November 23, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 37

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to inform my hon. colleagues of the continued good news involving our fishing industry. I think we will all agree that the fishing industry contributes significantly to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and, without a doubt, remains the economic cornerstone of our rural communities.

We have broken many records in the fishery over the past five years, and this year is no exception in the positive things that are taking place in our fishing industry, which has become private sector driven. In 1999 we expect our production value to exceed $900 million, which will be an all-time high. We have already broken last year's record for the landed value of our fish and are now approaching the $500 million mark. This is up from approximately $384 million last year, which was also a new landed value record.

Today we harvest over forty species of fish from which we derive approximately 160 fish products exported to countries such as Japan, the United States, the European Union and China. The sale of these fish products generates new wealth for Canada and, more importantly, new wealth for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our fishery, which has received no government financing for either primary harvesting or processing since 1996, is indeed a major employer in this Province. In 1999 our fishery will directly employ 27,000 people in the harvesting and processing sectors, and another 7,000 people indirectly. That is a total of 34,000 jobs created this year by our revitalized fishing industry. The average monthly employment in fish processing from January to October this year is up 28 per cent over the same period last year. In fact, July employment levels in fish processing of 15,600 were the highest July employment levels recorded since 1990.

The direct and indirect impacts of our revitalized fishery benefit a number of businesses throughout the Province, and indeed the impacts are felt throughout every sector of our economy. Boat builders, suppliers of netting, equipment and engines, and the trucking industry all benefit substantially from fish harvesting.

To give my hon. colleagues two examples, there are approximately thirty boatyards throughout the Province, and in 1998-1999 these yards either built or repaired over 850 vessels, employing over 500 people. The impact of the fishery on the trucking industry is substantial. Trucking companies collect landed product and transport goods and materials to and from processing plants. There are over 270 sites in the Province where fish is landed. This year, employment in raw product transport is expected to total 900 people.

As well, final processed products are trucked to ports for shipment to final markets, and in the crab fishery alone, the equivalent of 1,800 tractor trailer loads of processed fish products are expected to be shipped out of the Province this year.

The evidence of the fishery's important link to other sectors in our Province is quite clear. The continued growth of the fishing industry translates into continued economic growth throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The fishery has always been and will always be the main contributor to the economic expansion in our Province and the foundation for a prosperous future for the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement prior to the opening of the House. I say to the minister there is a lot of good news happening in the fishery today. The last ministerial statement he made certainly sums up, because I still think, as the minister does, that the fishing industry has and always be the lifeblood of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the minister that maybe we should look at some of the things that are happening on the federal side, by your federal cousins, and make sure that we as a province and as a government would put forward some of our own science and make sure we have a check on the federal government. Because for the most part, the good news that is happening here is because of the abundance of crab and shrimp in the ocean. If we are not forever cognizant of the fears that are there, and the signs that are put forward as to what might happen to this resource, then we could find ourselves right back where we were prior to 1992. I say to the minister we should be very cautious, and while we applaud the good things that are happening we should be ever mindful and learn a great lesson from where we have come from since 1992.

When you look at people calling and expressing the fears of what is happening to our crab resources, where now we are going and assigning an allotment of crab outside the 200-mile limit. The great fear is there, that maybe this same crab might be the crab that we catch inshore in the following year or in the same year. There are a lot of fears out there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister we should be forever cognizant of the telltale signs that might point us right back from where we came.

Congratulations, keep up the good work, I say to the minister, and let us make sure we do not repeat past mistakes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are all, in this House, very proud of our fishing industry and the work that our fishermen, fish harvesters, fish plant workers, and people in the industry have done in this Province, and I do not hesitate to join in supporting that.

This government has provided, as he said, no financial support since 1996. The Fisheries Loan Board has been gutted and there has been no help to fishermen with financing to maintain their independence from operators.

Mr. Speaker, he has not talked about the most important issue facing the fishery in this Province today, and that is the proposed takeover by NEOS. He has not talked about the level of concentration and near monopoly this would represent. He has not talked about the financing of this particular enterprise. He has not talked about the stability of the company that might result if this was taken over and put into private hands. He has ignored the most important and significant public policy issue in the fishery today when he talked about what they are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: He should be talking about that and providing a basis on which the people of this Province can evaluate that proposal and come to a proper decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the minister, I want to welcome to the gallery today, on behalf of all members, Mayor Mesher of the Town of St. Anthony.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take this opportunity today to provide further details concerning the development of a cranberry industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. The long-term goal of this development strategy is to have independent operators develop and expand viable operations and to be the catalyst in the creation of a cranberry industry in the Province.

In North America, the industry has shown steady growth since 1994 when its value was estimated at $1.1 billion. In the United States alone, cranberry production increased by 20 per cent between 1996 and 1998 to meet the steady increase in demand. In Canada, planted acreage increased from 3,865 acres in 1995 to 5,631 acres in 1998. Newfoundland and Labrador has 1.3 million hectare of peatlands, of which 500,000 hectares are potentially suited for cranberry production.

Mr. Speaker, the Agrifoods Division of our department has taken the lead to develop the cranberry industry in the Province for several reasons. First, there is a native cranberry that grows here, but no commercial operations exist. Research trials are underway to determine if there are sufficient heat units to mature the commercial varieties. Secondly, we have unique peatland characteristics and growing conditions, and therefore research has been undertaken to determine the best site development and production methods. Thirdly, the department has trained staff and commercial operators in site preparation and plant production methods.

Four pilot sites are currently being developed across the Province: Deadman's Bay, Frenchman's Cove, Route 490 Stephenville and Terra Nova. Initial development on these sites started in August of 1998 and will be finished this spring and summer. The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods initially developed the sites and the leases will be transferred over to private owners by the end of the 1999. Response by the private sector has been excellent to this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, to date more than $1.2 million has been expended in the cranberry initiative with funding from existing cost-shared agreements. In addition, the federal government, Friday past, recently announced $780,000 under the Canada-Newfoundland Agreement for Economic Development Component for this initiative to further develop the industry. I would like to go on record as thanking the federal government, particularly the hon. George Baker, for supporting this initiative. It is important that I also take the time to commend the work done by our officials in our department.

More than $380,000 has already been spent on labour to date. These costs include seasonal employment for greenhouse workers, mechanics, equipment operators, surveyors, agricultural technicians, and students.

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that each five acre site will create ninety-six weeks of employment for maintenance and harvesting. As well, each site is expected to expand by an additional five acres annually, requiring in excess of 100 weeks of employment to develop and plant. In addition to the on-farm labour component, a significant labour contribution will be made to the local economy with the requirements for land surveyors, equipment fabricators, and heavy equipment operators.

The annual long-term employment from a five acre cranberry site creates employment for approximately sixteen people. We expect that, over the next three to four years, 300 to 400 people in this industry will be employed.

There is also potential for a secondary processing industry within the Province to produce juices and an assortment of cranberry products once the industry has expanded to a viable size. I would like to close by stating that we look forward to the development and future growth of this new industry in the agricultural sector. We believe, in the next five to ten years, that Newfoundland and Labrador, from the outside experts that we have had come in to look at it, believe we can become the capital in Atlantic Canada for cranberry production, and we look forward to obtaining that goal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for forwarding a copy of the Ministerial Statement.

Mr. Speaker, cranberries are a very important part of our agricultural industry in Newfoundland now. A lot of locals take advantage of cranberries, particularly in areas like Bell Island. I believe there are a lot of cranberries on Bell Island.

I believe what the minister said, that cranberries can be very valuable to our economy in Newfoundland and Labrador today, but we can't stop there. We must have more than just four pilot projects, because we must know the weather conditions all across Newfoundland. It is important that this industry will grow from one end of the Island to the other, even though some of these four are spread out across the Island.

I believe that this is only the beginning of one industry that could lead into other industries. I believe that secondary processing is going to be probably just as important as the growing of the cranberries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I believe, because of our large peatland land base in Newfoundland and Labrador, that it certainly would be an advantage to a lot of farmers if they could diversify and move into areas particularly close to their own farmlands.

I believe in this project and I commend the minister for bringing forward this statement today. I also wonder, if possible, probably if we do get into secondary processing, if it might be a good idea if we could mix the seal oil with the cranberry juices and get a further benefit from this resource.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly is great when we hear that we are taking advantage of things in our Province that nature provides. It is even better when we hear of things that we are taking advantage of that will lead to employment opportunities.

It is good to hear, in the Ministerial Statement, that it will be turned over once further development takes place, because small business is critical in this Province. It is critical throughout the country. Indeed, it is the backbone of employment opportunities in the country. It is great to hear that, and it is good to have the supports in place that will support people who take the initiative to create small business employment opportunities.

It is also important to develop, as far as we can, into secondary processing, because in the long run more jobs are created in the secondary processing of any type of endeavor than there is in the primary, growing itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to apologize for the late delivery of this Ministerial Statement, but this information was faxed to my office just moments ago and I think it is important to share it with the people of the Province and the House.

Mr. Speaker, in recent days there has been much media attention focused on the issue of trihalomethanes in the community water supplies in our Province. Health Canada officials and medical officers of health for this Province have provided information to the public on this issue. The reporting of this information has caused some confusion for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of THMs is not an easily understood one. Research continues into the health effects of these chlorination by-products and, accordingly, new information continually becomes available. This government works with Health Canada to ensure it is properly distributed and it is important to know that research on this issue is no way final.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of continuing to chlorinate our drinking water. We have been working with Health Canada on this issue, and in fact just moments ago received a letter from an ADM with the Environmental Health Branch of Health Canada and I will now read excerpts from this letter. It says:

“Re: THMs in Drinking Water.

“As you are aware, the disinfection of water supplies is paramount to a healthy Canadian population. The chlorination of drinking water has virtually eliminated water-born diseases such as cholera and typhoid in the western world.

“All levels of government have some responsibility in ensuring the safety of Canada's drinking water. Provincial governments are responsible for setting and enforcing standards to ensure adequate drinking water treatment and municipalities who are responsible for supplying safe drinking water and conforming to provincial standards. Health Canada provides health and safety advice, sponsors research and cooperates with the provincial/territorial authorities under the auspices of the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water...”

Further down, it says:

“Trihalomethanes (THMs) are only one subgroup of the many disinfection by-products formed during chlorination and are used as indicators of overall chlorination disinfection by-product (CDBP) formation.

“Since publication of the 1993 guideline, new epidemiologic studies have been published which reported associations between THMs and cancer (e.g., bladder, colon) and adverse pregnancy outcomes (e.g., miscarriage, birth defects, low birth weight). In response to these findings, Health Canada has established a multi-stakeholder Chlorinated Disinfection By-Product Task Group to comprehensively assess and update the health risks from THMs in drinking water and develop recommendations for controlling those risks. This is being done through a series of subgroups to evaluate evidence of health effects from THMs, drinking water quality data and water treatment facility characteristics and options for water treatment upgrades in communities across Canada. The provinces and territories, including Newfoundland and Labrador, are involved in both the Task Group and the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water. Recommendations of the Task Group are expected to be submitted... for consideration in 2001.”

It also says:

“Further, in order to provide advice to consumers, Health Canada laboratories are currently testing a range of carbon filters and other treatment methods to see if they are able to remove most CDBPs. The results will be made public within a year. In the meantime, consumers wishing to reduce their exposure to chlorination disinfection by-products can use a filter containing activated carbon certified to the NSF Standard 53. Blending and boiling the water will remove some THMs, but does not eliminate all of the disinfection by-products...”

Mr. Speaker, it does refer to other by-products. It says, “Blending and boiling the water will remove some THMs, but does not eliminate all of the disinfection byproducts” other than THMs, “and may actually increase levels of others.”

Finally, it says:

“In conclusion, Health Canada strongly supports the disinfection of drinking water to reduce the risk of waterborne infectious diseases. Without adequate disinfection, the proven health risks to Canadians from micro-organisms would outweigh the possible health risks from THMs. The potential risks of cancer and adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with drinking water containing THMs are much lower [than] the risks of serious illness and death that could result from drinking water that has not been properly disinfected.” Meaning chlorinated, Mr. Speaker. “It is extremely important that water treatment plants ensure that methods used to control chlorination by-products do not compromise the effectiveness of water disinfection.”

This letter is signed:

“Yours sincerely, J. Z. Losos, M.D.

Assistant Deputy Minister”

of Environmental Health, Health Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make something abundantly clear to the minister. There is nobody on this side of the House who has ever implied or stated in any way that it should not be chlorinated. I do not know why the minister is off on that angle. That is not the issue, I say to the minister. The misunderstanding she referred to, yes, has come from the minister and her department by the lack of responsibility and leadership in not letting the people of the Province know for the past three years what you know, minister; and your lack of responsibility in knowing outdated information exists for the past year, and still fed the public last week, with two officers here, information that was outdated for a year. That by their own admission.

 

Minister, it is in keeping the reports from the public and the failure to advise these people - in this letter by the Assistant Deputy Minister, he stated that: “Blending and boiling water will remove some THMs, but does not eliminate all of the disinfection by-products and may actually increase levels of others.” Dr. Barry Thomas, senior Health Canada toxicologist, said: It may be these very ones that it increases, are the ones that are causing cancer. I have the quote from Dr. Thomas on that.

So, minister, you are trying to move and say that we do not to chlorinate. We support fighting cholera and typhoid and everything else by using chlorination. We support that, but we do not support the minister hiding behind the report, or the failure to release it, to let people know up front what can harm their health. They have a right to know, minister, and you have not told them!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister apologized for the late delivery of her statement. What she should be apologizing for is her total failure to carry out her responsibilities as Minister of Health in providing adequate public information about the state of drinking water, and providing up-to-date advice to communities and individuals about how to deal with the problem.

Instead of this government dealing with political damage control because of their failure to release information under the Freedom of Information Act, the minister and the government should have been concentrating on making sure the public understood all of the issues involved, and not hiding behind a piece of legislation that is designed to provide information to the public. Not hide it from the public. The minister should be apologizing. I will go farther than that. She should offer at least her resignation as a sign of good faith in terms of the public policy issues that are at stake here. The public health is at stake, and the minister's and the government's credibility in providing adequate public information about the state of public health, and it should be make available!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions are for the Premier today. On Sunday in the VOCM Conversation with the Premier broadcast, the Premier indicated the proposed process to develop the Voisey's Bay nickel concentrate that has been proposed by Inco. I can quote: “...a hydro metallurgic technology which does yield, I now understand, concentrate to a completely finished nickel project...” So he indicated that the proposal that was on the table was a hydro metallurgic proposal from Inco.

Friday in the House the Minister of Mines and Energy could not commit to that. Today at a press conference held by the Minister of Mines and Energy he said that he did not know what Inco was proposing, if anything. He told the press that he was going to Toronto to find out what process, if any, Inco was proposing. He said that the new technology, the hydro metallurgic technology, similar to that being tested in Goro, New Caledonia, or compared to the traditional method of refining and smelting - he had no idea what Inco was proposing.

I would like to ask the Premier today: Is what Inco was proposing for the Voisey's Bay project the hydro metallurgic process that you indicated on Sunday? Could you stand and answer that? Or is the minister right? Does he not know what Inco is proposing and you do? Because if that is the case, I would suggest that you talk to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of accuracy, I would like the hon. member, who seems to have this information, or wants the House to believe he has this information, to quote the exact quote from the minister he is referring to. I would be very surprised if he can substantiate that characterization of the minister's comments. Can you quote, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Premier did not answer the question, so I will ask him again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If the Premier would like to refer to Friday morning's Hansard when those questions were asked directly, the minister could not and would not commit to that. In this morning's press conference, I say to the Premier, the minister said that he was going to Toronto to find out what process -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) quote (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not have the quote in front of me. I am telling you what came out of your own press conference.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, if you do not know that you have more trouble than I thought you had. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question is this. Is what Inco has proposed to the Province the hydro metallurgic process similar to what is now ongoing in Goro, New Caledonia? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that when challenged the Leader of the Opposition cannot produce a quote to substantiate his characterization of the minister's comments. Because I doubt the minister would have said anything of the sort which is being suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. What I do believe the minister would have said, because that reflects -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite are ready? I do believe that what the Minister of Mines and Energy would have said - I was not there at his press conference, but I do know the briefing that we have received from the minister; that is, the members of the Cabinet, the members of the government - is that Inco has proposed to put a proposal on the table and has proposed a formal negotiation based on a concept that would see a mine and a mine-mill developed in Labrador and the processing of that concentration, that ore, to a finished nickel product within the Province.

That can be accomplished in one of several basic ways. One is a hydro met process which is developed now for laterite deposits, primarily, in a number of locations around the world, which is being pilot tested in some new projects, including by Inco and by others. There is a billion dollar development, for example, in Australia underway right now. The other way is a pyro metallurgical process which is a traditional smelting-refining process. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has done his homework.

The purpose of the Minister of Mines and Energy having received information last weekend from the company saying: We would like to put something on the table that could comprise the basis of a formal negotiation, was to come back to brief Cabinet on what has been said. Mr. Speaker, he is now on his way back to Toronto to ask some questions about what the company's intentions are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I can conclude? We do not want to enter into a formal negotiation unless the bottom line of the Province is going to be met, and that is that the ore from the Labrador deposit be processed and finished to a nickel product within this Province. If that cannot be guaranteed or ascertained, there will not be a formal negotiation. On the other hand, if that is the clear intention of Inco, then we would consider entering into a formal negotiation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, you said yourself that what Inco has proposed is a hydro metallurgic sort of process for this Province. You have also indicated that that would involve 100 per cent processing of the ore. The process Inco is testing in New Caledonia, which is similar, does not result in a finished project. The ore is processed and then sent to Korea for further refining and smelting. The question is: Is that what Inco is proposing? Is that the new type of technology that they are proposing for this Province? While it may be fully processed here, will any of the ore have to leave this Province for further refinement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. The kind of process that we would be interested in, and if this is confirmed that this is what is being talked about being proposed -

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to pay close attention. The issue is too serious to get into a semantics game. What we are doing here as a province, and what we should be doing on both sides of the House, is carefully assessing whether or not the basis of a formal negotiation is to develop both the capability to build a mine, a mine-mill, and also the technology transfer, the job transfer, the benefit transfer, to process a finished - finished - nickel product in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can tell the Leader of the Opposition we would have no interest in partially finishing a product, finishing it to an extent that it would go somewhere else to be refined. We want to see a 100 per cent finished nickel product in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the bottom line of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier failed to answer the question. I understand what you want to see. What I am asking the Premier is that in terms of the process that is in Goro, New Caledonia, if that is the process that Inco is putting forth here, let me ask him this. The process that Inco has proposed here involves the extraction of ore and the processing of it. The type of ore that is in New Caledonia is different ore in terms of the density of the rock, the density of the mineral, and may involve some variation of what is happening in New Caledonia. Has Inco talked about processing or introducing any form of new technology that would see that take place here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would offer to have a briefing given to the Leader of the Opposition, or for that matter any Member of the House who would like one, on the difference between hydromet and pyro technology, and secondly, the difference between -

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: No you don't. Secondly, the difference between laterites and sulfide deposits. A laterite and a sulfide deposit are quite different, one being hard rock, and that is what we have in Labrador.

The Leader of the Opposition attempts to distort what was said by the Minister of Mines and Energy on Friday. Let me quote exactly what he said, since you made reference to him, from page 1,292 of Hansard. He said that the message to Inco is: “Please, do not waste anybody's time by coming forward with a proposal that does not allow for the full processing of nickel concentrate in Newfoundland and Labrador.”

“We understand that if a proposal comes forward, the proposal will allow for the full processing of nickel concentrate in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we hope we get the actual proposal soon.”

Now that is what the Minister of Mines and Energy said, and to me, it is very difficult to distort it, although the Leader of the Opposition has managed to do just that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: I think because he doesn't want a successful negotiation. I think he is worried that Newfoundland and Labrador may have another great success on our hands!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear what the minister said. From page 1,290: “There is no point or purpose, as we see it, in speculating if it might be like Australia, Goro, Sudbury, Manitoba or lots of things.” Which is fair enough, but Premier, when you talk about, exactly, the hydro metallurgic process the obvious question is that the only other type of project in the world that Inco is now involved with, with respect to the hydro metallurgic process, is in Goro, New Caledonia. Correct? When you speculate, publicly, that that is the type of process that they are going to bring forward, obviously questions are going to be put forward to you to see what the process is and what Inco has actually proposed. You seem to let on more publicly and outside this Legislature than you will inside this Legislature!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: So the question is: At what stage are we at in the process? Is the process being put forward and proposed by Inco similar to that that is in New Caledonia? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would be very happy to arrange - because I think it is needed - a briefing for the Leader of the Opposition. I would even go further. I would even arrange to have the Leader of the Opposition, if he would like, travel to some various refining capabilities around the world, both hydromet and pyro, so that you have an understanding of what we are talking about.

In the case of New Caledonia, you are talking about a laterite deposit. In the case of Labrador, you are talking about a sulfide, hard rock deposit. So while we are talking similar technology which is chemical leaching in autoclaves under high pressure and electro-twinning to give you a finished nickel product, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Newfoundland and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to get to his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from what I said yesterday, since the Leader of the Opposition made reference to that. Let me quote from what I said yesterday outside the Province. I said: The “absolute deal-breaker” condition is that the processing from the rich deposit be done in the Province so Newfoundland and Labrador can benefit from the jobs and the investment. To quote what I said, “We're not interested in just having a hole in the ground. The bottom line is that we're going to be refining product in the province or there isn't going to be a development.”

It could not be clearer, I assure the Leader of the Opposition.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. Minister, on Friday, medical health officers for this Province stated that there is absolutely no danger in drinking chlorinated tap water with high levels of chlorination by-products as long as it has been boiled, chilled or blended to release the toxins. Minister, you indicated in this House yesterday, as quoted in Hansard on page 1346, “... that both of the physicians who spoke to the issue on Friday were absolutely correct in their information.”

One of these physicians admitted yesterday, and it was published today in The Telegram, and again today on CBC Radio, that she was using outdated Health Canada documents and did not call Health Canada before talking at Confederation Building on Friday. Health Canada said this has been outdated for at least a year.

I ask you, Minister: Will you admit today that this information was outdated? Or will you stick to the statement you made in the House yesterday, that the information provided on Friday by those physicians was, in your own words, absolutely correct?

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

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

Yes, we have worked with Health Canada to try to identify the most current up-to-date information. In fact, as early as this morning in a conversation with Dr. Barry Thomas, he informed me that information is changing all the time. Those -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I might have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much.

The medical officers who spoke the other day did use information not only from the Health Canada Web site - which they have admitted is outdated by I think about six months - but, in fact, we also did use information that was given to the department, prepared for another province, about a treatment of THMs.

If you would listen again, I think it is important that when Dr. Barry Thomas talked about THMs, he talked about THMs - which is what I was asked about and which I responded to - but there are also other organic by-products from chlorination in the water which are not necessarily boiled off.

I think it is important to say - and I think I have clarified it today in the letter that I read out from the Environmental Health Department of the federal government - that the THMs, the volatile ones, will boil off, but there are other components and by-products of chlorine which may not necessarily be inactivated by that process.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

She is not going to pass off on that. I am quite familiar with the four compound members of the halogen family, (inaudible) things and their THMs. I am very familiar with them. I can name them, each one if you wanted, but I will not waste time here today.

Your department took out advertisements, advising Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that the simplest method of reducing chlorination by-products is by putting water in a jug and letting it sit in the refrigerator overnight. The ad also states that by-products -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: This ad states that by-products can be reduced by boiling or aerating. Doctor Barry Thomas, Senior Canada Toxicologist, said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Doctor Thomas indicated, with the exception of chloroform, removal of chemicals is only possible with a charcoal filter.

I say to the minister, the information you provided was wrong. You should have known because it was outdated for a year. I ask the minister: Will she now place an ad with all the media - the same challenge she took this past weekend - to advise people that the only way to reduce risk now is by using a charcoal filter?.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that even the carbon filter has not been clearly proven to do the job. In fact, Dr. Thomas says right now - and I read the letter. I know the member opposite doesn't want to believe it because, if in doubt, let's fearmonger at all costs. I think that is clearly the message here.

In an effort -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

In order to try to address the issue in a very responsible way, we have been speaking with the federal department over the last couple of days. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have told us that the information is changing on a consistent basis and new information is becoming available. Instead, I think it is important to note - and I think we need to reiterate - that the chlorination factor is still the most important method of disinfection, and the federal government is advising that we continue to chlorinate because the risk of chlorination is far less from that of drinking non-chlorinated water.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way - and I think it has been made very clear in numerous interviews -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It has been made very clear, time and time again, that none of the results are conclusive. I read it again today in a formal response from an official which I presume would be non-partisan, giving out the information, that this is inconclusive information.

The very best approach that can be suggested -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The very best approach that can be suggested is, if people are very concerned, even though it is not thoroughly proven without any doubt, a carbon filter would be the best approach to use. Other methods would only produce a reduction in some of the THMs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is going to have to get a new word - fearmongering. I asked simply: Will you put in an ad? I don't want a lecture on biology and chemistry. I spent six years at university studying biology and chemistry, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked you a simple question. Minster, if you never understood this matter before, your department certainly has not.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact that new information is coming from Health Canada, you must be assured now, today, if you were not before, that this is a public health issue. I ask you: Will you, Minister, as the chief health officer for this Province, demand that the report be released and that the public not be kept from vital information that could be damaging their health?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am only too happy to get a new word when a new word would apply, but to date fearmongering is the best word to use, because - and I will say again - the issue here is about the safety of the drinking water, and I am not going to stand in my place -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) vital information from the public. (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

As I said - and I think it is important to note, however many years of university the member opposite might have had, I still think he has to admit and acknowledge that he is not a scientist in this particular field. The scientists that I have spoken with, and the scientists my officials have spoken with - and I know he is not interested in hearing it, but I think the people of the Province are.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not the question.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member was given the opportunity to ask the question. I ask that he extend the same courtesy to the minister.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much for that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: My question was twenty seconds; her answer is three minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: She knows more than you. She has more information than you. She is going to share it with you.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get on with her answer quickly.

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

I didn't appreciate the comment by the member from - wherever he is from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get to her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I didn't appreciate the comment about ‘dumb and dumber' when I am trying to answer a question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Fabian Manning said it, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that you withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Environment. Minster, you said that the report on the state of the Province's water supply was being prepared for Cabinet and that was the reason you could not release it, even after several requests under the Freedom of Information Act by various people, including the media. Yet, you released it to communities. You cannot have it both ways. The minister cannot have it both ways. It cannot be a secret Cabinet document and have the information released to communities. I ask, why the double standard? I ask the minister this: What is the real reason this report has not been released to the public?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. What I said was that the report was a working report that was done by one person in the department, without consultation with other departments - the Department of Health, or the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. It was a working paper that one person had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: The test results that you are talking about, we do the testing results for the communities, and I can name some of them. For example, Clarenville, and we do it for Gander. We do it for Harbour Breton and we do it for Pasadena - all of that information - and as we do these particular testings, these particular results are then forwarded back to the municipalities. They are forwarded back once, twice, three or four times a year, or seasons, when it is done for them. All of what you are talking about here, the results of testing for the communities, is not in that report. All that is in that report is one particular test that was done back in 1986, but all the information for 1993 through 1998 is all given to the communities. It is not in this report.

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

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

The Health Canada official has said that THMs are only part of the concern that was reiterated again by the Minister of Health today, that there are many by-products of chlorine in the water supply in various parts of the Province that react differently to organic matter and are harmful to people's health.

I ask the minister this: What else is in the report, what else has been found in the studies of water supplies throughout the Province, that we should be aware of? Are there any other toxins in the water supplies, other than THMs, that the people of this Province should be concerned about?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. When I was trying to answer a question and waiting for an opportunity for the House to be quite, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's looked over and shouted at me: Dumb and dumber. I think, out of courtesy for me and the people who elected me, I ask that you withdraw that comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not hear the comment, but I am sure if the hon. member made such a statement he will withdraw it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Honourable members know that points of order and points of privilege ought to be raised at the end of Question Period and not when Question Period is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of privilege, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I would say in this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: The Speaker recognized her. Smarten up!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would say that over the last number of months a lot of comments have been made in this House. Some were not necessarily ones other people were proud of, but they have always been withdrawn because of the gentlemanliness and whatever associated with those people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw those comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, it is not a point of privilege. It is not a point of order. If the hon. member has said something that is unparliamentary, the Chair did not hear him. I am sure, if the hon. member did, he will withdraw it.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question to the Minister of Environment and Labour again. A Health Canada official has said that THMs are not the only area that we should be concerned about, that there are many other by-products of chlorine in our water supply that react differently to organic matter and are harmful to people's health. I ask the minister: What else is in the report, in the studies that were done on our provincial water supply, that people should be concerned about? Are there any other toxins in our water supply that the people of this Province should be made aware of?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, what I have said to the House every day that I have gotten up is that all the reports that have been done for all of the communities on the water testing will be - I have asked the municipalities to give me permission to release it. As soon as I get it, it will be released to the House.

I want to say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and to the House in particular, that every person who lives in any one of these towns, that information is available to them at the town office. Anybody who wants to go in can peruse it. I would assume that many of the towns have done, for example, like Gander did. They prepared pamphlets for their people in the community and advised them of corrective measures that the council have been doing. So the councils already have that information.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and concern the Pre-Vocational Assessment Centre. In March 2000 the government will close the pre-vocational and assessment centre on Topsail Road in St. John's. Now this provides day programs for approximately thirty-seven mentally challenged individuals. While it is true that this centre is not really a pre-vocational centre it does provide a valuable day program for the individuals. It gives them meaningful social stimulation, a daily routine, and skills that help them in their lives. Will the government provide another day program for the individuals to replace the program it is eliminating?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the closure of the Pre-Vocational Centre is a recommendation that has evolved from a series of consultations that have taken place here since 1996. This was first embodied in a report called the Goss Gilroy report. Subsequently, when all of the stakeholders reviewed that report they again recommended to this government that we proceed with the closure of the Pre-Vocational Centre. Part of the recommendations that go with that report - and I would have to say to you that there were some eight to ten stakeholders involved in it, making these recommendations - also included that in closing the Pre-Vocational Centre government would need to proceed with developing individualized plans for each of the people who would be involved in this, and that would be part of the whole process of phasing out the Pre-Vocational Centre. That process has been initiated, that work is proceeding and all of the partners involved are working towards that end.

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

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

I realize that there is a committee in place but what I am wondering is this. Is it the mandate of this committee to include finding ways to establish another formal day program? I have met with the parents and the care givers involved. They are not really interested in individual programs. What they are interested in is a formalized day program so that their children can be socially stimulated the way they are now so they do not regress. Is it part of the mandate of the committee to establish another formal day program?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the whole thrust of the Goss Gilroy report and the subsequent report, which was entitled A Meaningful Future With Choices, was to focus on the individual needs of people and to try and provide them with the best array of services possible in this Avalon area. The process that the committee is now going through is to look at the needs of each of the people who are involved here, to look at the array of services that would best meet those needs, and to put in place a plan for each individual.

As I indicated before, part of this process is to look at existing services and programs, part of it is to look at what other programs and services will need to be initiated. Where people can be supported towards employment, it would certainly be the intention to try and provide people with those supports. Where they have other needs, the intention will be through an individualized process to work out the best plan for each person.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 6.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code,” carried. (Bill 37)

On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Loan (Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund) Act, 1966,” carried. (Bill 38)

On motion, Bill 38 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 7, “An Act To Revise The Administration Of Medical Care Insurance,” (Bill 26).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26, second reading of the bill.

The debate was adjourned by the hon. Opposition House Leader.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!.

MR. SULLIVAN: I (inaudible). I have a comment on that now. The questions I had asked, I said we could wrap up second reading if I had to get a question to it. I researched it after the House myself and spoke with some people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I just could remind hon. members, we are debating the amendment to the bill that was put forward by the hon. member.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the amendment was to refer it to the social services committee. I have indicated that since that, I say to the minister, I did go back and have a close look. Those sections that I asked questions on, which the minister did not answer - and maybe the minister did not know. I know I wasn't aware either. Maybe the minister was not either, because she did not answer. They are already in the act as it is now. I know we have had time since yesterday, but some of the questions I asked are still valid, in terms of who pays for it. Whether it is a new one coming in now or whether it was there five years, is a person responsible for an injury imposed upon another who goes to a hospital and does he have to pay those full costs?

My interpretation of what is here now is that they are responsible, and I am not saying they should not be. If someone imposes costs on our system due to recklessness, vandalism, to a personal attack, maybe there are responsibilities they have to bear within the system for doing those actions there. I'm not saying that there should not be. That comes down to the same basic thing I asked. What about someone who inflicts something on themselves like lung cancer by smoking and it is directly related? Would the government move in the same manner now to collect from that individual to reimburse the system?

That has been mentioned in some systems in England, for example. The British system is saying that people who self-inflict those things, why should they, that bring untold costs in their health care system, step up to the plate before people that have injuries and diseases and so on outside of their own control. There is some fundamental things, as the demand for dollars in our health care system becomes greater, that may have to be answered.

I made a reference yesterday when I talked about this. One of the reasons, I guess, for the committee is to get information. We obtained some information ourselves and our staff did some further research to see what is currently in the act and what is not. I do not advocate that necessarily a (inaudible) referring to committee does not mean we go out for public hearings or things of that nature. It could be looked at by committee and scanned through and said: That is fine, there is no need to have any further action.

When bills are introduced here, I think we need introductions that are fairly detailed so the government side can be put forward. In the absence of that yesterday, we only had some detail on a few little provisions here in a very long act. When we are moving it, regardless of where we are shifting it, from MCP under an umbrella of the department, there are certain fundamental things, I think, that people need to understand on legislation, whether it is a movement or ratification of what is there, if we deal with it today.

I might add that the questions I asked I still look forward to getting an answer on, even though there are now in legislation. I was under the impression yesterday that they were not yet in there. That is the only different. The questions have the same validity. It is just that I guess we are a little wiser today than we were yesterday. I have spoken at length on this so far, and I am sure my colleagues are jumping up and down to ask a question. I think my colleague from Bonavista South wants to comment, and I am sure other members here also want to get a comment on this, so I am going to conclude my discussion on this amendment now and yield to somebody else.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to add a few words to the debate on the amendment put forth to refer this matter to a committee. I want to support the amendment for a couple of reasons. Number one: We have developed in this House, at least in the rules, during the time that I have been here, a committee system that is designed to have a look at legislation that comes before the House, and this government has chosen to ignore that legislation more than it has used it.

This was developed a few years ago, during the previous Administration, and there were opportunities during that time when legislation, particularly legislation involving public health, whether it be legislation such as MCP....

I remember a couple of tobacco bills going before the Legislation Review Committees, hearings being held, amendments being made, debates taking place; very useful debates where members from all sides of the House, even backbench government members, were able to make a contribution in shaping legislation. The system that this government has adopted is all top down. It is all top down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) top down.

MR. HARRIS: It is top down, Mr. Speaker. A piece of legislation comes before the House, approved by the ministers, approved by the Cabinet, whether they read it or not, comes before the House, and then the backbench over there is expected to get up like trained seals and vote for it when the times comes.

We have a committee system in this House which is designed to allow for input not only by members of this House but also public input into legislation where necessary. We have seen situations, and we have talked recently about the tobacco legislation. The minister is going to amend that - made a statement in the House the other day, the Minister of Health, a very important role of tobacco in young people.

There were two pieces of legislation brought before this House a few years ago that were before Legislation Review Committees, aimed at the goal of reducing tobacco smoking in the Province, particularly access to tobacco by young people, and also smoking in public places - in clubs and other public places - hospitals, public buildings and institutions. These were important pieces of legislation because they affected the daily lives of people in this Province, public health issues that were deserving of strong consideration, and got them through the committee system which allowed all members here to participate. I think we even had a group of young people who made representations to the Committee as to how they thought, or what they thought might often take place in terms of access to tobacco by young people.

We have here a committee system. We have a piece of legislation that ought to be - it has been recommended to go to that Committee - that ought to be reviewed by that Committee, studied in some detail, and when it comes back to the House, it can come back with some recommendations for changes, if need be, before it comes back with approval, after due deliberation and due consideration.

Instead, we have legislation that has come before this House that nobody has even seen. In the case last week, we are all expected to vote on it immediately. Now I supported that in principle because it was a particular bill about a particular issue, but when we get complex legislation - I think it is fair to say that this legislation, when you are dealing with technicalities of the operation of the medicare plan, the medical insurance, there may well be representations that need to be made from other outside bodies, whether it be the insurance industry, the legal profession or others, in terms of the operation of this legislation and the recovery of monies expended in the health care system that might need to be made.

We may, for example, have representations from people who think that the government is not moving fast enough and doing enough to recover the expenses associated with medical treatment of people who are suffering from tobacco related diseases.

We have this government who makes public statements every couple of years about its intention to sue the tobacco companies. We have heard it twice now. We heard it the last election - in the last provincial election I think we heard about it - and we heard about it in the last federal election. Those were the only two times I ever heard the government talk about suing the tobacco companies. Maybe we should have another election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Maybe if we had another election, we might hear about it again.

We are talking about substantial tax dollars being spent to treat people who are suffering from diseases caused by tobacco smoke. We hear once every election about the fact that the government intends to sue the tobacco companies to recover the cost of treating people who are suffering from tobacco related diseases.

In British Columbia today we have a court action going through the courts in British Columbia as a result, number one, of legislation passed there with respect to establishing the right to sue and ensuring, I think it is called The Tobacco Damages And Health Care Cost Recovery Act which was passed in British Columbia in 1998. It was in June of 1997 that the Premier announced that they were going to sue the tobacco companies to recover costs.

The British Columbia government was talking about the same thing and guess what? In 1998 they passed The Tobacco Damages And Health Care Costs Recovery Act and they are now commencing with a Statement of Claim and they are trying to recover over $500 million a year of public expenditure in British Columbia made to treat people who are suffering from diseases caused by tobacco smoking.

What do we have in this Province? We have a government saying once again in an election in February of 1999, after saying it in June of 1997, that they are going to sue the tobacco companies. We do not see any legislation. We do not see any legislation similar to that of British Columbia, called The Tobacco Damages And Health Care Costs Recovery Act. We do not see that, Mr. Speaker. We do not see any statement from the Minister of Justice as to how the Statement of Claim is progressing, whether they will borrow the one from British Columbia or they are trying to devise their own. We do not hear any statements from the minister of damage control in public health, or is it health and community services, who are so busy trying to do damage control about the lack of public health information, the quality of public health information, and the inaccurate public health information being disseminated by the department, that they cannot get control over health care costs that are caused by tobacco smoke.

We have legislation now before the House tinkering with the Medicare Commission Act and not dealing with the fundamental issues that cause, in part, such great costs to the medical care system, to the taxpayers of this Province, caused by the harmful effects of tobacco smoke which the tobacco companies across this country have been visiting upon the people of this Province and every other province and territory in the country as a result of their hazardous products, as a result of their advertising, as a result of their targeting of their products towards young people.

A couple of days ago, the Government of Canada released a whole series of documents from the tobacco industry showing in some detail how they conducted experiments and studies to try to figure out how to target their product to young people, innocent young children who are eleven, twelve and thirteen old, how to make their product more attractive, how to make their product more attractive to children so they could work their poison on them, so they could get them addicted as young people so they would buy their product. What is the result of that? The result to that is a population addicted to tobacco smoke in many respects. Too many young people are addicted to tobacco smoke, causing long-term health effects, which is a tragedy enough in itself. It is a tragedy in itself, causing long-term health effects, disease, lung cancer, heart disease, numerous other diseases, emphysema, coming from tobacco smoke, and other poisons going into the body from tobacco smoke, and eventually ending up in our health care system being treated by our doctors in hospitals and by medical professionals, and costing the taxpayers a fortune.

I do not know if proper estimates have been done in the Province. In the Province of British Columbia, they have determined that it is costing their health care system $500 million a year. I would hazard to say that if our population in Newfoundland was 20 per cent of British Columbia's, then our expenditure would be in the neighborhood of $100 million a year for tobacco related problems. I see the Member for St. John's East quickly working that out with his calculator, dividing 500 million by five and getting 100 million, the same as I did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty per cent of the population?

MR. HARRIS: Twenty per cent of the population. I am not sure what the population of British Columbia is. Is it three million? If it is three million, we should divide it by six instead of five. We might be more like seventy-five million. Whatever, $75 million, $100 million, $50 million is substantial taxpayers' money being used because of the effects of smoking on health and health care costs and expenditures.

These are the kinds of things that could be discussed in Committee. The minister could be hauled before the Committee and demanded to explain why she was not pursuing this aspect of the medical care insurance costs; why she was only going after the car accidents and the insurance companies and not after the tobacco companies. What progress was being made? These are the kinds of things that we would like to see this Committee pursue, and that is why we support sending this to the Committee.

I know the Opposition House Leader, the health care critic, would be delighted to participate in this Committee, to get the minister before the Committee and ask her why she has not been pursuing this as a major public health issue in this Province - the poisoning of our population and particularly our young people by the poisoning of tobacco. Never mind the drinking water. That is bad enough. It is bad enough to have public health concerns about drinking water and the lack of public information about that, but here we have an actual poison being sold in candy stores around the Province, in convenience stores. It is very convenient to be able to buy this particular poison. It is very convenient to be able to buy this particular poison. You can buy it in any convenience store, or in most drugstores around the Province you can buy tobacco.

We have young people being addicted to tobacco -

AN HON. MEMBER: When did you quit?

MR. HARRIS: On September 16, 1986, I quit. That was the last time I had a cigarette. I know the dangers of addiction. I know the dangers of the addiction of tobacco. Fortunately for me, I was able to overcome my addiction. If I were as lucky in overcoming all of my bad habits, I would be almost as good as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

The point is this: Each and every day in this Province, we have young people taking up smoking for the first time at the age of ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen and fourteen, because the tobacco companies are very interested in getting new adherence to the addiction of tobacco because it is good for their business. In the long run, it is very dangerous to their health and well-being, and it is also expensive to our health care system.

If this went before a committee, I would be very anxious to have the Minister of Health and Community Services talk about this very important public health issue that is very important to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador; this very important issue if we can save $50 million or $75 million a year by recovering it from the tobacco companies to pay the cost of the disease inflicted upon people who will become addicted to their product because they are out busy marketing them and trying to obtain customers for their addictive substances.

It is time that our government either fish or cut bait on this issue and not keep talking about it every now and then, and even getting credit for it. I noticed in a magazine, a legal magazine published in November of 1999, called The National, published by the Canadian Bar Association, giving some credit on the other side - talking about BC. They say: On the other side of the country, Newfoundland's Liberal government has a BC style suit in the works. In the works. In what works? Where is it? Where is the Minister of Justice telling us all about the legal suit that is in the works? Where is the Minister of Health talking about how she is actively trying to recover the cost inflicted upon our health care system by the tobacco industry, and not just talking about car accidents as she is in this bill. We have to bring these issues to the forefront of the agenda, not just stir around in the back rooms of Confederation Building or the back rooms of the Justice Department. The public has to know that this government takes those issues seriously and, in fact, is pursuing them.

These are just some of the reasons why this issue should be going before the Committee of this House and not be merely the subject of a perfunctory debate here and take the minister's word for it, that the wording has been done properly, and take the minister's word for it that everything has been done according to the definitions and proper procedure.

We have here before us today - today in this House we have Bill 24, “An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.” We have, in that, twenty-nine sections correcting mistakes in legislation. Clause 29 says: Subsection 45(2) of the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Act is amended by deleting the number “6" and substituting the number “3".

That is an error in the law. Obviously somebody did not read this. Somebody did not properly study this legislation before it went through.

We have an amendment here to the Tobacco Tax Act. The Tobacco Tax Act is amended by repealing a particular section and substituting another, obviously fixing a correction that had to be made because there was improper wording used.

The Schools Act, the Teachers' Pensions Act is amended. The Teachers' Pensions Act because a mistake was made in a reference to another piece of legislation. The Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act is amended. The Solemnization of Marriage Act is amended because mistakes were made and had to be fixed up. The Social Services Appeal Board Act is repealed and substituted particular sections. The Small Claims Act is proposed to be amended to fix up an error or anomaly. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act; the Public Service Commission Act; the Proceedings Against the Crown Act; the Personal Property Security Act; the Family Law Act; the Medical Care Insurance Act, the very one that we are debating now. The very one that we are debating now has an amendment in Bill 24 before us, removing an error or anomaly in that particular act.

The Mechanics' Lien Act; the Limitations Act; the Jury Act; the Interpretation Act; the Insurance Contracts Act; the Housing Corporation Act; the Gasoline Tax Act; the Denturists Act; the Conflict of Interest Act, 1995; the Commissioners for Oaths Act; the Child, Youth and Family Services Act; the Child Services Act; the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland Act; the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. We are even fixing up anomalies and errors in legislation that was designed to fix up anomalies and errors. We have the Assessment Act and the Advance Health Care Directives Act.

 

All of these acts went through this House, and errors and anomalies were present in those acts, and nobody here picked them up. One of the reasons is that they did not go to Committee. They did not go to Committee. You have the Government House Leader busily trying to put legislation through this House. His job is to get it all through the House, make sure nobody on his side talks, give them no incentive to even read the legislation. I am sure, if they had an incentive to read the legislation - if there was any incentive on the other side in the back benches to read this legislation - then perhaps some of their attention would be directed to the legislation itself and they might be able to be helpful in picking out errors and anomalies before they get passed in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I think there is a compelling case, Mr. Speaker, just by looking at bills.

I am sure, and I know, that Your Honour is a very thoughtful person and Member of this House who realizes that when we have legislation here, brought in, correcting twenty-nine errors in legislation that has gone through this House, I know that - in fact, I believe Your Honour was a member of one of the Legislation Review Committees that actually met a few years ago and studied legislation and brought about improvements to legislation, and brought back legislation to this House, having had the advantage of careful study by hon. members and hearing representations from individuals and from organizations concerned about the effect of the legislation, and brought back to this House reports recommending certain changes to legislation which in fact were implemented.

I know Your Honour knows the value of the Committees of this House, and I am sure if it were in your power to refer this matter to Committee, that is indeed what you would do. I would fully expect that Your Honour would see fit to refer this legislation to Committee, because Your Honour knows the helpful work that these committees have in fact done in the past when they were used. This particular Administration, under this particular House Leader, has seen fit not to allow hon. members on both sides of the House to participate in the work of Legislation Review Committees by studying legislation in advance of being pushed through this House.

I regret very much to have to say that we have gone backwards in time instead of making progress under this particular Administration, and under this particular Government House Leader. I would have expected, after his many years in the very back of the back benches over there underneath the portraits, almost pinned to the portraits in some cases, I would have expected that the Government House Leader himself would be well aware of the need for some role of the backbenchers on his side of the House to play in the formation of legislation and make a contribution to legislation in this House.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the reasons - I could go on, but these are some of the reasons - why I fully support the amendment and would very much like to see this piece of legislation and many other pieces of legislation find their way to the Committees of this House so they can be properly studied so that hon. members on all sides of the House could play an important role in ensuring that legislation is not only read but understood, is corrected, meets the needs of the people of this Province, and also has an opportunity to seek out ways to improve legislation that is brought before the House by bringing in timely and meaningful amendments that could make legislation better.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say that I fully support the amendment and I regret very much that this Government House Leader has failed to adequately use the procedure to send legislation to Committee. I know when he was in the back benches, underneath the portraits in back, he would have like to have a stronger role in terms of legislation and sitting on committees. I think he should remember those days when he was sitting back, plastered to the back wall -

AN HON. MEMBER: Up in the gallery.

MR. HARRIS: Up in the gallery if the Administration of the day could have gotten him there, up in the gallery. He should know that the people in the back rows on his side of the House have just as much of an important role to play in legislation as members on this side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a member of the court and he should not be talking about the Chief Justice of the Province and his administration in this House. He should apologize to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has already stated there is no point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I have a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader occupied a position in this House, not very far from the portraits, and it was debatable whether he was before them or behind the portraits on the back of the wall. It was under the previous Administration. I have no idea who actually put them there but it was under the previous Administration. I say that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say a few words on Bill 26, An Act To Revise The Administration Of Medical Care Insurance. When you read through this act you will find that there is a lot of unknowns here, a lot of answers that need to be given. I sometimes take exception, I say to the Government House Leader, to the amount of attention that is paid, on your side, in introducing legislation into this House of Assembly.

Ministers on the government's side stand up and very nonchalantly take up a piece of legislation, say four or five words, and try to make you believe that there is nothing to this piece of legislation; it is all housekeeping or it is all just a matter of procedure. Nobody stands up and gives a lot of information about the piece of legislation that they are introducing.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen some very important pieces of legislation come before this House in my brief time here. Ministers opposite will stand, and within a minute or a minute-and-a-half they are sitting down again and then it is the big rush. It is a big rush by the Government House Leader to try to limit the amount of debate, limit the number of people who get up and speak, saying, I don't know why you are wasting time; I don't know why you are beating your gums about this piece of legislation or that piece of legislation.

I say to members on both sides of the House that there are some very important pieces of legislation that come before this particular Chamber for debate and there is not enough time and effort given by the ministers opposite in explaining the legislation, explaining the changes of what existed in former legislation, or why the piece of legislation needs to be changed in order to accommodate a goal that has been set forward by government.

In this piece of legislation, for example, in section 18.(3), “The minister shall impose a levy to be paid by every licensed motor vehicle insurer with respect to each vehicle insured by that insurer...”.

There is nothing in this piece of legislation, and the minister said nothing in her introduction to this piece of legislation, to talk about existing legislation. It is my understanding that there is already -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, Bill 26, section 18.(3), “The minister shall impose a levy to be paid by every licensed motor vehicle insurer with respect to each vehicle insured by that insurer for the purpose of recovering insured services incurred by insured persons as a result of personal injury or disability where the injury or disability was caused by, or contributed to by, or results from, motor vehicle accidents.”

I say to members opposite that this is already in existence. I say to members opposite that right now, in this Province, every insured vehicle is charged $12.56 as an insurance levy, as a health services levy, I think it is called. There are something like 435,000 vehicles registered in this Province - 435,000 vehicles - at a levy of $12.56 for each vehicle. So I say to the minister that there is an excess of $5 million already being collected from insurers in this Province. That is collected, I say to the minister, from Section B of your insurance premium, that you pay to your insurer. Section B is not a compulsory part of your vehicle insurance. While vehicle insurance is compulsory in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the only insurance that you are required and that you must carry is public liability.

In every other province of Canada, Section B, which is the medical section of your insurance, is compulsory. As a member of the insurance committee, the property and casualty insurance committee that traveled around this Province, held in excess of sixty-two meetings, our recommendation was that we make Section B compulsory. While Section B of your insurance policy is not compulsory, it is compulsory for every insurer, for the 436,000 vehicles that are insured in this Province, it is compulsory for the insurance company to reimburse the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador $12.56 for each vehicle. Not each policy. You can have a dozen vehicles on a policy. Each vehicle. The 436,000 vehicles in this Province have to contribute back to government in excess of $5 million a year. So there is already a compensation -

MR. SULLIVAN: That is besides this levy.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is besides this levy. If there is a new levy, have a guess who is going to pay for it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. FITZGERALD: Have a guess! Every insured person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen. We are already paying government 19 per cent in taxes. We are paying a 15 per cent tax, which is not a HST tax, it is a tax that the provincial government themselves have added to your insurance policy. We are already paying a hidden tax of 4 per cent, so that is 19 per cent in taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Frugal management. That is why Standard and Poor's increased our bond rate (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: By what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Frugal management.

MR. FITZGERALD: It isn't frugal management, I say to the minister. It isn't frugal management when you have to go out and take it from the poorest of the poorest people in this Province and charge them 19 per cent on their insurance policy that they struggle to maintain, and insure a vehicle to give them the right to drive to and from work. That is not what I consider frugal management, I say to the President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) dialysis (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is right, and I will always continue to push for that. We should not pass it back again on the taxpayers who can least afford. Let us do it in a way that those who can afford it will pay a higher premium, and if that includes me, so be it. I will accept that.

Mr. Speaker, in the Province of Nova Scotia insurers pay something like 4 per cent insurance tax. In the Province of New Brunswick, insurers pay less than 6 per cent as a insurance tax. Then you come to Newfoundland. What are we paying? Nineteen per cent, and included in that is $12.56 for every vehicle that is insured in this Province, I say to you.

Now the minister in her wisdom, in Bill 26, section 18(3), says, “The minister shall impose a levy to be paid by every licensed motor vehicle insurer with respect to each vehicle insured by that insurer...” My question to the Minister of Health and Community Services is: Minister, is this levy that you are going to be imposing on insurers in this Province in addition to the $12.56 that you presently charge every motor vehicle owner in this Province today? If it is, then that is wrong.

I do not know if the ministers, when they stand up to introduce this legislation, take it so lightly that they feel nobody will bother checking into any legislation that is brought here, that we will pass it off and allow it to go through by the mere fact that nobody wants to speak on it or nobody wants to ask questions, or because it was introduced and it is a fait accompli that it is going to happen by the mere structure of this House or what. There needs to be some explanation brought forward. If my insurance is going to take another hike of $20 a year, which does not reflect the number of accidents that I have had, it does not reflect the risk that I have, it does not reflect the type of car that I drive, if it just reflects the minister's intent to collect some money from me then that is wrong. That is not the way it should be.

While governments stick out their chest and say that there are no new taxes and we are going to reduce taxes, then, `Mr. Government,' do not come through with the strong hand and try to do it by the backdoor and start raising fees and services and getting people to pay by the mere fact that they want to enjoy - I do not know if you would call it a privilege of driving or a privilege of owning a vehicle. Because that is what is happening here. The amount of money that we pay out in fees and services is certainly getting out of hand. Sometimes, I think, it costs more money to administer those services and to administer and collect those fees than we actually make from them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you recoup (inaudible) on tax reduction?

MR. FITZGERALD: Recoup what?

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Those fees.

MR. FITZGERALD: Those fees? I will recoup the fees that I pay to my insurance company? I doubt it. You know different from that, that you cannot recoup what you pay in taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you can get it (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: You can get it from where? No, the only way I can get it, I say to the minister, is if I do something underhanded to connive (inaudible) a government. That is why I think we have this big underground economy. That is why I think we have those people who go out there and deliberately try to not pay what they rightfully owe to government, because they feel it is wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you explain the increase in employment last year if we have an underground economy?

MR. FITZGERALD: Your employment figures would reflect a lot differently, I say to the minister, than what they actually are if we could do away with the underground economy. I know that you know that yourself. You know that there is a tremendous underground economy here and you know that there is a tremendous amount of money out there to be collected that is not collected. This is a way of even making it greater.

Some of the foolish rules and regulations that your cousins up in Ottawa brought in as it relates to Unemployment Insurance - or Employment Insurance that they call it now - I believe encourages that. It encourages the underground economy. While you have a very vibrant underground economy, while people are employed, and while they go and look for the benefits they can get from that employment, many times the rules and regulations are such that they are restricted so much that they have no other choice, in order to keep body and soul together, and in order to support their family and survive, but try to take part in an underground economy to maintain and support their families.

The department of social services is a prime example. The new catchword is Human Resources and Employment. Look at some of the people on Human Resources and Employment and look at the amount of money they have at their disposal. I am not suggesting that we should write them out a check, or that we should not have some policy and some guidelines to be guided by, but I think we should be a little bit more flexible.

There is a lot of people today that go to the department of social services, not by wish or by choice, but because they do not have a choice. Sometimes when you talk to people and they have fallen behind with their hydro bill, they have fallen behind with their heat bill, and they try to get caught up and they try to be able to keep body and soul together, and you see the paltry amount of money that government is supplying to them, it makes you wonder in astonishment. You have to shake you head and wonder how they survive.

It was only the other day I was talking to a gentleman who called my office, and his wife was sick. He had to leave his job because of his wife's sickness. He has a son twenty-two years old on social services. I think his son gets $40-something every two weeks. Do you know what that family was living on? He has a fifteen-year-old son, besides the twenty-year-old son. That family was surviving on $82 a week. That is what he had in disposable income, to go out and try to buy food and clothing and put his son in school - $82 a week.

He called and I said: Boy, you must be entitled to more than that. He said: Well, I know I am entitled to more than that, but I was behind on my light bill and I was behind on another bill. He had no other choice. Then he entered into an agreement with Newfoundland Power where a certain amount of his money would be taken - a very responsible family, I say to members opposite, not a family who went out and wasted their money or was uncaring, or the husband or the wife was out playing the slot machines. None of that. I checked it all out and know the family very well, Mr. Speaker.

Here they are, trying to survive on $82 a week. It has to be frustrating. They do not have a car, thank God, because the minister is going to go now and impose another fee on them to drive up their insurance.

I fully agree - I have no problem, and I might differ from a lot of people on this side of the House or the other side of the House - that if somebody wilfully goes out and does something and it causes an expense to the Treasury of this Province by neglect or by the actions of a certain individual, and they are actions outside the norm and outside the law, maybe we should look at recouping the cost of some of those inflicted injuries. Maybe we should. It is something that we should look at, but I do not think we should bring in blanket legislation to say now that we are going to start levying taxes on automobiles again when we already have a tax levied on automobiles where you collect in excess of $5 million a year.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to do things. If you are going raise taxes, raise taxes. Don't go out and say we are not going to raise taxes but we are going to raise every other service and every other fee that we have here, and the people who want to go and catch a few rabbits, or the person who wants to go and get a marriage licence, or the person who wants to go and get a permit to develop a building lot is going to have to pay through the nose, because it all comes from the same pockets. It all comes from the taxpayers of this Province.

I have to relay a little story here. It is too bad the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods is not in his seat. A few years ago - I think it was the Minister of Environment at the time, decided he was going to - or she it was - decided she was going to bring in a piece of legislation to stop the use of ATVs on wetlands and boglands. The Member for Topsail knows full well what I am talking about, because I think he was the minister's executive assistant at the time when this piece of legislation was introduced.

The Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods takes his seat, and I would like for him to listen to this one because this is a real dandy. A few years ago, the Minister of Environment decided that they were going to bring in a piece of legislation and they were going to stop ATVs from the indiscriminate use of wetlands and boglands. Not a bad piece of legislation, I fully agree, and the people I have talked with fully agreed to it. What they said is: We know that this is a generator of income for the economy. We know people go out and buy ATVs and they pay taxes and they buy gasoline, and they have repairs and they keep people working. We are aware of all that, and we are also aware of the enjoyment and the relaxation that people get from using all terrain vehicles. So, what we are going to do now is to allow people with ATVs who want to go and visit their cabin, or visit their favorite fishing hole, we are going to allow them to go and use a section of the land that can support that kind of activity, hard ground. If you come to a bog , then you cut a trail around the bog or you do whatever you have to do in order to build a trail that you can use on a regular basis and not destroy the environment.

This group of people from Bonavista said: You know, we have to abide by the rules and regulations. We want to go to our cabin, and in order to get to our cabin we have to go over a piece of wetland. What we will do is, we will go up and cut a trail across some hard ground and that way we can continue to use our ATVs and go into our cabin.

 

Fair enough, they decided they would check into the rules and regulations. Just listen to this, I say to the Member for Topsail and I say to the minister, if he has a minute to listen. Those responsible individuals went to the Department of Government Services and Lands, told them they were going to cut their trail, and said: What do we have to do?

First, Sir, you have to pay a fee of $100 in order to get a permit to cut the trail to your cabin. That is fair enough; there are four of us, so we are going to cut the trail. They paid their $100.

Then they went up and started cutting the trail. They were only there one day and the Department of Forestry showed up and said: What are you doing here? Well, we are cutting a trail into our cabin. Do you have a permit? No, we do not have a permit. Well you have to have a permit now in order to cut that trail, and the permit is going to cost you twenty-one dollars.

Okay, there are four of us so we will pay the twenty-one dollars. They cut part of the trail. The next year they went back to finish it. When they went up to start cutting the trail again, the Department of Forestry showed up again and said: Do you have a permit? Yes, we have a permit. Do you have a permit for this year? No. Well, it is going to cost you another twenty-one dollars. So they went and bought their permit for another twenty-one dollars.

Then they came to a brook, a little stream. Now, in order to pass over the brook they had to put something there, a little bridge to get them over the brook. The Department of Forestry came and said: Now you have to go to the Department of Environment or waterways and you are going to have to pay another fee in order to put the bridge over that water. That is going to cost you another $100. Then they said: Boys, we have to stop and wait and see what is happening here. They counted the bridges. There were four streams that they had to go over.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It is being done? Good. The minister tells me it is being taken care of, but I have to tell you the rest of it.

There were four streams that they had to cross over, so here was another $400. Now, all of a sudden, the trail is costing them about $800 and they are not even to their cabin yet. This was all done by a government to try to get people to abide by the rules and regulations.

Finally, somebody else showed up and said: Are you fellows cutting that trail going into the cabin up at such a pond? They said: Yes we are. He said: Do you know what you have to do now? You have to go and register that trail. You have to take out a registration for that trail. That is going to cost you another $100.

Now, after paying for the bridges, paying for the permits, paying for the right to cut the trail, now they have to register the trail and that registration, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agrifoods, is another $100. But listen to this; they do not even own the trail. The trail has to be registered in their name and they do not even own it.

So how serious or how much consideration are you giving to the legislation that you introduce into the House? The Minister of Health and Community Services stood here, and when she introduced that piece of legislation it took her all of three minutes. She did not touch on section 18 that told you that every vehicle in this Province was already being charged $12.56 because government has decided to issue a levy against them already. She didn't tell you that government was already collecting in excess of $5 million from everybody who owns a vehicle in this Province. That is why we get ourselves into those kinds of situations, and you wonder what the Opposition is doing standing here - to use your words - beating their gums about legislation.

 

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Minister of Forestry and Agrifoods, or I don't think the Member for Topsail, when he was the executive assistant to the Minister of Environment, ever intended to charge somebody $700 or $800 in order to have a trail put into their cabin that was there for everybody to use, and it was being done and built and cut in order to abide by government rules and regulations. I don't think that was his intention. In fact, I am sure it wasn't. Because somebody did not take the time to look at what it was costing individuals who were going to get on their ATVs and go - and we are talking about people here, now, who do not go to Florida every year. We are not talking about people who jump on Air Canada and go down to Cuba for a week every summer, or go to Florida. We are talking about a group of people who went out, saved their money, bought an ATV - in some cases it was probably a second-hand one - and decided that I deserve a little bit of relaxation, and maybe I can afford to have a cabin. Maybe I can afford to go in to my favorite fishing hole and put up a cabin. As little as it may be, it is a getaway. It is somewhere that I can go and somewhere where I can enjoy some rest and relaxation.

That is what is happening here, and that is the kind of situation that we get ourselves into when we do not take enough time to read legislation, to have questions asked about legislation, and to introduce it. There is not enough time.

It is a shame, when ministers stand, that they do not take the bill, and if they did - if the Minister of Health and Community Services stood up here when she introduced that piece of legislation... Look at the introduction to it, the explanatory note. This is what the Minster of Health and Community Services provided on a bill here that has great repercussions. I just told you about some of them. It is twenty-two pages long. Do you know what the explanatory note is? Just listen to this, “The purpose of this Bill is set out in its Long Title.”

That is the explanation to Bill 26 that is going to go out and have great repercussions on charging everybody who lives in this Province, the people who own 436,000 vehicles, another levy. She is not saying how much it is going to be. She is not telling you that you are going to have to pay $5 or $10; you have to trust her for that.

I say to the Government House Leader, wouldn't you think that the minister would have stood and explained the bill? Because there are people over there who do not know what this bill is all about. The Member for Bellevue sits there bewildered, with his head to one side, wondering what I am talking about. He doesn't have a clue what is in this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That was used as an example to explain to them.

I say to the Member for Bellevue, who takes great pride in saying he represents his district and he represents his constituents, take that piece of legislation out to your people, explain to them what it is all about. Sit down in their kitchen and see what they tell you to say about this piece of legislation.

What the Opposition House Leader talked about doing with this piece of legislation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. gentleman something. The last time I was in Clarenville, he and I had our picture taken together and I want to know if he will give me his permission to put in on the back of my year-end brochure. We missed him last night, and they were asking for him out in Clarenville.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader wants to add a little bit of charisma to his folder, he can use my picture any time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Roger, tell him if he wants to enhance his chances of getting re-elected, go ahead.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Government House Leader that it probably will enhance your chances of getting elected, because I have some good friends down in your district.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I want to remind the hon. House Leader and hon. Member for Bonavista South that the hon. the Member for Bellevue is also in that picture, and in no way do I want my picture being circulated in his district or the hon. member's district.

MR. TULK: To that point of order, I want to assure the hon. gentlemen that we will cut him out.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that was out in Clarenville a few weeks ago and the photographer insisted that I give him the pictures. It had nothing to do with invitations.

AN HON. MEMBER: It made for a good picture then.

MR. FITZGERALD: It made for a good picture.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) didn't I?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you did. I give the minister credit.

I say to the minister, there is nobody on that side of the House who can stand up and refute what I said today about legislation being introduced in this Chamber - nobody. There is nobody here in this House who can stand up and seriously debate what the Opposition House Leader has brought forward as an amendment to this piece of legislation, and that is to use the Committees of this House in a way that they were struck and structured to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: When your former leader, I say to the Government House Leader, kept you controlled in the back benches, kept you in the wings - the Member for Baie Verte said you were so far up, you used to get the nose bleed - when you would sit there and couldn't look across this House, couldn't look at your leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is right. That is the way he would come in.

Only then, when the cameras were here, when the Budget was being read or when His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, would come and waltz through here.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You tried.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It wasn't what you said.

MR. FITZGERALD: That was to prove a point.

Mr. Speaker, what the Member for Ferryland is suggesting is that we take this piece of legislation and we take it very seriously, and we pass it back to the Committee that was structured in this House, in order to take it out and look at it. Now that do not mean, I say to the Government House Leader, that we are going to take it out and travel to Corner Brook, and travel here and there. We will let the Committee sit down and go through it.

If the minister is not going to stand and explain this bill, and if the minister is not going to tell us what she means by a levy on motor vehicles in this Province -

MR. TULK: She is going to do all of that.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, she is not going to do it. Obviously she will not do it. It has not been done. If it was going to be done, it would be done at the introduction of the legislation.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I wonder, could the Member for Bellevue -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Racket, yes.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know that the place to ask questions on any clause in the bill is in Committee. Of course, the minister will answer any questions the hon. gentleman has in Committee, when we get to that stage of the bill. It is not a problem; we are debating the principle of this bill. He knows that. That is the reason he is up there talking about - not the skidoo roads. What do we call them?

AN HON. MEMBER: ATV trails.

MR. TULK: ATV trails. That is the reason he is talking about that. He knows that he is using the time of this House for nothing, but I have to tell him something: he is very entertaining.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is not a point of being entertaining. It is the point of showing people opposite and the people on this side what happens when we allow a piece of legislation to go through without questions being asked, and without explanations given.

If the minister, in my way of thinking... If I ever become minister in this House of Assembly - and praise God I will some day - if I ever introduce a piece of legislation, I intend to be fully versed on that piece of legislation and to stand and go through it clause-by-clause and allow the questions to be asked. Never mind waiting for committee, I say to the member. Let's do it so people can get up and debate it. If that was done, if that particular -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: If there are any more Tories appointed to that Cabinet there is going to be a revolt over there.

 

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if that is the way that legislation was introduced into the House then there would be no time taken up here. Because the questions that we ask and the information and the concerns that we put forward would not be a topic for discussion because we would know the answers. The only topics we would discuss would be the topics that the minister explained that we did not agree with, or we pointed out the inequities in that piece of legislation. That is not what is done here. While legislation is slipped through, far too often the result is that people out in this Province get hurt by it, and that is what is likely to happen with this piece of legislation here.

I know the Government House Leader has used the committees of the House, I know that. I remember introducing a piece of legislation here myself, the `Good Samaritan' act, that his former boss would not allow to go through, and the former Government House Leader would not hear tell of. This leader did and this Government House Leader allowed it to go through. While there was somebody's name put on it, that is not an issue with me, I say to the minister.

The minister referred it to a committee of the House and the committee of the House worked very well. I remember the committee going down and visiting the food banks around this city. I remember them going out and visiting the areas where the food was being stored and all the fears that were raised in this Chamber were laid aside. I think the Minister of Environment now was the chairperson of that particular committee at that time. I know the Member for Waterford Valley was a member of that committee. We had hearings up on the fifth floor and allowed people to come in. In fact, my friend to my far right down there almost had the two elevators going, bringing people up and down, saying: No, I'm against this piece of legislation because there should not be any food banks. What a silly comeback in saying if you are going to introduce something to deal with a problem that you do not believe that the problem should exist when it is there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was it?

MR. FITZGERALD: You know who it was. The Member for Quidi Vidi, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

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

MR. EFFORD: No leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is what happens I say. No, I don't want any leave, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I've said what I've had to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will just reiterate. In conclusion, I say to the minister, pass it on to a committee of the House, let them report back to the House, and then we will know for sure.

Thank you.

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

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

I am pleased to stand in my place to say a few words on Bill 26, An Act To Revise The Administration Of Medical Care Insurance. I have a question. I would like to know what road this Province is traveling down when it comes to health care in this Province and who is going to pay for it in the future?

Since this federal government came into power - nationally, the Liberals - it has gone from 25 per cent of medicare bills in the country being paid for by insurance companies up to 30 per cent, I believe. Now we have this legislation before the House of Assembly. I wonder, do the people in this Province know where we are heading?

This legislation, albeit, that there are sections already existing, but I would say that many people in this Province do not know about this hidden tax. Many people do not know about this hidden tax. I have been in this House of Assembly many times speaking about all the license, fees and permits after doubling, tripling, quadrupling since this group came into power in 1989. They have brought in taxes, fees and permits required for things now that were never there before. Now the minister wants the people of this Province to be paying money on all vehicles to go towards cost recovery.

We see people going into the Health Sciences and if they want a room, a private room or a semi-private room, if there is insurance I do believe - now, I stand to be corrected on this - that they have to give them a cheque for $300 before they can go in through the door. If you don't have insurance I think you have to pay $200. We are talking about health care in this country being free? Not likely. I would not think so.

I think if the people in the Province had the opportunity to have some input into Bill 26 - and that is why I support the amendment put forward by the Opposition House Leader to refer this to a committee. Sure, we should refer it to a committee. That is what the committees are set up for, where we bring legislation to the House that is going to have an impact upon the people of the Province. Sure, we should refer it to Committee.

It is more than housekeeping, I say, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Government House Leader over there, who looks like a fish under water with his mouth going up and down - yes, the Government House Leader - that this is very serious stuff.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know. I just do not like the color of your tie, I suppose.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it was not a point that was made by a couple of the previous speakers. I wonder why when we have legislation brought to this House of Assembly it is always the Opposition that have to be on their feet pointing out the flaws in the legislation.

MR. TULK: That is what you get paid for.

MR. J. BYRNE: We have backbenchers on that side of the House. The Government House Leader says that is what we get paid for, but we have many Members in this House of Assembly. I am elected to represent my district. We have the members over there who represent their districts. Surely they have an opinion on what is happening. The Member for Topsail, surely he must have an opinion. When the government are going to try and rip off the taxpayer in this Province he must want to get up and speak to it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I just cannot sit here and hear the hon. gentleman accuse backbenchers or private members on this side of the House of not putting their thoughts forward to government. I say to the hon. gentleman that he may not be aware of how the system works, but the truth of the matter is that we have great discussions about all kinds of legislation, all kinds of problems in caucus, and I have to tell him that in this Administration the caucus is practically treated like a Cabinet. That is how much respect there is from the leader over here for people who are private members.

The hon. gentleman must know that that is his job. If he sees flaws that we do not see over here - although that would be difficult for him to do because he would have to think - if he sees those kinds of things, if he does think at all, well, that is his job, that is what he gets paid for. He should learn that and be a better Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I can't hear the Speaker. What did you say, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

No point of order again, as usual. Batting a thousand, I say to the Government House Leader. The man who is supposed to leading the decorum in the House of Assembly, who is supposed to know the rules and regulations of the House of Assembly, gets up and I have yet to see him right on a point of order. Never yet. Never is he correct with respect to a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader. The Member for Terra Nova gets up every now and then and gets really into it, gets really upset - at least he appears to be - but his points of order sometimes make sense. Most of the time they do not either, Mr. Speaker.

Back to this piece of legislation. Some of the reasons that this should be referred to Committee are as follows. One, we all know that MCP theoretically are supposed to be paying the doctors' bills. If I go see a doctor he sends off a bill for seeing me. The same thing with members on that side of the House. The Minister of Fisheries, I would say, would go to see a doctor very often, I would imagine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: He doesn't? I was not saying physically now. I was not speaking physically. Anyway, theoretically the bills are paid by MCP. This legislation is really, at the bottom line, bringing in a hidden tax. It is there now I would say, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if the people in the Province actually knew that it was there. I did not to be quite honest, but it is at a certain per cent now. The Member for Bonavista South made the point that we are now paying $12.56 per vehicle that is there now plus another - well, it was 15 per cent plus 4 cent, so that is 19 per cent. If you have a bill of $1000, you are paying $190 for government fees, hidden taxes, and another $12.56 plus, and that is passed directly onto us.

I have to ask the question: Where are we headed? What road are we going down, I say to the minister, when it comes to health care? Who is paying for it and who is going to pay for it? We have the Minister of Health on her feet answering questions from the Opposition House Leader, trying to extol the attributes and how good the health care is in this Province, but when you walk into the Health Sciences over there, or any hospital in this Province, and you see seniors on - they call them trolleys now, but stretchers is what I used to refer to them as - waiting for hours, and we have people -

AN HON. MEMBER: Buggies.

MR. J. BYRNE: Buggies. We have people going in hospital for care and they are sent home. I think the records will show, and I am sure the critic for health, the Opposition House Leader, could give you examples of people being sent home too early, getting infections, and going back into hospital, therefore costing untold thousands of dollars more for us, the taxpayers. If they only would do it right in the first place and not try to get them out the door. It all comes down to the bottom line, the buck, the dollar.

The minister talks about the increased monies they put into health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think what this Administration should do is go back to their federal counterparts and try and get some of the transfer payments increased, the billions of dollars that the federal Administration has cut from the health transfer payments across this country. The federal government up there now has $25 billion in the E.I. fund. They have a surplus now. They are talking about a surplus, I think, within the next few years of up to, is it, $65 billion? Can anybody comprehend that kind of money? Would $65 billion in $1,000 bills fill this House of Assembly, I wonder? I cannot even fathom how much money that is. I would not even venture to guess the actual volume. We are here now trying to squeeze, gouge, take money out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is what this bill is all about. The minister stood in her place, and the Member for Bonavista South talked about it, introducing a bill some twenty-two pages long, I think he said. How long was she up, five minutes? Five minutes. Shameful!

Again, I have to get back to the point that we have legislation -

AN HON. MEMBERS: It is not how long you speak, it is what you stand for.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker? That is the very point I was about to make. The Member for Humber East -

AN HON. MEMBER: You must be crushed.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am crushed, yes.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Humber East there made the very point I was about to make. If you feel that this legislation is good, why aren't you on your feet supporting it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) already told you (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I ask the Member for Humber East, what is the name of the bill? Quote the title for me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 26.

MR. J. BYRNE: Very intelligent, I say to the Member for Humber East, twenty-six.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation here now, again, I say is a tax. We are talking about recovering the cost of services from the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. How far do we go with this, if you sit back and think about it? In England, from what I understand, talking about recovering costs for health care, they are trying to - and I think it is in place. I will give you an example how ridiculous this can become. I stand to be corrected, but I believe I understand this is the way it is. Let's say in England today we have two individuals. They have a scale now. If you have an individual here who smokes and you have another individual here who does not smoke, and both need a lung transplant, what they are doing now is this. There are priorities set. The person who does not smoke could be ten years older, whatever the case may be, and gets the attention. How far are we going to go with this recovery cost? Is that likely to happen in this country? I sincerely hope not.

 

Another thing in this legislation, the Crown can actually take action on behalf of an individual who has been in an accident and recovered some money from the insurance company. The Crown can now go after that money to pay the health care bills. To me, I do not know how far we are going with this. I think we could be basically stepping on people's rights when it comes to that.

I think I have said as much as I want to say on this issue, but I think there are other members who want to get up and speak on this. I would encourage the Member for Humber East, he is like a -

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I was growing up in Torbay. I would be down around the rivers and the marshes in Torbay, probably picking berries or looking for a trout, or whatever the case may be, and I would hear this noise. I would be listening around where this noise was coming from - a snipe, squeaking. That is what we have over here in Humber East. He is like a little snipe. He doesn't know where he is coming from; trying to be smart. I have to say one thing. It is very difficult for the Member for Humber East to be smart. That is what happens to snipes.

In conclusion, I want to say that I support the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader. I support his amendment. I believe we should refer it to a Committee so the people in this Province can fully understand what is going on with some of the legislation; in particular, legislation that has hidden taxes that they know nothing about, because I didn't know about this tax until this legislation came before this House.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the Member for Bellevue, the Chair would like to render a decision on a point of order raised by the Member for Waterford Valley on November 19. The point of order concerned a comment made by the hon. the Member for Bellevue. He used the expression, “a complete fabrication”, to characterize comments on an Open Line show by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

It is the Chair's opinion that this expression suggests deliberate falsehood and is therefore unparliamentary. The Chair will therefore ask the hon. Member for Bellevue to withdraw that comment.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise. If I said something unparliamentary in this House, I withdraw it, no conditions whatsoever. This is an hon. member, not like the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's who refused to get up and say he made a mistake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great pleasure for me to get up and talk about this bill. I am sure that I know as much about this bill as the Member for Bonavista South, who talked about ski-doo trails, and the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis, who used to be very high in the polls at one time in the Opposition Party. He asked very good questions and he was very, very high in the polls on this (inaudible).

What this bill really covers is to recover money. Instead of the taxpayers of the Province having to pay for people who are involved in motor vehicle accidents, that we charge to the insurance companies. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with this particular bill - instead of the taxpayers of the Province having to pay for medicare costs of people involved in accidents? This is common all around the world.

I want to make some comments about our health care system in Newfoundland, the fantastic health care system that we have in this Province. A couple of years ago, I happened to be out of this great Province and I had some medical problems. It is interesting that, when the ambulance came, even though things were very critical at that time, and before they got the defibrillator out, the first thing they wanted to know was if I had a Visa card, or if my wife had a Visa card, and what the Visa number was. In other words, we will look after you if you can pay for it. It was interesting.

I was taken to the hospital and for the first twenty-four hours it was a very difficult time. I didn't know if I was going to leave this world, or what was going to happen, but once I was stabilized there was no bed available for me. This was a hospital that the year before had made a 50 per cent profit. There was no bed available, and I was in the corridor for a couple of days waiting for my procedure to take place. As a matter of fact, they would come at 7:00 a.m. every day and say: Mr. Barrett, we are going to do the angioplasty, the dye testing, and whatever other procedure we have to do. It is going to happen today. So I would wait and wait, and every couple of hours a nurse would happen to drop by. If you ever heard the nurses' conversations, they were complaining about the fact that they had to work double shifts and overtime, and how disorganized everything was. This was a private hospital. Finally, around 9:00 p.m. they would come and say: Mr. Barrett, you are not going to be done today.

I spent five days in the hospital and never did eat a meal in the hospital, because every day I was on standby, waiting to go into the lab to be done.

The total cost of that procedure, the five days I spent in the hospital, was $68,000 American.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go away!

MR. BARRETT: Blue Cross. As a matter of fact, I don't know what would have happened if I didn't have Blue Cross, because I am sure that my Visa didn't have a limit of $68,000 American.

I probably would have died of another heart attack when they told me it was going to cost $68,000 and I couldn't afford to pay for it.

MR. SULLIVAN: They would charge you just as much to get you back (inaudible), I suppose.

MR. BARRETT: They wanted to fly me back because it was much cheaper to get it done in Canada. The insurance company wanted to fly me back, but nobody would sign the documents to fly me back.

I think it is an opportunity that we are talking about, the Medical Care Commission. If you read some of the articles and some of the negative things about our health care system, you would think we are in crisis in the health care in this Province.

I have some people who have been in hospital over the last year or two, and I have people at Hoyles-Escasoni. I must say, I am impressed with the level of health care and I am impressed with the level of service that has been provided. I have a very special aunt in Hoyles-Escasoni. I visit her once or twice a week, and I must say I have to compliment the staff there. I think they are very, very efficient, and very caring. As a matter of fact, the seniors there are quite content, and quite happy. There are so many activities going on.

As a matter of fact, when you walk into that facility you get a feeling of being at home because there are so many things around, and the atmosphere is go great. Even though it is sort of an older institution, it is a very nice place to be. I spend two or three hours there every week. I must say, the activities and the things that are going on in that facility are just unbelievable. I am there sometimes at lunchtime at night, and the way the staff treat those seniors is unbelievable. I think it is a credit to our health care system, and a credit to our medical people, the dedication that they have to these seniors. Some of these seniors are very difficult to deal with, and you have to have a lot of patience. I have to say, I am very impressed with the level of the health care that is in this Province.

I think there was an article in The Telegram recently by a fellow Badcock, who really outlines what is wrong. I can appreciate the fact, I know what it is like to be waiting and not knowing what is happening to you. I went through it for the period of time that I was in hospital, the two or three days that I was waiting for the procedure, and you did not know how serious you were and what was going to happen to you. It is very hard on the nerves, and I can appreciate that, but normally the doctors - as they were down there, and the doctors here - are very knowledgeable in terms of what is happening. Once they delay a procedure, they know that everything is okay. Like all professionals, I guess, whether you be teachers, lawyers, nurses or doctors, there is always room for human error, but I am impressed in terms of the level of expertise of our medical staff here in this Province. To get up here and to dramatize the medical situation in this Province is, I think, a bit ridiculous. I think it is fantastic. We pay a very high level of taxation in this country for our medicare system.

If you talk to the people in the United States, I have often gone into a - not a liquor store, but a store in the states. Actually, when I was a smoker I used to go into those places and try to find Canadian cigarettes. Sometimes you would say to them: Gosh, isn't it unbelievable that you can buy a bottle, a forty-ouncer of rum or something, for $12, or you can buy a pack of cigarettes for $2.50 or $3, how cheap it is. They would say to you: Look, Sir, I would rather be paying $60 or $70 for a bottle of liquor, I would rather be paying $6 or $7 for a pack of cigarettes, and have the medicare system that you have in Canada.

If you travel in the United States of America, and you go into a lot of the tourist establishments and see the number of older people who work as waiters and waitresses in the service industry, a lot of the people who are in there are in their twilight years, in their golden years, are struggling to serve on tables, to wait on people in restaurants. If you get into a conversation with them, a lot of these people will say to you: The reason I have to work is because either my husband or somebody in the family has had extensive medical expenses. The reason I have to work at this job is: I am here because I have to pay the bills.

We do not hear that kind of thing in Canada. I think we are very, very lucky. One of the things I have great concern about is, if we have so much negativity, we are going to get more and more people like the Ralph Klein's of the world, the Ralph Klein's of the world who are going to say we are going to have to privatize our medicare system. I tell you, it is going to be a disaster.

I remember - not too many - in the early years of Confederation it was somewhat like that in Newfoundland. In the early 1950s, if you had money in Newfoundland you received great medical attention. I remember my father, who died when I was nine years old, who had TB, and we lived on Woody Island. I am sure, at that time, if we had money, he would never have died; that there would have been medical attention, and he would have received medical attention. Because people in those days, if you had money and you belonged to the St. John's establishment, you got the proper care. I wouldn't want us to ever come to that situation.

In this great country of ours, and in this great Province of ours, when you pull up in front of the door and you are in an ambulance, no one asks you whether you have a Visa card or how much money you have. You are a patient and you are just as important whether you are on social services or if you are a multi-millionaire. It doesn't make any difference; you receive the same kind of medical attention at the Health Sciences Centre, the Clarenville hospital, the Burin hospital, or any hospital in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you pull up to that door, you are a human being who needs medical attention and you get the same level of care as anybody else. I think it is fantastic.

When we see a bill like this coming before the House of Assembly, that people who are involved in car accidents, and we have insurances and we pay for that kind of insurance scheme, it is only right that we not take the pool of money that is in the medicare commission, that is there for people who never drive vehicles. There are still people in this world who never drive motor vehicles and do not own a motor vehicle, so these people should not be liable for people who have accidents and go out -

Sometimes it is negligence on the part of individuals that we have car accidents. Why should the ordinary taxpayer have to pay or foot the bill for that particular service? What we are doing here - there is nothing hidden in this legislation. There are no hidden taxes. There is nothing to be worried about.

If there is a tax in it, so what if there is a tax in it? If there is a tax in it, it is because we need the money to provide the medical care. We hear the Opposition every day getting up and talking about tax cuts. We should cut this, we should cut this. We should not be paying all this money out, on one hand, and the next day they are in saying: We should pump another $100 million into health care. We should put another $100 million into education.

We should not be concerned. If we have to pay a few extra cents or a few extra dollars in taxes - because when you are picked up by an ambulance and you go through that door of a hospital and you are treated as a human being, and everybody is treated equal, I think it is very, very important. I, for one, never mind paying taxes if we are going to get the level of health care that we have in this Province. On the other hand, those of us who are parents, if we are going to get the level of education that we have in this Province.

It is very, very important that we pay our fair share for those great services. It will be a sad day in this Province if we ever have to think about the kind of things that Ralph Klein is thinking about, and the great Tory government of Alberta is looking at right now. I am sure, if the Tory government was in Newfoundland and Labrador, on this side of the House today, I am sure that they would be up debating a bill that we are going to privatize the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador; but I can assure you, as long as we are a Liberal government in Newfoundland and Labrador, there will be no privatization of the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It gives me a great opportunity to say a few words about this bill and greatly endorse the work that is being done by this government and by this Minister of Health and Community Services in the great health care system that we have in this Province that we call Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the vote on the amendment?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I am very pleased to speak to this today because I don't know if the comment, “asleep at the switch” means anything; but all of these pieces that are being debated today have been in this legislation since 1994. They missed it in 1994. Yesterday, the member opposite got up and asked questions about a levy, a new levy. Mr. Speaker, the levy has been in place since 1994. He was probably fighting for the leadership of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: So this is not a new issue.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to indicate that I am glad the minister found out since yesterday, because I have stated that already, Minister. That is already on the record here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have stated that and I spoke on it. So I would like to hear answers to questions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

It took him a day later to realize what he missed in 1994, when he was sitting on the other side of the House, because - in fact, this information is not new. Really, if the member opposite had listened to my opening comments on the intent of this amendment to the bill, he would realize -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, it is true. He said, why would he listen to that?

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the Act To Revise The Administration Of The Medical Care Insurance Act, the sole purpose of this amendment is to make changes in the act that are necessary -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

- that are necessary to provide for the administration of the MCP by my department, and that is the only intent.

The issue on the levies, the issue on how they are collected and what they are used for, I will be happy to go through it clause-by-clause when we get to Committee, but I want to point out again that my opening comments were accurate and I think it is important to realize that this bill was in place in 1994. The members opposite had a chance at that time to ask questions about the levy. They missed it then, so I guess five years later is an appropriate time to come back and ask questions, and I am only too happy to answer them.

I think it is very important to note that most of these sections of the bill are identical to the existing Medical Care Insurance Act. The section numbers are different. The intent (inaudible) is about the administrative piece of it. It was decided by the legislative officials that the whole bid be put in place, and I think it is important to note the intent of this bill today, as I stated, is exactly the same as I stated it yesterday. It has not changed. It is about bringing the administration of MCP under the Department of Health and Community Services.

It was decided, as I will restate again today, that no policy changes would be made to effect the practicing physicians in our Province or the public. I know they are not listening but I am happy to know that it is on Hansard so they will be able to read it for their further clarification. The major policy directions of this amendment are identical to the existing act as it related to the one passed in this House in 1994.

I know it takes five years for it to click in, but I am only too happy to answer any questions on any part of the bill that they want in Committee, and again I want to say that the sole purpose of this amendment is to make changes to the administration of the MCP act by the Department of Health and Community Services.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the vote on the amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Revise The Administration Of Medical Care Insurance”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 26)

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 8, Bill 27, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act”.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act”. (Bill 27)

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

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

This is a bill that we are proposing at the request of the nurses to bring forward to make some minor changes and considered housekeeping changes to their act. They want to include the words “and Labrador” after the word “Newfoundland”.

In addition, as it says here under 3.(1), “The Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland is continued as a corporation under the name of the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.”

The other piece, Mr. Speaker, is: deleting the words and numbers “January 1 to December 31" and substituting the words and numbers “April 1 in year one to March 31 in the next year.” Again this is in keeping in line with the current year as we have outlined our current fiscal year.

The third piece of the amendment is: deleting the words “or is unbecoming to a nurse”.

This again is recommendation that was put forward by the nurses association to bring it in line with how they would like to conduct their affairs in all three pieces of these housekeeping amendments, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the minister - actually, it is self-explanatory in the clauses in this particular one, and is at the request of the nurses. I just wish the minister and government were listening to nurses on other requests and other demands and they could move forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Then we would not have the crisis we are facing in the nursing here in our Province, people leaving to greener pastures, higher pay and working conditions. That is what we should be doing here.

I tell the minister that we are not going to delay this bill very long at all. I am going to have a few brief comments, as well as a few colleagues here who I know are just chomping at the bit to have a few comments on the way that nurses are being treated by this government. The minister stood in her place here a little while ago and said: The collective agreement with nurses is preventing the changing from casual to permanent nurses. The very minister who negotiated and put in place agreements is saying now she is blaming it on herself! Can you imagine? She is blaming it on herself, now, the reason they cannot hire nurses. I must say, that is the first time I heard a minister stand and blame it on herself why they cannot convert casuals to permanents any faster than one year.

There is a crisis in nursing in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in the Labrador portion. The minister is very well aware that it is not only nurses. The Health Labrador Corporation has written the minister. There is an urgent need to have nurses there. We have had nurse practitioners go out and train the twelve, I think the first class, or thirteen, and a similar number the last time. They are gone out now to take on added responsibilities, write prescriptions and other things, and it is only just now - I do not know if they got a cheque yet increasing their wages, and they are out there a year carrying on responsibilities that doctors were carrying on to a certain extent. They have not even had their pay cheques increased, though doing the same work with new responsibilities out there. Added responsibilities and not getting the pay they need.

I'm sure my colleague for Labrador West is much aware of what is going on in Labrador and is the critic for the NDP in that area. Here is why our Province is in deeper trouble than the rest of the country. Because when there is a shortage of nurses across the world they are going to gravitate and shift to the areas where there is better conditions and better pay. I was hoping there would not be a shortage of nurses in the rest of the country because nurses would be able to stay here and the demands would not be as great. There would not be a reason to leave because there would not be a job, but because there are vacancies in other provinces, because they are paying them more in other provinces, that is why they are going. Where are we going to end up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)? Why are the nurses coming back?

MR. SULLIVAN: Just listen and I will tell you why. Here is why. They are calling and offering them things. I spoke to one this week who told me they came back. They were offered so much extra money, pay their expenses and other costs, and now they are finding out they are not delivering on what they got when they were told they came back. The jig is up, minister. The word is out, I can tell you. I do not know what world the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is living in if he thinks there are nurses coming back to this Province from the United States. It is almost one-way traffic.

Your own Minister of Health has said it is one-way traffic out of the Province and you are saying they are coming back. Come back to the real world, I say to the minister. Get in the real world and find out what is going on in health care in our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, shame, I say, if the minister is not aware of that.

There are major problems with the supply of nurses. This year forty-one nurses graduated in this Province. Forty-one, because there is a transition into the Bachelor of Nursing program. Twenty-two had signed contracts by as early as May of this year to go out outside the Province. Several have called me since that who told me they were promised this summer - some of the nurses - that they would get full-time working hours because there was such a shortage. There are people who had hours built up and they were going to go on leave and had to take holidays.

One called me in July and said: Since June I have had one twelve hour shift per week - a young nurses who graduated in May - and I cannot stay around any longer. August 8, they told me - and this was in July - I'm going to Ottawa. I've signed and I've agreed to move out of the Province. Four other of her friends out of the remaining nineteen that had not already signed contracts left this Province. Why are they going? Thirty-some thousand dollars a year when they are offering $50,000-some. They are offering living conditions and other benefits associated with it. There are shortages elsewhere, I will admit, around the world. It is supposed to peak in 2003, so that is even worse. That weakens our case here because there are shortages elsewhere. It makes it worse.

Down in Labrador, they came in here and wanted to interview nurses and were willing to pay them some, they said they could get up to $70,000 to $80,000. How many nurses showed up? Two showed up for the interview. One went in just to look at it, and only one was going to consider going there. Why? Because if you can get $60,000 to go to the sunny U.S. or parts of this country, or have to go to Labrador in a community on your own where you have to be the doctor, nurse or the expert, that is a lot of extra responsibility in Coastal Labrador caring for the health of people in that community with no doctors nearby, only a specialist and things by telephone. There is a lot of pressure and demands on the job.

We have not started even to deal with the problem. We warned, and I am on record in this House, as warning that it is coming, and it is getting worse, a year and two years ago, and it has come. The time has come in this Province now when we have a serious crisis. Today it is not only cardiac surgery getting cancelled because there aren't any nurses: there is orthopedic surgery, in gynecology, and in every specialty area requiring surgery. They are cancelled today. Routine areas, emergency cases. You have to be an emergency case now to get surgery in certain areas in our Province.

I could on for weeks on this particular bill, I could talk about it forever, but I cannot. I told my colleague I am going to sit down and allow him a few minutes to get up and continue to talk about concerns in his area with nurses in our Province.

The minister is introducing this because the nurses requested it, and I support the change. It is their prerogative, their name. It (inaudible) to do things with their own affairs. I just wish the minister and members would listen to the cries that are out there today to increase the wages, improve the working conditions, and lighten the burden that nurses have in our Province. They have added responsibilities with no extra pay. Because the wake up call, I tell you, is coming and we are going to be deeper into a crisis that we are facing right now in this Province. They should start listening and paying heed to it, because we are coming out with nurses better trained in specialized areas.

People are prevented from specializing. Nurses want to go in and do critical care. They want to do it but they are not allowed to move. They say: We have to replace you here. They want to go into operating rooms and ICUs, but they are prevented from doing it. I have letters on my desk from families of people, nurses who resigned, because they would not allow them a transfer in one area. Nurses who would not allow them to go to work in a particular area, who wanted to train and upgrade.

These are the realities we are facing here in our Province with nurses and healthcare. It is a shame that the government pretends not to listen at all and do nothing about it. We will see we will be a lot worse off. The out-migration of nurses will be a lot more severe than it is now because next year we are coming with a larger group of graduates here and it will a shame on this government if we see all of these people go out again across the country and the United States, giving them top healthcare. They want our graduates. We have excellent schools of nursing here in Memorial University, the Centre of Nursing Studies, we have excellent programs, we have qualified people, we are doing a tremendous job. I do not want to see all these skills and training go to teach people to go out and give services to other parts of the country and the world when they are needed here at home because we are not prepared to give them proper working conditions and proper wages.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to say a few words on Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act. I say to people opposite and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if there was a free vote here on both sides of the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is always a free vote over here.

MR. FITZGERALD: No there is not. There is very seldom a free vote. I say that if there was ever a free vote conducted in this House of Assembly to pick the member who would do the best job, the better job, as the Minister of Health and Community Services, I can guarantee you that if everybody was allowed to vote the Member for Ferryland would win it hands down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know of another member that is more knowledgeable, I do not know of another member who puts more time and effort into seeking out and researching the issues than the Member for Ferryland. There is nobody on either side of the House, I say, including the minister, the former minister, and including the Premier, who knows more about healthcare than the Member for Ferryland. He can get up and talk about healthcare and provide you with facts, figures and statistics until the cows come home, never repeat himself once, and you can take it to the bank. I say to members opposite that when you hear something from the Member for Ferryland you can take it to the bank because it is true. He has the facts, he has the figures, and he will stand by whatever he puts forward in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 27 does not do a lot, it does not say a lot. It changes a couple of names and wherefores does not do a lot, do not say a lot. It changes a couple of names and wherefores and whereases. I say to members opposite that what you have to remember is a similar bill that was brought before this House of Assembly with the number three written on it. Bill 3, an act to legislate the nurses back to work there a short time ago. That particular piece of legislation, while it was only written on a piece of white paper the same as this, will have greater repercussions against that party than any other piece of legislation they have brought before this House of Assembly. If there is one thing that you people will continue to take a black eye over, it will be Bill 3. The nurses are not about to let it go and they are not about to forget it. We don't have to keep reminding them. We don't have to keep bringing it up here in the House of Assembly. Every member over there I am sure is confronted with it and have to face it on a daily basis.

It was only a month ago that I was called down to my district. The nurses down in Bonavista wanted to meet with the member and wanted to talk about some of their concerns and some of the fears that they had. They were having problems dealing with the issues. I have to refer back to the hospital boards as they are presently constructed or as they are presently appointed. I have been a great proponent in saying that hospital boards in this Province should be no different than school boards. We either have to do one thing or the other: we have to do away with the boards, or we have to start electing the boards. Now the minister in her wisdom does not agree with electing hospital boards, and I suppose that is understandable, because if they were elected they would represent the wishes of the people and not the wishes of the minister and the wishes of government. Because if you go out and appoint somebody to a board or to a position then you know who they represent, you know whose agenda they bring forward.

I remember after I had a meeting with the nurses a write up appeared in the local paper. I had a call from the administrator, the director of the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation, Mr. Manuel. He said: Roger, I want to touch base with you and talk about some of the things that you had raised in the paper. I said: I expected your call. So we had a chat. I told him then: Look, my biggest concern, and I've raised it in the House and will continue to raise it, is the way that hospital boards are constructed. It is the way that the minister goes about appointing members to hospital boards, about the unfair area representation.

The gentleman went on to explain that while there was representation from all areas, he did not think that was such a big issue because the hospital board comes and reports to him. I said: Well, I always thought if there was representation based on the number of people or the facilities that you have, and if you decided to appoint four people from Bonavista and six people from Clarenville, and eight people from Burin, like the structure of The Peninsula Health Care Board, that would reflect not only the facilities but the number of people that they represent. That was all agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize the hospital boards are constructed and appointed in such a way that they do not have to report back or take direction from the people they represent. I said, there is something wrong here. If you have representation on a hospital board, and if I have a problem, whether I am a nurse or whether I am a resident of Bonavista or Port Union, then you would think that I would be able to call the hospital board member and that member would take it before a board meeting in order to address the concern. He said, no, that is not the way it is. It does not work that way. If somebody in Bonavista has a problem, they should call me. They should call the administrator, the director, not go to the hospital board.

Is that the way a hospital board should work. Is that the way you should have representation on a school board, or a hospital board? If you have representation, then you feel you have representation there for the people that you represent. Well, that is not the way it is. That is not the way the structure is, and that is why it is not working, I say to members opposite. That is the reason it is not working.

We believe in something. If we believe in what brought us here, I say to the Government House Leader, if you believe in the process that brought you into this House of Assembly, you should believe in the process of allowing your people to elect other people to represent them in another direction. If you do not believe in that, you do not believe in democracy, you do not believe that you should be there, I say to the Government House Leader. I do not think that he agrees with the philosophy that is being put forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Blue Book.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Blue Book says to do away with the boards and make somebody accountable. We either do one thing or the other. We do away with them or make them accountable, one thing or the other, because they are not now. If you believe in electing school boards, then what is so wrong with electing hospital boards, I say to the member?

Mr. Speaker, I understand it is now close to the hour of adjournment, so with that I will adjourn debate and look forward to debate on this issue tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.

If I could, before we leave, what are we debating for the Opposition tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Ombudsman.

MR. TULK: The Ombudsman, okay.

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