: The people out in your area are also driving around the city area, the whole capital region.

MR. MANNING: Oh, yes. Madam Speaker, the minister says that people in my district travel around the city and the whole metro area, and I agree, but so do people in Gander; so do people in Bonavista; so do people down on the South Coast; so do people in Marystown. They are not paying the same insurance rates that people in the District of Placentia & St. Mary's are paying, I say to the minister, not at all.

MR. NOEL: They do not drive here as much. They do not come in here everyday like the people (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Well, I think there should be some type of test done to show where the people in my - I know people in my district who do not travel a lot to St. John's and are paying the same insurance rates as people here in the city are paying.

MR. NOEL: There are lots of people living in St. John's who do no travel very much around the city either.

MR. MANNING: I say, Madam Speaker, the insurance rates that are being paid for people who use Prince Philip Drive on a day-to-day basis and the same people who are driving on the lower road in Cuslett, as an example, should not pay the same insurance rates if everything was fair and square because we are broken up in different areas of the Province, right across the Province.

MR. NOEL: It all depends on if you use your car for work or not. If you use your car for work you would pay more than (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The thing is, Madam Speaker, we are in the same zone. We are in the same insurance zone that the people of St. John's are in. That is what I am trying to raise here today. The same insurance rate because we live in the same zone. I am saying a community of 200 or 300 people, Madam Speaker, are paying the same insurance rates as a town or a city of 150,000; for the whole metro area here is not, in my belief, fair. These people are not travelling on Prince Philip Drive. They are travelling in rural communities, small communities.

MR. NOEL: You travel on Prince Philip Drive.

MR. MANNING: Yes, I do. I am in a different situation, I say to the minister. I am back and forth to St. John's on a regular basis, I agree, but there should be some type of leniency for the people who are not travelling back and forth in the metro areas on a daily basis.

I know people in my district, Madam Speaker, who have vehicles, who make four or five trips to St. John's per year. Older people, Madam Speaker, senior citizens in my district who are paying high insurance rates because we are in the same zone as the St. John's area. These people are making four and five trips to St. John's per year; not the two and three trips that I make to St. John's a week. I agree, I say to the minister, 100 per cent, where I am in this area and travel back and forth to work here that yes, I should pay the same insurance rates. But, I am saying for the many people in my district who are paying high insurance rates because the insurance agency and the government have put this - we are in the same insurance zone as the people in the St. John's metro area and to me, that is wrong. The minister may disagree with that but, to me, that is wrong.

Madam Speaker, I also take the situation where I spend a lot of time on the cellphone. When I leave my office here in the evening, if I am travelling out to my district, I find it a great opportunity to return some calls while I am driving along the road and the highway. I am going to have to get used to the fact that that is not going to be the legal thing to do now. It will take some getting used to, but at the same time, in the vein of that, hopefully stopping accidents and saving lives, I am willing to do what needs to be done as a Member of the Legislature but also as a citizen of the Province. I think it is important that we look at it that way.

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that we are standing here over the past couple of days speaking on this amendment, that is an important amendment to the people of the Province because, for the simple reason, that cellular phones have become a mainstay with a lot of people. When you walk through any of the shopping malls here now there are hundreds of teenagers walking through, all with their cellphones. If you pass by a bus stop you see people standing up with cellphones. If you go out to the movie theaters, people are standing up with cellphones. Cellphones are - you know, there are just so many people who have them now. It is unbelievable. They are a lot cheaper than they were years ago. It is a great communication.

We talk about saving lives here. Lives have been saved because of cellphones and it is part of our world now. It is like the computer. It is like the telephone. It is part of our world now, cellphones, and it something that we all have to get used to it; but, I guess, it is learning how to use it in a proper way. It is learning how to use it in a safe way, is what is important and, I guess, that is what brings this piece of legislation to the House today.

Madam Speaker, I say that this piece of legislation is going to have to be carefully monitored over the next little while as we try to find a way to enforce it, and it is not easy to enforce any piece of legislation. Certainly, I guess, some people will pay a price for talking on the cellphones and, Lord knows, I may be one of the first to end up with a ticket for using a cellphone up to my ear. Hopefully, I will not. Hopefully, I will have -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fabian, are you hoping you will not get caught or are you hoping you will not get a ticket? What is it?

MR. MANNING: No, I am just hoping I will not get a ticket, Madam Minister. It would not be my first traffic violation, I say to the minister, but nothing that is hurtful, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fabian, do you have the other ticket (inaudible)?

MR. MANNING: No, I do not. Not at the present time, Madam Minister.

I think it is a progressive piece of legislation that we have here, Madam Speaker. I hope that we will be able to see quick passage of it here in the House. I think that most members on all sides of the House agree that this is a positive piece of legislation that will -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Mines, I will discuss that with you later.

Madam Speaker, it is a positive piece of legislation that we can put forward here in the House. Hopefully, as I said in my opening remarks, it is a piece of legislation that will curtail accidents here in the Province, save lives here in the Province, and hopefully, will start a ball rolling here in Newfoundland that will roll right across the country, Madam Speaker.

The minister responsible for bringing forward this piece of legislation, his name may be known now here within the Province and maybe it will be known from here to the other side of British Columbia as the person who brought forward this progressive piece of legislation. I want to use the word progressive piece of legislation. I am not surprised, because if memory serves me correctly, that minister is very progressive in his thoughts. He has been for a long time, and this is something that he is bringing forward now as a progressive piece of legislation. Hopefully, this will address some of the concerns that are out there. Certainly, it is something that I think all members on this side of the House agree with. We are pleased to support this piece of legislation. I am pleased to support it. I hope that it does what it intends to do as a piece of legislation. This is a positive piece of legislation for the people here in the Province.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise to participate in this debate this afternoon, having listened for the last couple of days to a number of speakers in this House speak on this important piece of legislation; as the hon. member opposite just referenced. It has been interesting listening to the debate and having people reference the number of problems that do exist; the number of things that we could be doing in terms of trying to deal with potential risks to people who travel on our highways.

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, certainly as Minister of Health and Community Services, anything that we can introduce which reduces the risk to any of our people is certainly something that we should be undertaking. I can say that I can speak with some experience as to what an accident and the kind of impact that it has on a family because, unfortunately, my own family has had a rather tragic history in terms of highway accidents. I have had my dad, a brother, and a sister-in-law who were killed in three separate highway accidents over a matter of some fifteen to twenty years. I know what it does to a family when you experience that sort of thing.

I can certainly relate to any family members whenever I read or hear about accidents. I know what it does and the kind of pain and everything that it brings with it. I guess anything that we can introduce as legislators here in this House of Assembly, as representatives of people of this Province, that can reduce the risk that any of our citizens would be exposed to anything of this nature, as we have heard here today and yesterday, spare one life, or eliminate or reduce the possibility of someone being injured, or permanently impaired - just recently my friend from the Bay of Islands referenced a function which we all attended last week. We seen there a number of people who are now going through life with permanent impairments as a result of vehicular accidents. It is tragic to see, and it is tragic to behold. Will the legislation that we are bringing in eliminate? No, Madam Speaker, it will not. I think the one thing it will do, it will certainly remind all of us of the risks that are involved in using cellular telephones while operating a vehicle. The cellular telephone, as we have heard here, is certainly an amazing piece of technology. It is a piece of technology that is widely used. Certainly, I use it on a regular basis myself. I think we all understand that anything that could serve as a distraction while we are operating a vehicle certainly poses and presents an added risk. Bringing in a piece of legislation will remind people, first of all, that they should not engage in this and also will empower our police force to take the necessary actions to enforce the rules.

We have heard people reference the idea of enforcement. Well, Madam Speaker, enforcement is not something that is just a problem with regards to this particular piece of legislation we are talking about here, it applies to every piece of legislation that exists on the books. We cannot speak in terms of absolutes, we cannot make guarantees that everything will be enforced 100 per cent, but, Madam Speaker, what we are doing here, we are undertaking a measure that is intended to reduce the risk. As I said in the first instance, at least it will cause people to have a second thought when they pick up that phone to use while they are engaged in the act of driving. It will cause them to have a second thought as to whether or not they should pull over to the side of the road or if, in fact, they should wait for a later time before making that call.

Madam Speaker, I think that it is a good piece of legislation. It think it is timely and if, in fact, we are the first to do it in this country then I think that is a attribute to our colleague who has had the intestinal fortitude and the foresight to bring this piece of legislation forward at this time, and I am sure this will be just the first of many such acts which we will see brought in right across this country. This is not a problem that is exclusive to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a problem, I think we have to recognize, that will increase because the availability and the technology and the number of people that we now see with the cellphones will certainly increase the incidents.

Madam Speaker, anything that we can do in this Legislature - because it is not just the person who is operating the vehicle but we have to keep in mind, it is the entire population that is put at risk. It is a small child who is operating a bicycle who could end up being on the wrong end of an accident because the driver was distracted at a difficult time. It is the mom and the small child riding as passengers in a car, who could be hit by a vehicle being driven by someone who is trying to drive but at the same time engaged in a telephone conversation. These are the kinds of things, Madam Speaker, that we, as legislators, have an obligation to try to prevent and anything that we can do to bring that about is certainly worthwhile.

I am very pleased, with those few remarks, Madam Speaker, to provide my support to the minister in terms of this piece of legislation. Certainly, from what I have heard in the debate, I have sensed that both sides of the House will have no difficulty in adopting and passing this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I is a pleasure for me to rise and have a few comments on Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. It amends the act to make it an offence to use hand- held cellphones while driving a motor vehicle.

Madam Speaker, two-way communication devices and wireless devices have been a problem for many years. It is not only cellphones. I could go back thirty years, in my case, when I bought my first pickup truck. I put a CB radio in that truck and at that time the CB radios were very popular and a lot of people used them, especially businesses and truckers. People who where confined to their homes and could not participate in other things used the CB radios to get them through a day and to communicate with people out in the public. So, two-way communications is not a new thing to this Province. Then, of course, the two-way communication radios in the public's hands, while operating motor vehicles, always, Madam Speaker, presented a danger to the public while they are on our roads and highways in the Province.

The reason I wanted to bring up some of these issues is to inform the public and inform the people in my district of the importance of knowing the dangers of using devices such as cellphones in vehicles. The topic and the issue would be making it an offence to use cellphones in vehicles, hand-held.

Madam Speaker, we all recognize that cellphones are a very important tool for businesses and people in the public when they need communications. For emergencies especially, it is certainly a very important tool to get help in time of an emergency.

Madam Speaker, this problem has been going on for so long, with distractions behind the wheel. Even after the CB radios sort of phased out, most of the businesses then got involved in using other devices like the mobile phones, when they went to the IMTS and MTS sets, even though the coverage was limited the same as a CB radio is only limited to a certain distance. People did have the same problem back then. They were distracted when they had to use the mobile phones to communicate and that presented a dangerous problem even back in that time.

Of course, then people after that decided there was a better way presented through new technology and they got into the VHF and HF radios which I myself used in my businesses over the years. I started off with CBs, I went to the mobile phones and then I went to the VHF radios. Of course, it made things a little better within a distance of your home tower, but I always see the danger when you are using any type of a device while you are driving and the distraction that it causes when you are trying to communicate with someone.

When the cellphones came it was a godsend for most people in business and the general public because now we had access to a lot of the areas in the Province. We could communicate from basically all around the world that had telephone service and that was very important. But it still created that distraction when you are driving. We still had a very a dangerous situation when you are operating a cellphone and driving too. The only thing is, Madam Speaker, by the cellphones being introduced here in the Province it gave us a lot more flexibility to get out of our vehicles and go into other places of business and move around and still get the use of a cellphone and still be able to avail of the importance of using that type of communication.

Even after that, Madam Speaker, I went into satellite phones. That is the latest technology that we have been using for two-way wireless communications. I have been using them for the last couple of years, and that is becoming a fast growing industry. A lot of people are starting to use satellite phones. The price is coming down, there are more suppliers around, there are more people selling them, you can get better service, and there is nowhere you can go in the world that you cannot get satellite service. The only thing is, with the satellites, because of the cost, it does not get in the hands of so many people as the cellphones do.

Cellphones now are in the hands of a big percentage of the population in the world. Even here in this Province you see families with more than one cellphone and you have kids that have cellphones. The problem that I see with this - and I support this bill because it gives other users of our highway system some sense of security, that people know that they could be punished if they are caught in an offence of using hand-held cellphones while driving.

We do have a lot of young people who drive over our highways and the young people today depend on and use cellphones more than anybody else. Wherever they go they use cellphones to communicate home and to their friends. I think if we do it right, if we educate our population, our young people, that this is an offence to use hand-held cellphones while operating a vehicle, then I think our young people will understand that and it would stop a lot of them from using cellphones therefore preventing a lot of serious accidents.

I think this legislation certainly is going to be a big plus for our health care. If it prevents accidents then it is going to prevent any strain on our health care.

Madam Speaker, it is important that we recognize all of the distractions, and cellphones are a big distraction while operating a vehicle.

Madam Speaker, yesterday when I came into work, I was driving down Prince Philip Parkway here and a gentleman pulled up to the side of me, he had a cigarette in his mouth, he took out his lighter to light the cigarette and the lighter fell out of his hands and it went on the floor. All of a sudden, when the traffic started to move, that man's head disappeared from above the dash to below the dash. I tell you it was one of the most frightening things that I have seen driving. It happened while I was parallel to him so it did not affect me even though he could have swerved over in my lane. There are a lot of distractions that could create a very dangerous situation while people are driving.

Madam Speaker, I was with a friend of mine last year when we were driving. He is a smoker and I do not usually like being in a vehicle with smokers, but at this time I was. The fire on the top of his cigarette fell off and it went down somewhere below the wheel and we did not know where it went. He was in a big panic to find out where that fire went. We were on the Trans Canada Highway and I tell you that was another experience that I will never forget. I tell you I do not like driving on the highway with people who smoke because the cigarette could fall out of their mouth, the fire could fall off and it is a distraction that could create a very serious accident.

There are so many things that could cause serious accidents, Madam Speaker. I remember just a couple of years ago, when I driving down Kenmount Road in my son's Camaro, I had my sunglasses on the dash and when I went to make the left turn, I had all the windows down and my sunglasses started to move towards the window and all I could think about was the glasses going out through the window. So, I made a big reach for the glasses, but I did not save them,. they went out into the traffic and, of course, they were crushed. Those are situations that people should be aware of when they are in their cars and they have things on their dash. The dash is a very dangerous place to put anything that could fall into the lap of the driver or somewhere that could impair the driver from being very careful in driving.

The people in the public today must realize that when they are behind that wheel they have to take full responsibility, not only for their own vehicle but for making sure that other people on the road are respected. Any distractions that are there, they should make sure that these distractions are taken out of the way before they get behind that wheel, before they go out on the Trans-Canada and other places in the Province where hundreds and thousands of our residents in this Province are using our highways in a responsible way. If something happened, then it would be very devastating to somebody and their family because of someone else's neglect, not their own.

Madam Speaker, I try to be responsible. I do not use my cellphone when I am driving. I pull over. I have a hands-free set in my car and only in emergencies would I use that cellphone, and that is only on an emergency basis through hands-free. I always try to make sure, when people call me, that I say I will get right back to them as soon as I can pull over and make the call back to whomever called me. That is trying to be responsible. I think it is everybody's responsibility to make sure that they drive safely, that they use their cellphones in a responsible way, use the latest technology where they can be hands-free, and then not abuse the cellphones in a way where they are continuously, even hands-free, on the phone, being distracted, and therefore causing a dangerous situation.

Madam Speaker, if we had statistics on how many accidents are caused because of people's negligence in being responsible, and in the use of cellphones in their cars, I think we would be really, really frightened and surprised. I do not know if there are that many statistics compiled to prove that using cellphones is the greatest risk to our drivers in the Province, because of all the other distractions and other things in the Province that cause accidents.

Even road conditions probably cause a lot more serious accidents than other distractions like cellphones and items in your car. I have seen that first-hand. I even had an accident a few years ago when I demolished a machine on the highway because of black ice. There wasn't any salt on the road. It wasn't a condition where it was too cold not to use salt. It was a condition just right for black ice conditions.

It is our responsibility, and government's responsibility, to make sure that our highways are as safe as can be, and that we use the right combination at the right time and the right place. Today, even in Central Newfoundland, I see in the Grand Falls-Windsor area, west of Grand Falls-Windsor, the government is using 25 per cent salt and 75 per cent sand. Now that should not be on the Trans-Canada Highway. If we are going to be using 100 per cent salt on the Avalon Peninsula west to Grand Falls-Windsor, we should use 100 per cent salt all the way through on the Trans-Canada Highway when the conditions and temperatures warrant the use of salt.

I do not have any problem with a policy that allows government to use all sand when the temperature is cold enough that salt will not be effective. I do not have any problem with that, but at a time when salt can be used, why should we use only 25 per cent salt and 75 per cent sand on the Trans-Canada Highway where a person expects to have the safest mode of transportation, the safest conditions of roads, so we can avoid accidents that we have seen in the past month or so. It is this time of the year that we get the right conditions for black ice. It is this time of the year that the cars are going off the road. Seven cars, last week alone, went off the road between Badger and Baie Verte turnoff. Even the week before last, we had a serious accident in the Green Bay area.

I think that the minister and the government should be responsible enough to make sure, when the conditions are right, to have 100 per cent salt on the roads no matter where it be. On the Trans-Canada Highway, we should use salt.

Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the cellphone issue again. I realize, and everybody realizes, that cellphones are used in emergency situations, and this tool is really important, especially at this time of the year when we get on the highway and in other places in the Province where conditions are bad and we need to contact either the Department of Transportation or family and friends and let them know we are going to be late, or if we are going to stay overnight somewhere because of road conditions. This tool is a very important tool. This legislation, Bill 15, is a very important piece of legislation that makes us, as users of hand-held cellphones, be responsible. It makes us realize that this is a serious situation. This is not something that everybody wants to get up and speak about because we figure this is something to be popular on. It is important. It is important we recognize that safety is the number one issue.

The use of hand-held cellphones while driving on the highways certainly creates an unsafe condition, and this legislation hopefully will prevent some people from using hand-held cellphones while driving, and hopefully will prevent some serious accidents. I am certainly in support of it. I certainly want to encourage anybody who would have any objections to it to really sit down, think about it, and for people to realize that this is a piece of legislation that could save their life and their family's life.

I just want to clue it up now and say that I support Bill 15 and I will give my colleagues a chance to have a few words on it before we clue up today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to speak in favour of this particular piece of legislation, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, but at the same time what it is all about: Clause 1 of the bill will amend the Highway Traffic Act to make it an offence to use a hand-held cellular phone while driving a motor vehicle anywhere in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, is long overdue. However, if we think, as legislators and parliamentarians, that this is going to solve the problem with regard to safety - all the safety on our highways - we have another thing coming.

One of the problems that I see, if we bring in legislation this week and when it is passed - it seems like everybody is in favour of it - is the enforcement. It is incumbent upon us - we cannot help that - to make sure that, when we bring in the legislation, we make the rules and regulations so that they are there and people can look at them. If they want to abide by them, then so be it. We look at the same thing with speed limits. We look at imprudent driving.

When you get on the highways and byways, especially around the city here, over my way and in Deer Lake and Corner Brook, stop signs are non-existent. The stop signs are there, but there is no such thing as even slowing down, no such thing as even yielding. If the RCMP or the RNC - if anybody wants to make a real killing and make real money on fines and tickets and so on, all they have to do is get on any street in St. John's, Corner Brook or Deer Lake, and just stay there for a few hours. They will pick up a couple of thousand dollars in fines real easy, because there is no such thing as safety today when it comes to anybody stopping at a stop sign. The rules of the road are just non-existent. They just do not look at it. Enforcement, catching everybody I know is almost impossible. But, the rules are there and like people say: rules and regulations are there to be broken. Unless we catch them, I guess there is not much we can do about it.

Cellphones is the same thing. Mr. Speaker, I often think: Now, what is going to happen? We cannot stop it. We have the rules there, the regulations. For instance, in the nighttime, I know you can see a lot of them in the day, but probably the nighttime is a better time to catch them if you are on the right side of the vehicle because you can see everything. It just lights right up with regards to a cellphone.

They are such a distraction, it is true. The minister, in one of his statements, and other members of the House have already echoed some of the comments about the distraction of cellphones. I would even go as far myself, personally, at looking at the hands-free. I noticed that in some of the polls that have been done, I think there is something like 39 per cent of the population who were even against the hands-free phones. I know I have a hands-free in my vehicle. I am telling you, you still have to push those buttons. You still have to put your hand up and dial the number. Once that is done, or if someone calls in it is great. You do not have to touch a thing. You can just talk to yourself. That is one of the problems you have. You go into a parking lot, or you pull into a Tim Horton's, or pull in anywhere and you going - everybody is looking at you and you are wondering what they are looking at. All of a sudden you realize that you are there driving the truck and you are talking to yourself. People are saying: What is wrong with him? Then people who realize you are a politician, well they realize that you are always talking. You are there in the vehicle by yourself and here is the phone on and you are there talking away. Anyway, that is a distraction in itself, once you realize there is someone looking at you.

In any case, it is good. Cellphones are good, great in case of an emergency. I know I use it myself. It meant an awful lot back about five or six years ago. I had an accident on the Trans-Canada - just outside of Deer Lake, about thirty kilometres outside of Deer Lake - I used it to call the RCMP in Deer Lake and the ambulance. It was great. Times like that, perfect! That is what it was meant for. There is nothing stopping us from having it in a vehicle, but to go using it like that, to just take it and - those little ones there. You will see them going around with their necks on an angle like that. They are going around all day long like that in a vehicle with their neck curled up. I mean, gee, talk about medical problems. If they have an accident - I think they have them before they have an accident, to tell you the truth.

There are a lot of responsible organizations in the Province. I know just last year, I think - what is it? - the Canadian Medical Association had its 1999 GM pass a resolution urging its members to ban the use of cellphones in motor vehicles. The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association has asked the Province to ban hand-held cellphones, and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary have supported their position. There are lots of other people, Mr. Speaker. The study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that drivers speaking on cellphones were four times more likely than other drivers to be involved in accidents.

Mr. Speaker, some of those statistics and some of those organizations that are supporting and making recommendations and requests to have hand-held cellphones banned, there is no doubt about it, all this is what happened and all this helped in bringing the minister and his department to a realization that something has to be done about it. If we are first in the country - I do not understand why other provinces, to be honest with you, do not bring in this legislation. As far as I am concerned, it is incumbent on us. We are the lawmakers and we should do this to try to cut down - if we could save one person or if we can stop one accident or save someone from going off the road or being hurt and probably being paralyzed or whatever on our health system and an individual, a child or a senior citizen, anybody, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully we will never see that with regards to a life being involved - but, I mean, those are used everywhere today, not only in cars. We are talking about hand-held in cars.

I was coming out of a business in Corner Brook just the other day. It was in the evening. It was about 8:30 or 9:00 o'clock in the evening and I came out and just looked one way, looking for a car to come in front of the building and all of a sudden I heard this little rumble. Do you know, here it was eight or ten skateboarders coming along and five of those skateboarders had a cellphone. They were talking on the phone. Skateboarding down the lot at Murphy's plaza there. I could not believe it. I said: what am I seeing? I would say the oldest one there was probably eleven or twelve. It was about 8:30 in the night, on a Wednesday night, and here were skateboarders coming, sir, and they are talking their way down, with no regard for who was there, whether you were a senior citizen coming out or a child or whatever, just coming right on down in front of the - in this case it was Staples in Corner Brook. I mean it was unreal. It can be carried over everywhere. Regardless of the safety part of it, as far as I am concerned, it can be carried through even in that regard.

The other part of it - I will not go that far today, and the minister certainly will not bring this one in, I am sure - is that it should be even banned in restaurants, as far as I am concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: You go in and sit down to have a meal in a quiet place, and all of a sudden all you hear is cellphones going. One night I was in a restaurant in Corner Brook and I thought I was in a Newfoundland telephone building in Corner Brook in the old days when they used to have the operator - nothing only the operator going back and forth. It was steady go. The funniest thing about that too, is when it rings it is like in the old days of Wyatt Earp, everybody is going for their guns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: You do not know where it is ringing, or who is ringing, or who owns the phone. One night I looked and here was this woman with her hands right into the other woman's handbag and she was there grabbing around. I mean it was comical. It was serious, but at the same time you had to laugh at it. Here they were fighting over two different handbags and the phone was not ringing in either one of them. It was at the next table. Anyway, I guess it must have been an important phone call. But they are used everywhere. Everywhere you go today they are used.

Getting back to the legislation with regards to cellphones. We all have our experiences with regards to cellphone use and some of the places where we have seen them used, but, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing for sure about this piece of legislation. Although we may make light of some cases where we have seen cellphones being used, and although we might make light of places of some of the reasons why we use them, in public institutions, on the highway or whatever, it is a very, very serious problem, and one that should be taken care of. This legislation will take care of it with regards to the laws and regulations. If it is going to take care of, if it is going to be enforced, if people are going to abide by it - it is like everything else, like I said at the outset when I started to speak on this this evening. There are speed zones that very few people abide by. With regard to stop signs and everything else with driving, as far as I am concerned that is another thing with regards to the drivers in the Province. As far as I am concerned you should be tested every four or five years, because I am telling you, anybody who goes on the roads and byroads of this Province today - you can see it each and every day - a complete disregard for people driving, whether they are walking or driving or what have you. Only time will tell, Mr. Speaker, and we will probably never know. We will probably never know - we won't ever know - whether the banning of cellphones is really going to save a life, is really going to stop an accident, or anything like that. We will not, because there are still going to be accidents. There are still going to be accidents attributed to cellphones, and accidents without cellphone use. There is no question about that, so we will never know, but at least we will have the feeling and the comfort of knowing that we tried to do something about it. We tried, as legislators and lawmakers, to do something about it. We brought in legislation. The rules are there, the regulations are there. Whether people are going to abide by them, that is another matter. We cannot control that. We can have all the enforcement in the world; it is still going to be broken. Some people say that is why we make laws: to be broken. We make speed limits to be broken, and so on. In any case, as long as we make them, hopefully a certain percentage of the population will abide by them and hopefully we will stop a catastrophe or some serious accident in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this piece of legislation brought forward by my colleague and hopefully it will be passed in the House very soon.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly rise today to speak with regard to Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act. I rise, as many of colleagues on both sides of the House have risen, to speak in favour of this particular bill. It is a bill that hopefully will promote safety on our highways.

When we look at highway safety, Mr. Speaker, it has always, I guess, since the invention of the automobile and even before that - any vehicle on the roads of this country has always been a challenge for lawmakers to keep up with the challenges of new technology, new innovation, and anything that goes beyond what we have here presently; innovations in design and the changing technology. I think some of my colleagues mentioned even that the introduction of some of the accessories on automobiles, such as the radio, have always, at that particular time, caused concern that sort of device would take the attention away from the driver in carrying out the actions of going safely down the highways of this Province.

The Highway Traffic Act is intended to - I guess encourage would be the word that I would use, Mr. Speaker - encourage road safety. In the past, we have been very, very successful in introducing such laws. The one that most recently comes to my mind would be the seatbelt regulations. I can tell you that there was fair bit of resistance to that particular traffic act. It took many, many years for people to automatically buckle up for their own safety and to prevent injuries, but it was movement ahead, as far as I am concerned, to the Highway Traffic Act.

Coming to today we have - I guess the main topic that this act refers to is that of a cellphone. Again, I do not want to belabour the point but we all know that cellphones today are not just a part of you, I guess they are almost an extension of you. I say you in the sense of the general population because, young and old, it seems like no matter where you go, wherever you go, that cellphones are ever-present and that they are, and have become, a part of our lives and will continue to do so. The only thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that cellphones today - and I do not know, I cannot look too far into the future - and all sorts of other new and exciting devices will be coming along as we speak.

To get back to the present and the need for this particular act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, I commute almost on a regular basis. In commuting on a regular basis I am on the highways, I would say, two hours a day. I travel from 100 kilometres outside the city and I guess I travel the secondary roads. I would be travelling on to the four-lane Trans-Canada and on into the city, so I see many strange sights with regard to the people who are driving on our highways. Mr. Speaker, I say strange sights in that I see drivers in control of all types of automobiles, trucks and motorcycles, and I see them doing things that I would certainly consider a distraction. I do not want to get on to the dogs in the lap. I think one of my colleagues has already taken care of that particular one, and I do not want to be accused of talking to dogs as I try to put forth my feelings on this one, but there are certainly many distractions that drivers allow themselves to, I guess, take away their attention with regard to their ability to drive safely down our roads. Of course they put not only themselves in danger, but they would put their passengers in danger and, again, as one of my colleagues alluded to, our pedestrians, those who are walking along the side of the road. Certainly they are in great danger, as well, for those drivers who refuse to pay strict attention to what they are doing.

To get back to my two hours on the road every day, like I have said, I have come upon people or people have passed me sometimes in excess of 120 kilometres per hour and they are talking on a cellphone. They have one hand on the wheel and the other holding their cellphone; conversations or whatever they are carrying out. I have seen people literally eating their breakfast as I commute back and forth: coffee, donuts and other foods. I have seen people who are taking off coats, putting on coats, taking off hats. Do you know what I mean? Doing their hair - all sorts of strange sights for early in the morning - taking out rollers.

Again, the point I am trying to make is that there are certainly many detractions and people find themselves being able to do many things in an automobile that were not dreamed of before. Besides eating, besides really taking care of their appearance, I have seen people read newspapers, magazine, novels, as they travel back and forth over the route that I take.

There are many detractions to the driver. As a driver, you certainly have to be aware that if you are not careful you can lose it very, very quickly. We are not talking about your attention span straying for a minute. Sometimes, with regard to a split second, you could lose control of your automobile and certainly go on off into the ditch.

One of the things about cellphones, certainly with my family, is that my daughters both drive and, of course, we are always concerned about where they are, what they are doing and so on and so forth, and I was in a habit of calling on the cellphone, calling my daughter and sort of checking up on her. I hope she is not watching today. That was one of the things that I did, but my wife, on one particular occasion, asked me to stop that practice, because you know what I was doing, don't you? I was phoning my daughter while she was driving along perhaps at 100 kilometers an hour. I was phoning her and she was reaching for the phone, looking for the phone, picking up the phone and, of course, sticking it in her ear and talking to me. It could be in the middle of a storm. She could be certainly anywhere at any speed. Here is what I was doing, I was putting my daughter's life in jeopardy simply by just picking up the phone and calling her on her cellphone. Again, that practice stopped very quickly as I came to realize that I could very well cause, not only an accident but certainly great harm to my daughter.

To get back to the bill, I am certainly one in support of this particular bill. That is not to say that we should not express some of the concerns that we have regarding cellphone use. With regard to these hand-held cellphones - and I guess, Minister, we are talking about the voice part of it, which is to put it in your ear and to talk, but as we both know there is text that is also transmitted over a cellphone, text in the way of, I guess, an e-mail is what I am referring to. In reading through the bill, I would assume that would be against the law, as well, that if you are using a hand-held cellphone, even though it is e-mails that you are transmitting, that would as well be against the law.

I notice the bill talks about in language, that you put it up and there is a listening device. Again, if you could address that in the sense of looking at it and making sure- the legalese is not one of my greatest strengths but I just want to bring that to your attention. If it is simply just listening in actual fact you could have the cellphone in your hand, transmitting e-mails to whatever or whoever receiving them and that could constitute a communication, but it is not a verbal communication it is a written communication.

The other part about it too, and I know in my use of cellphones, is not so much when you have it in your ear that distracts me, what really distracts me is when I am punching in those numbers, whether I have the earphones in -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: That is what I am saying, I say to my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that that seems to me to be the most dangerous part of cellphone use, because when you have it in your ear and you are talking you still have your visual and you still may have - not that it is safe. What I would like the minister to look at as well is to make sure that if we are looking at the most dangerous part, and this is where the research comes in, this is where, I guess, when you have looked at putting the bill together that you have done the research and you realize that if you looking at just the talking and listening stage of it, I would remind the minister that it is the dialing that is the most dangerous part of the whole exercise. If that can still go on, even though you have the earphones and the microphone, if you still have to reach and punch in the numbers, that is really, perhaps, the most distracting of all the exercises. If we are not eliminating that we are still not where we should be in making sure that there is highway safety.

The enforcement - and again I certainly hope that the RCMP, the RNC, will have the resources to again look at taking care of the safety and enforcing this particular act when it comes in. The other part of it, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, is that with regard - and some colleagues again, on both sides, have touched on it, and that is, we all know that laws that go through this House are enacted and the compliance rate with them varies according to the type of laws. For example, I would say to the minister, ATV use in communities is absolutely rampant. It is against the law, but the enforcement officers, whether it be RNC or RCMP, are at wit's end to know how to deal with it. They cannot enforce it because with ATVs you can get on them and you can shoot up in the woods and the RCMP or the RNC are not going to be following the people. So it is a law that is on the books, but the compliance rate is so low that I do not even know the value of the law. I guess it is there.

So to get back to this particular one, I do not know how high the compliance rate will be. I do know that it is very, very important that with the enactment of this bill, that we - and I say we in the sense of the Province and the government - look at ways in which we can educate people on the use of cellphones in a very safe manner, and this education must not only include the use of cellphones, Mr. Speaker. I would say again we have to hammer home the point that distractions, whether it is eating food, whether it is applying makeup or combing your hair, whether it is reading a newspaper, whatever activity you are doing while you are driving, if it is a distraction, then people have to be reminded. We cannot only zero in on the cellphone issue. We must broaden that so that if in a follow up to the enactment of this bill - and I assume that it is going to go through the House because I do not see anyone really getting up and saying no to the bill and to the intent of the bill. So I know it is going to go forward. I know the industry right now, when you buy cellphones, when you pick up cellphones, there are all sorts of pamphlets that are around that the industry have provided on the safe use of cellphones. One of them would be, of course, not to be driving while you are using a cellphone. So I hope that the industry may keep this up, but we have to be sure, I say to the minister, that we keep it up as well, and that we continue to education the people, the drivers, not only the new drivers coming in, but we have to have some sort of a plan of action as to how we are going to follow up when this bill is finally passed through this House and enacted as law into this Province.

I would love to see, Mr. Speaker - and again I assume that the minister has done his research, that his department has done the research, and they know the incidents now, or some indication of the incidents of accidents caused by the use of cellphones, and that we can see it drop, and that we can then lobby perhaps the insurance companies to indicate that this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are on the leading edge of this type of legislation, that we have done our part in making the highway safer, and safer highways mean lower incidents of accidents, personal injury, and therefore hopefully Newfoundland and Labrador premiums in automobile insurance will reflect the drop in accidents that we have brought about by the enactment of this particular bill.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the House, that indeed we see this as progressive legislation - and I go back to one of my colleagues to emphasize that particular word - and I would hope that with the enactment of this bill that we would certainly be on the leading edge of this type of legislation in the country, that I would hope it will reflect in better safety for our highways and that people will latch onto it as this House of Assembly has latched onto it, support it and move forward.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I certainly am glad to have been able to participate in this debate and leave it up to the House now to carry on with the business of putting it through.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

That was an interesting point the previous speaker raised about the incident with his own daughter. Just a little while ago, a gentleman told me that he did the same thing. His daughter had just gotten her licence and, on her first time out with her cellphone, he called her and actually caused her to have an accident by running into the back of another vehicle. That is a good example of the kind of damage that can be done when using cellphones while driving.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to congratulate all of the members for the great contribution they have made to discussing this issue. They have obviously done a lot of research and are prepared to - I think everybody has indicated that they would vote in favour of this bill and that is good to hear because I think that indicates that we take a pretty progressive, as many people said - not Progressive Conservative - progressive Liberal view of this issue, as we do about other issues in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is a pleasant change from what we see in so much of the rest of the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: That is a pleasant change from what we see in much of the rest of the country, where other provinces have not decided to initiate this kind of legislation even though they are all convinced that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with. It was interesting that we went to a meeting of the Ministers of Transportation for the country, the federal and the provincial ministers, last September in Winnipeg, and I ensured that we had this item added to the agenda for that meeting. We told the meeting what we were planning to do in this Province and encouraged them to do likewise in the other provinces. All of the other ministers, including the federal minister, agreed that this was a problem that needed to be dealt with, but they all had different kinds of reasons for not dealing with it.

I think we are to be commended for being - and this whole House. It is not just the minister. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi indicated the other day that maybe one of the reasons we are dealing with this is because the minister wanted to be the first minister in the country to bring in such legislation, but that is certainly not the case. Indeed, it is not just the minister who is doing this, it is our Caucus and it is this whole House, Mr. Speaker, who have to be commended for being prepared to do this. We are not the first House to do it because we are springing it on the rest of the country. We first talked about this about a year and a half ago and we have encouraged the other provinces to do likewise. We had indicated to people that we certainly intended to do this.

Some people asked if we had discussed it with the wireless industry, Mr. Speaker. Over a year ago I met with the President of the Canadian Wireless Association and one of the officials with Aliant Telecom here in the Province and discussed this very issue and indicated to them at that time that it was my opinion that we would be proceeding with passing this legislation. That was before our government even decided to do so, but that was the assessment that I made. So they had lots of notice. I have been surprised actually, that more of that industry have not had more to say or have not tried to lobby us not to do so. Their silence indicates to me that they agree with what we are doing. They agree because they realize it is not going to cost their businesses a lot, as the Member for Ferryland, I think, indicated yesterday - or the Member for Kilbride. He had a concern about what this might cost these companies in view of the fact that it might cut down on the time that people would spend on cellphones. The reality is that we are not banning the use of all cellphones by drivers. We are only banning the use of hand-held phones. People will still be able to use the hands-free phones, and most of them will continue to do so.

I am not interested in being encouraged to cut short my remarks, Mr. Speaker. Other people did not do so when they were speaking and members opposite have raised some questions they said they want answers to. If you want to have answers you are going to have to allow me the time to give you my answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I do not intend to end either today, so do not be anxious to leave. I want to make sure that we respond thoroughly to the questions which people have raised about this.

I do not think that this is a concern for the industry because they understand that people will continue to use the hands-free phones. Consequently, I do not understand why so many members have indicated concern with passing this and the inconvenience it is going to cause people who will not be able to use phones in their cars now, and that sort of thing. You would get the impression that they believe we are banning everything - the hands-free, as well as the hand-held - and that is not the case. So, a lot of the concerns that were raised are not serious concerns. All people have to do is get a hands-free system for their vehicle and they can continue to use cellphones while they are driving.

Mr. Speaker, many members have raised concerns about the use of hands-free phones, and they are pretty legitimate concerns. As many members who have spoken have indicated, the real problem is getting caught up in the conversation. It is not just the mechanics of using a cellphone - although I think the Member for St. John's South indicated that that was his view, that the main problem was the mechanics of using a hand-held phone and getting caught up in the conversation was not a problem. The reality is that practically all of the studies indicate that the problem is getting caught up in the conversation. That is why it is more essential for us to do something about the use of cellphones than about the other distractions which people are involved in when they are driving their cars. Members have given me a lot of ammunition for banning a lot of activities in cars now. We talked about drinking coffee and holding dogs in their laps and that. The Member for Ferryland -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to adjourn (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was so enthused about dealing with this subject that I did not realize we were beyond the limit. I move that we adjourn the debate.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, just to inform hon. members that the private members' resolution tomorrow will be the resolution introduced by the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, the resolution dealing with Kyoto and the global climate change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I did not see any reference to Churchill Falls in it. I think I have given sufficient information at this stage.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than enough.

MR. LUSH: More than enough. I move that the House on its rising do adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.