November 19, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 32


The House met at 10:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Just to advise hon. members so that everybody will be informed as to why we are meeting in this special session this morning: as you know, when we meet at 1:30 this afternoon we will, for the first time, be televising the proceedings of the Legislature and we need authorization from the House to do that, so we have a resolution that will be presented to the House now to deal with that.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the resolution is as follows:

Resolution

"Be it Resolved that this House of Assembly do authorize the recording on film and the televising of its proceedings in accordance with guidelines made by the Honourable the Speaker in consultation with the Commission of Internal Economy."

MR. SPEAKER: Are the members ready for the question?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Name Of The Province."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave of the House to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Environmental Protection Act." (Bill 45)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In The Province." (Bill 44)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: I thought I was just popular at the convention!

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Facilitate Electronic Commerce By Removing Barriers To The Use Of Electronic Communication."

AN HON. MEMBER: See if you can handle that one, Loyola. (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: There is lots in it for Loyola to deal with, let me tell you.

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Massage Therapy."

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Dental Act."

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Permit An Action By One Person On Behalf Of A Class Of Persons." (Bill 34)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Motor Carrier Act." (Bill 29)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members for their tremendous cooperation. This session was called to accommodate this afternoon, to make proceedings a little more smooth and a little more expeditious. What we want to do again is to agree that we call this a sitting day, so that the Notices of Motion just given will appear this afternoon as first readings. In order to do that, we do have to call this a sitting day.

If hon. members agree to that, we can adjourn debate until this afternoon.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Just to concur with the Government House Leader, both sides, certainly and obviously, in an attempt to ensure that the first televised proceedings of the House proceed in an expeditious manner, I suppose, and in as civilized a manner as possible, I want to say to the Government House Leader that we concur that this be a sitting day, obviously, from the Official Opposition point of view.

There has been some agreement on legislation and I want to just take the opportunity, in the Chamber, to say a special thank you to the Government House Leader for providing some legislation up front - not all of it, but some of it - to the extent that he could. Hopefully it is a sign of things to come. Maybe in the spring Legislature we will have it all a month before, possibly. You never know. In the meantime, I want to say that we concur with the request made by the Government House Leader and it is by agreement, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to concur and make it unanimous, as is required for this type of activity, I would like to say that we agree also that this will be a sitting day and forego the other routine proceedings that are on the Order Paper for this morning's session.

I also thank the Government House Leader for making available the legislation. In conversation with the Government House Leader over the last few days, it certainly seems that the government is more interested in seeing an orderly passage of legislation instead of piling it all up until the end of the session. Maybe we will even get to the stage where we will use our Legislation Review Committees again and have legislation discussed and debated in advance. Perhaps TV is going to be a civilizing influence on the House proceedings, Mr. Speaker, but that remains to be seen. In any event, the cooperation that is here this morning will allow us to move into this afternoon with a proper session available for the public of the Province.

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


November 19, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 33


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings today I would like to observe an old parliamentary tradition, I have the distinct pleasure today of introducing two new members who were elected on June 19, to the House of Assembly. They are: Mr. Roland Butler, the Member for Port de Grave, and Mr. Danny Williams, the Member for Humber West.

I have been informed by the Clerk that both of these members have taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown as required by the Constitution and have signed the Roll of the Members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I present before you, Mr. Roland Butler, the Member for Port de Grave, who claims the right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the member take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I present to you Mr. Danny Williams, the Member for Humber West and Leader of the Opposition, who claims the right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the member take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if I could, by leave of the House, to just briefly do two things: one is to say thank you to everybody in the Legislature for the unanimous consent that was given so that we could televise the proceedings of the House of Assembly beginning with this session this afternoon, and a heartfelt thank you to all members who believe in this particular concept and idea, and who did give unanimous consent so that we could proceed today.

Also, Mr. Speaker, to welcome the two new members; welcome to the new Member for Port de Grave. We are delighted to have Mr. Butler with us as a member of our particular caucus, and delighted to welcome the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber West, to the Legislature. I wish good fortune and good luck to my colleague in our caucus for a long time in the future. I know that will be the case. I do wish every success to the Leader of the Opposition taking upon a very serious role, Mr. Speaker, in terms of governance in Newfoundland and Labrador, and he joins a list of people who have performed the task very well, extremely well in the past, and I know he will bring his own style and his own approach to making sure that the position of Leader of the Opposition is filled with the kind of dignity that the office needs and is really respected in this particular Legislature in the job that he is about to undertake.

Congratulations. Thank you to everybody. Congratulations and welcome to the two new members.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the Premier for his remarks. Certainly it is a great honour for me to be here today in these hallowed halls. It is a great privilege to stand here as the Member for Humber West and Leader of the Opposition.

I have my family here with me today, Mr. Speaker, in the gallery: my wife, Maureen; my mother; my daughters; my son, Daniel; my brothers; and my son-in-law, Trevor Morris.

It is a very proud day for all our family. I want to thank my wife, Maureen, and our children for the support and the courage that they have had on enabling us to reach our decision. This was a tough decision for us as a family.

I commend all hon. Members in this House of Assembly for the tough job that they perform here. It is a great sacrifice, and I do truly commend you for the work that you do on behalf of your constituents.

I thank my wife and my children for their support. I also want to thank my mother for her inspiration throughout my life and for having the opportunity to have observed her passion and her conviction at a time in the 1950s and 1960s when us Tories were really considered an endangered species.

I have one regret, I guess, that my father, Tommy, is not here today. Dad was a person who loved people, and he loved politics. I think if he had been here today it would have been an absolutely wonderful 80th birthday present and a great Christmas present because he celebrated his birthday in December. The only regret is that he is not here today to join us, but I am sure he is looking down on us.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, members of my caucus, who have helped me get through this transition into public life; which has not been easy. It has been a difficult one, and I acknowledge that I am a new member here in this Chamber. I guess I feel a little bit like Daniel in the lion's den here as I look at the coliseum around me. It has been a tough transition and they have been very supportive. Even though I will make a few mistakes on the way through I fully expect to have their support and their guidance, and I thank them. I thank them one and all.

As well, I would like to extend congratulations to my counterpart, Roland Butler, the Member for Port de Grave. I wish you every success, Roland. I hope you enjoy your stay in the Legislature. We are all eligible of course as candidates for rookie of the year, together with the hon. Member for St. Barbe and the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North. I will not be disappointed if I do not get it because these two fellows have actually had a chance to strut their stuff a little longer than we have.

Finally and equally important, I want to thank my constituents, the people of Humber West, the people who placed their trust and confidence in me and have placed me in this Chamber on their behalf. As the Premier has indicated, I take my responsibilities very seriously and I truly respect the proceedings in this Legislature. As well, I hope I will not betray their confidence. In fact, I hope I can live up to the responsibility and the trust that they have placed in me. They were there for me when I needed them and I will be there for them when they need me.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very proud. My family is very proud. I thank you and your staff for the cooperation that you have given me throughout to help me get here today, and I look forward to it. Thank you one and all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Leader of the New Democratic Party I would like to join with the Premier in, first of all, acknowledging what an important step into a new era it is. That we are now able to be seen across the great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador live for the first time. This is a new era in politics for this Province and a new era for this House. I think it is an important step that we all supported, as the Premier has acknowledged. We are very happy to see this happen.

Secondly, I really want to welcome both our new colleagues here today. Roland Butler is no stranger to politics, having worked with a former member and former minister for many years. Welcome, Mr. Butler, to the floor of the House of Assembly. We look forward to the debates, as time goes on, and wish you well in that.

To my former law partner, as many members will know - Mr. Williams - and, I should say, a long-standing friend as well, welcome to the House of Assembly. We have had many discussions and debates over the years about politics, in our business dealings and otherwise. I want to say how pleased I am to see you here in the House of Assembly, as a member of this debating body, and not just a debating body but a body in which we discuss and present our various visions of the future of this Province. I know this is a proud day for you, as it is for Mr. Butler, and your families who are here. I do not know the Butler family but I know your family very well. I know how interested they have all been in politics over the years, and I am sure they will be paying a lot more attention to what goes on in the House of Assembly now that you are here. Welcome to you both, and congratulations on your election victory.

I guess my only regret today is that there were not three people being introduced to the House of Assembly, a third one for our caucus, but we will be working hard on that and our day will come soon, I hope.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I call members' statements, I notice that the hon. the Member for Port de Grave is standing.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say, in a few short words, thank you to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Harris from the NDP Party, and our Premier, Mr. Grimes, for their kind words of welcome here this afternoon. I can assure you, Sir, it is an honor to be here on behalf of the people of the great District of Port de Grave, and the people in this Province, to sit as their servant in their House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On October 22 of this year, the Canadian Blood Services group held its second annual evening to honor donors, volunteers and community partners and sponsors in Ottawa. The ceremony, "Honouring our Lifeblood" celebrates and recognizes the contributions of Canadians who work with Canadian Blood Services to provide a better blood system for all Canadians.

Each of the donors, volunteers, partners and sponsors were nominated by employees of Canadian Blood Services locations across the country to represent the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who set the example of generosity and who take the time to give. Being a donor, volunteer, community partner or sponsor in Canada's blood system is a rewarding experience that helps save lives every minute of every day. I should say that Canadians who are interested in becoming donors or volunteers, or who wish to participate, should contact Canadian Blood Services at 1 888 2 DONATE (1-888-236-6283).

My purpose for standing today, Mr. Speaker, is to recognize two Newfoundlanders who had the honor and privilege of being recognized by the Canadian Blood Services. I would like to point out to the House of Assembly the names of those two individuals: Amy Barker of Portugal Cove; and also, on behalf of my colleague from Lewisporte, Gertrude Barrett of Lewisporte, who was honored at the ceremonies on October 22.

I ask the hon. House to join with me in congratulating those individuals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to recognize a constituent of mine in St. John's East, and it is with respect to an award that was won. The organization honoring this individual was the Hadassah - WIZO Organization of Canada, and it was celebrating the International Year of Volunteers by honoring outstanding volunteers across Canada. The recipient in Newfoundland this year was Mrs. Ruth Noel, who in fact is the wife of the Clerk of the House of Assembly, Mr. John Noel.

This organization, Mr. Speaker, was founded in 1917 as a non-political women's volunteer organization. It is dedicated to the support of education, health care and social welfare programs for women and children in Israel.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Noel is well known for her volunteer activities in this jurisdiction; for example, with the school board, with home and school associations, with the Girl Guide movement, and was instrumental in leading to a bill last year that was passed unanimously, namely the Holocaust Memorial Day Act. She worked very hard towards this and, as members will recall in this Chamber, this particular piece of legislation was passed unanimously in this House.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, a few days ago there was a function at the Beth-El Synagogue here in St. Johns's, and my colleague and friend opposite, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, was present, and he joined with me and many others in honoring Mrs. Noel for this great cause and her contribution to many worthwhile volunteer organizations in the community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to the late Mr. Al Pittman, who passed away on August 26 of this year at the age of sixty-one. Mr. Pittman was an inspiring educator, a tremendously gifted writer and a man whose works truly captured the spirit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Pittman was born in the community of St. Leonard's, Placentia Bay, but spent most of his life in the City of Corner Brook where he developed his distinctive style as a writer while also inspiring young people through his teaching at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College.

His first book of poems, The Elusive Resurrection, was published in 1966, and from that time onward he would capture the imagination of writers from across Canada and be a source of support and inspiration for artists of all genres. Other great works followed, such as A Rope Against The Sun and West Moon. He has also shared his gifts with the children of our Province with books such as Down By Jim Long's Stage.

Mr. Pittman was a co-founder of Breakwater Books and was the recipient of a litany of literary awards, such as the Canada Council Award, the Bore Stone Mountain Poetry Award and the Stephen Leacock Centennial Award. He was an educator who was greatly loved by students and colleagues alike and helped bring great national recognition to the Grenfell College English Department because of his strong interest in creative writing that he helped foster.

Mr. Speaker, Al Pittman was one of our Province's great treasurers because of his writings, his contributions in the field of education, his contributions to the arts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and because his life and his work enriches us as a society.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in paying tribute to the late Mr. Al Pittman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to recognize, through the House of Assembly today, the passing of the oldest resident of the community of Shea Heights, Lucy Vinnicomb, who was ninety-seven when she passed away. Lucy had a large circle of family and friends. I had the opportunity to get to know Lucy, and she will be missed by all residents of the community of Shea Heights. She was a very, well respected individual.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to offer congratulations and best wishes to the Ascension Astro Jazz Band of Bay Roberts who will be attending the Canada-Cuba Jazz Festival in Havana between February 14 and 22, 2002.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: The Ascension Astro Jazz Band was founded five years ago and has been garnering recognition for their performances since then. They will be the only Newfoundland group performing at this festival and the members of the band look forward to learning about the music of Cuba with its fusion of North American, African and Spanish styles.

The eleven member group are currently in the process of fund-raising for their trip and have decided that rather than merely seeking donations, they will be making themselves available for parties and functions over the Christmas holidays. I urge all members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating them and wishing them good luck in their endeavors to represent the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 11 weekend I attended the Annual Armistice dinner hosted by the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 47, Labrador City.

The guest speaker for the evening was Ruby Schofield, a member of Branch 57 in Wabush and an executive member of the Royal Canadian Legion Provincial Command.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Schofield travelled to France and Belgium with a Youth Pilgrimage, a group comprised of eight students who were winners of essay, poem and poster contests sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legions throughout our schools. One of those students, I am proud to say, was Christa Adams of Wabush. The students were accompanied by four veterans and four representatives of the Legion Provincial Command Executive.

Mr. Speaker, Ruby gave a very inspiring and emotional speech on their visit to France and Belgium from June 29 to July 5 where they participated in the July 1 service at Beaumont Hamel. They also visited and held their own Legion service at all four Newfoundland and Labrador Memorials in France, and one in Belgium. Their visit also included Vimy, other gravesites in the area, and churches where Newfoundlanders, Labradorians, and Canadians are commemorated.

The Youth Pilgrimage was sponsored by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and was represented by the hon. minister, Oliver Langdon.

Mr. Speaker, initiatives like this are very important to our youth, our Veterans, our Legionnaires, and society in general, to ensure that our youth get every opportunity to learn and be educated on the sacrifices that were made so we can enjoy the freedoms we have today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, two brief things before I make the first statement; one is to advise the House that today we do intend, I think, and have given notice to members opposite, that there might be five or six ministerial statements, which is not the norm, but where we have not been in session for some time there are five or six matters that deserve attention from ministers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: It would not be the norm, Mr. Speaker. It would not be expected from us. I say that in all seriousness.

As well, the other thing is that members of the media and members of the Legislature have the advantage of having an Order Paper and the sequence of events, the proceedings that we are now going through. Since it is our first day of televised Legislature, if we had concurrence, maybe the Speaker might take just a minute to remind or advise people who are looking in for the first time, what the order and sequence is, and what is expected to be accomplished in each of the headings that are going to be proceeded through in the next three and a half hours, if it is okay with everyone, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What I had hoped to have done today was have the Routine Proceedings and the Orders of the Day posted on the television screen so that the viewing audience could see it.

Our day is divided into two parts, actually. Routine Proceedings, which involves Members' Statements, Statements by Ministers, and then the Oral Question period. Following the Oral Question Period, which lasts thirty minutes, we have Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees, Notices of Motion, Answers to questions for which notice has been given, and then there is a period for Petitions to be presented by members, and Petitions are to last for a maximum of three minutes. Then we get into the Orders of the Day, which is the government business of the day. On the Order Paper today we have the Address in Reply, Committee of Supply, and a number of motions that are there for first reading. So the proceedings are divided into two parts: Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. The Routine Proceedings are as I have outlined to you. The Orders of the Day is when the government orders and business is done.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House of Assembly that today marks the beginning of a series of presentation ceremonies for the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Medal.

The Volunteer Medal was launched in this year, 2001, to recognize the very important work done by volunteers throughout the Province and to celebrate this International Year of Volunteers.

The people of our Province are known throughout Canada and, indeed, throughout the world, for their incredible generosity and caring spirit. Volunteers make an incredible difference to and in our communities. Through coaching, teaching, caring for people and the environment and any number of other activities, they help to build the strong, vibrant communities envisioned in government's Strategic Social Plan.

Mr. Speaker, the spirit of generosity that runs so deep in the people of this Province showed itself to the world in the wake of the September 11th tragedy. Individuals, organizations and whole communities worked together to give shelter, aid and comfort to our unexpected guests. We hear again and again from stranded passengers who have made their way home, that the people of this Province treated them like family. What better expression of the volunteer spirit could there be, than what was exhibited in that circumstance?

Hundreds of nominations were received for the Volunteer Medal from every area of the Province, from individuals and groups, and even from international organizations. An independent selection committee was convened to set the award and nomination criteria, review the submissions and select the ninety-six recipients from among the nominees; two from each electoral district. We have forty-eight electoral districts. Their task was difficult, and I sincerely thank them for their time and the careful consideration they gave to each and every nomination.

Mr. Speaker, the process has been completed and selections have been made. The Lieutenant-Governor, His Honour, the Honourable A. M. House, will present the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Medal to these ninety-six individuals, in special ceremonies to be held at various locations across the Province throughout the coming two weeks.

Today in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the first group of men and women were honoured. They are residents of Labrador who have each, over the long term, had profound and wide-reaching impacts on the lives of others, on their communities and on us all.

Mr. Speaker, these people demonstrate, in the most remarkable way, the very practical foundation of volunteerism, and the theme of this year's International Year of the Volunteer: the value of one and the power of many.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Obviously, we want to be associated with the remarks made by the Premier in commending and congratulating, acknowledging and highlighting, the volunteers of Newfoundland and Labrador through a program initiated by government in the last spring Legislature dealing with, specifically, the Volunteer Medal.

The Premier has made reference to the September 11 tragedy and the impact on Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of how volunteers, in the spirit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, opened our arms up to the world, demonstrating something that we have always known: our tremendous generosity and our tremendous hospitality. In fact, in listening to news broadcasts recently, both provincially and nationally, and internationally, many of the residents who were here - who, through no fault of their own, were stranded here - who received the generosity of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are actually talking about reunions to occur in the Province. We say to any and all potential visitors: Please, at any time, come back and join in our hospitality. Continue to enjoy it. Our Province is open to them.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier also noted about the unusual amount of - I will just take a moment and I will take my seat - Ministerial Statements. This is more for the Government House Leader. Certainly, Ministerial Statements are a part of the Order Paper. We accept them. We have a responsibility, as the Official Opposition, to respond to them; but in due course, I suppose, and in future references, in a timely manner, I wonder if it is possible to receive Ministerial or government Statements more than three to five minutes in advance of coming to the Legislature. Obviously they contain matters of public importance, and obviously, as the Official Opposition, we have a role and a responsibility to play in being informed in a timely manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly support the initiative of the Newfoundland and Labrador Volunteer Medal in recognizing tremendous service given to our Province and our people by people in a volunteer capacity.

I think it is worth remembering that when we are honoring volunteers, and the volunteers who play an important role in the fabric of our society, we are not just talking about people who provide services, although that is very important, and throughout all of Newfoundland and Labrador people volunteer their services to assist. We are also talking about people who provide leadership as volunteers, people who are advocates in our communities for better health care, advocates for women's rights, advocates for social justice, people playing leadership roles in providing new services to the public, such as people who have been honored in my constituency, for example. I will not name them because everyone else will not have a chance to talk about it. These are important people who play an important role in our society and I think it is good that we honor them. We support this effort by government to recognize the contribution that people make in their personal lives to our society, outside of their jobs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to inform my hon. colleagues and the people of this Province that the current minimum wage of $5.50 per hour will be increased in 2002.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage will increase in two increments, with a 25 cent increase to $5.75 per hour effective May 1, 2002, followed by a further 25 cent increase to $6.00 on November 1, 2001.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, hon. members may be aware that in February, 2000, my colleague, the former Minister of Environment and Labour, announced the appointment of a Labour Standards Board with representation from business and labour for the purpose of reviewing the Province's Labour Standards Act and Regulations. The Board examined a number of matters, including the minimum wage. Today's announcement reflects government approval of several key recommendations from the Board.

The increase will be implemented in two increments. This is consistent with the Board's recommendation for a six-month notice period for minimum wage increases, and will provide affected employers with sufficient time to adjust to the new minimum wage. This also reflects the outcome of recent consultations with business leaders on a minimum wage increase.

Mr. Speaker, section 30 of the Labour Standards Act requires government to review the minimum wage every two years. However today, Mr. Speaker, government is committing to establishing an advisory committee to consult annually with business and labour representatives on labour standards issues, including the minimum wage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, this too was a recommendation of the Labour Standards Review Board and is consistent with government's commitment to work with business and labour to develop a positive labour climate throughout our Province.

Mr. Speaker, this change represents the first increase to the minimum wage since 1999, and it brings Newfoundland and Labrador's rate in line with that of the other Atlantic Provinces. Government has considered the implications of raising the minimum wage and believes that this increase strikes a fair and reasonable balance for both the employee and the employer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to thank the minister, of course, for a copy of her statement, although again it is four or five minutes before we get into the House, as the House Leader has said.

Minister, I just want to congratulate the government on the fact that they are in the process of raising the minimum wage for the people who are underprivileged in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, more important than all of this put together, I want to congratulate our new leader, Mr. Danny Williams. This is Danny's first day in the House of Assembly and it must be really heartwarming for him to sit there today and see that this government has implemented one of the first policies that Mr. Williams ever announced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, it is a great policy and we have to give full credit to our new leader on this side of the House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, this is certainly a step in the right direction, but what we need in this Province is a living wage not a minimum wage. That is what the people in this Province need, Mr. Speaker. Six dollars an hour still doesn't cut it. It is still well below the poverty level.

Mr. Speaker, public polls show that Canadians would favor a system where minimum wages are founded on 50 per cent of the average unionized wage in the province. That would bring it, in this Province, much higher than $6.00 an hour. It would put it more in line with what is needed for families to be able to take care of themselves and their children.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to provide the Legislature with an update on measures government is taking with regard to security.

It has been said that since September 11 we live in a changed world, and indeed in many ways we do. It is important, however, that we in this country and in this Province feel confident to carry on our daily lives as normal. Therefore, government must take steps to ensure the safety and security of our Province and its people.

Mr. Speaker, based on the advice of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we believe that the threat of terrorism - mechanical or biological - is low for Newfoundland and Labrador compared to other jurisdictions. However, we must continue to review our civil security measures diligently, and proceed with caution in enhancing them.

Government has established a Ministers Committee on Security Matters, chaired by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the Honourable Kelvin Parsons, addressing government-wide security and coordinating other agencies which deal with civil security matters.

Key focus areas for civil security include bio-hazard response protocols, the security of vital statistics and infrastructure protection.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have developed a bio-hazard response protocol in line with national practice, which will ensure early engagement of appropriate departments and agencies for situation control.

The Department of Government Services and Lands is reviewing management of vital statistics data and identification documents. The department is also participating in national discussions on document security issues.

The Emergency Measures Office has structured a Committee of Provincial Emergency Planners to undertake a critical infrastructure assessment that will feed into a National Critical Infrastructure Group. This process will, over the coming weeks and months, identify key assets and strategic sites, and develop appropriate security around them.

Mr. Speaker, government's top priority is the safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the full protection of key assets and sites. While the tragedy of September 11th has focused public attention more sharply on security issues than before, many of the enhancements we will see implemented over the coming months are the result of an ongoing, long-term approach to civil and government security in this Province.

Government is taking immediate action to improve security in government buildings. New procedures similar to those implemented by Canada Post have been put in place to protect the health and safety of public officials handling mail. The use of photo ID cards for staff will be an important component of a more secure environment. Other important security measures are currently under review, including the use of passes and accreditations for visitors. These new protocols will assist with visitor identification and management of any emergency situation that may arise.

Mr. Speaker, one major consideration is the security of the House of Assembly and Confederation Complex that we work in every day. This site is unique in Canada: it is the only location in the country housing both the Legislature and extensive government offices in the same building.

I emphasize, however, that this House and the Confederation Complex surrounding it will be, and must continue, to welcome visitors. But it will welcome them into a safer and more secure environment.

To address the unique security challenges of this site, last year the House of Assembly, this Legislature, commissioned an independent study of safety and security practices for the House of Assembly and Confederation Complex.

This report, developed by Mr. Dennis Clark, Sergeant-at-Arms and Executive Director of Building Management and Conservation for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, is now being considered by our Commission of Internal Economy, which has representatives from all parties in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, on completion of that review, government is prepared to act on the report recommendations, and to act quickly. We will provide appropriate information on any new practices, without compromising security.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this update.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Obviously, as the Official Opposition, we support, in the strongest possible way, any measures that government is going to take - or agencies of government, or arms of government, the RCMP, the RNC - that will further protect the people of the Province, our assets, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has alluded in his statement that the assessment of those agencies is that the risk of terrorism to the Province is low. I can only take the Premier at face value. However, as we have witnessed on September 11th, the fallout of any potential terrorist attack is great for us. I believe it was Churchill, during the Second World War, who described Newfoundland and Labrador as the fist in the middle of the North West Atlantic for the allies. I say that because our location within the Western world is critical. It is extremely important, and we have just witnessed how important it is with the landing of so many aircraft after the fallout of September 11th.

As well, I can only urge the Premier and the government, as he has indicated, that any plan that would come forward to include as many groups, individuals, community leaders, people within the Province, to the extent that government can, obviously without compromising security, to ensure that any government plan that serves to protect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the people in the Province generally, is bought into by people within the Province so that in the event of any emergency or in the event of fallout stemming from an emergency, that people are prepared, are ready, are well-informed, and that we can respond in a manner in which we should respond.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, support any changes that will increase security activities within our Province. I would like to say to the members opposite, particularly with the airline industry which was the focal point of the September 11 disaster, that they should be pressing on their federal counterparts to increase airline security. I think there is a lot of work that has to be done on that issue because if you look at that industry and the screeners who provide security at airports, and look at the level of wages that they are receiving, and the level of training - training should be an ongoing thing for security guards in our Province, particularly at our airports.

If we look back and read the statistics at Logan Airport, prior to this disaster, the turnover in staff was in excess of 200 per cent. That is true in this country as well. I would like to point out that in the airline industry we think that hijackings are things that happen in other places. I would remind the House that the only hijacking that ever occurred in this Province, and I think maybe in this country, took place at Wabush Airport in 1976. So it can happen anywhere. It is not just the major airports that are at risk. Security for the travelling public - in this Province a lot of us depend on the airlines as the only practical mode of travel. It is very important that it be impressed upon them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - to increase security procedures within the airline industry, in particular.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that Phase Two of the Newfoundland and Labrador/Nova Scotia offshore boundary dispute arbitration began today. The hearing is being held at the Wu Conference Centre, located on the Fredericton campus of the University of New Brunswick.

In this second and final phase of the arbitration both sides are entitled to expect one outcome: a boundary line established in accordance with international maritime boundary law. This result is demanded by the governing legislation and the arbitration Tribunal's Terms of Reference.

The hearing will take less than two weeks to complete. The arbitration Tribunal will provide a final decision within four months of the conclusion of the hearings. The decision will be binding on both parties and will be implemented by the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, this Province has worked hard in preparing for this arbitration. Our team is comprised of some of the most respected authorities in the area of international maritime boundary law, technical experts and officials with the departments of Mines and Energy, Justice, and the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat. I want to acknowledge the great work being done by our team on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador, and its people.

Our case is being led by Professor Donald McRae of the University of Ottawa. Our Deputy Agent is Deborah Paquette of the Department of Justice. I wish to highlight a new member, however, of our team for this round of hearings, Mr. David Colson. Mr. Colson served as the United States of America's Deputy Agent in the Gulf of Maine delimitation between Canada and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the line we have put forward before the Tribunal reflects, in our opinion, a proper application of international maritime boundary law. I am confident in the strength of our arguments and the ability of our team to effectively present those arguments to the Tribunal.

This government is looking forward to a resolution of this long-standing dispute. The establishment of a boundary line will allow us to get on with exploration and, if there are discoveries, development. It will also allow two good friends - Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia - to focus exclusively on areas of mutual interest and benefit.

Mr. Speaker, by way of example, I was pleased, last week, to represent our government as we jointly participated in last week's Canada Atlantic Trade Mission in Atlanta, Georgia, where all of the Atlantic Provinces worked together to continue to create business partnerships, increase trade and investment, and build on the development of strategic alliances between Atlantic Canada and companies based in the southeastern United States.

I trust I can speak for all members of this House in wishing our team well during these hearings.

Mr. Speaker, this arbitration is first and foremost a legal proceeding. We will not be arguing our case outside the hearing room. We have, however, taken steps to ensure complete openness. The Province's written pleadings are available to the public through the Department of Mines and Energy's Web site or by contacting my office. I am also today, by leave, Mr. Speaker, tabling Newfoundland and Labrador's Memorial submitted to the Tribunal for member's information and for consideration of that Tribunal. The hearings, of course, which I referred to earlier, started this morning.

So with your concurrence and by leave of the House I would like to present not only my Ministerial Statement, but also the Memorial of Newfoundland and Labrador on this very important and significant issue to the Table of the House for all of our information for further dissemination to the people of the Province as they may have interest to take advantage of looking through it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to refer, before I make a brief comment on this very important statement, the point that was raised by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, with respect to Ministerial Statements. Of course our rules have long recognized that Ministerial Statements are a part of the day-to-day proceedings in this Chamber. The rules also recognize that they are intended to demonstrate important matters of public policy, but the rules also indicate, Mr. Speaker, that as a matter of courtesy they are to be given to Opposition members in advance so that Opposition members will have an opportunity to respond. Of course, what has happened today - and I think it is important to reference this point, Mr. Speaker - is that by way of fax, just moments before, we received at least one, and I am sure it is fair to say several Ministerial Statements by fax. I say to the hon. minister and members opposite that in order for this place to conduct its business in the appropriate way, as a matter of courtesy and fairness, there should be adequate and timely sharing of these Ministerial Statements so that all members -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - can participate, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can participate both in advance and during the issue that is being discussed.

With respect to this particular statement, I join with you, that this is an important statement. It is an important issue and I think the Premier, in the past, has indicated publicly that phase two or round two of these discussions is really where it counts because that is when the panel will decide where the boundary, as the minister indicated, should be. This dispute involves a vast geological region known as the Laurentian Sub-Basin, some 60,000 square kilometers of the Atlantic Ocean between the South Coast of Newfoundland and the North Shore of Cape Breton.

I will indicate briefly why this issue is so fundamentally important to the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: With leave, if I may, in conclusion?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This basin is thought to contain large pools of oil and natural gas which means either province could earn billions of dollars from energy royalties, depending on where the line is drawn.

I share with the minister in his comment in wishing our negotiating team well. Our first negotiating team must be congratulated for the job that it performed and we hope that this present negotiating team has equal success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say I believe this is a very important arbitration. My colleague from St. John's East, I have to correct him, it is not a negotiation, or no negotiations. This is an arbitration before a tribunal which will decide the issue. I would agree with the minister that Newfoundland and Labrador is well prepared in this case. We have already been successful in round one which was very important for us to overcome. We have a history in this Province of being very well prepared for boundary disputes. The Labrador boundary dispute that went to the Privy Council in 1927, I think we spent many years preparing for it and the result was very successful for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So this is a very enormous issue representing the boundary that this Province will have with Nova Scotia, albeit at sea, but what is under the sea and the importance of these resources to Newfoundland and Labrador, we do not know its value at this point but obviously we expect that it will contribute significantly to this Province's wealth for the future.

I, too, join with the minister, and with all members I am sure, in hoping that we are as successful -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - in this phase of the arbitration as we have been in phase one where we were successful in getting rid of a suggested agreement that did not, in fact, take place in the past, and now I have an opportunity to present what we believe to be the true boundary to an arbitration panel.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to update my hon. colleagues on the recent sale of the fish plant in Twillingate to Notre Dame Seafoods Limited, and the re-activation of the shrimp processing license for that plant.

Mr. Speaker, Twillingate is one of the oldest and most historic fishing communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. The existing plant opened in 1975, and for many years was the economic engine for employing approximately 400 people.

When the plant closed in 1998, the economy of Twillingate was devastated and the people demoralized. Through no fault of their own, the people of Twillingate were forced to watch millions of pounds of fish trucked out of their community, despite having had all the processing licenses.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a brief history of this situation, and let me begin by saying, that this license to process shrimp is not a new license. Late in 1997, the owners of the plant at that time, Conpak Seafoods, were issued a license to process crab and shrimp. However, due to the lateness of 1997 season when it was announced, no product was processed until 1998, when the plant produced crab and a small quantity of shrimp on a pilot basis.

Later that year, due to an unsuccessful merger of Conpak Seafoods by Daley Brothers Ltd., the plant went into bankruptcy. Subsequently, the receiver sold the plant to a group of seven independent fish processors, who have not operated the plant since the time of purchase.

In January of 2001, the group of seven owners notified government that it had no intentions of operating the plant, and that it would be offered for sale. As a result, the Twillingate Plant Action Committee issued a Request for Proposals for new operators. Notre Dame Seafoods was the successful proponent and were issued a conditional license. I am pleased to say that they were able to finalize the sale of the plant on Friday past.

Mr. Speaker, there are those who have voiced their opposition to reactivating the shrimp license for the people of Twillingate on the basis that it is politically motivated, and that there is over-capacity in the industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: The reality is that the northern shrimp resource is the strongest fishery resource in our waters and is likely to remain that way for the next several years, or more. The problems experienced this summer with the shrimp fishery, related mainly to depressed market prices, which are always fluctuating, and are not necessarily indicative of the long term outlook for the shrimp processing sector.

Given the current health of the stock, and the potential for further increases in the Total Allowable Catch, I am confident that there is a place for Twillingate in the fish processing industry.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that just as I would not abuse my position as Minister of Fisheries by showing favoritism to the people of Twillingate, nor can I neglect or disregard this community for the fear of being accused of political motivations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It may come as a surprise to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that I am certainly pleased for the people of Twillingate with the reactivation of their fish plant.

Mr. Speaker, with the collapse of the groundfish industry many communities with long (inaudible) in the industry have found themselves in a similar predicament and face questionable futures. The question that must be asked is: Why does the Minister of Fisheries not have a plan for this industry? That is the reason why Twillingate has found itself in this position, Mr. Speaker. The reason they are in this position is because there has been no strategy by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. If there had been, maybe Twillingate would have been in this industry before and plants would have been strategically located.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, with eleven plants in operation as of this date, and a 110 million pound quota, the question again that must be asked: Where is the product going to come from to run these plants to keep the people employed and to give the people who are operating the fish plants a decent wage and a decent living year round?

While politicians like Mr. Reid might talk about the ability to increase quotas, people who go out and fish the St. Anthony Basin, the Hawke Channel, the Northern Edge and Tobin's Point - people like me, Mr. Speaker, who have been there - know that when politicians are eager to increase quotas they need to be reminded of Northern Cod, and that fishermen are not always eager to see those quotas go up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say I am surprised by the fisheries critic response. I thought he was going to say what he said the other day about favoritism, and I wanted to raise my concern about pitting one community against another in this Province when it comes to the fishery resource. What I wanted to ask the minister today and his government today is: Where is the fair, open, and transparent process to allocate the resource that we have so that it is seen to be fair and is not open to these kinds of accusations? If there was a process, if there was a plan, if people had a right to participate in it, then these allocations would not be made, Mr. Speaker, and there would not be people accusing the minister, or fighting with each other over the allocation of this important resource of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to update hon. members on the status of negotiations with Inco to arrive at a possible commercial arrangement on the Voisey's Bay Project.

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating that this government will only agree to a commercial agreement that encompasses the principles the people of this Province endorsed when they gave this government a mandate to negotiate a deal during the last provincial election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I can assure the hon. members that any deal that we negotiate will be true to these principles and will be in the best interest of the people of this Province.

The fundamental position of government, which is to ensure full processing of the Voisey's Bay ore to a final nickel product, has not and will not change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, government returned to the negotiating table following a determination that Inco understood our fundamental positions and that they too were interested in arriving at a commercial arrangement at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, overall the negotiations have been going very well since government and Inco returned to the table on June 18. There has been frank and open discussions on all relevant issues. As part of the process, Mr. Scott Hand, Deputy Chairman and CEO of Inco, and I have met regularly to discuss issues that have arisen at the negotiating table and to provide leadership and direction to our respective teams.

The process has been intense as we moved from outlining the key issues required for an agreement to negotiating specific components.

I am pleased to report that we have been able to resolve most of the issues. There are essentially two major issues outstanding. These issues are also, of course, of fundamental and principle importance to the people of this Province.

The first issue is around the possible movement of concentrate. That is to say, if some concentrate needs to be shipped from the Province while the processing facility is being developed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: - we are seeking to ensure that over the life of the processing facility an equivalent amount of the concentrate will be returned to this Province for processing.

The second issue concerns the possible terms of the shipment period. This means the time period in which the government might allow Inco to ship concentrate from Voisey's Bay while the processing facility is being developed.

Mr. Speaker, until an agreement is reached on these and other outstanding issues, we do not have a final commercial agreement.

The September 11 terrorist attack on the United States is having an adverse effect on the global business and investment community. Low metal prices were already hurting Canadian and international base metal companies prior to the terrorist attack. Since September 11, various mining companies have been deferring capital projects. The attack has also had an impact on the willingness of businesses to take on additional risk. This event has added to the challenge of negotiating an acceptable agreement between us.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hand has reaffirmed his company's commitment to the early development of Voisey's Bay and our negotiating teams are continuing to work towards a deal that is acceptable to both parties.

This government is only prepared to negotiate a deal that is in the best interest of the people of this Province. We believe that we will know whether an agreement is possible by year-end. However, we will take as long as necessary to ensure that we get the right agreement - one that protects the principle interests of the people of this Province, the shareholders that we represent as government, and that is the 542,000-plus people who reside in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important for hon. members to understand that other agreements are necessary for the project to proceed.

Aside from negotiating a commercial agreement, there must be agreement on three other project components. These are equally critical to the overall success of the project. They include, first of all: Impact and Benefits Agreements. These agreements will establish benefit regimes for Aboriginal groups. They will address issues such as business opportunities, employment, training and financial compensation. These agreements are being negotiated separately by the Innu and Inuit nations with Inco.

Secondly, the Environment Management Agreement. This agreement will establish an environmental management regime for the project and address the role the Aboriginal groups will play in that regime. This agreement involves negotiations between the provincial and federal governments, and the Innu and Inuit nations.

Finally, the third agreement, the Voisey's Bay Chapter of the Land Claims. This Voisey's Bay chapter is between the Innu and the Inuit nations and deals specifically with Aboriginal rights in the project area. These agreements involve separate negotiations by the provincial and federal governments with the Innu and Inuit nations.

I am pleased to report that the respective parties, on all of these agreements, have made substantial progress.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the development of the Voisey's Bay Project will provide many benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, we intend to give these negotiations every opportunity for success. If we are able to conclude an agreement, I can assure this House that it will be a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is important, I think, that we repeat and reread one paragraph found on page 2 of the Ministerial Statement. I will read it:

"The first issue is around the possible movement of concentrate. That is to say if some concentrate needs to be shipped from the Province while the processing facility is being developed, we are seeking to ensure that over the life of the processing facility an equivalent amount of concentrate will be returned to the Province for processing."

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a word when I read that. The one word that comes to my mind is spoonful. We also remind the people of this Province about a mandate, a mandate that this government has to ensure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - that an agreement between the Province and the company is in keeping with the mandate that this government received almost three years ago.

Mr. Speaker, there are several questions that may be asked on this very important debate. If Inco believes hydromet processing will work on Voisey's Bay ore, why is it demanding that Ottawa take the risk by financing the pilot plant with public funds? If we trust Inco to export ore elsewhere, while testing a pilot plant here, what happens if the pilot plant fails as many do? Mr. Speaker, if Inco won't build a traditional smelter refinery here now, why would they agree to build one here later when the richest ore from Voisey's Bay has already been sent away?

Another question, Mr. Speaker: If we settle for royalties in place of processing facilities and jobs, how will be benefit while Ottawa claws back ninety-three cents of every royalty dollar we get?

These are questions that have to be asked, these are questions, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want answered, and these are questions that we, as an Opposition, will continue to challenge members opposite with as this very important debate continues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister mentions three barriers or agreements needed with respect to the development of the Voisey's Bay project, but there is a fourth that he didn't mention. That is the fact that under the current economic regime and royalty regimes there is a benefit of the Government of Canada, of Ottawa, of $5 billion compared to this Province's benefit of $400 million. Mr. Speaker, that is an unacceptable relationship. If this development is going to take place it ought to take place for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: And not ten to one the people of Ottawa or the government of Ottawa.

The second thing that has to be said, Mr. Speaker, in respect to the comments of the minister on their seeking to ensure equivalent concentrate be returned to the Province for processing - which reminds me, and maybe I am aging myself, Mr. Speaker. A Popeye character called Wimpy who liked hamburgers used to say, "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today". That is what we are dealing with here, Mr. Speaker. What kind of a deal will this government negotiate?

We have to remind ourselves that it is this government that presided over the decision to allow a pellet plant to be built in Sept-Iles using Iron Ore Company of Canada pellets. It was this government that presided over that decision, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how far we can trust them to preserve any economic benefit for Newfoundland and Labrador with this kind of a deal.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. WALSH: I just want to mention, I had a quick moment to check to find out one of the reasons why some of the statements had not reached our colleagues on the other side, and I think that answer might be very simple. A number of departments were trying to send the statements. In actual fact, around quarter after one one of the ministerial departments phoned the Opposition offices because some of the pages weren't getting through.

I would suggest that in the future, what might make the problem easier for all of us here in the hon. House, perhaps the Official Opposition and the third party of the House could have a dedicated line so that our staff who are trying to send information to you could get it to you in the appropriate time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to that point of order.

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

To the point of order, while I appreciate the concern and explanation of the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, in fact it bears no truth whatsoever. The standard practice has been, in my time, for nine years here, that some ministers have been much better than others. The standard practice has been that half an hour is normally the time in which a statement would be delivered.

What needs to be done, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hand delivered.

MR. E. BYRNE: Hand delivered, yes.

What needs to be done if there is an issue, and there is - this is legitimate - is for ministers to direct their staff to deliver the statements; not a dedicated line but a dedicated, I guess, point of view and principle to have those statements delivered to the Opposition in a timely manner.

This is a very, very simple issue to resolve. Some ministers are better than others. For example, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board always delivers her statements half an hour before. I suspect that tomorrow, when she gives her Ministerial Statement on the outlook of the economy, that she will deliver her statement to her critic at least forty-five minutes before. That has been her practice and tradition, so we will see tomorrow.

The point is this, Mr. Speaker, and more importantly to the Government House Leader: ministers must, in all good conscience, in delivering a statement, if it is prepared, deliver it to the Opposition in good time. It makes for easier Parliament, it makes for more informed debate, and it makes for much better commentary on important public policy for all of the people of the Province to see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. LUSH: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with great concern to the Opposition concerning the fact that they did not receive the Ministerial Statements on a timely basis. I can assure this House, this is one House Leader who is concerned with the Opposition receiving information on a timely basis, because I sat over there too long suffering and not receiving information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I never want to be inflicted with that again.

Mr. Speaker, I think I can tell the hon. House that never before in the history of parliamentary democracy in Newfoundland have they received so much information beforehand from a House Leader. I can tell the hon. Opposition House Leader that all ministers will be as good as the best minister in terms of getting Ministerial Statements to the Opposition. That we can assure you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I also would like to say to members opposite that it is very important from a perspective of fairness that people on this side of the House be given the Ministerial Statement. After all, it is a written, well thought out, presumably, statement that the minister has mulled over for days and days. If the Minister of Finance is giving a financial statement tomorrow, there will be lots of figures in there and people on this side of the House cannot be expected to respond spontaneously to something that is well prepared long in advance.

The interest of fairness in this House demands that we have plenty of opportunity to review these statements so that we will not be seen to be trying to respond to something off the cuff, that has been many hours in preparation by the minister and his or her staff.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, it is really not a point of order. There is nothing in our Standing Orders which dictates that Ministerial Statements have to be delivered to the critic and the Opposition at a particular time; but, as the hon. Opposition House Leader has pointed out, it has been a standard practice. If there is a problem, then I suggest that the House Leaders should deal with that so that this does not keep occurring on the floor of the Assembly as a point of order.

As well, I want to remind our visitors to the gallery that while we welcome everybody here, and we are pleased to see so many visitors here today, I just want to remind them that they are not to participate in the debate in any way, shape or form by applauding or by giving approval or disapproval. I guess we have visitors to the gallery who are here maybe for the first time and do not understand that parliamentary tradition.

I just wanted to remind all visitors of that long-standing parliamentary tradition.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it somewhat sad, as a new person in the Legislature, just to hear this debate. The Premier was good enough to indicate that this was not the norm, and I would not know because I have not been here before, but I was quite surprised by the fact that we got this barrage of statements minutes before we came to this House of Assembly. I would think, just in the interest of fairness and good conduct, that we would have it sometime before. If this is a strategy or a tactic that is being used by the government to gain an unfair advantage, that is sad, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Voisey's Bay issue is one that is of grave concern to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, because they are worried about the possible sellout of another major resource in this Province.

Now, my first question to the Premier was to have been: Give us an update. Tell us what is going on. We are all in the dark over here. We do not get an opportunity to find out about the negotiations, because it is in the dark. This open, accountable government is negotiating in the dark. I was going to ask the hon. the Premier for an update, but on my way to the elevator I received an update so I will change that question.

I will ask the Premier: Could the Premier please tell us, what is the status of negotiations with the federal government with regard to clawback, the dropping of clawback on non-renewable resources which results in the loss of royalty revenues to the people of this Province? Could the Premier please advise what the status of those negotiations is?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate the question, because it is the issue that I understand there is no difference in opinion. There is no political difference in this Legislature with respect to that issue. I have heard - maybe I should check again - I have heard the Leader of the NDP state again clearly today that he believes it is an issue that we should continue to address and fight for changes. I have been doing that, Mr. Speaker, at every opportunity anywhere and everywhere in Canada: at the Premiers Conference, before a Senate committee, in private meetings with officials, senior officials and members of the government in Ottawa, up to and including the Prime Minister.

We are not in a position to order the Government of Canada to make the change. We have been trying to make sure that the Liberal politicians in the caucus for all of Atlantic Canada, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but in Nova Scotia, where Premier Hamm is also dealing with this issue... He was a great friend of the Leader of the Opposition a year ago and not such a friend now, I understand, from recent comments, but I guess it just reflects the change of view from one day to the next.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We are trying to reinforce, Mr. Speaker, the argument that we know that some -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - nineteen or twenty Liberal caucus members are making inside the Government of Canada to try to effect some real changes to equalization under the clawback because it is not working the way it was intended and it is not working to the full advantage of Newfoundland and Labrador today.

I might take this opportunity, actually, to invite the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP to join me in one of my next visits to Ottawa so that we could go together and show that there is no difference of opinion in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

I certainly accept your invitation. I would only be too delighted to join you and help you out in any way possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I did not get an answer to my question. I would ask the Premier: Is he having any success with his Liberal counterparts in the federal government with respect to having them change their position on clawback on non-renewable resources? Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I might ask this question, because the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he has visited with colleagues of his of the same political stripe across the country: Premier Harris, Premier Klein, Premier Hamm, who was a real good friend, because, as I say - I will say it again, Mr. Speaker, because it bears repeating - a year ago in Nova Scotia, the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said: Thank God for Premier Hamm, because he is leading the charge on this issue.

On our own Open Line, right here in Newfoundland, a week or so ago, he said: Mr. Hamm is not necessarily our friend and I am not tied to his campaign for fairness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: He has to make up his mind, Mr. Speaker. He has to make up his mind where he stands on the issue, because in fact he might suggest to us what progress he is making -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - with Premier Harris, who calls us a bunch of welfare bums, or with Premier Klein or others, because he has visited them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: He has gone to see where they are consistent in their views and where they are different. I am quoting him, Mr. Speaker, in terms of issues that he has addressed, because the Government of Canada - and I have been saying that this is a political scam - has suggested -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Government of Canada, which is a Liberal government at this point in time, has been perpetrating a political scam in the country with respect to these issues by suggesting that they cannot make the changes that we are requesting because other Premiers do not agree.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Guess which Premiers do not agree? His buddy in Ontario does not agree, so why doesn't he go up and ask Mr. Harris why he does not agree, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assume the answer is no, so that is one unanswered question. I did not hear no, but I assume the answer is no, Mr. Premier.

I will ask another question. I am really just asking these questions to get some facts on the record because, like the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, there is some confusion out there as to what the position of the Premier is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: In the last election the Liberal Party prepared a policy document, which we all know as the Red Book, which stated that Inco's proposal to take ore from Voisey's Bay and ship it elsewhere to be processed was unacceptable. On that basis, the people of this Province elected that government. As well, Mr. Tobin, in May, 1999, indicated that not a pound of ore will be processed elsewhere.

My question for the Premier - a simple yes or no - is: Will you be taking ore from this Province for processing and shipping it elsewhere?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is true, there is some confusion in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the confusion relates to the Opposition and their position on any issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me again give this reminder before I ask for clarification of the position of the Official Opposition with respect to Voisey's Bay. Why there is confusion is because of these kinds of quotes that I reference again with respect to equalization and the clawback.

In Nova Scotia, the Leader of the Opposition said: I am proud to support the one Premier from this region, Premier Hamm, who has been tirelessly making the case for fairness for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Our Province owes Premier Hamm a debt of gratitude,

Then, on VOCM in October of this year, just a month ago, the same leader says: I am not a big backer of Premier Hamm and his campaign for fairness.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion about a whole range of issues because that is the kind of talk you get one day from the Leader of the Opposition in one location, and another day by the Leader of the Opposition in another location.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We believe in this, Mr. Speaker: The mandate that we have been given with respect to Voisey's Bay in 1996, and again in 1999, is that there will not be a project unless the nickel ore that is in the ground in Labrador is turned into a finished nickel project for the maximum benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: That is our position, Mr. Speaker. (Inaudible) what it is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have asked one question and I have not gotten an answer. I have asked a second question, and I will ask the Premier one more time: Yes or no, Premier, will you take our ore from this Province, ship it elsewhere to have it processed? It is a simple question, yes or no, a straightforward answer for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again it is an attitude issue that we are dealing with, primarily, about an Opposition that is frightened to death, frightened absolutely to death, that something very, very good might happen for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians very soon -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - absolutely frightened to death that it might occur; because what they really want is for us to wallow, for us to be downtrodden, for us to do nothing, for us to not move ahead, so they can suggest that the only thing they are interested in, which is claiming political power - it is not about the well-being of Newfoundland and Labrador - that might come to pass. That is not our interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Our interest, Mr. Speaker, is doing something that is in the benefit of the people of the Province. We want to talk about what we will do, not what we will not do.

What we will do is this: We will sign a deal if it meets the mandate and meets the standard of seeing nickel ore, which is of value but useless and worthless while it is in the ground, and very valuable if it is changed into finished nickel, particularly very valuable if it is changed into finished nickel right here in Newfoundland and Labrador by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: When we get that deal, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Mines and Energy reports to us that he has that deal, we will gladly sign on and go out and explain it to every single soul in the Province, with pride, as we move forward on their behalf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have asked one question and I have gotten no answer; I have asked a second question and I have gotten no answer. It was a nice speech, Mr. Premier, but no answer. Again, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are asking straightforward questions and require straightforward answers. I will ask another one.

With respect to the unproven hydromet processing which is being recommended for Voisey's Bay, I would ask the Premier: Will the Premier, in any agreement which he signs with Inco, give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a 100 per cent unconditional, absolute, guarantee that hydromet processing will work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not in a position to suggest whether hydromet technology will work 100 per cent certain or not. What I will be in a position to do is this: suggest that if we have a deal with Inco with respect to the development of Voisey's Bay, that whatever system turns the nickel ore into finished nickel will work, whether it is hydromet or something else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We are not interested, Mr. Speaker; they are interested in exploring hydromet.

The issue of hydromet gives us an opportunity again to show why there is some confusion about the Opposition. On July 23, the Leader of the Opposition said the federal government should invest its money into the finishing of the Trans-Labrador Highway and help us build the link to Labrador. On June 7, he said it is okay to give $1.5 billion to Bombardier, because it is research and development, because that might help; and why don't they also give money for the Lower Churchill. Then, Mr. Speaker, he said on Open Line just a week or so ago, it is always good to get federal money at any point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Then, when asked if it is okay for the federal government to invest $100 million to see if hydromet works or not, he said: Don't dare spend $100 million in Newfoundland and Labrador - because it might work!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: It might actually work! Don't dare spend the money here and find out -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Three unanswered questions; nothing on clawback and nothing on whether the ore will leave the Province.

I will ask you one more time, Mr. Premier: Will you give the people of this Province a 100 per cent iron clad, absolute, unconditional guarantee that hydromet processing will work, before you finalize a deal with Inco? Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone who has been addressing this issue with respect to the new technology, which is working in some parts of the world and is working on some nickle concentrates - the testing that is to be done here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the testing that is to be done here because it needs some further testing, is to see whether a process that does work elsewhere in the world for nickle, for different kinds of ores, will work in Newfoundland and Labrador with the ore in Labrador.

The position of the Leader of the Opposition is that he - here we are today again - wants a 100 per cent guarantee from me as to the fact that it will work, but will not allow the Government of Canada to spend $100 million from a research fund that they are going to spend somewhere in Canada to develop something that is not yet 100 per cent proven, and he is saying: Do not dare spend that $100 million to prove whether or not what is working in Caledonia, what is working in Australia with different kinds of ores, would work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

He does not want the Government of Canada - he is speaking out against the Government of Canada - spending $100 million to find out whether anybody can give a 100 per cent guarantee. In the meantime, out of the other side of his face, he is asking me to give him a 100 per cent guarantee.

Our 100 per cent guarantee, and I will restate it again, is this: Whatever process works is the one that will be signed on by the minister and by this Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, because it is going to be nickle that will leave Newfoundland and Labrador, and the type of process matters not to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a simple question for the Premier, something he might understand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: What happens if, in fact, $10 billion worth of our ore leaves this Province and it does not work? What then, Mr. Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Allow me to apologize. People do know, in the twelve-and-a-half years that I have been here, that I have apologized for many things in the Legislature. I will apologize for not being as bright as the Leader of the Opposition would like me to be. I will do that. I understand that I may not be your intellectual equivalent, and I apologize for that

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Please accept my apology.

Mr. Speaker, let me try to say it again in very simple terms, because simple terms work for me: I do not know if hydromet will work or not. The Minister of Mines and Energy does not know, and what we have said to Inco is this: We do not care. You can try hydromet if you like, but the only way you are having a deal in Newfoundland and Labrador is if you use some kind of a process that makes sure the ore gets turned into nickle.

That is all we want. If they want to try hydromet, and if the Government of Canada wants to put $100 million into that kind of research to prove that it works in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are all for it. Let's find out what you guys are for at some point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I sat up in the gallery during the spring and I heard the hon. Leader of the Opposition ask the Minister of Industry, the former Deputy Premier, if in fact the people of this Province were going to have an opportunity to have full and open debate in this Legislature before a binding agreement was signed with Inco, before a final binding agreement was signed with Inco. His answer was, yes, there would be full and open debate.

I sat up in that gallery. Within forty-eight hours the hon. the Premier returned from abroad, was asked the same question by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and he gave the opposite answer. He said there would be no full and open debate in this Legislature.

Given the complexity of the issues, I would ask the Premier: Will there be full and open debate in this Legislature on this issue before a final and binding agreement is signed with Inco, that gives away the rights of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition need not be so adamant in his fear that something good might happen. Just try to relax a little bit. We are going to make sure that we sign onto a deal that is fully and completed debated everywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, in every community that has an interest in it, in every place where someone wants to talk about it, everywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, let's not confuse the role of this Legislature. This Legislature absolutely requires a full debate and then a vote on issues that require the approval of the Legislature. If there is any component of this particular arrangement that needs the full approbation of this Legislature, then those components, obviously, will have to be done here, whether it is taxation, whether it is some kind of change, whether it is other issues with environment and other things. The general issues have already been fully debated everywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, and will be again, because we are convinced that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, except for those who have a very negative political objective to try to resist positive, good things happening for the Province for their own political purposes, will see the value of a deal that we will do and will actually come forward and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - praise the government for going ahead and seeing the development happen in a manner that benefits us now to the maximum extent that it possibly can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Three questions and they were unanswered. That was my fourth question. I will ask you one more time: Will the people of this Province, will the members of this Legislature, have an opportunity for full and open debate before a final and binding agreement is signed with Inco? Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate being put on the stand and asked these questions and so on in this matter, but in fact, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - for some twelve-and-a-half years and probably for another ten or twelve before I decide to leave, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - I will gladly, along with the team and the group here that supports this government and supports me, answer every single question in the court that counts, which is the court of public opinion and public appeal; because every single Newfoundlander, not ten or twelve over here who are shaking in their boots because something good might happen and they would have to admit that something good is happening, but every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian who wants to have a say on this issue has been having a say for some five years and will continue to know in full detail what it is that we are trying to accomplish on their behalf as soon as we can do it and maximize benefits for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services. She has already acknowledged that the institutional health boards in this Province are going to have a deficit of about $7 million. She has not yet acknowledged, but we all know the community health boards will have deficits somewhere in the range of $8 million; but then, Mr .Speaker, that is only half the picture. When we look at the annual reports of health boards, ending last year, we see massive deficits accumulated. The question to the minister today is: Can she tell this House what is the total accumulative deficits of all health boards in this Province as of March 31, 2001?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, during the past couple of months we have been dealing with the operational deficits of the Health and Community Services Boards for this current year. As the member opposite knows, the operational deficits that were accumulated in previous years have all been accumulated and rolled into long-term debt. The reason for doing this was to enable the boards to start, as of April 1, and to try and live within this current year budget. We have asked the boards to balance their budgets this year and to include in their plans a process for addressing their long-term debt, which is now rolled into a long-term approach.

Mr. Speaker, the emphasis, at this current time, is on having the boards attempt to balance their budgets. We have just gone through a process where they have tried to bring them back into line with their budget estimates and we will continue to monitor that closely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me rephrase the question. Will the minister tell this House how much the total debt is that she is allowed to convert to long-term debt? I will rephrase the question: What is the total long-term debt that those boards have rolled forward? What is that figure?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the boards are in the process of developing plans to address their specific long-term debt for each individual board. Those plans are not yet developed. They are not received by me. We are concentrating on the current year budget and we are asking the boards to give us their plans - which of course they have submitted now in the last couple of weeks - for this current year. We have attempted in this budget year to stabilize the positions of the institutional boards by giving them the opportunity to deal with the increases in their expenses and balance their budgets this year. That is our emphasis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. What I would like to know is why the minister is putting the financial squeeze on health care boards, causing a reduction in services and a loss of health care professionals when there is information available both on health care professionals and researchers showing how health care administration can be improved and better utilizing existing resources, for example, by more timely discharges from hospitals, thereby freeing up acute care beds for services?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member opposite calls a financial squeeze, when in this fiscal year we have, as a government, put $50 million into the institutional boards of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: We have asked the boards to live within that budget figure because we cannot be in a position where the cost of health care are open-ended and there is absolutely no control on the cost. Yes, we are asking the boards to be fiscally responsible. We know it is a difficult job to contain expanding health care costs to the point that we even went to the boards earlier this fall and requested that they engage the unions and the stakeholders in their operations in trying to find all of those efficiencies which could allow them to really make the best possible use of the resources that they have. The individual boards have engaged the unions in that process. I understand, from many of the boards, that it was a very productive process and one which they wish to continue. Their efforts will be exerted, I am sure, in continuing to find all of the existing ways to accrue efficiencies to make best use of health dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, we all know that health care professionals are being laid off. Why isn't the minister implementing these changes that would improve services? Instead she is sending out a special project team conducting, what I call, house-to-house searches on people receiving home care, and seeking to reduce their hours of home care? Why isn't she making the system more efficient and improving services instead of cutting them back, such as in home care hours for people who need help?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, home care is one of the most rapidly expanding cost drivers in our system today. We continue to experience considerable difficulty in meeting the demand for home care hours. Even in this given budget year, when we have increased our contribution to home care by over $3 million, we find that all of our health care boards are in a position where they have exhausted the resources that they have available and they have had to institute wait lists in order to be able to contain the cost that are exploding in this area.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in this context we do ask, and the boards have taken very seriously their responsibility, to examine every way that they deliver home care services so that they can ensure consistency and fairness, and that they use the dollars they have to the best possible use.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

I noticed that during Question Period and earlier today that members were referring to other members of this House by their given names. I just want to remind hon. members that this is not an acceptable practice here. We always refer to hon. members by the constituency that they represent.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It may do well to remind all members, I suppose. The Government House Leader and I have had some opportunity over the past week or so in looking at the legislative agenda to have a talk about that, but also about Question Period.

I refer you to Beauchesne in dealing with Question Period, and, in particular, to how it should operate. Questions in Question Period should be as brief as possible, to the point, seek information, seek clarification, but answers - I believe that was the case today from the Opposition's point of view. Beauchesne is also very clear on answers to questions given.

On page 120, §408.(2), it says: "Answers to questions should be brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate."

On page 123, under §417 -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Now if the Premier would like to continue to hang himself, I am trying to do him a favour. I am trying to do the Premier of the Province a little favour here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, on page 123, under §417, it is very clear as well. It says: "Answers to questions should be brief as possible..." - I say to the hon. Premier and the Government House Leader - "...deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

Mr. Speaker, I just raised this as a point of order. Obviously, that did not happen today in responses to questions. I wonder if in the future you could remind all members - if you see it not happening - of the orders of this House and how it is suppose to operate.

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

MR. LUSH: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

There is no question about the matter raised by the Opposition House Leader. Just about everything you say about a question, there is always a balancing act with the answer. Questions should be brief, answers should be brief, questions should not be provocative and answers ought not be provocative. The enforcer of all of this of course, I remind the hon. House Leader, is the Speaker, and we ought to try and make the Speaker's job as easy as possible in that regard so that we are not challenging him day in and day out. Hon. members know the rules, and I trust that on both sides we will respect the rules with respect to questions and with respect to answers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order that the hon. member raised, and it is one that has been raised on a number of occasions. The Chair has continuously reminded members that the responsibility lies on both sides of the House. Questions ought to be brief, that is clear, but answers ought to be likewise brief. Preambles, of course, often lend themselves to comment by the member answering the question and therefore we have asked members as well to keep their preambles very brief. In supplementary questions there should not be any preambles. Brevity should be the order of the day when it comes to questions and answers.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 32 of the Auditor General's Act I hereby table the Auditor's Report of the Office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow present the following private members' motion:

WHEREAS research and development is an important factor in the economic development of this Province; and

WHEREAS there is funding available through various federal programs to promote research and development;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support efforts to access research and development funding for the advancement of economic development in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Teacher Training Act." (Bill 21)

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Pensions For Members Of The House Of Assembly." (Bill 51)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act." (Bill 52)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 59)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act, The Retail Sales Tax Act And The School Tax Authorities Winding Up Act." (Bill 62)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 27)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act." (Bill 28)

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Economic Advisory Council Act." (Bill 31)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Guaranteeing of Certain Loans Under the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 37)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act

To Amend Uniformed Services Pension Act, 1991." (Bill 40)

Mr. Speaker, I further notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole To Consider Certain Resolutions Relating To The Advancing Or Guaranteeing of Certain Loans Made Under The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 47)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act

To Amend The Financial Administration Act No. 2." (Bill 50)

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Farm Practices In The Province." (Bill 41)

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

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act". (Bill 42)

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Care Association Act, Hospitals Act and Licensed Practical Nurses Act". (Bill 23)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Child Care Services Act". (Bill 53)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises Act". (Bill 60) Otherwise known as EDGE.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy". (Bill 49)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law To Consider Same Sex Cohabiting Partners In The Same Manner As Opposite Sex Cohabiting Partners". (Bill 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgment Enforcement Act". (Bill 39)

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill 48)

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act". (Bill 54)

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act". (Bill 55)

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act". (Bill 24)

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills:

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act". (Bill 56)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection of Endangered Species". (Bill 33)

A bill, "An Act To Establish The Boxing Authority of Newfoundland and Labrador". (Bill 58)

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act". (Bill 25)

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of between 300 and 400 people with particular reference to a road at Fairy Pond, Cape Broyle. This road, that is really an extension from the Harbour Road in Cape Boyle, is in deplorable condition. As the petitioners have indicated here in their comments on the condition of that road, it leaves a lot to be desired.

I know the minister was in the area over the past month, and I hope he took the time to drive down over that road, because anybody who has driven on that road can see that a road that is paved and is full of potholes is even more dangerous than a dirt road. You drive through it and there are huge potholes, the pavement has partially disappeared in that area, and it is in dire need.

There are numerous roads. I know of one in that immediate area that was paved this year, as the minister is well aware, and I think he had an opportunity to drive over the good road, I might add. I sure hope you get an opportunity to drive over the bad road. I do hear that the minister is out and about checking out the roads in the Province. I give him credit for that. I certainly hope that this particular road - and there are a limited number of roads in the district that come under provincial responsibility. I know municipalities have been endeavouring to improve the condition of the roads in their particular areas. This particular road in Cape Broyle, Harbour Road-Fairy Pond, there is a road partially finished in Port Kirwan, there is a Kingman's Cove Road, Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove - the minister, I know, last month drove down over that to take a look at it - and in Tors Cove are the five basic roads that are now under provincial jurisdiction and work is urgently needed in these areas.

So I ask the minister, when he is doing his capital roads projects for this year, that he take into consideration this road that is in dire need of repair. I know one of the basic reasons is that we have been neglecting infrastructure in our Province in terms of roads, and the Province is now only spending about one-third the dollars that they used to spend on roads in our Province historically. When you leave things, you don't keep things up to par, we get serious problems that incur much higher costs to correct the problem in the long term.

So, Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the minister will keep in mind that money invested in infrastructure is important for the economy, it is important in the transportation sector, and it is also important in stimulating the economy for jobs, because spending infrastructure money drives the economy, boosts it, in particular in times of downturn. As we are seeing the economy has a slowing down, and an extra incentive in infrastructure expenditure will be vital to getting our economy moving again.

I certainly hope, when we hear the announcement on roads next year, that we will see some positive announcements to correct this problem that the people have been living with now for a very long period of time.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

WHEREAS the road on the Bonavista Peninsula from Route 235 through the communities of Open Hall, Red Cliff and Tickle Cove is in such a deplorable condition that it damages vehicles and creates great comfort and safety concerns for children on school buses; and

WHEREAS this road has not been upgraded since it was first paved more than twenty-five years ago despite serious deterioration;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade where necessary and re-pave the seven kilometers of road leading from Route 235 to Open Hall, Red Cliff and Tickle Cove.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood here in this House several times presenting a similar petition with a plea from the people from Open Hall, Red Cliff and Tickle Cove to have the seven kilometers - the road is presently paved but it is in a very deteriorated condition. I took the minister down over the road last spring, and the minister saw for himself the condition of the road. He heard the plea from store owners and from residents down there, the plea, Mr. Speaker, to have something done with this section of road that is traveled over by seniors and by school children and the residents of those three particular communities.

At that particular time, the minister made a commitment. The minister made a promise that he was going to look after two kilometers of road. The people there were satisfied with that for one construction season. Their comment was that, if we never make a beginning, we will never get the whole thing paved. The minister, in his wisdom, cut back the two kilometers of paving to 400 meters, Mr. Speaker, 400 meters versus 2 kilometers. Now the people in the area there are asking the minister if he would look at putting forward money in this year's capital roads budget to look after the seven kilometers of deteriorated road going from Route 235 down to Red Cliff, down to Tickle Cove.

Mr. Speaker, the people in those three communities are not asking for water and sewer. They are not asking for paved driveways or walkways or sidewalks. All they are asking for is a decent road to allow them to get to and from their place of business. The people in Red Cliff, the people in Tickle Cove, the people in Open Hall, Mr. Speaker, pay the same price for insurance as the people living anywhere else in this Province. The people pay the same taxes on gasoline, the people pay the same price to license their cars, and all they are asking is to be treated with the same respect as other people who live in other areas of this Province.

That is the plea that is being brought forward, Mr. Speaker, and I fully support the residents of those three communities and ask the minister, now that he is fully aware of the condition of this particular seven kilometres of road, if he would live up to his promise of last year and come forward and pave that section of road, so that those people might be able to enjoy a decent road in order to get to and from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I fully support the residents of this particular area and I ask the minister to pay particular attention to this petition.

Thank you.

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

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

I have a petition that I have presented on a number of occasions in this House of Assembly. The petition reads: We the residents of Shea Heights wish to petition the hon. House of Assembly to address the need for wheel-chair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area.

We are asking the government to consider the fact that people with disabilities and their families need to be able to utilize the support of family and friends within the community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced to live in units outside the community it compromises the help and support families so vitally need.

We are asking that serious consideration be given to the construction of wheel-chair accessible units in the Shea Heights area so families with physical disabilities may avail of essential support networks.

Mr. Speaker, I support this petition for Shea Heights and for other areas of my district and indeed the entire Province. It is unfortunate that there are not enough wheel-chair accessible units available to people with handicaps. I have an example: there was a young lady in a wheel-chair who waited almost a full year to get a wheel-accessible unit. I advocated on behalf of her almost every week with housing. It took almost a full year to get this young lady a housing unit because they simply had no wheel-chair accessible units available for that period of time.

Mr. Speaker and Minister, I ask that very serious consideration be given to this request for the people of Shea Heights. There are no wheel-chair accessible units available at the moment in Shea Heights. There are families in the Shea Heights area who do not want to leave the community that they grew up in, the community that they have lived in all there lives, the community that their family and friends and relatives live in. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I very strongly support this petition and ask that consideration be given in the very near future to the construction of wheel-chair accessible units in the Shea Heights area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party and I have met on what business we will transact today, and as a result of this morning's session we have agreed that we would move all of the motions that we made this morning to first reading.

Mr. Speaker, if we could move all of the motions, beginning with Motion 1 going to Motion 9, to first reading.

Motion, the hon. the Premier to introduce a bill, " An Act Respecting the Name of the Province", carried. (Bill 43)

On motion, Bill No. 43 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act Respecting Environmental Protection." (Bill 45)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In The Province." (Bill 44)

On motion, Bills 45 and 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act," carried. (Bill 30)

On motion, Bill 30 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act To Facilitate Electronic Commerce By Removing Barriers To The Use Of Electronic Communication," carried. (Bill 35)

On motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Dental Act." (Bill 32)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Massage Therapy." (Bill 38)

On motion, Bills 32 and 38 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Permit An Action By One Person On Behalf Of A Class Of Persons," carried. (Bill 34)

On motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motor Carrier Act," carried. (Bill 29)

On motion, Bill 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, again by agreement, we have agreed to call second reading of these bills that we have just advanced to first reading, whenever we get time for the remainder of the session, so we will call for second reading of Bill 43.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Name Of The Province." (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to introduce this particular act into our Legislature, a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Name Of The Province. I do not intend to speak at length on this particular issue but, despite the plea of the Leader of the NDP for me to do so, I would like to remind all of us as to where this issue is and the history that it has had.

As you know, and as I believe everybody in the Legislature is aware, this particular official change of the name in the Constitution of Canada is proceeding through the Senate now into a latter stage of approval. We expect it to be approved, before the end of the calender year, through the Parliament of Canada. It has already been through the House of Commons and is going through the Senate. This Legislature unanimously adopted a motion in April of 1999 calling upon the Government of Canada to make this constitutional change which is now being enacted in the Parliament of Canada. We very much appreciate that happening, albeit that it has taken a couple of years for it to move ahead. In fact, it will then required Royal Assent.

I have had our Intergovernmental Affairs Minister and our people in that department talk to them about it, because it seems pretty certain right now that it will pass the full Parliament of Canada some time before the end of the year. I think we are having a discussion right now about an appropriate proclamation date, as to on what day would the name actually change: whether it should be on the day that the bill becomes law, which could be December 5, 6, 8 or 15; whether we should start a new calendar year by saying: Let's do it on the first of January; whether we should have the proclamation come into effect on the anniversary date of Newfoundland and Labrador joining Canada, which would be March 31; or whether we could pick Canada Day, July 1, and have that as the official date. That is a discussion as to dates in which it would actually become effective, knowing that it will some time soon.

I think the value in it, Mr. Speaker - because it has been an issue in this particular Legislature whereby governments in our Province, governments in Newfoundland and Labrador - it started in the latter days of the Smallwood Administration but it was brought really to the forefront by the Moores Administration with the strong members from Labrador, like Joe Rousseau, who was a good personal friend of mine, now deceased, who came into the Cabinet representing constituents of Labrador, who convinced the government that even though the official name of the Province in the Constitution of Canada was the Province of Newfoundland, that for purposes of inclusion in recognizing all of our citizens, that the government should refer to itself and its business as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That has been the case in this Province for over thirty years, that the different documents that we produce, for example, the paper that we use and so on, when we use our Coat of Arms, when the government presents documents, we present it on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and have done so for over thirty year. We are now seeing it officially translated into the name so that when the seal that represents the Province, the official seal which is used in court documents and constitutional documents, will also now be changed to include, ‘and Labrador', in the name of the Province.

What this bill does for us, Mr. Speaker, is: It is an omnibus bill, an overriding bill. Instead of looking at every single piece of the hundreds of pieces of legislation that describe different functions and different laws in Newfoundland and Labrador - because it often says, in many of the old acts, ‘in the Province of Newfoundland...' this shall happen. What this bill will say is, it gives authority to those who keep the pen on the legislation to go back to all of the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador after the act - and the name actually gets changed in the Parliament of Canada - and to write into all of our legislation, where it says ‘the Province of Newfoundland', it will then automatically go back and edit every piece of legislation and say ‘Newfoundland and Labrador'.

As you note in the bill, Mr. Speaker, in section 3 it notes quite clearly that this does not apply to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. That is because the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary operates under a special Charter from the Queen. We are not in a position to order that Charter to change. We have contacted the Constabulary, and I believe the Constabulary Association, and they will decide themselves whether or not they want to approach those who hold the Charter and bestowed the Charter to see whether or not they want the Charter that established the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to be changed to reflect the Royal Newfoundland and Labrador Constabulary. This bill will not automatically change names like that.

As well, we have a Board of Regents, for example, at an institution like Memorial University of Newfoundland. We have already spoken to the President of the University, to the Chair of the Board of Regents, and they will conduct a debate themselves to see whether or not it is right, proper and appropriate to now rename Memorial University of Newfoundland as Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. This bill will not order it. Our suggestion to them is that we think it makes sense, it is appropriate and it is fitting, but the Board of Regents will render that decision in due course.

As well, Mr. Speaker, for incorporating professional or occupational groups - and I belonged to one of those groups myself, the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. When I was the president, it was the Newfoundland Teachers' Association but it represented teachers from all of the Island and Labrador. That organization, several years ago, voluntarily renamed itself the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, so it is now the NLTA instead of the NTA. Those professional and occupational groups like the Newfoundland Medical Association, as one particular example, they will decide themselves whether or not they become the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. This bill does not order it to happen, but again I think we would obviously encourage it to happen by virtue of the official name change. In any respect, many of those organizations have already made the change, again, like the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the bill contains and I believe it is important for us, at this point in time, to facilitate the changing of our legislation to reflect the new name of the Province - this bill does exactly that - and also to send the signals to others, like the Constabulary, like Memorial University, like the professional and occupational associations, that we would encourage them to engage in the debate now as well, as to whether or not this is the appropriate time for them to incorporate Labrador into the name of their organizations and institutions, just like we have decided unanimously in this Legislature to incorporate Labrador into the full functioning name of the Province, and the full constitutional name.

There are others, I know, who will want to speak, as we did in the debate in 1999, when members in this House rose and gave the reasons why we should talk about language that was ‘inclusionary', that included Labrador in the official name because of the contribution that residents of Labrador make in the whole fabric of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There may be some speakers who might want to speak to that part of the issue again in the debate today.

I will stop there, Mr. Speaker, and I would commend Bill 43 to the members of the Legislature for their deliberation, and would certainly be available as well in the Committee stage to answer any questions that might arise from the debate that flows from this particular bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to stand here today and participate in this debate. I think it is a tremendous initiative by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I commend the Premier and the members of his government for doing so. I also commend the Members of the Government of Canada for finally taking this initiative. I realize there is a long history that goes into this. Of course this is my first day here, but I do consider myself very fortunate.

With respect to Labrador; I did find over the course of the debate, when this matter was brought to the Government of Canada, I was quite disappointed to even hear in the press that some people actually objected to this initiative, which quite frankly amazed me and embarrassed me as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I cannot believe that anybody in this Province would have any objection, whatsoever, to joining the name Labrador to the name of our Province. I realize that several of the hon. members from Labrador would like an opportunity to speak on this. Again, very capable members, I commend you on the manner in which you represent your districts. As well, the federal member for Labrador, Mr. O'Brien, has also done a tremendous job in representing his district.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador itself has been a great contributor to this Province with regard to the question of natural resources. Interesting enough, today the first line of questioning was about one of the major resources of Labrador and the importance of it to the future of this Province. I think a sad thing - I said I was embarrassed as a Newfoundlander in the manner in which we have treated Labradorians from time to time - is that we only paid lip service to the fact that Labrador is truly part of this Province.

When I gave my first address at the convention back in April I indicated at that time that even though we had the deed to Labrador we did not truly have the hearts and souls of its residents. I think this is another step. Now we have taken it just a step further. Not only do we have the deed, do we have the ownership as a Province to Labrador but, in fact, now they are a part of our name. I think that is a very, very important step, but I do think we have to go the next step. We have to not only talk the talk but we have to walk the walk. We have to go out of our way to bring Labradorians into our Province. The very arguments I think that have been used by Newfoundlanders against the federal government is the fact that we have been treated as second class citizens, that we have been ignored, that we have been put aside. I think some of these same arguments you will here when you go through Labrador. They concern me. They concern me very greatly, and I think they have to be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that we do include the people of Labrador in our Province in a more overt way. Ladies and gentlemen, that is why I have spoken about the fixed link. Of course, I have taken some criticism over the fact that a tunnel should be constructed to connect Labrador with the Island of Newfoundland. I feel it is a very important initiative, because not only does it connect us to the rest of our country but it joins our Province together, and it is very important to the people of Labrador, especially to the people of the West Coast and the people of the Northern Peninsula in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that if at all possible it would be timely now to conduct a feasibility study to allocate the funds, to put them aside, to decide whether in fact this is an economically viable project that will create literally thousands of jobs for people in this Province.

Also, this is symbolism. It is the same symbolism that we see when we look at this act and we see that finally our Province is united in its name. If we unite it physically, if we construct that tunnel, then we are finally together. I think it is huge step, and I think it is very important to the future of this Province. I ask our government if they would possibly look into this, undertake a feasibility study, and come back to this House and let us know the findings.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Opposition, I am very proud to be a part of it. It is an honour to be here. It is a very historic time in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, a time when the Province's name has been formally changed. We have all done it over the years, we have all said it over the years, we make a point of always saying Newfoundland and Labrador but now it is official. Finally, I do commend the government for their initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak on this debate today on legislation that would ensure that the name of the Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, is contained in all of our Statutes. I do so as Leader of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, and my colleague from Labrador West will speak, as well, about the importance of this to the people of that part of the Province.

I want to speak as leader of the party, having spoken on many occasions in this House over the last ten years or more, on the issue of changing not only the name of the Province but also the legislation to ensure that the Province is recognized as Newfoundland and Labrador. We have been together for centuries, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned earlier today, the Labrador boundary question was decided in 1927, but it was decided on evidence going back a hundred years or more before that, in terms of the relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador, the administration of government and governmental activity, the prosecution of the fishery, and the conduct of other enterprises where together, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, were engaged in the relationship that we celebrate today by changing the name of much of our legislation.

As the Premier indicated in his speech, going back thirty years or more, we have referred to our government as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been a constant theme, I suppose, in symbolic ways in government departments, in ministers, in literature put out by the government, but now officially changing the name of the Province, which we look forward to the full constitutional fruition in the not too distant future, that is a very important step.

There are people who have tried to make fun of the notion of the Province of Newfoundland changing its name to Newfoundland and Labrador. I saw a perfect response to that by someone who wrote a letter to the paper the other day suggesting that one of these critics should be asked whether he has ever heard of other places like St. Pierre and Miquelon, like Alsace-Lorraine, like Trinidad and Tobago, and numerous other provinces or countries. The name of Schleswig-Holstein in Germany was mentioned as another state of the Federation of the Federal German Republic which has the provinces or states with names that include both important parts of their particular territory and states. So it is fitting, Mr. Speaker, that we recognize that in our legislation, that we recognize it in our Constitution, and we recognize it as two peoples with individual identities. You can make jokes, and I am sure some people would joke: Well, does this mean we are going to have to change the name of the words to the song: We'll rant and we'll roar like true Newfoundlanders? No, Mr. Speaker. No more will we have to change the name or the words of the song about the Northern Lights of Old Labrador. This is part of Newfoundland history, folklore and tradition and Labrador history, folklore and tradition, and it will ever remain such. So, we have two parts of a province with their own identity in many ways but with a tremendous amount more in common than we have to separate us and differentiate us. We do, through this legislation, through the constitutional change, through our interrelationships, express that it is more than just symbolic. It is something that we have to work together on. It is something that we have to build that relationship, and my colleague from Labrador West will talk more about that.

I heard the new Member for Humber West, the Leader of the Opposition, refer to a tunnel to Labrador. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is something that has been on the agenda of certain governments for a number of years. The feasibility of such a thing is a question that, I think, raises a lot of doubt in the minds of people as to whether or not such a thing could be economical. I know that in other places and in other countries tunnels have been built with far greater populations than we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are some serious questions on the viability of tunnels of that nature and that length. So it is a very real question. It is something that we may wish to dream about but it may not be something that is realistic for the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to accommodate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that all members are fully aware of the full support of my party and my caucus for this change of the name of the Province, just as we supported the changes that were proposed many years ago here when a committee of this House was formed to consult the people of the Province as to whether or not this was appropriate.

I recall the former Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair chairing such a committee, going around the Province asking people whether they thought this was a good idea. My position, Mr. Speaker, was that we did not need to waste the time and money that it would take to do that consultation. All members of the House and all parties supported that change back in 1993 or 1994 when we did that. It has been many years since the decision was made by this House to set up that committee; but, Mr. Speaker, here we are today seeing the fruition of that. The unanimous support, I believe, of all Member of this House of Assembly and all parties in the House to see this constitutional change in this legislation, ensuring that the people of Labrador should no longer feel that when we talk about the Province that we are excluding them when we say just Newfoundland. The Province shall be, and shall remain, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great pleasure for me to rise today and support the Premier in this important act. I know there are some people in this Province who feel this is a joke; but I, for one, do not feel that. It is a proud day for us in Labrador today, to be and even feel a part of the Province by having the name changed. I would say, contrary to some of the public commentaries that have been made over the last few months or the last few weeks, I guess, for the most part by some very public people, that this is not anything that you could laugh about. This is something that we, in Labrador - and I, for one, who has been dealing with the public in Labrador for the last thirty-five years, and I am sure my hon. colleagues will attest to that - have been looking for.

I thank this government, and I want to speak to that in just a few moments. First of all, I want to say that for the federal government, under the Minister of Industry, to take this upon himself when he was the Premier here, to ensure that we would see this day, I think it is very fitting. I think the statement he made on the day they brought it before the House of Commons was: Having both major parts of this Province reflected in its name will promote feelings of unity and inclusion among the people of this Province; and I think over time, Mr. Speaker, this is what will happen. It is still an educational process because a lot of people still do not understand the different nationalities, the different ethnic groups that all live and strive and work together in Labrador. A lot of times what the general public sees, basically, is the negative side of everything. There is an educational process that we have to go through.

I would also say it for those who feel that Quebec was a major part of the reason why we did not change the name. I was looking through the speech that our Member for Labrador made in the House of Commons during the speech on that. He referenced the fact that, in reference to Quebec: What is divisive is to gloss over and deny the differences and distinctions between us - that is between us and Quebec - instead of celebrating and recognizing them. We still have some work to do with Quebec. We will gladly take that upon ourselves to ensure that Quebec feels that this is a good thing to have the name of Newfoundland and Labrador instead of something that is divisive.

I just want to go back to 1996. I was one of those new candidates and new members of this House. I have a good memory of what happened in 1996, and I am sure my colleagues from Labrador will have the same. One of the major things that people felt in Labrador was left out. From 1949 to 1996 there was very little, from our perspective, that the government had included other than something that, we all felt, was benefitting the Island. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you in 1996, when there were four of us here in this House from Labrador, we started to work on educating everybody and working with the government to ensure that we started to see some benefits. One of those things was the name change. One of the big items in 1996 - and anybody here who may have gone to the Combined Councils meetings in January of that year would have gotten an earful, as we did, being Members of the House of Assembly, trying to encourage us to come down and ensure that we made Labrador feel a part of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that since 1996, up until today, and we are continuing to do it, what we have done to try and accommodate the people of Labrador feeling a part of this Province is something that I am very proud of. I can certainly attest to the fact of what we have done in terms of capital works, infrastructure, in terms of social programs and the way that government just deals with the people in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: I would challenge anybody in this Province to say that since 1996 they have not seen anything happen in Labrador that would accommodate the fact that this government, and the previous government from 1996 to 1999, is not taking a very important stand in how we deal with the issues that pertain to Labrador.

I can tell you that the change of the name is a very important part of all the things we have done. It is one thing to just put infrastructure in a place and not even have an understanding that we are a part of the Province when we talk and look at official documentation. When you go nationally to Ottawa and you are dealing with the Province, they say the Province of Newfoundland. They have no idea, no concept, that Labrador is a very important part of this Province, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, as the Premier has indicated, and I am sure other speakers will as well.

The history, the culture, and also the resources that Labrador has are a very important part of where this Province is going to go over the next number of years. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this government, in terms of dealing with the name change and putting this omnibus bill forward, is only further adding to the accommodation that we have had to date in terms of ensuring that the people of Labrador do not only feel a part of this but they are a part, they act as a part of this Province, and we benefit as well as anybody else from all of the resource developments that we have, the transportation needs that we have, and all of the social requirements that we have. This Province and this government have done a lot of things that we can see are beneficial to the people and will make the people feel much more a part of this Province in terms of the way government deals with all of the issues.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about highways, tunnels and resource development, but I think that if we, as the northern part of this Province, can understand that the people both in government and outside of the area called Labrador understand why we want to do this - we do not want to do it just because the resources are rich. We want to do it so that we can be a part of the benefits and the advantages that this Province has in developing these kinds of resources that we have.

We are not trying to be different than anybody else. We just want to be accommodated in the whole process, and the name change and the kinds of things that the name change will do will certainly give us an understanding that this government is doing the right thing by putting this bill forward.

I want to say just a couple of more things. For people in this Province to compare Labrador, when we are talking about a name change, to having it called Newfoundland and Mount Pearl, or Newfoundland and Corner Brook, because we have 30,000 people, I think it is absolutely stupid for people to be saying those kinds of things because it has nothing to do with changing the name of this Province. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for the past number of years. All we are trying to do now is to accommodate it in the official documentation, and all of the official other kinds of materials that we have within this Province. Therefore, to compare us to calling the Province Newfoundland and Mount Pearl, I think it is too silly to even respond. That is why we have not responded to it in the papers and over the news media.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude because I know there are other speakers who want to speak to it. I will say that I support the Premier and this government 100 per cent. Anybody who wants to challenge this government on what we have done since 1996 - I can assure you that between 1949 and 1996 we could always say there was a big void, but since 1996 to today, as we continue to do things for Labrador, this government has done yeoman service to the people of Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to have a few words on the bill that the Premier has put forward today. This is, no doubt, as the minister has just said, a very historic day for the people of Labrador, as was the day in 1927 when the Privy Council decision to award Labrador to the Province of Newfoundland at that time was an historic time in our history, but not with the same feelings of enthusiasm, not with the same feelings that we have today of excitement, of being inclusive. In 1927, the people of Labrador had very little say, if any at all, in what was to happen with us as a people and as a land, but that has changed over many, many years.

In 1964 there was the Labrador Act, and it was the first time that Labrador was really reflected in terms of the Government of Newfoundland. At that time it was changed to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and through the House of Assembly, the Coat of Arms, and in other cases, we were given some symbolism and some recognition within the Province. As our minister has indicated, in 1996 we were taken very seriously by the government of this Province, then led by Premier Tobin, in which honest efforts were made to recognize, to work with and to be serving the people of Labrador as we should as a government.

In 1999, Premier Tobin, at that time, brought a motion to the House of Assembly to start the official changes of changing the name of our Province from Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been a long, hard road for many of us through that entire process. Even since 1999, with getting our case heard, our day in the Commons in Ottawa, and a chance to move the bill through the Senate, it was done because of the support of the great representatives that we have not only in our government in Newfoundland and Labrador, but also in Ottawa.

I certainly want to acknowledge the efforts of our MP, Lawrence O'Brien, and the contribution that he has made to be able to move this through the House of Commons. I want to recognize the work of Minister Tobin, our minister in Ottawa, and the work that he has done not only when he was Premier to act on our behalf to move this, but also what he has done in Ottawa to actually move this through the Commons. I also want to recognize Senator Rompkey, who will certainly be playing a very active role as this bill moves through the Senate and becomes the official law.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about what this means to the people of Labrador. It means unity, it means inclusiveness, it means that we are one in Newfoundland and Labrador, and this is what the people of Labrador have wanted for generations, for many years. It is not that we have wanted to always be out there on the left side or on the right side looking for a place; we have always wanted to belong, to contribute, to participate, to receive, to be a part of what was happening in this Province.

Today, Mr. Speaker, some of the most predominant issues that are on the agenda in Newfoundland and Labrador are housed in the landmass of that particular area of our Province. We feel that it is our opportunity, and we have been given that opportunity especially, as our minister has said, since 1996, to have an active voice in this government and in what happens in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will continue to do that.

I want to talk about the negative commentary that has been generated by this particular act and this particular change. I read, maybe about a week or ten days ago, a column in The Telegram, written by Brian Jones, I think it was, and I will quote him - no relation, Mr. Speaker. He lends such humor to this whole act, to this whole inclusiveness of us as one province. That really upsets me, because when I sat and read that commentary, my first thought was that this is a person who does not have a history in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a person who does not have a good understanding of what we are, as people, and the desire in Labrador to be a part in name and in many others ways, a part of this Province.

You know, I do not find this humorous at all. I obviously understand that there will be differences of opinions, but I do not think it is a joke and I do not think it is humorous. I think this is progressiveness and we in this Province are progressing, and we are progressing in a way that represents the needs and desires of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we are doing in this act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: He makes a comment about traveling around the world, traveling abroad, and how people will ask you where you are from, and you will say, Newfoundland and Labrador; and, boy, how foolish that really is.

How many people have traveled abroad? How many people have been in England or in France and have been asked: Where are you from? We say we are from Canada. Most people respond. If the people who is asking is knowledgeable about our country, they will ask us what province we are from. If they are knowledgeable about our Province, they will ask us what town we are from.

Mr. Speaker, we, in Newfoundland and Labrador, are no different than anyone else in the world. We are just passing a bill and an act that reflects what we are as people, and what I would say to people who want to promote commentary like that and make humor at things that are important to the people of our Province, is that they should do their homework first. They should stand in our shoes and be a part of what has been happening in Labrador since 1927 when the people of Labrador wanted and desired to be included in terms of one province.

I also want to talk about comments that have been made in terms of changing history, and the Leader of the NDP alluded to it in terms of the folklore that exist in our Province. We are not rewriting history, Mr. Speaker; we are changing direction for the future. I think it has to be understood that whatever happened in the past is a part of our past, and it is just as important as the legislation that we will pass today. It is just as important as the events that will occur next week and the week after. We preserve and we respect those things that have been documented, that have been written and have been praised in the name of the Province of Newfoundland as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Labrador in terms of where we are in our progress. Since 1996, the people of Labrador have been heard and have had a very active voice not only in this Assembly but also in the national Assembly. For the first time in our lives we sent all Labradorians to sit in this place, and when we did so we came here with the agenda to ensure there was inclusiveness by the people of Labrador and to ensure that we were going to be heard and receive a fair share of what was due us.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am driving a highway into my district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: There were fifty kilometres of pavement in fifty years of Confederation in my district until this government took office. Mr. Speaker, they understood and they heard the needs of the people of Labrador, the desire to be connected by road, to have those communication and transportation mechanisms available to them.

Mr. Speaker, when I hear people talk, as the Leader of the Official Opposition talked, about a tunnel across the Strait of Bell Isle - the tunnel is the visionary piece of transportation within this Province. Let there be no doubt about that. Mr. Speaker, the tunnel will be necessary if the rest of the island portion of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is to progress over twenty-five years. But, Mr. Speaker, do not be sidetracked as to what the need of the people today is in Labrador. That need is to build roads, to pave roads, and to give people a transportation system that they do not have today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, you go into Labrador West and the people of Labrador West will tell you: we want a paved highway. We want a paved highway through Labrador and we want to be able to get on it and drive. They will tell you that we want to be part of the Trans-Canada Highway system, and we deserve to be part of the Trans-Canada Highway system.

You go into Happy Valley Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, and the people will tell you it is time to build the road from Cartwright to Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: It is time to start the phase three of the Labrador Highway. This is the desire of the people there. You go into my own district, Mr. Speaker, the people of Pinsent Arm, the people of Norman Bay, the people who want to have a road, the people of Black Tickle, the people of Mary's Harbour, Port Hope Simpson and St. Lewis, who some day will dream to have pavement come through their communities, these are their priorities, Mr. Speaker. Their priority is to be connected from one end of Labrador to the other.

I am not going to talk about the North Coast, because my colleague will speak in a few minutes and believe me there is no one in this Legislature or anywhere else in this Province who knows Northern Labrador better than the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I will certainly let him speak as to where their priorities are.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a commitment of this Government since 1996, and I can tell you that it is a proud day for me as a member who has come to this House and spoken on resolutions, who has brought resolutions forward to have this done, who has lobbied to make sure that Labrador is included, and a member who has always fought for the people of Labrador and always ensuring that they will get what they deserve out of this government and any future governments.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good day for us. As the Minister for Labrador has already said, this is something that we have waited for and that is important to us, and we will celebrate this as it moves through the Senate and becomes law. I am pleased to be able to support this bill in the House today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: It gives me great pleasure to rise today and talk about the change that will include Labrador in the official name of the Province. I think it is a very good day and I am certainly proud to represent the District of Labrador West in this House of Assembly while this is going through that process.

It is long overdue, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you that for many years the people of Labrador have felt left out of the political process of this Province. I have to also say, Mr. Speaker, that changing the name of the Province is not going to correct all of the ills of the past.

If you look historically at Labrador, it was being raped, the fishery on the coast, with boats coming from other places to take the fish away. If we look at the hydro and the mining that has taken place there, much the same thing has happened. We had a mine in Schefferville where most of the ore was located in Labrador, but because of the lack of government intervention at the time, the town was built in Quebec and therefore they reaped the majority of the benefits. We have a railway line in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and about 80 per cent, at least, of that railway is totally within the boundaries of Labrador, but I would say less than 5 per cent of the workers on that railway are from this Province or from the Labrador portion. So these are things, Mr. Speaker, that we need to correct and make sure that they do not happen in the future.

You know, at one point in our history Newfoundland tried to sell us. So all of these things that have happened in the past are not going to be corrected today by adding the name, however important that may be to the people of Labrador. I am not trying to belittle that, Mr. Speaker, because it is important and it needed to be done and I am very proud that it has happened.

Some of the other things that some of the members from Labrador talked about, I would like to touch on as well. Transportation is certainly key to the further development of Labrador. If we look at the road conditions now, Mr. Speaker - and I do not know if any of the members from Labrador have driven on the roads recently - but I can tell you that the section of the road, particularly from the Ashuanipi Bridge to Churchill Falls, certainly needs a major overall this coming year. The number of tourists that were on that road this year - I met two people who were traveling who broke the trailer hitches on their vehicles.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Do not clap yet, I say to the minister, until he forks over the money to put the road back in good shape.

I would like to say that this summer I spoke to two tourists who said they loved Labrador. They really enjoyed their visit, they enjoyed the people, but they would not come back anymore until road conditions improved, and they certainly would not recommend it to any of their friends until the roads are up to a standard where they can be driven over without destroying or doing serious damage to their vehicle.

There is the other question of the road: The connection between Cartwright and Goose Bay. Right now we have the road linked from Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and down the coast up to Cartwright will be. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a section of road between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose By that certainly needs funding put in place. The environmental impact study needs to be completed and construction should start on that section of road immediately.

We have the ferry service. Next year there is going to be a major change in transportation in Labrador, a proposal that the ferry service would not run from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Lewisporte. That, Mr. Speaker, is causing concern particularly for the area of Labrador that I reside in and represent. I think, and some of the other people agree, that that will have a negative impact upon the tourism industry in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you a story that will sum up the feelings of people who live in Labrador pretty good. I was in Gander two years ago. There was a conference being held there on the possibility of putting a copper smelter in central Newfoundland. We had the meeting at the Gander Hotel, and nobody knew that I was from Labrador. It was about four years ago now. Nobody knew I was from Labrador and I was sitting at the table not saying too much. At that meeting that was surrounded by community leaders, they talked about having a smelter in central Newfoundland, and somebody raised their hand and said: Well, where would we get the ore? They said: From Labrador. Somebody else said: Well, where would we get the power? Somebody else said: From Labrador; and it kept going. Well, I had to leave, Mr. Speaker, to take a very important phone call. When I told the person on the other end that I had to cut his conversation short, I would call him back later, because I had to get back to the meeting, because I wasn't sure when I got back if I would still have a house to live in. I mean, that is how ridiculous things get sometimes when you look at Labrador as a place to take things from but never to put things back into.

A lot of the employment opportunities that will be created through Voisey's Bay and through, hopefully, the development of the Lower Churchill, need to have the adjacency clause paid to them, applied to them, so that the people of Labrador will have first and foremost opportunities for any employment that arrives.

I agree with the previous speaker, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, in that the tunnel is a visionary thing. Someday it may happen, but the needs of people in Labrador today, with transportation, certainly has to be focused on improving the road conditions, improving the ferry conditions and improving air transportation systems. The money and resources should apply to that so that we, in Labrador, will have a decent transportation system that we can use.

There is also the old question, Mr. Speaker, about health care. This ties in very much to the feeling of belonging as a real part of the Province. I think it also indicates the lack of understanding sometimes that the people on the Island portion of the Province have had. For example, a person from Labrador comes out to a hospital in St. John's and they see a doctor. Rather than having things lined up so their problems can be taken care of and treated, they are told to come back again next week, as if to say, you only have to jump aboard your vehicle and within a few hours drive you are there. Well, it is a three day drive, Mr. Speaker, from Labrador West to St. John's, and if you use the option of flying, depending on the rates you get, you could pay as high as $1,580 return. These things are very annoying to the people who live in Labrador when they come across people on the Island portion of the Province that seem not to be able to understand the geographical differences that lie between the two portions of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, I think - and I will call on the Premier today to ask him, that if Labrador is going to be an integral part of our Province in name, in spirit, and in all of the things that really matter, I think that the Premier should take this opportunity to recognize that to a great degree and fly the Newfoundland and Labrador flag as well in front of Confederation Building, fly the Labrador flag at every place where the Newfoundland flag is flying now, fly it next to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come up with a new flag.

MR. COLLINS: Well, that could be an option as well. I think, if we are going to go this road, if we are going to use this as means of trying to put things together, then wherever the Newfoundland flag is displayed, Mr. Speaker, then the Labrador flag should be flying right next to it. I say to the Premier that he should take the opportunity to do that as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, now that the name of the Province is officially changed, or will be once it goes through the procedures, then I hope that the change will also be reflected in government's responding to the needs of the people of Labrador in a more fulfilling way than they have.

Another good example, Madam Speaker - I see that the Chair has changed - is an example of the way things are when people don't know. The winter ice fishing season in Labrador used to cut-off on April 15 until the May 15. When I tried to get that changed over the past couple of years, the only reason I got for that happening at all is because that is the way it is here on the Island portion of the Province. Madam Speaker, not always is what is good on the Island portion of the Province applicable to Labrador. That is just one, albeit a small example, but a real example.

Now, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that, as a result of a public meeting we held in Labrador West the week before last, that change will be made for the upcoming fishing season and there will not be any cut-off period in the spring of the year.

There are a lot of things that are needed to be done because, as I said in the beginning, the name change of the Province to include Labrador, while very, very important, is not going to be the be-all and end-all to the feelings of alienation that have built up over many, many decades by the lack of attention by governments in responding to the needs of the people in Labrador.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I will say that I fully support the initiative that was taken. I think it is a great day for Labradorians, that the name now will be officially included in the full name of the Province, but again I caution the government not to think that this is the answer to all of the ills that have happened over the past number of years, and to be cognizant of that when they are dealing with issues that affect Labrador.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the act as well, and to say that it is a proud day for the people in Labrador.

I was born in Makkovik, Labrador, a little community on the North Coast, a proud Labradorian. I went to school and learned of the Province, the name of Newfoundland, and I often wondered why it was never called Newfoundland and Labrador. During my seventeen years as a civil servant, I went through the same thing, the Province of Newfoundland.

Madam Speaker, today is a gigantic step in making the people in Labrador feel a part of what they always believed they were, and that is a contributor and a part of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Madam Speaker, nowhere was the need for help more important than in the riding of Torngat Mountains, when I came here in 1996. Every member in this House knows the trying times that the people on the North Coast of Labrador have gone through in the last few years. Madam Speaker, it was difficult, very difficult, but with the help of this government, who saw fit that our children were so important to us, this government is very close to calling the tender for the fourth new school in my riding since 1996.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: When the resettlement was called by the government - and yes, it was a Liberal government - when they promised the people from Hebron and Okak a better way of life, better houses, it was this government that brought in $7.7 million to speed the process up, to give people a home that they were promised years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: This government listened to people like Ruth Flowers in Makkovik and Charlotte Wolfrey who were screeching out because the women were scared and wanted protection. This government brought in policing, into the communities of Makkovik and Rigolet. Mr. Speaker, this government fast-tracked the AIP that we waited for twenty-five years of negotiating for a deal for the Labrador Inuit Association. Yes, today we are very close to a final agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Madam Speaker, this government has brought in bonuses for teachers and nurses on the North Coast of Labrador so that the people in these isolated communities would not be deprived of these special programs and special people that carry out such important work. Madam Speaker, this government showed really what Labrador meant to this Province when the Premier of the day, Premier Roger Grimes, brought in the Department of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Madam Speaker, to see Minister McLean, the member for Labrador, take over the portfolio, and to see the Premier of the day install faith in me by appointing me Parliamentary Secretary for Aboriginal Affairs -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: - shows that all people, regardless of where they live, are going to be administered to and services are going to be given regardless of where you live.

Mr. Speaker, all these things are fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the roads?

MR. ANDERSEN: The roads, I could get into that; community centres, fire halls, fire trucks, you name it. I could go on, but these are things that government realized. There is one thing here that is very important today as we get ready to change the name. You see, there is a love and a passion that I have for the North Coast of Labrador that runs very deep within me. When I came in here in 1996, I had a dream, and those who sit on this side of the House have helped me make my dream come true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: One of our seniors who we lost a short time ago, Mr. Sid Decker from Nain wrote a song, and one of the verses went like this: Most of all to me is to have liberty, to be a son of Northern Labrador.

To be a son of Northern Labrador who went to school and wanted the name changed, who spent fifteen or sixteen years in government, to come into this House and to know that this government is in the process of changing the name, I think it is going to go a long way in helping people in Labrador realize that, yes, this great land is up there, this vast land. If someone talks about traveling the world, let me tell you, if you come to Torngat Mountains and see our mountains, parks, icebergs and fish, you will never want to go anywhere else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: The Premier mentioned earlier today that there might be a proclamation signed. Madam Speaker, this government is in the process of having the Labrador 2002 Celebrations. If I could drop a hint, Premier, I cannot think of a better time or a better place to sign that proclamation when we open those celebrations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Madam Speaker, again I can only say that, with the pride that I have for the people and for Labrador, today is a great day. I want to thank all my colleagues here who, in 1996, sat down and listened to us when we went through some very difficult times and when, as members, we were faced with a big task, and there were talks up there of people wanting to do a certain thing. I can tell you, it was scarey, but this government, I think, has put faith in the people in Labrador and we have started to built a bright future, and I think we will continue to do that. Today, every person in Labrador feels a part of this Province and, I can guarantee you, we will make a contribution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Premier.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I do appreciate the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the members from Labrador with respect to their views on this particular bill and this particular issue, and I do not think it is necessary for me to speak any further. There has been such a debate, I think, a fine debate, a passionate debate, with respect to what it really does mean for different people in different circumstances and how they see the symbolism of this, that we will now bring this to a conclusion.

I would gladly, at this point, move second reading of the bill and hopefully see unanimous concurrence in the passage of the bill at second reading.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Name Of The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 43)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I think everybody has agreed that we do not need to proceed to Committee. Everybody is in agreement with this, so we can go to third reading.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

We certainly concur with the Government House Leader, who just made the suggestion. This bill has been debated for an inordinate amount of time. We have all had speakers on it. We can do virtually, as legislators, what we will or what we agree upon doing by leave. Our suggestion is, in concurrence with the Government House Leader, let's move this bill through every stage and be done with it today and send a message that I think all of us are prepared to send.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say first of all that I concur with the suggestion of the Opposition House Leader on this particular bill, but if there is something, either skipping a stage of Committee or going to third reading - with unanimous consent, of course, the House can do everything or anything it wishes in terms of legislation.

I would not want anyone to think that by withholding unanimous consent on any particular issue that somehow you are obstructing the business of the House, but this particular issue is one, I think, we can all say that we do not need to wait another day, or another legislative day as it were, to see this bill enacted into law. It is one that most of us who have been in this House have waited for, for many years.

As the last speaker from Torngat Mountains said, for someone who has waited all his life for this change to take place, I think it is something for which we can make this very significant exception to the rules of the House and, through unanimous consent, see a bill moved, I suppose, essentially, if we count this morning, through all four stages of passage in one day. I think that is an extraordinary action by this House, and it should be seen as such, but it is one that we should reserve for very special issues and special legislation such as this.

I would say that we here certainly support, through unanimous consent, that this be enacted through third reading as of today and hopefully receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, then we would assume that we have gone through all of the processes and I move third reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Name Of The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 43)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 6, asking for second reading of Bill 32.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Dental Act." (Bill 32)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this bill, An Act To Amend The Dental Act, is being put forward at this time for a second reading. Primarily, it is intended to permit dentists to incorporate and, of course, to also permit the Newfoundland and Labrador Dental Board to regulate the dental corporations.

I would have to say that these amendments to the Dental Act have been proposed by the dental association itself and they are very much supported by the Newfoundland Dental Board. Of course, the whole purpose of this is to enable dentists to become incorporated with the intention that this would give them the same kind of advantage that dentists have in other parts of the country. For the most part, I believe in eight other provinces, dentists, like physicians, are able to become incorporated. For some time boards and others have felt that this inability of our Dental Act to accommodate incorporation by dentists has been a hindrance to recruitment and to retention. Therefore, this would put us on a more level playing field and allow us to be better able to recruit dentists to this Province.

I would also like to say in bringing this bill forward that the current act, while it does not allow specific incorporation, and therefore does not allow for regulation of that, leaves a gap. It is the intention, with this bill, not to limit liability for malpractice. That is not the intent. You will note it in section 25 that there is a specific capacity still for liability, for malpractice, or for negligence. That would be continued.

This is a very small amendment, in its essence, to the Dental Act. It is one that is sought by the Dental Association. I believe it provides some benefits in terms of income tax, particularly for dentists who are specialists and, as such, I think it will put us in a more favourable position as a Province.

With that, I introduce the bill for second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to speak on the amendment to the Dental Act this afternoon. If this bill is passed corporations will be permitted to provide the services of a dentist or dental surgeon, and to provide for the licensing and regulation of professional dental corporations by the dental board. As the minister said, almost all the provinces in Canada are now covered under an act such as this. It will put this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, on par with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba. I understand the Province of Ontario is in the same stage as we are, perhaps somewhat slightly ahead, as far as the licensing and regulation of professional dental corporations is concerned. Saskatchewan is working on it and, I think, somewhat behind.

This amendment is something that the dental profession has been pushing for a long time. I understand that they have read over the amendments and are happy. The dentists will be the voting shareholders in this, and they are happy with that. As the minister said, under section 25 dentists will still be liable to the general public, individually responsible. There does not seem to be any inference within this act that would lead anyone to believe that the situation will be otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, we have discussed what is contained in this bill. However, it is what is not here in this bill that gives cause for concern at this time. It is, of course, a new bill and regulations have not, as yet, been drawn up. I guess the devil is in the details and the question is: What should we expect to see in the regulations, and just as importantly, when should we expect to see regulations around the amendment to this bill to amend the Dental Act?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a few moments to speak at second reading on An Act To Amend The Dental Act, which is the stage of legislation for approval in principle. I want to say that what this act does is allow a dentist to operate through a professional corporation as opposed to just as an individual. I support that, Mr. Speaker, and in doing so I would have to say that the reason I support that is because if anyone walks into a dental office you see that it is not just a dentist there. There are a number of other practitioners there - dental assistants, dental hygienists - a whole series of employees, all of whom are engaged in the provision of the dental services. The dentist, who is the professional, is the one who charges the professional fees but ends up paying all of those other professionals. A professional corporation allows it to be recognized as a business activity as well as a profession, and that has implications for financial statements, taxation and other issues, and to be able to organize their affairs in that way. But the real reason I am able to support it, Mr. Speaker, is the provision of clause 25.6; and 25.6 says that: A practitioner who provides professional services through a professional dental corporation is, notwithstanding the fact that he is operating through a corporation, subject to the act the same as if he were providing services as an individual practitioner.

The second part of it, which is equally and perhaps more important: It has the same duties and responsibilities in connection with his or her dealings with patients of the professional dental corporation as if he or she were providing services directly to those patients. In other words, Mr. Speaker, all of those professional responsibilities, professional obligations that a dentist, or a doctor, or a lawyer might have towards the people that they deal with are all incorporated in this legislation so that the ethics of the dental profession, the medical ethics that are associated with offering dental services, and all of those functions that are there in the Dental Act to provide for the regulation of the profession is one of those, what we call, self-regulating professions like doctors and lawyers. The professional body that hands out discipline, that establishes standards, that does the work of ensuring that there are high standards of ethics that are demanded of dental practitioners, all of those apply equally strongly as if the person was operating a solo practice or as a practitioners without there being a dental cooperation or incorporated service.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I can support in principle the amendments to the Dental Act which allow for the incorporation of dental practitioners. There are some advantages to individual dentists but it is also more in keeping with the business model to which most dental practices are operating.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if I may just seek direction from the Government House Leader for a moment. It is getting close to the closing of the parliamentary day, I wonder if it might be advisable if we can just adjourn for the day because we have another member, and maybe one more, who wants to participate in second reading? If the minister, who put the bill forward, stands today at second reading obviously it is closed, but we have another couple of members who would like to proceed. So if we could adjourn debate for today and clue it up very quickly on this particular piece of legislation tomorrow, if that would be agreeable with the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of cooperation, and considering the tremendous amount of cooperation we have had today, we take the Opposition House Leader's request and accept that we would adjourn the debate.

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