November 18, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 30


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to observe an old parliamentary tradition that we reinstated some time ago. Today, I have the pleasure of formally introducing a member who was elected in the by-election held on July 24. He is Mr. Harry Harding, in the District of Bonavista North.

I have been advised by the Clerk of the House of Assembly that Mr. Harding has taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown as required by the Constitution and has signed the Members' Roll.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of walking with this gentleman throughout the entire district and I think it is only fitting that we walk the last fifty to 100 feet to take his seat.

I have the honour to present to you today, Mr. Harry Harding, the Member for Bonavista North, who claims the right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the member take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to inform members that we do have two new pages who will be with us during this sitting of the House. They are: Ms Janice Pitts and Mr. Frank Davis. Both of these are Memorial University students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to inform members of this hon. House that at its 2002 World Champions in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the International Federation of Broomball Associations announced that Corner Brook would host the 2004 World Broomball Championships.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Prior to going to Minneapolis, the Newfoundland and Labrador contingent were told that bids were also expected from Rochester, New York, and from Lausanne, Switzerland. However, Mr. Speaker, when Lausanne became aware of the superior bid that was to be presented by the City of Corner Brook, the Switzerland bid was withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I am told that not only was Corner Brook awarded the 2004 World Championships but that it was awarded these championships by a unanimous vote of the International Federation. This speaks highly not only of those who made the presentation at Minneapolis, but also the high regard that Corner Brook has on the world stage.

Mr. Speaker, not only is Corner Brook the acknowledged sporting capital of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is fast becoming a destination of choice for national, international and world sporting championships.

Mr. Speaker, these championships will be held in the City of Corner Brook, Stephenville, and Deer Lake from October 31 to November 7, 2004, and will attract as many as forty-two teams and 1,500 athletes, coaches and visitors from around the world.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and as a prelude to these World Championships, the Corner Brook organizing committee, headed by Geoff Tulk, public relations director Leo Blanchard, and event manager Penny Brake, invite all Newfoundland and Labrador to Corner Brook for the 2003 Canadian National Senior Men's and Women's Broomball Championships which will be held in the City of Corner Brook from March 31 to April 5, 2003.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to congratulate and pay tribute to a gentleman who turned 102 years old on October 26, Mr. Stephen Carter of Witless Bay, who is now residing at Hoyles-Escasoni. I went to visit Mr. Carter on his birthday for the last few years, and when I went in he talked about his son who is getting a pension today; he is sixty-five years of age.

Mr. Carter is a very sharp, witty individual. He has a tremendous memory and, of course, his longevity maybe can be attributed in some way to his daily regiment of taking his tonic at ten, three and six. If they are five minutes late, Mr. Carter makes his way up that corridor wondering where his tonic is. He also likes to smoke the pipe.

He is a remarkable individual. I am sure the House, too, would wish to express, I would hope, their best wishes to Mr. Carter and his family; a remarkable man and a remarkable life.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize six youths from my district who recently were given recognition at the 2002 Provincial Leadership Conference in Stephenville.

Out of the seventy students who attended the conference, students Stephanie Hodder, Marie-Claire Lapaix, Holly Cribb, Jessica Reid, Bernice Curtis, Lindsey Hewitt, and teacher-sponsor Cheryl Brown of Marystown Central High School were recognized with the conference trophy for their efforts.

I am also pleased to point out to all members that this recognition will see Marystown hosting next year's Provincial Leadership Conference. I also want to recognize the Burin-Placentia School Board who recently held their Regional Youth Leadership Conference in St. Bernard's.

Mr. Speaker, these conferences are very important in the development of the self-confidence and growth of the youth of this Province. I am pleased that the students from Marystown Central High School were able to benefit at the Provincial Leadership Conference. I congratulate all of the students involved and I am sure they are looking forward to next year's conference in the Marystown area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today as well to recognize three special birthdays in the District of Bonavista South. I would like to recognize Mrs. Laura Sweet, formerly of Catalina, now living at the Golden Heights Manor, who has recently celebrated her 101st birthday; Mrs. Gertrude Hobbs from Jamestown, who recently celebrated her 101st birthday; and Mrs. Gladys Yetman, formerly from Southern Bay and now living at the Golden Heights Manor, who just celebrated her 102nd birthday. Those are three ladies in the District of Bonavista South who are celebrating birthdays in excess of 100.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in conversation with those three ladies, I can tell you the old saying that hard work never hurt anyone is really true, because they often talk about their hard work and how they were not only housewives and housekeepers but they looked after the gardens and they looked after repairs to the house and everything else.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House joins with me in saying a special birthday wish to those three individuals. I do not know if it is the clean water or if it is the fresh air or if it is the weather that supports longevity in the District of Bonavista South, but I say to members opposite that I am only halfway there, so relax, take your time, I am going to be around for a long time yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize a young resident of my district who is being hailed as a hero for recently saving his grandfather's life. Mark Hurley is a sixteen-year-old, Level Two student at Carbonear Collegiate, and the son of Eugene Hurley and Nellie Merrigan of Carbonear.

On the afternoon of November 5, he braved the cold waters of Crocker's Cove to rescue his seventy-eight-year-old grandfather, Pat Merrigan. Mr. Merrigan fell into the water 250 feet away from shore after his aluminum boat capsized without warning while trying to retrieve an anchor.

Mark dragged his grandfather to the shore where two local residents, Calvin Penney and Reg Parsons helped Mark to get Mr. Merrigan out of the water.

Mr. Speaker, Mark's quick action, and accomplished swimming skills over the past nine years, helped saved his grandfather from drowning. As the MHA for the area, I want to congratulate him for his heroism and on behalf of all Members in this hon. House, I want to send my best wishes to both Mark Hurley and Pat Merrigan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Robert French and Mr. Herbert Pottle, who devoted their lives to public service and accomplished much in their time of service.

Mr. Speaker, Bob French contributed a great deal to his town, his district, and to the Province; initially, as a businessman, and then in this capacity as an elected representative at both the municipal and the provincial levels. In his years of service to the people of the Province he acted as an Opposition critic for Tourism, Culture and Recreation, for Municipal and Provincial Affairs and, most recently, for Labour. He also served as the Party Whip in the House of Assembly and a member of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly.

Mr. French was also an active volunteer and helped promote sports such as softball and hockey, as well as the 1996 Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games in Conception Bay South area and across the Province. He was first elected as a Member of the House of Assembly for Conception Bay South District on February 22, 1996.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pottle, like Mr. French, also had an active and distinguished political career. The last surviving member of Newfoundland's Commission of Government, he was a man of integrity with a diverse career in the public service. He was a psychologist, a United Church student Minister, a commissioner, a cabinet minister, an author and a devoted family man. Upon his retirement, he served as United Nations Welfare advisor to the Government of Lybia and worked for the federal Department of Health and Welfare in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, both of these men were active advocates for the people they represented and, without a doubt, they served their constituency, their communities and their Province honourably through their years of service. It is with great sadness that I acknowledge the passing of both distinguished gentlemen and kindly ask the Speaker to extend condolences to their families on behalf of the Members of the House of Assembly.

Thank you.

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

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

While none of us in the Legislature served with Mr. Pottle, we certainly, on this side of the House, would like to be associated with the remarks of the Government House Leader in asking you to send your condolences to the late Mr. Pottle's family and to acknowledge the distinguished career that he had in this Legislature, and also throughout his entire life.

With respect to the former Member for Conception Bay South, who was indeed met with surprise and a great deal of sadness on - I know all members part, but certainly on our side of the House. Bob was a great friend to all of us. It came as a shock when the news came that he had passed away. He made a great contribution, certainly to the town of Conception Bay South and the District of Conception Bay South. I am not going to get into the accolades that we could, because it would take an inordinate amount of time.

He also served, I say to the Government House Leader, for a time as critic for the Department of Health, as the now Minister of Mines and Energy would know. I believe I said one day, it was at the funeral, where walking out to this House one afternoon - when he was the Minister of Health - the Minister of Mines and Energy said: Bob, my son, if my wife could only get a hold of you this week. That is the type of individual Bob was, he was hardhitting. He dealt with the issues but it was never personal. I agree with the Government House Leader, that he has contributed greatly. I think that one of his lasting contributions that will be made and be seen in this House is his son Terry, who is in the Gallery today and the newly elected Member for Conception Bay South. We are looking forward to a time, not so far in the distant future, when you will take your seat to continue not only Bob's legacy, but to begin to create your own, Sir.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is, of course, a shock and sadness for all of us to know that our colleague, Bob French, is no longer with us. He was, as others have said, a fearless advocate in this House for his constituents and for the causes which he espoused. He was determined, in regard to his constituents' needs and in performing his critic duties in this House. I think, as the Opposition House Leader has said, he was always fearless and determined, but not a personal thing with him, to represent people in this House. So it is with shock and sadness that we note his passing. Many of us were there at the funeral to recognize the great outpouring of support for Bob French and his family at the time of his funeral at the church in Foxtrap.

He also, as was noted, outside of the House and before even coming here, made significant contributions to his community and to the Province in terms of sports activity and hosting of the Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games. I think it is a tribute to him, that his son will be joining us soon to take that same seat in this House of Assembly for the rest of this term. I want to add our notes of praise for his work and his contribution, and also to acknowledge Dr. Pottle, a former member of this House, who had a long career after he left here and continued, up until very recently, to contribute by writing letters to the editor which were published often in The Evening Telegram; a distinguished career by a distinguished Newfoundlander. We join in noting his passing as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to thank and recognize the contributions of Dr. A. Maxwell House, out-going Lieutenant Governor for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Beginning in 1997 and continuing on until just a few weeks ago when we welcomed His Honour Edward Roberts as Lieutenant Governor, Dr. House and his wife Mary served this Province in the vice-regal role.

Dr. House's commitment to the people of this Province began long before his time at Government House. He has been an advocate and leader in the area of new technology, and many people in this Province have benefitted greatly and directly from his efforts in the area of telemedicine.

The impact that this has had on patient care in this Province and around the World is a testament to his commitment to his chosen field of medicine, and to both his patients and those in need beyond the reach of his hands personally.

Mr. Speaker, the role of Lieutenant Governor is one which carries with it many responsibilities. It is a role which places many demands on the time and energy of the person honoured to be in the position. It is a role which represents Newfoundland and Labrador at the very highest provincial, national and international level.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. and Mrs. House carried out their work as vice-regal representatives with the dignity, humility and energy that the position demands and the people of the Province deserve. I ask hon. members to join with one another to recognize the contributions of our out-going Lieutenant Governor and his wife, Dr. and Mrs. House.

Mr. Speaker, as Premier and as a member of this hon. House, I respectfully request that all members endorse you, as the Speaker, to send a letter expressing our thanks and best wishes to Dr. and Mrs. House on behalf of the Legislature.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the comments of the hon. the Premier in paying tribute to a fine couple, Dr. and Mrs. House, who were neighbours of myself and Maureen and the family on Reeves Place for many, many years.

I think the words dignity, humility and energy certainly describe their role in office. I truly saw them, I must say, here as a team and that is the way they were as neighbours as well.

I can now put behind me one haunting memory that I had. I went over, I think it was probably fifteen or sixteen years ago, to Dr. House's house and I wanted to borrow a screwdriver. I remember him saying to me: Just make sure you bring it back.

To this day, I cannot remember whether I brought it back or not. Now that he is out of the official position, I think I can go over and properly ask him: Did I bring it back? Because, if not, I am going to return it. That is something that has haunted me for a long while and now is beyond me.

Dr. House and Mary House, I must say, were a wonderful couple and they will take up a new chapter in their life now. I had a chance to observe them as neighbours. They were energetic. I watched them exercise. I watched them as a team together, and that is the way they performed in the House.

As well, as the hon. the Premier has said, Dr. House was actually a pioneer in telemedicine and also, of course, a pioneer in distance education. He has made a tremendous contribution at that level to his Province, and he has certainly made a tremendous contribution at this level to his Province, so I join with the comments of the Premier and wish them well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would certainly wish to be associated with the remarks of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in recognizing the contribution of Dr. Max House to the Office of the Lieutenant-Governor and, of course, the support, effort, and work of his wife, Mary House, as his support and co-worker in the very important, symbolic and constitutional role that is played by the Vice-Regal couple in the Lieutenant-Governorship role. Indeed, the office was carried out with great dignity, with great graciousness and warmth which was brought to the office by both Dr. House and his wife.

I want to join with you, and with all members of the House, in expressing our best wishes to them in their future endeavors, thank them for their contribution, and also recognize that this was not, of course, the only contribution of Dr. House, as has been mentioned. He has a distinguished career both in medicine, at the Faculty of Medicine at Memorial, and in the emerging and very, very important field of telemedicine and distance medicine and education.

We recognize their accomplishments and wish them well in the future.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to provide hon. members with an update on the Voisey's Bay project.

As hon. members are aware, this Province and Inco signed a development agreement for the Voisey's Bay Project on October 7. Since that time, preliminary work has been progressing in a number of areas at the Voisey's Bay site, including road infrastructure, port facilities and a temporary airstrip, with a temporary project office being established at the Argentia site by the end of this month. Also, Voisey's Bay Nickel Company Limited has recently registered its plans for the construction of the demonstration plant at Argentia with the Department of Environment for its Environmental Assessment process. Once environmental release is obtained, construction will commence on building the warehouse at the site.

To date, twelve contracts have been awarded, valued at over $30 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The Industrial and Employment Benefits Agreement has been very effective in achieving this Province's commitment to maximizing local benefits from the project. Today, 161 people are employed at the Voisey's Bay site, of which 137, or 85 per cent, are residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Approximately 250 people are employed in all aspects of the project in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have recently heard comments that work is not moving forward quickly enough in certain areas, particularly at the Argentia site. I wish to take this opportunity to assure hon. members that VBNC's work plan, as announced, is on schedule; however, preliminary work must be completed to ensure the long-term success of the site. The company has committed to spend $5 million on the Argentia site before March of next year, and we have been assured that this commitment will be kept.

There have also been questions raised regarding benefits issues, and the awarding of certain contracts. I wish to reiterate to hon. members that qualified Newfoundland and Labrador companies are, and will continue to be, given first consideration in the awarding of contracts. Government continues to monitor this situation and is confident that the guidelines set out in the IEBA are being followed. Where Newfoundland and Labrador companies are qualified to do the work and specification requirements can be met, these companies will get first consideration.

Mr. Speaker, since the Statement of Principles and subsequently the binding contracts have been signed, the response from local industry regarding benefits issues has been very positive. We believe that this demonstrates the strength of the agreements we have signed. We continue to monitor all aspects of the Voisey's Bay project to ensure that all commitments made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are kept. The people of the Province can be assured that the agreements on the development of Voisey's Bay are being followed.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to look forward to the impressive benefits that will accrue to this Province over the next couple of years as we move from site preparation activities to construction. We will then truly see the magnitude and the scope of this project.

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.

Of course, as all the people in the Province know, we had an opportunity to discuss and debate in detail just a few short months ago some of the concerns and issues and questions that we raised, as an Opposition. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the fact and despite the fact that a final contract has been entered into, many, if not all, of the concerns that were raised several months ago continue to exist.

I would like to point out, if I may, briefly, just some of them for the benefit of members present and the citizens of the Province. They include the following: that copper concentrate to be exported from this Province to create jobs elsewhere, more likely for the life of the project... If the hydromet facility is not built, all of the nickel concentrate will be shipped out of the Province for the life of the project, creating jobs elsewhere. If the research into the hydrometallurgical process works, if financing is found, if environmental studies prove favourable, if the hydromet pilot plant can successfully prove the research on a commercial basis - a lot of ifs, Mr. Speaker. Even assuming that everything unfolds as is hoped - and the word hope is important, too - nothing is guaranteed or secured and there is no guarantee that the replacement concentrate will be returned to this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In fact, for the first three years, Inco can simply say that we cannot find any replacement concentrate.

Furthermore, the conditions of the force majeure clause are so broad that Inco can find many reasons to skip out on its responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most important comment that was made by the hon. minister was when he said: We continue to monitor all aspects of the Voisey's Bay project to ensure that our commitments -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - that all commitments made to the people of the Province are kept.

As an Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We acknowledge that work is progressing at Voisey's Bay, on the site, but some of the things in this statement here certainly cause me concern and cause a lot of people in Labrador concern. Even the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs has acknowledged that people in Labrador, in general, are not getting the employment opportunities that they were promised by this government and by Voisey's Bay Nickel.

If we look at the number of people who are working there from Labrador, if we take out the Aboriginal numbers who have negotiated their own contracts and leave the number of people from Labrador outside of the Aboriginal communities who were not able to negotiate their contracts, who trusted this government to do it on their behalf, then they are very much afraid that they are being left out in the cold. Even the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs acknowledges that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the minister that people in Labrador will be vigilant when it comes to the hiring practices of Voisey's Bay Nickel -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - and they will insist that government live up to its commitment, and the company live up to its commitment, (inaudible) employment opportunities for the people of Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give hon. members an update on the status of negotiations with Quebec to develop the Gull Island Hydro Project in Labrador.

On August 1, following several months of discussions with officials from the Government of Quebec, Premier Landry and I announced in Halifax that we had agreed on the fundamental principles that would underlie any deal that would be reached to develop the $4 billion, 2000 megawatt hydro project at Gull Island.

First, Mr. Speaker, we agreed that Newfoundland and Labrador would own 100 per cent of the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a very marked difference from the existing Upper Churchill Project, which is owned two-thirds by the Province, one-third by Quebec.

Second, Mr. Speaker, we agreed that there would be a provision outlining that the price we get for selling our power would be reflective of the value of electricity as it changes over time - in other words, Mr. Speaker, an escalation clause as it is often referred to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: This escalation clause, Mr. Speaker, which did not exist in the Upper Churchill contract, must be part of any new agreement.

Third, Mr. Speaker, we also agreed that Newfoundland and Labrador would have the right to recall power for use in the Province should it be needed for domestic, commercial, or industrial purposes.

Fourth, Mr. Speaker, Premier Landry and I agreed that we would maximize economic and employment benefits for both Newfoundland and Labrador in the first instance, and Quebec.

Fifth, Mr. Speaker, we recognized the importance of partnering with the Innu and of developing the project in an environmentally sensitive manor.

Since we announced those principles in Halifax, Mr. Speaker, officials have been negotiating the detailed terms that would put them into effect. We have made significant progress.

We know this is a large $4 billion investment for our Province, and we are taking what time is needed to negotiate terms which provide the right balance between minimizing financial risk for Newfoundland and Labrador and maximizing economic returns for our people.

Mr. Speaker, today I reaffirm our commitment to the principles announced in August. If we reach an agreement, we will report the full details to the people of the Province. In our continued spirit of openness and accountability, we will ensure our residents have all the facts.

We also commit, Mr. Speaker, to a full debate in this Legislature with an opportunity for a free vote on such an important issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: The government that I lead, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government that I lead will not shy away from progress on the economic front. We will not live our lives in the past. We recognize the value such progress has on maintaining good social programs in Newfoundland and Labrador. This year alone, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the sanctioning of the White Rose offshore oil project; the start of the Voisey's Bay Project; and the resolution of the offshore boundary dispute with Nova Scotia, to mention just a few. And there will be more in the future.

I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that we will conclude negotiations in the near future, one way or another, on Gull Island, maybe even this week. I look forward to the opportunity to update hon. members at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it quite interesting that we received this update about - well, I guess it is an hour ago now - thirty minutes before we came into the House and have received nothing since August 1 when the original principles were announced. Now that the Premier has to provide some information to this House, he is providing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He originally said the deal would be done by the end of September, by the middle of September. We are now into November. Why now? Do you know why now? Because he lost a by-election in July. He has now gotten hammered in another by-election and these are the desperate actions of a desperate man and a desperate government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Once again, we are in the dark. It has all been done in secret. Negotiations are completely in secret. We get a two-page update today on what is going on. That is all he has provided.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Voisey's Bay all over again. Everything is done in secret. No information provided. I call on the Premier to make all the information available, to have a full debate, but let's do it before that agreement is signed and let's have a real shot at it this time around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a Liberal government sold us up the Churchill River and we will not be sold down the Churchill River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Today, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition and myself are placing the Government of Quebec and Hydro Quebec on notice here today that we will subject this deal to the utmost scrutiny. It will be under a microscope. We will hire the best available experts in the world to review this documentation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I have not read it, but I will. I will analyze it and our team will analyze it, and we will not prejudge it.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and let me tell this government, that if this deal does not stand up and does not take care of the best interests of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, if and when we form a government, I will do everything in my power to stop this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very, very disappointed to hear the Premier today talk about his five so-called principles for a deal on Churchill Falls. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a fact that we have not really learned anything in terms of what we should do with power in this Province. We are still going to be a wholesaler of power to Hydro Quebec. The only thing he has managed to put on is an escalator clause, which any fool, after seeing what happened to the Upper Churchill, would do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, what this government and this Premier has failed to do is fail to recognize that things have changed since the Upper Churchill deal. We now have changes in our constitution - in section 92(a) - which give us some rights and control over power and power generation, and in management of that power to this Province.

We also have significant changes in the United States energy regulation market which give us wielding rights right into the North American market; and why this government is showing no leadership, taking no advantage of that, is the failure of this government to take the right steps and put the right principles in place before a deal can be brought forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the official opening of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: As hon. members will recall, last May, Lloyd L.W. Wicks was appointed as our Province's first child and youth advocate, and today he and his staff officially begin assisting children and youth resolve issues in relation to services they receive.

Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is independent of the provincial government and reports directly to the House of Assembly. The Advocate, Mr. Wicks, will focus on public programs and services that have an impact on children and youth under nineteen. He will also review enquiries and complaints concerning individual children and youth, up until the age of nineteen, and from youth who are in care or custody until the age of twenty-one.

The Advocate will also have the ability to conduct investigations where he is unable to resolve a matter through advocacy, mediation or other approaches.

Mr. Speaker, the opening of this office represents an important milestone for children and youth throughout our Province, as they now have an advocate specific for them and their issues.

Newfoundland and Labrador has now joined other jurisdictions across Canada that have child and youth advocates. Mr. Speaker, this Province is proud to recognize in a very meaningful way the importance of children and youth in our Province and in our society, and I am confident Mr. Wicks will be a strong advocate on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The minister should probably have said, the Province is proud to finally recognize the importance of children and youth in our Province. The Select Committee on Children's Interests in 1996 recommended that the Province bring in the Office of Child Advocate, and many of the members over there who are booing and hissing now are the very ones who stood on their feet and said there was no need for such an office. However, the Opposition kept pressuring the government to recognize the most vulnerable citizens of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: So it goes without saying that we are extremely pleased to see this office finally up and running. I congratulate Judge Wicks. There is no need, I suppose, to say that this caucus and this Opposition will continue to support -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: 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, are pleased to see that the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate have started officially to do their work today. We think there is a lot of work that this office can do, work that is much needed on behalf of the children and youth of this Province. I am certain that Mr. Wicks who, prior to his appointment as the advocate, has been speaking out and addressing issues on child welfare and issues that affect youth in the Province for many years. I am sure that he will do a great job in assuming his new duties -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: It is great to see that the office is officially open and that the work on behalf of youth and children in this Province can begin.

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 rise in the House today to congratulate the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) on their 25th anniversary, and their wonderful celebrations held this past weekend to commemorate this remarkable achievement.

NOIA has been a key industry association in the promotion and development of this Province's petroleum resources over the past twenty-five years. Formed in 1977, this association now boasts a membership of approximately 425 member companies. I am certain that governments have come to appreciate the advice and recommendations from our friends at NOIA over the past twenty-five years, advice which has helped shape key decisions in the development of our offshore industry.

Mr. Speaker, at NOIA's gala celebrations on Saturday evening, several achievement awards were presented. I am pleased to stand here today and state that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was one of two special award recipients at this event, recognizing this Province's continuing commitment to developing our offshore resources in a responsible manner, and in partnership with the industry.

This celebration is very timely, as it was five years ago yesterday that oil first flowed from Hibernia. Since that time, Terra Nova has begun production and we have witnessed the sanctioning of the White Rose project. In 2005, this Province will produce approximately one-third of all of Canada's conventional light crude oil. It is a very exciting time for this industry and indeed, Mr. Speaker, for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, without the support of associations such as NOIA, our oil and gas sector would not be at the impressive stage that we witness today. Our service and supply sector continues to mature and our world-class infrastructure continues to build the industry and encourage new investment in the Province. Government and industry must continue to work together to ensure that the momentum in our petroleum industry continues to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating NOIA on their 25th anniversary, and in extending best wishes for another great twenty-five years of success.

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.

Certainly, on behalf of the members on this side of the House, we too join with the minister in congratulating the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association on their 25th anniversary and congratulate, as well, and share in the congratulating of those individuals and associations that were recipients of awards and received due mention and honourable mention during the celebration the other evening.

Obviously, we have to recognize those individuals, those groups and associations who are participants in this formidable industry, an industry which will obviously be so important for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. However, again it is important to remind government that just because we celebrate we must not forget the role of government. I would like to just give one example.

Just several weeks ago, the government indicated that the federal government has not yet amended its regulations to reflect the arbitration panel's ruling on the boundary between our Province and Nova Scotia with respect to the Laurentian sub-basin.

My question would be to the minister: What role is his department playing in putting pressure on government, the federal government, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that this very important work be completed, to ensure that this will be expedited in order to protect the interest and the well-being of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OTTENHEIMER: 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 am certainly happy to join in acknowledging the 25th anniversary of this very important industry association. It does great work in this Province and is a very important industry, and I congratulate those who received awards last weekend.

It is a very remarkable fact that the minister pointed out, that in three short years this Province will produce one-third of Canada's requirements for conventional light crude oil. I would be very happy to sit here and praise this government if it could also announce that the people of this Province will be getting one-third of the benefits of all of Canadian oil and gas, such as Alberta gets out of its; but, we do not, Mr. Speaker, that is the sad fact. We have to try and fix that problem -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - as quickly as we can for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador so that ordinary people can benefit from this industry.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide this House with a mid-year update on the economic and financial position of our Province.

The 2002 Budget was about balance - a balance between investing in the economy of the Province and investing in the people of our Province. This was achieved while maintaining a responsible fiscal position.

Mr. Speaker, at budget time, the global economy was still in a state of uncertainty in the aftermath of September 11. Our economic forecast reflected the challenges of this uncertainty, and I reported the expectation of modest economic growth. While national and international indicators remain fixed, I am pleased to report that our Province's performance has been stronger than expected.

Real GDP, which has been forecast to grow in 2002 at a rate of 3.7 per cent, is now expected to rise by 7.5 per cent - the strongest among all Canadian provinces.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: While this growth -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) the unemployment rate?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will get to the unemployment rate in a just a moment, I say to the hon. Member for Bonavista South.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: While this growth results primarily from offshore oil production, other sectors of the economy also have contributed. Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that GDP growth does not necessarily translate into cash for the Treasury but it does indicate the potential of the economy to generate revenue in the future.

A growing economy has had positive effects on labour markets over the past several years. Employment is expected to grow by 1.3 per cent, surpassing last year's record high of 211,000 to reach a new record of 214,000. The unemployment rate is at its lowest point since 1989, and other measures such as labour force participation continue to show growth. Mr. Speaker, I add, these are not my numbers. These are statistics that are being presented from Stats Canada.

Real personal income is expected to grow by 2.5 per cent. This will encourage consumer confidence and continue the trend of growth in retail trade, which should exceed $5 billion in 2002. Consumer confidence is also being demonstrated in substantial growth in the construction industry. Housing starts are projected to be over 2,200, an increase of 24 per cent - the best performance in this sector since 1994.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, while economic growth does not necessarily translate into the same level of growth for provincial revenues, the improvement in the provincial economy is having a positive impact on our finances. Midway through the fiscal year, revenues are up $50 million from Budget projections.

Our own-source revenues, which include such items as taxes and royalties, are now forecast to be $33 million over the budget projection. About $14 million of this increase is due to increased oil royalties, a result of higher prices and higher production volumes. HST revenues are up by almost $11 million, reflecting the strength in our retail sector over the past number of years.

Transfers from the federal government account for about 40 per cent of our provincial revenues. Equalization, the largest transfer to our Province, is impacted by economic activity, not only in this Province, but activity throughout the country. At present, federal transfers are anticipated to be $17 million above the budget forecast; however, further transfer estimates, expected in February, could have a substantial impact on the financial year-end position.

Mr. Speaker, while provincial revenues show steady growth, reflecting the strength of our provincial economy, government also responded to the necessity for new spending. Expenditures to date have increased about $19.5 million over the Budget forecast and were directed to priority areas such as the provincial drug program, forest fire suppression, and the move from Great Harbour Deep. These expenditures reflect government's commitment to appropriate investment in the people and the economy of our Province.

The overall effect of these changes is positive. In March, I forecasted a prudent, responsible deficit of $93 million. The deficit is now expected to be $63 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - an improvement in our financial position of $30 million. We will not be complacent, however, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to closely monitor our revenues to ensure they remain on target and we will continue to exercise restraint regarding expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to sound financial management, and these results demonstrate this. Our 2002 Budget was about a balance, and we are achieving this. Sound government is creating economic opportunity that we can all share in. We will continue this course.

Mr. Speaker, the global economic climate continues to be uncertain, and we will monitor outside economic influences, particularly in Canada and the U.S. Notwithstanding this uncertainty, we expect economic growth in our Province to continue in 2003. Activity related to the Voisey's Bay project will increase, offshore oil production is expected to rise, and activity related to White Rose project will continue to build.

Expenditure growth will also continue. The third year of the public service collective agreement increases will be reflected in 2003-04, as well as the impact of the settlement with provincial physicians and the normal requirement for government investment in people and investment in our economic growth.

The Province is facing an increased deficit next year. The size will not be fully known until the new year, when we are better able to assess the level of transfer payments, fully consider and evaluate our expenditure requirements for next year, and assess the impact of the Romanow report on health care.

Government will examine all of its options in consultation with the people of our Province and the results of these deliberations will be reflected in the 2003 Budget.

Mr. Speaker, Budget presentation practices vary among the provinces and they continue to evolve. Some do not include all government organizations such as health boards and school boards. Some do not include the interest expense on their unfunded pension liability.

Commencing with the 2003 Budget, it is government's intension to include an accrual-based summary budget, on a consolidated basis, which will include most government organizations which comprise the government's reporting entity. This will be in addition to the cash-based Summary of Borrowing Requirements which is currently provided in the Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, the Province has managed the fiscal challenges of 2002 in a responsible manner, maintaining appropriate control on government spending while still investing in people and investing in our economy. Good management has brought good results: our provincial-source revenues have been increasing, reflecting a growing and vibrant economy.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to advise Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of significant developments in our Province's financial and economic position, bringing information before the House as it becomes available.

Government will continue to be responsible and responsive in managing provincial finances. We have balanced our responsibilities. We will stay our fiscal course in confidence: confident in the advice we received from the people of our Province; confident in our record of sound, practical government; confident that we have invested in our people of the Province and confident in our future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are hearing today is a little storybook tale, that is all I can see here in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: From a government that has the worst fiscal performance of any government in this country, and that was stated recently by the Fraser Institute. The minister who presided over the government, by the Auditor General's Report, is the least accountable government in this entire country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: And the minister stands in this House today and tells us about the fantastic GDP, Gross Domestic Product. Well, the minister has to start realizing that GDP is not the true indicator of wealth of a province. It is a true indicator when the jobs from that GDP stay here in our Province. The economy wealth from the oil is going to the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and other parts of the country. It is not equating into jobs here in Newfoundland and Labrador in proportion -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - to the growth of GDP. The minister knows that well, and trying to put it on the people of this Province.

We just heard a former Premier of this Province, Premier Peckford, say they are asleep at the switch. They have not done their job to maximize jobs here for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I read last week, a 2.6 per cent increase in unemployment in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They do not want to hear the real truth. There is a 2.6 per cent increase in the unemployment rate in this Province since August, I might add. There are 70,000 less people in this Province than there were when that government came to power in 1989. That is the true measure of our Province's wealth.

Mr. Speaker, they tell us today that we are $33 million ahead of what they expected. We are showing, according to that minister, a $63 million deficit. That is not counting the $97 million that they raided in the Trans-Labrador Initiative; that is not counting the $58 million they took out of Hydro; not counting the $52 million they took in deferred revenues - that is almost $300 million! - not counting an accrual basis of accounting that she says they are going to bring in their next budget. We released that in our policy, myself and the Leader, months and months and months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister has to get a little more current. You are too far behind us in our policies. We are three years ahead of you in policies, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They are just as effective at raiding our policies as they are at raiding the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, I might say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That very minister said, the year before last, we have $30 million-plus deficit, when her own Comptroller General, employed by her department, and the Auditor General said it is not $30 million-plus, it is $350 million.

Last year we waited to see - this fall, when the report came out of Public Accounts, the budget revised figure said $63 million. I am predicting it will be closer to $500 million; in the $400 million to $500 million range. We will see the true figures. You cannot always run from the truth, I say to the minister; and you had better start telling the people the truth because they are not believing what you are saying anymore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have seen growth in this Province. We have seen rural Newfoundland depopulated at the fastest rate of depopulation anywhere I know in the world today, presided over by a government that has neglected growth initiatives to grow this Province, failed in its ability to generate non-tax revenues in this Province, that have gone from 21 per cent to 30 per cent, basically. They are depending on short-term fixes for this Province that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will pay for generations to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, in the NDP, are critical of the minister's statement; but, unlike the Official Opposition, we do not take our guidance from the Fraser Institute in criticizing the government.

The minister, Mr. Speaker, is an example of a person who sees the world through rose-coloured glasses. In fact, I am surprised she does not have a happy face badge on here today because she wants to present things in the least possible light; but, I want to remind people, this is the same minister who stared down the doctors a month ago when they were on strike and talked about a deficit of $93 million and we could not afford to pay one cent more, and we did not have any money. Today, she shows up with $30 million more than she had a month ago.

We have the Minister of Health staring down senior citizens who are about to be kicked out on the street from home care situations and: no, we do not have any money. We do not have any home care places. Mr. Speaker, when it suits this minister she has no money. When it suits her, she has money.

We talked about the GDP; well, as it has been said many times: you cannot eat GDP. We are not going to be able to survive on a high rate of increase in the GDP if there are no fiscal benefits to this government and to this Province.

I go back to the statement of the Minister of Mines and Energy. We, in 2005, will produce one-third of Canada's conventional crude. When are we going to be getting the benefits as a people the same way that Alberta gets the benefits from its conventional crude being produced on the ground in Alberta - with a revenue to that government far more substantial than we are ever going to see under the current royalty regimes, which are pathetic in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, we talked about economic progress but we did not hear any mention of the unemployment rate in this Province, which is still more than twice the national average, and we have not seen any plans from this government to do anything about that. This Premier is prepared to go to the wall to defy Ottawa on the Kyoto Accord. Yet, we still have the economic problems that we have here and a timid government when it comes to dealing with their cousins in Ottawa. So, we have a long ways to go to have proper economics with response to this problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I could first just acknowledge the presence of Mrs. Abbie Harding and Jamie Harding in the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for the Premier. I guess after the by-election last week and the stormy weather last night, it is an indication of a stormy session for the Premier to come, so I hope he battens down the hatches.

Mr. Speaker, by 2010 the Government of Quebec is forecasting a shortage of power that will leave them unable to meet their commercial obligations. Cheap power is the foundation of their energy plan and their key to economic development. One would think, therefore, that Quebec's shortage of power would put our negotiating team in the driver's seat during negotiations on the Lower Churchill. With such obvious negotiating power, Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please tell the people why he did not use the Lower Churchill as a bargaining lever to address the inequities of the Upper Churchill contract? Would the Premier explain why he quit on the objective of every single Government of Newfoundland and Labrador since the deal was signed over thirty years ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question itself, again, is very instructive in terms of the very attitude and approach that has been taken. While the Leader of the Opposition is talking about quitting, we are talking about moving forward, Mr. Speaker. There is no quit in this particular group.

What we are talking about, as I said in the ministerial statement, is not living in the past and pipe dreams, and putting out false expectations for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Anyone, who would review the round of negotiations that we are now trying to complete - and as I said, maybe even this week, one way or another - would know that when it was started in 1998 it was understood that we were trying to find a way to develop the Lower Churchill resource at Gull Island. We were trying to do some other things as well. We are still trying to find a way to develop the potential at the Lower Churchill. It is understood, and I have had notes from the Royal Commission, that there are other things that might be considered with respect to the Upper Churchill contract. It is not part of these negotiations. The only reason - and it was known, and it was written, and it was publicly stated and presented to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1998 - that we are continuing in this negotiation is because it was understood that this would be developed of its own merits and if anyone has a grievance about the Upper Churchill, it would be pursued through some other avenue. That was in the documents from day one, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it, and the members of the Opposition knows it, and anyone that has read the information knows it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We are not quitting anything. We are trying to develop things in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: That is our commitment, that is our focus, and that is what we are going to continue to do.

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.

Mr. Premier, you might be prepared to quit on the Upper Churchill but the people on this side of House (inaudible) are certainly not prepared (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the consultation document for the Royal Commission, the Premier's Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada, says that a significant contributor to our prosperity and self-reliance is exported to Quebec in the form of power and energy from the Upper Churchill project. Mr. Speaker, the Commission in that document asks: What does this inequitable agreement say about our place in Canada?

My question for the Premier: If the Premier is prepared to give up on the Upper Churchill and allow this lopsided agreement to continue for another forty years, what does that say about this Premier and this government and their view of our place in Canada? Are they quitters or are they merely trying to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: - secure their political future rather than securing the best interest in the future of the children of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it was also instructive to note that a former premier, the last Conservative Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, was here on the weekend raising this spectre again, bragging about how he went to court.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Well, there was a premier for forty-one days or so in between who was a Conservative, but the last Conservative one who was here bragging about the fact that: I am a fighter. I went to court on the Upper Churchill. I went to court on the offshore.

Sure he did, and guess what he did both times? Lost. Because he was more interested, Mr. Speaker, in trying to pretend and wanting to pretend and falsely making the people of the Province believe that he would rather fight for them rather than do something to develop the Province. As a matter of fact, the truth in the offshore is this: what we are doing now is celebrating twenty-five years with NOIA and five years of oil, yesterday, is ten years delayed because the Premier wore a black armband and went to court rather than do something about developing the offshore when it could have been done ten years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is the reality of it. That is the fact, Mr. Speaker. That is what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the former premier - former, former, former premier - who sits over there knows it because he was with the group and he is saying nothing today because he knows it is true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we will not talk about destroying or losing an opportunity to develop the Lower Churchill. There is an issue with respect to the Upper Churchill that has been part of the history of the Province for thirty years, and we will continue to pursue any avenues that might see that change for the greater benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, we have already increased, since 1998, the value of the Upper Churchill agreement to Newfoundland and Labrador by over $1 billion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: This government has done that and we are going to continue -

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.

How dare this Premier, of all people, impute the motives of someone like Brian Peckford, a passionate Newfoundlander!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this government's $3 million Royal Commission -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Chair of this government's $3 million-plus Royal Commission on our place in Canada has long since advocated the importance of addressing the inequities of the Upper Churchill as part of any new deal to develop the Lower Churchill. In fact, that Chairman said - and I quote him -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: In fact he once said - this is a quote from the Chairman: Regardless of the benefits derived from the Lower Churchill, they cannot even begin to make amends for the Upper Churchill.

I continue to quote, Mr. Speaker: -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question; he is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: It would be another sad day in our history if the benefits of a new deal were not placed before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in that context.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: Is the Chair of his Royal Commission wrong or is he more interested in our place in Quebec rather than our place in Canada?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad we are back in the Legislature and having the Leader of the Opposition speak. He hasn't said much for several months and I am glad to hear his views being articulated in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: I can clearly point out for the record that Brian Peckford is no idol of mine as he is of yours. I can see that he is obviously your idol. You probably plan to act just like him, if you ever get a chance. I doubt that will happen. Hopefully the Province will be spared from that. He is no idol of mine, a man who delayed and would rather go to court and fight and so on rather than develop things that were in the interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. He is so proud, by the way, so proud of what he accomplished when he was here that he left and lives in British Columbia. That is how proud he is of what he left here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issues today, the Royal Commission is seriously having a look again. For about the twentieth time in thirty years there is another group, this time the Royal Commission, having a look at whether or not we can find a way to better our lot as a result of the Upper Churchill arrangement. We have already, Mr. Speaker - and we are waiting to hear from them with definitive notions and ideas which we will gladly follow through on if they have them. We had an interim suggestion from them, an interim contact, but nothing definitive at this point. We will glad pursue it.

There is nothing on the Lower Churchill arrangement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - that we are negotiating now that would ever preclude us from also seeking to improve our lot under the Upper Churchill contract as we have already done since 1998. They don't want to talk about this piece of good news because since 1998 this Liberal government has improved the financial terms of the Upper Churchill contract for Newfoundland and Labrador by over $1 billion to this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: They don't want to talk about that.

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.

The Premier, as we all know, is obviously a big fan of very expensive ad campaigns. In fact, I believe that the Grimes ad meter would be up to now about $205,000. Is that about right?

AN HON. MEMBER: On one, that is right, yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the Premier, Mr. Speaker, please confirm that a large public relations campaign is already planned for the launch of a proposed deal on the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this, what I have said earlier today, that one way or another I expect, probably in this very week that we start today, on a Monday, that we will have a resolution one way or another, likely before the end of this week, with respect to Gull Island and the development on the Lower Churchill.

As I have said earlier today, Mr. Speaker, we are committed to making sure that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian finds out all of the details with respect to a project that is as important as the development of the Lower Churchill.

There is a thirty year history to this, Mr. Speaker, which this group obviously wants to talk about and try to have people scared away from moving forward, going into the future, developing the Province properly for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we have to purchase some access, Mr. Speaker, through television, radio, newspapers, magazines, as well as conduct a debate in the Legislature, we will do that because it is important enough for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to make sure they have all the information, all the facts, because we will have to counterbalance and counteract the negativity and the misrepresentations that are already starting to come from the Opposition with a leader who, before he sees anything, says: I do not know what it is but I tell you one thing; if I ever become the Premier, I will try to stop it. That is what we have heard today, Mr. Speaker, so we will counteract it any way we can.

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.

So your answer quite simply is: Yes, there is a very expensive ad campaign planned.

Mr. Speaker, my next question for the Premier is: Would the Premier confirm that a large news conference was planned for this morning with himself, officials, I would presume, of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and/or Premier Bernard Landry, and/or officials of Quebec Hydro, and that it was cancelled this morning because your Cabinet had the jitters when you presented the deal to them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition and to the members of the Legislature and to all those from Newfoundland and Labrador who would want to listen and hear it: We take these issues extremely seriously, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about a major, huge, phenomenal development for Newfoundland and Labrador that has been held back, by the way. The Conservative government in 1975, prior to an election, with then Premier Moores, talked about the fact that in this next election they should vote for the Conservatives because they were going to develop the Lower Churchill - twenty-seven years ago - and every single time, because someone would rather play politics with it than take it seriously and develop something in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, people have run away from the issue and been chased away from the issue.

We take it seriously enough to take the time to make sure it is negotiated in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and if this group - because we will have the same rumours and speculation with Voisey's Bay where the Opposition would say: There are two, three, four or five of these members who might not vote for it. This will be a free vote, and if these members do not vote for it, it will not happen.

I can tell you now, they will have the information. They will take the time like they are doing now to look through it, what we have to date, and see if we can finalize it and see whether or not we are going to support it on behalf of the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and then we will bring it forward if we are satisfied. If we are not satisfied, Mr. Speaker, we will tell the people of the Province we are not doing it and we will explain why.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: What we are trying to do is take it seriously, find a way to do something in the best interest of the people of the Province, and not to run away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to know who is playing politics. Isn't this the person who said that he had to stop governing and start politicking when his (inaudible)?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: A question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to refrain from putting up any placards or displays on his desk.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Does the Premier see any problem or see any conflict of interest with the fact that, in a presentation to your Cabinet on your ad campaign, that presentation was made on behalf of an external ad agency and was made to your Cabinet by the spouse of an employee in your office? Do you see any conflict or anything wrong with that presentation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, from time to time, hires different firms to do different pieces of work on behalf of government, and we do not try to tell them who to hire. We do not try to tell them who is allowed to be on their staff.

As we know, Newfoundland and Labrador is a fairly small place, with 500,000 people. If someone happens to be related, or even a spouse of someone who is hired to work for me, happens, on their own merit,, in the private sector, to have secured a job with a company that then, on its own merits, gets a contract with the government, if that company decides that is the best person they have with the expertise who should handle a particular case for them, that is not our judgement call and it will not be a standard by which a government that I lead will operate, to suggest that we would interrogate people as to their marital status who they are or what they are before we find out if they can work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I sit in the House today and listen to the hour of Ministerial Statements and all of the great things that are happening for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I have to ask the Premier this question: If things are so good, and if the Province is in the best shape that it has ever been under your custodianship, then why is it, Premier, why is it, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has embarked upon an ad campaign which has angered Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, which has made them angry because of the shameful waste, shameful and disrespectful waste, of their dollar? Why is it, if things are so good, that you have to spend $25,000 a week to improve your own image?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me again say this: It is not the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have been angered; it is the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Because it is crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, that they do not like to have the people of Newfoundland and Labrador reminded of the good things that are happening in this Province. They would rather be left alone to go around and suggest that it is all doom and gloom, it is time to turn out the lights, it is time for us all to leave, and the last one out of Port aux Basques should lock the place up. That is their message.

The message here is this - and, by the way, maybe he can check with some of his neighbours - all over Canada, in most of the jurisdictions provincially run by Progressive Conservative governments, in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, they spend as much sometimes in a week as we might spend in a whole year on telling the people and letting the people know, as a basis of information, what is happening in the Province, and what their government is actually accomplishing and doing on their behalf. It is a common practice in the whole country. It is done by every single Administration in the land. It was done by previous Conservative Administrations here. It is an issue that has struck a nerve and struck a cord with the Opposition because they do not like to hear of the good things that are happening in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

 

 

Mr. Speaker, when the Premier's mother told him some time ago that his name would be on jam crocks, she should have also told him that he cannot use the public Treasury to do it. That is what the people are angered about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I will just ask him this question: Wouldn't he agree that these ad campaigns are designed and came out of the Liberal convention recently, which told him that he has to improve his image, which he must get up to 35 per cent, and that is the reason the Premier is spending $25,000 a week, or the equivalent of a salaried physician per month.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this question: Wouldn't he agree that the money he is spending, and his government is spending, to promote his own image, to try to get it up in the polls, the bills are better to be sent to the Liberal party executive director than to the public Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I might refer the Opposition House Leader to his own commentary in an article about my extraordinary job that I am doing as the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: - in which he quoted that maybe the Premier should just go ahead and tell the people of the Province what a good job he is doing - his own words. He said: If I were the Premier, I would just spend my time telling the people of the Province what a great job I am doing - because he said he is doing a great job - quoted directly, attributed to him in the article that says: Ordinary Man, Extraordinary Job.

The Opposition House Leader gave that very advice, so maybe it is not the Liberals I am listening to at all. Maybe I am listening to the Opposition House Leader because I have such great respect for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am not sure what planet this man is living on, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is, for seven consecutive quarters, this Premier has lagged behind between sixteen and twenty-one points to (inaudible) the Opposition in leadership polls. Liberal sources themselves have said that if he does not hit 35 per cent, we are going to have to take a second look.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this question: Isn't it a fact that the only reason that this ad campaign is going on is simply because the Premier is lagging behind in the polls? Isn't that the reason that you are spending $25,000 and $30,000 a week of the public's money to pump up your own political image?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are proud of, and what we are very aware of, is that for seven consecutive quarters when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been asked by independent pollsters: are they satisfied with what the government is doing in Newfoundland and Labrador, do they like the kinds of initiatives that we have putting forward, are they pleased with the government in what they have been doing, because the government is concerned for Newfoundland and Labrador, every single time anywhere from 52 per cent to 60 per cent of the people have said they are satisfied with what the government is doing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: The real reason the Opposition does not like this kind of approach is because the same pollsters are telling them - and they know it - that any time that happens on a repeated basis, the government gets re-elected because the people are satisfied with the government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is what they have been told repeatedly, and that is what is happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Premier. This government spent nearly a million dollars trying to promote its position on Voisey's Bay and another quarter of a million during the doctor's strike, and is now spending in excess of $25,000 per week on its promotional campaign for the Premier. Will the Premier not agree that this $25,000 a week could support seven or eight long-term care beds for a full month, or a couple of school meal programs for an entire year? Why is the Premier choosing to spend this money on self-promotion instead of on the needs and programs for the people of this Province who need them desperately?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have all debated the appropriations and the allocations for the Budget in this House late winter and early spring and, in fact, in every single department of the government - because the government happens to be, overall, the largest business in Newfoundland and Labrador - there were budget allocations voted in this Legislature for communications and information dissemination in every single department. That is the money, Mr. Speaker, that we are using in putting out an information program for the people of the Province. The Opposition wants to talk about it as an ad campaign. It is not that. It is an information campaign to make sure that if we are going to have a debate about long-term care and be serious about it, that we need to know first and foremost what the level of commitment is in Newfoundland and Labrador, how it compares to the level of commitment elsewhere, how it compared to the level of commitment last year, how in fact we have increased our commitment to long-term care this year alone, budget over budget, and that we have had that debate in this House. What we are making sure is that, rather than -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: - have a distortion of it by any means in this House or outside, that if we are going to have an educated, articulate debate in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is what I am sure all of us want the people to engage in, we need to have the information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier also knows that in addition to this money he has two public relations positions in his own office at a cost of $150,000, plus sixteen other public relations officers in sixteen different departments of this government. Why is he not satisfied that they are able to disseminate information, Mr. Speaker, about what this government is doing through press releases or press conferences? Why does he need to spend an additional $25,000 a week, an additional $1.5 million a year, in support of his image and his programs instead of looking after the needs of the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting in the questioning today with respect to the information campaign is this: I have not heard a single question about whether or not the information is correct, whether or not the information is true, whether or not in fact the things that are being laid out there, information for the people of the Province, are in fact depicting what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, because they all know it is the truth, Mr. Speaker. It is the fact that these are the things - we have made the commitments more so than ever, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have made the commitments stronger, Mr. Speaker, and more so than ever, in this year for education, for health care, for basic infrastructure in the Province to support the fishery, to support economic development, and it is important, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Province know that. As a result of the information campaign, they will have the basic information and we will gladly debate the content of that with anybody in the Province, with a record that shows that the people of the Province supported and are satisfied -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - with what this government is doing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Respecting The Imposition Of Certain Mining And Mineral Rights Taxes. (Bill 21)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill 22)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland And Labrador Medical Association." (Bill 33)

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders." (Bill 30)

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

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Cancer Treatment And Research Foundation Act, The Health And Community Services Act, The Hospitals Act; The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 And The Vital Statistics Act." (Bill 24)

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 Teachers' Association Act." (Bill 26)

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 Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance Arising From The Recommendations Of The Select Committee To Review The Property And Casualty Insurance Industry And The Government's Public Consultation." (Bill 28)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: 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 Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province." (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Work, 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 Highway Traffic Act No. 3." (Bill 29)

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to put forward a private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the government of this Province is already cooperating with other jurisdictions to develop and implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and

WHEREAS a fully developed and analyzed plan has not yet been developed by the federal government for the Kyoto Protocol if it is ratified by the Parliament of Canada; and

WHEREAS this Province is just entering a period of development of a new oil industry which could be negatively impacted by an ill-conceived plan;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support government's efforts to ensure a Made in Canada solution, that balances the need for addressing climate change with economic development, while complying with the Statement of Principles developed by the Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Energy and Environment at their recent meetings.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS changes in criteria for the Federal Disability Tax Credit have resulted in many fewer people qualifying for the Disability Tax Credit; and

WHEREAS the federal government has already denied 30,000 disabled Canadians eligibility to claim the $900 a year Disability Tax Credit, including many hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS the definition of disability used for this tax credit is so restrictive that it unfairly and punitively disallows persons with disabilities the Disability Tax Credit; and

WHEREAS since more that one-third of Canadians with severe disabilities live in poverty, the Disability Tax Credit is an essential economic support for disabled Canadians facing financial hardship; and

WHEREAS the federal government has proposed changes to the Income Tax Act that will result in even more people being disallowed this tax credit;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly strongly oppose the changes by the Government of Canada to the Disability Tax Credit;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly call on the Government of Canada to restore the previously existing criteria for the Disability Tax Credit.

Mr. Speaker, given the nature of this resolution, I spoke to the Government House Leader a little earlier and I wonder if there might be unanimous consent in the House for the Government Leader and the Opposition to look at this resolution for potential debate today, or the resolution to be passed today by unanimous consent, if that is the wish of the House. I do not believe it is a controversial resolution in that I believe all hon. members would find support for this resolution, which would seek to restore the Disability Tax Credit which has been negatively affecting so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

WHEREAS one of the main roads from Route 235 through the community of Princeton is a gravel road usually in a deplorable condition, with mud and dust causing uncomfortable living; and

WHEREAS this road has never been paved and is the main thoroughfare leading to approximately half of the community of Princeton;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade where necessary and pave the 400 metres of road leading from Route 235 through the community of Princeton.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a section of road which the petition clearly states is 400 metres. It is not 400 kilometres or 400 miles; it is 400 metres leading through half of the community of Princeton. The people in Princeton are not asking for curb and gutter. They are not asking for street lights, or for water and sewer. They are not asking for anything that is not the acceptable norm of today. They are asking that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation include this particular piece of roadway - 400 metres that goes through half of the community of Princeton - to have it upgraded and paved and brought up to a standard acceptable to the year 2002.

It is a road that I have continually put forward to the minister, and to ministers before this minister, as a priority. It is a road that I have gone back after the budget allocations have been made, and said: Mr. Transportation Minister, Mr. Administrator in Clarenville, would you go down and take another look at this section of road and see if it can be added to this year's budget? It is a piece of road that services - and I am going to guess here - probably twenty-five households. It is the main road leading through that part of the community. The road does not need any major upgrading. I do not think it needs anything other than some ditching, and to shape up the road and pave it. That is what the people in Princeton are asking for. That is the reason I am bringing this petition to the attention of the minister and to the attention of the government here today. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, I ask through you that the minister would take this petition seriously; he would look at allocating funds to upgrade and pave, for the first time, 400 metres of road leading through the community of Princeton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number residents of Labrador West. The petition reads:

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up with $347 million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Transportation Initiative Fund requires that money in the Fund be used for the maintenance and construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and other initiatives related to transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the government announced that $97 million would be taken out of this Fund and added to the general revenues of the Province to be used for purposes outside the act.

We, the undersigned petitioners, believe that the raiding of the Labrador Transportation Fund is a gross violation of the purposes of the Fund and a breach of trust with the people of Labrador and hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to immediately put money back into this Fund.

I notice, Mr. Speaker, on the legislative agenda for this sitting of the House of Assembly that government intends to proceed with legislation to take this money out of that Fund and use it for purposes that it was not intended; that will be debated through this sitting of the House. I am sure a lot of members will want to have input into bringing up to the government how wrong this is to the people who live in Labrador and deserve a better road network than they have right now. Government has promised that they will spend, over the next six years, money to complete Phase III of the highway. But, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that may not happen. I do not feel confident, and the people of Labrador do not feel confident, that government will have the money to do what they stated they would do once this money in the Fund is gone.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, people are very concerned about the condition of the already completed sections of the Trans-Labrador Highway, particularly the section between Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. That road is treacherous at the best of times. It is in constant need of repair. There is not enough equipment operating on that road. If government, instead of using their own department to do the work that is required and when necessary on that road, issues out a contract for private companies to bid on the roadwork for that section of highway - obviously, from what has been happening in recent years, a contractor bids a certain amount of money, then that is what he has to spend and they cannot respond to things when they are needed and required because they have to be conscious of their budget at all times. This, Mr. Speaker, is the price that people in Labrador are paying, having to drive over second-rated roads in this Province, roads that other people in this Province would not tolerate, would not put up with for one second.

Over the past few weeks and few months, Mr. Speaker, there has been a study conducted on the Trans-Labrador Highway and a damage report, not in terms of human life - although that has happened and it is very sad indeed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: There has been a study conducted, Mr. Speaker, a very comprehensive report on the Trans-Labrador Highway and the damage that people have sustained to their vehicles while travelling there, and I will be bringing that to the minister's attention in the days and weeks to come. It is something the minister should be very much aware of because this is an issue that is not going to go away until people in Labrador have a decent road to drive on, the same as people and their counterparts in other parts of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 7, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 15)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill 15)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I take great pleasure in rising to move second reading of this bill which will make Newfoundland and Labrador the first Province in the country to ban the use of hand-held cellphones by drivers while driving.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I said the bill would do that.

I am sure that we can count on the hon. members opposite to have the good sense to support this initiative of the government.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, we are the first Province to move this far along because we have been aware of the problems we are having with automobile insurance in our Province. Rates have been going up significantly. This House appointed a committee some six years ago to deal with it. When I first became minister of the department, almost a couple of years ago, we looked at what needed to be acted on. One of the things that needed to be acted on was to see what government could do to help control the rise in the cost of automobile insurance in the Province. In the course of discussions involved with that initiative, we spoke to many people about what we could do to improve highway safety.

The medical association of Newfoundland and Labrador was on record as recommending that the Province bring in a piece of legislation of this nature in order to ban the use of handheld phones. Other organizations and individuals in the Province encouraged us to do likewise, including many police officers in the Province and more recently, the senior citizens association. The Canadian Medical Association is on record as calling for the implementation of this kind of legislation throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, we move to do this because we want to do all we can to decrease the number of traffic accidents in the Province, to decrease the lives that are being taken as a result of traffic accidents, to decrease the damage that is being caused and to make sure that we make driving in our Province, in particular - and hopefully, through what we are doing here, encouraging the rest of the country to take a similar initiative.

Some thirty countries in the world have taken action similar to what we are proposing here. One state in the United States has done so, New York. Their legislation came into effect about a year ago. A number of jurisdictions throughout North America have looked at implementing this sort of legislation. There are bills now before most states in the United States, and both houses in the American Congress.

All of the provinces in Canada are looking at implementing such legislation and looking at what will happen once we do so in this Province.

Just last September, Mr. Speaker, we had a meeting of the ministers' responsible for transportation in the country, in Winnipeg. We had included in that agenda the discussion of the proposal to ban the use of handheld phones by drivers. In the course of those discussions, Mr. Speaker, all of the provinces indicated that they understand that it is a problem; it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Some provinces have already looked at initiatives. Initiatives have been taken in some provinces. Private member's bills have been introduced. Right now I think there is one before the Ontario Legislature. The Province of Nova Scotia have said that they are looking at what Newfoundland is doing. They have also said they would not like to take such a move until it is done by all provinces throughout the country.

Well, as we know, Mr. Speaker, it is not very easy to get all provinces to move in unison. That is why we have been prepared to lead the way and to act on this legislation which many of our people are demanding. Many of the people in our own Province, as well as across the country. We did an opinion poll last year, Mr. Speaker, which indicated that some 95 per cent of our population feel that the use of cellphones by drivers is a problem, and a clear majority indicated that the use of handheld phones by drivers while driving should be banned. Thirty-nine percent, I think it was, indicated that they felt drivers should be allowed to use hands-free phones while driving.

There have been many studies done around the world, some in Canada itself, which have demonstrated conclusively to anybody who has read them and who has researched the issue, these studies together - and there have been some studies that have differing opinions but the bulk of the studies and the bulk of the research demonstrates that the use of cellphones by drivers while driving impedes the person's ability to drive safely. Most of the people who have looked into this scientifically have recommended that governments take the kind of action that we are taking now.

Now some people say, Mr. Speaker, you should go all the way and eliminate the use of all cellphones by drivers while driving because the problem is not so much with the mechanics of using a handheld phone, although that is a problem in itself, but the main problem with the use of cellphones is that people get caught up in the conversation. A lot of the other jurisdictions who have looked at bringing in similar legislation say: yes, we agree that should be done. Yes, we agree that we have to do all we can to reduce the number of distractions that drivers are subjected to while driving because we are getting more and more distractions and more serious distractions in cars everyday, Mr. Speaker. Some of them are pretty sophisticated distractions now.

I note that the private member's bill before the Ontario Legislature is calling for a banning of the use of fax machines by drivers while driving; banning of the use of computers by drivers while driving. That is an indication, Mr. Speaker, and evidence of the kind of dangers that are out there today and the kind of growing dangers that we are facing. There are so many of these gimmicks that are now available to be used by drivers while driving, as they spend a lot of time on the highways, that if we do not do something, if we do not start sending a message to these drivers that what they are doing is very dangerous, it is jeopardizing their own safety, jeopardizing their own financial situation and threatening the lives and the health of their fellow citizens and other people they share the highways with.

We have to do this for one reason, Mr. Speaker, to send the right message out to the public to say: Look, driver distractions are a serious problem in our society today. We have to do something about it, and let's start with this.

Mr. Speaker, we have not chosen to go further than banning the use of hand-held phones because we think that is what there is substantial public support for out there now, and we think that is a reasonable first step, particularly in view of the experience in other jurisdictions. As far as I know, all of the jurisdictions which have taken action have limited their action to banning the use of hand-held phones. I do not think any of them have banned the use of hands-free phones.

There is an argument to be made that if you use these phones responsibly, as many people do, then they may not be a serious distraction, but lots of people think that they use these phones responsibly and they are not seriously distracted by them, but many of those people who feel that way have recounted to me incidents in their own lives in which they found that they lost their attention to driving because they were involved in using cellular phones.

That again, Mr. Speaker, is a result of what the studies demonstrate that the problem is, that you get caught up in the telephone conversation. There is clear scientific evidence that people do get caught up in the conversation and that the consequences are more serious than driving with an alcohol blood content above the legal limit. Studies have demonstrated that driving while using a cellphone is more dangerous than driving while legally intoxicated.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that it is incumbent on governments to deal with this clear evidence that is out there and to do what we can to make sure that we make our highways as safe as possible.

Some time in the future we may decide that it is necessary to go another step, necessary to ban the use of hands-free phones. Hands-free phones may not be as dangerous because they do not involve the mechanics of holding a hand-held phone, dialing a hand-held phone and that sort of thing, but once you get past those few mechanics the problems associated with being caught up in the conversation are the same whether you are using a hands-free or a hand-held instrument. As I say, all of the studies demonstrate that people get caught up in their conversations much of the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) penalty provision?

MR. NOEL: I will get to the penalties. I want to talk about the good things about this legislation before we get to some of the things that are going to be costly for some of our citizens.

Many people use these instruments frequently and responsibly. As long as you do so you probably will not cause any accidents, but the problem is that you might be caught up in an event that is very important in your life. You might get a phone call about the health of your children, a family situation or a financial situation, or a call to the House, to come in and be here for a vote, or something like that, and you may be distracted from how normally responsible you are when you are doing this. That is the problem, as we all know. You only want to be caught one time and you could lose your own life, you could kill somebody else, or you could create enormous financial costs.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we should proceed with passing this legislation. I think that we should not be intimidated by the fact that other provinces have not had the commitment to move in this direction when they know that something should be done. Practically everybody you speak to, even politicians who are refusing to act on these issues, will tell you that they believe it is a danger to be using cellphones while driving, a danger for drivers to be using cellphones while driving, but they say they are not acting on this because there are many other distractions to drivers. Drivers do many other things while they are driving, so they say: What is the point in doing this if you are not going to eliminate the right to drink coffee while you are driving, or to play CDs and these kinds of things?

While these activities are dangerous activities and people should be discouraged from partaking in them, the fact is that people do not normally get caught up in these sorts of activities in the same way as they get caught up, and particularly in the same way as their mind gets caught up, in using cellular telephones.

Other people say, Mr. Speaker, that this will be a difficult law to enforce. Well, as I said earlier, the main thing that we want to do with this legislation is send the message to the public that you have to be more careful about driving, and particularly you have to be more careful about using cellphones in cars.

It will not matter, Mr. Speaker, if we do not catch everybody who uses a cellphone while driving. The fact is that this will be the law and everybody will know it is the law, and they know that if they use their cellphones while they are driving, they will be contravening the law.

That is a good message to have out there, Mr. Speaker, and it is a particularly useful message in these days when we are trying to do something about the cost of insurance in our Province, and the cost of automobile insurance and automobile liability insurance in particular.

We are doing a number of things. We have a number of proposed bills on the Order Paper now to do things to try and reduce the risk of accidents and damage on our highways and the loss of life. This is one of them.

Another bill we are going to bring in is stricter penalties for impaired drivers, and we are going to bring in a bill to have a Consumer Advocate represent consumer interest before the Public Utilities Board.

As I gave notice today, Mr. Speaker, we will be introducing a bill proposing far more extensive amendments to our insurance legislation during this sitting of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we are not proposing terribly severe penalties for people who disobey this law. The penalty will provide for a fine, I think, on first conviction, of between $45 and $180, and the loss of four demerit points from your driving record. The bill will not interfere with the use or the presence of cellphones in cars. People will be free to have their phones with them. Passengers will be free to use the phones while the car is in motion. The only thing this bill will provide for is the prevention of drivers from using hand-held phones while driving. You know, you do not need to use them, even though lots of people think they need to use them today. A number of people have said to me: You know, I use my cellphone, while driving, a lot. I know I should not be doing it but I know I will continue doing it as long as it is legal. They know they should not be doing it because practically everybody - and I would say most people in this House have had an experience wherein either they themselves or somebody they know of, or somebody they were driving with on the roads, have come close to having accidents or have actually had accidents. If you would just ask your friends and associates, I think you will find that everybody has a story about how somebody went through a red light or went through a stop sign or almost had an accident because they were on cellphones.

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that more and more people are using cellphones in this way every day, and the time has come for us to demonstrate that this is not acceptable to our society and for us to show that we are prepared to take action to discourage such use.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave my introduction there and will be happy to answer any questions that other members may have.

I move second reading of this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We on this side of the House support the amendment to Bill 15. I think common sense in this bill is what overrides almost anything, and the fact of the many stories around the table with friends and colleagues who are talking about the close calls they have had with cellphones. Those stories they go on and hit us to the core.

When you sit down and debate whether it is more dangerous when you are actually dialing your cellphone, the mechanical part of it verses the conversation and the heated part of the conversations that you certainly get into, when that becomes part of the debate around the table then I think it is, without a doubt, a concern enough that we do something about it. I think when you bring in the law then it certainly tells a story for everybody as to how serious it is and how society feels about it. To lose four points for such an infraction is certainly a good indication of the seriousness that society has taken for this infraction as well.

There is mounting evidence of the cellphones that are out there, and there are certainly indications of how serious it is. One, I suppose, is a 1997 study of the New England Journal of Medicine which found that drivers talking on cellphones, whether hand-held or hands-free, were four times more likely to get into an accident than drivers who did not. Those kinds of figures are certainly a good indication of the seriousness of it as well. Four times more likely. If you only stopped to think about what that really meant, it would probably keep you from going ahead and using a cellphone. Unfortunately figures like that do not generally give you a true picture of the risk you are really taking when you go back and look at those figures; however, we should be.

I think another indicator of just how serious this is, is when Ford Motor Company launches a driver distraction study, when the industry itself then knows that they have to be part of the plan in order to curb the use of cellphones because of the impact it has on the industry, of which obviously Ford is very much a part, being one of the major car companies of the world.

To have thirty countries in this world who have already gone through banning cellphones, as the minister just indicated, and the State of New York, means we are leading the way in Canada but we are not leading the way in the world. We are following. There are many places were society, I suppose, have developed and gone on to respect the rights of others, who have certainly said how important this is and how dangerous this infraction is, of using a cellphone and going out and risking the lives of your neighbours and fellow motorists on the highway, and that it cannot continue. We must deal with this before it gets too far done the road and the casualty list is too long.

The fact that a man in Ontario was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm is also an indication of how far we have gone down this road. It is another indicator of a part of the evidence and part of the reaction by society to go out there and make sure that we are going to take care of this problem. Yet, here in Newfoundland we are taking a lead role in Canada to go out and go further down.

Handheld; as I said, part of the debate has been around about the mechanical part of dialing and getting hold to friends and relatives in answering the phone and finding your cellphone as you are going down the road (inaudible) actually the conversation. I suppose, as part of the debate, that goes - so many people say: Well, you are only going part of the way in solving part of the problem. It is not enough. You should be doing it as a whole now. You are going out there and you are changing the law. Lets do it and lets really solve the problem that we have instead of just going only part of the way. The study in the New England Journal of Medicine had indicated that; either with or without handheld, it was four times more likely to have an accident. It is dangerous regardless whether you have handheld phones or you are hands-free; but I guess it takes time to change. I think society in one sense does want change, but it wants change in a structured manner. It wants to be able to respond and change gradually, versus to jump out there and go ahead.

One of the things that I think about of twenty years ago is that you had the drinking and driving laws (inaudible) in place. They did not go in place in one day, it was many years before they came out. If you were to jump back into society twenty years ago it would be quite a shock of what you would see in society and how we accepted drinking and driving and all the laws on the roads; but today we have changed gradually and we have accepted it gradually. I think society would like that, so that it is not a shock in the changes that we have, that we can adjust and go accordingly. I think that is an important part of any changing in the law when you come to the change in lifestyles, which we are expecting a number of people now who depend on lifestyles. Our lifestyles depend on communications before we get there and after we leave. It seems that the meetings we have is only a part of the entire meeting.

One of the other points, I suppose, that we will bring up is the fact of insurance. As Minister Noel has said, insurance being such a part because it is one of the big issues that is facing this Province and we have been trying to find our way through it. So, if it is so dangerous, as we are finding out, and the evidence points that it is a very dangerous habit of using your cellphone as you are driving, then I think that is certainly one place that we should be going out - and we can stop this today versus going down the road any further. The fact that cellphones can have an impact on our insurance industry and the prices that we are facing today - as people are phoning my office as critic, and I am sure the minister's office as well, is that they want us to deal with something within insurance, and cellphones is certainly a good place. I think the fact that we are doing this today is a good proactive way of dealing with the issue of insurance. We just cannot let insurance continue on at the rate they are going, as they seem to be climbing.

I also wanted to point out, as I had mentioned before, the lifestyles that we are facing. With the change in phones, it is not going to be easy and a lot of people are going to be upset; the same as you would get a speeding ticket going down the road. It seems like it is a crime that you are willing to commit but not willing to pay the price at the end of the day because you do not make the connection between the seriousness of it while you are doing it. It is only when you get stopped that you really realize what you are doing, and there is always a bit of a disgruntlement in having to pay the price. I think to lose four points is a very serious penalty that you are going to have to pay for that. So I would assume, the same as the speeder going down the highway, we are going to learn after once or twice. If not, we are going to be in trouble. It is a very serious infraction. It is penalized very seriously and I think there is going to be some disgruntlement, without a doubt, as we move on here.

The thing that I think about when you stop today and come down to this House - I know one of the things that certainly impacted me is the thought of a man driving by with his child, he is on a cellphone talking to his wife and he is driving through a railway, roadblock or a stop, and he is going through and a train kills them; and his wife is there with a dead cellphone on the other end. Anytime that you sit back, you just think about that picture and you think about yourself, because we are all family people, we all have family. The thought of being on the other end of that line is certainly something that would make you stop and think about the very seriousness of it, because that incident is one that explains or goes to the core or the heart of what we all are, and that is to lose a child and a spouse at the one time. To think that was related in some way, then I think that is important to go.

As with cellphones, it is just that they are important tools. As they cause devastation sometimes on our highways, they also save many lives. There are over 3 million calls a year that go out to 911, and how useful those tools are for us as a society can never go unlooked. I think we have to be thankful that we have them out there and that our lives have changed in such a positive way.

I think that is mostly - I just wanted to comment on it, minister.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on Bill 15, To amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the use of cellular phones.

I just want to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker. I know that there has been some discussion around this Province for some time on it, but I am not sure if we are exactly doing the right thing here with respect to this particular version of the legislation. We have had a lot of talk in this Province lately about evidence-based decision-making. I know the minister referred the studies but he referred, in a very sort of vague way, some studies show this and studies show that. This seems to me to be the kind of legislation that would have benefitted from a review by a legislative committee to just actually have a look at those studies. I know there are studies out there. I have heard that there are studies which show there is no real difference between using a handheld or a cellular phone, that is going to be permitted under this legislation with a microphone and perhaps voice activated. That there is no difference with respect to the danger that is involved. Are we really doing the right thing here or are we trying to get out ahead of the pack, as the minister wants to do, and be the first jurisdiction in Canada to adopt such legislation? It may be a matter of pride or ego on the part of the minister to do that. I know he likes to be progressive. In fact, he was so progressive one time he even ran for the New Democratic Party. Since then, of course, he has changed a little bit. Perhaps now in his latter years he is trying to appear to be progressive. (Inaudible) his latter years having spent a number of years in the wilderness and then spent the last number of years in government.

I am just saying, Mr. Speaker, that there is a little hesitancy in our support for this legislation. When we talk about evidence-based decision-making, then what we hear from the minister are kind of anecdotes about everybody knows somebody who may have had an accident while talking on a cellphone. I think that certainly is true. Everybody perhaps knows somebody who is guilty of careless driving or being distracted by a child in the back seat who yells out or who is fighting with another child. There are all sorts of things that distract people from driving, so we cannot just solely rely on anecdotes.

I know the Member for St. Barbe mentioned a couple of studies himself that see there is no real distinction between the hand-held cellphone versus the one that has the microphone. I think we should be a little bit cautious here in what we are doing.

I have to say that I will support the legislation in principle. I think we do have to be careful about what is going on in our traffic situation. We do have more accidents than we need. There is, in fact, a fairly simple and inexpensive way to comply with the legislation. Whether or not it will really be helpful, I do not know. You can buy for, I think it is not much more than ten or twelve dollars -

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five.

MR. HARRIS: Well, I have seen them cheaper than that. The minister says, twenty-five. You can buy earphones which actually have a microphone on the cord itself so that you put the earphone in, and on such an earphone like this, with a microphone right here than hangs from your ear, you can actually talk through it plugged into a cellphone. I am sure - and I have tried them myself - if you want to use your cellphone you still have to dial numbers, unless you have a voice-activated one. There are still distractions involved if you are going to actually use your cellphone while driving.

I am not sure that we are exactly doing it right here. Whether some people will bother to get this particular device to use, or whether they will do as has been recommended by police forces and by safety personnel, that if you have a call on a cellphone you should actually pull over and make your call on the side of the road. I know some larger companies in the Province - I believe Aliant Telecom had this as a policy for their employees, that they are not supposed to speak on the phone while driving. They can pull over to the side and have their telephone conversations. There is a group of people who are in the wireless communications business themselves and they are not recommending this sort of use.

I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether, in the minister's haste to be out ahead of the pack and to be able to tell other ministers across the country that Newfoundland and Labrador has moved first on this, whether he has actually considered all of the implications here. I know there are people in industry, such as the courier business, who are on the move and who rely on wireless communication as part of their business. I know they are very interested in being able to continue to use their cellphones to conduct their business. I think we have to give some consideration to them. There are also voice-activated cellphones. I understand that if you have a speed-dial, you can tell your cellphone to call Minister Noel on the phone and Minister Noel's phone rings with your cellphone. I do not know how sophisticated the minister's communications abilities are, but I understand there are voice-activated cellphones that can do that. I do not know what consideration the minister or his officials gave to that as an alternative way of allowing cellphone use.

I have to say that I know the minister means well here. I am not being critical of his motives, except to suggest that perhaps he is a bit anxious to try and get out ahead of the pack, but I believe this might deserve a little bit more consideration and it may, in the longer run, require some fine tuning here to this legislation and to what we allow and what we do not allow.

I have to say that, to assign a penalty of four demerit points to the use of cellphones is a pretty stiff response. I have to say that. That is putting it on the same level, I believe, as careless driving. The minister can correct me on that. I do not have a list of the demerit points in front of me but I understand that four demerit points is pretty significant if you have - you lose your licence if you have six, I believe. Maybe the minister should, when he closes debate, perhaps deal with that. You lose your licence if you have six demerit points, I believe. So, somebody who has the habit of using cellphones and may inadvertently be caught more than once with this would end up losing their licence. That is a pretty serious consequence for something that has been legal and permitted ever since cellphones have been in existence in this Province. I would ask the minister to consider that: whether or not that is something that ought to be instituted right away, whether that is something that could be delayed for a significant period of time, or whether the minister would consider a lesser penalty in the first instance for a first offence under this section, and that perhaps instead of having four demerits for a first offence there might be a lesser penalty, in terms of demerits, for a first offence under this. I am not encouraging people to use cellphones. I know that people have habits that they have developed already since cellphones have come into use in the last number of years.

I know that we are all shocked and we are all concerned when we hear stories like the Member for St. Barbe referred to, stories about an individual, in this case again anecdotal but a very serious one, where an individual caused the death of himself and his very young child sitting in the back of the car when, in fact, his last act, his last words, were being on the cellphone to his spouse, to his wife, when he ran into a train at a level crossing and killed himself and his child. This is, obviously, a very tragic instance. If all the provinces reacted the same, we would have legislation across the country immediately. That is, of course, as the minister said, not the case. I know some provinces are looking at it, and I know some are reluctant to legislate in this area. Nevertheless, my colleague and I and the caucus will support this legislation because we believe we have to make a start at trying to see if we can develop legislation that is going to be important in reducing the number of vehicle accidents. We have to try and do as much as we can within reason, Mr. Speaker.

It has been suggested in some studies that the real distraction in talking on the cellphone is not the cellphone itself; it is the conversation. So, one might ask whether or not even having a conversation with a person in the passenger seat is, itself, equally distracting to a driver as the use of a cellphone. I have heard there are other studies. That is just one question that arises here. I have heard that there are other studies that say no, when you are on the cellphone people tend not to look around as much as they would otherwise. Normally, when a person is driving, they are not just looking straight ahead; they are looking to one side, looking to the other side, looking in their rear-view mirrors, and it has been suggested by some studies that in fact when you are on a cellphone your unthought habit is not to look in your rear-view mirrors, not to look to the sides as much, but rather look straight ahead and therefore be less able to respond to an emergency that might arise from behind or from the side or from side streets.

There are good arguments, I say to hon. members, why cellular phone use in a vehicle is distracting. I am a little bit cautious because I do not thing the minister - I am not suggesting the minister has not done his homework but he certainly has not provided this House with copies of the studies that he is relying on, or even mentioned them by name, other than to say vaguely that there are studies out there that suggest.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is the kind of thing that a legislative committee of this House, with members on all sides of the House using their own common sense, using their judgement, looking at the studies, determining whether or not this is the appropriate time to introduce such legislation, would have been a more appropriate way to go.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have to make a decision on the legislation that is before us. The legislation is now here before us. We have to make a decision on that. On balance, Mr. Speaker, I would see that this legislation is a step forward. It may be a modest step forward in some regards in terms of what it is going to accomplish, and on the other hand the penalty that is being proposed in terms of demerit points - I know the fine will be something that will be dealt with by the courts between the range that is suggested, but the demerit points is something that is automatic. It is automatic whether it is a first offence or second offence. The result would be, I suggest to the minister, is that if somebody were to be convicted of an offence twice, they would in fact suffer a loss of a driver's licence, which I think is a pretty serious penalty for something that has been more or less taken for granted, albeit cautiously, by people up to now. I would encourage the minister to have another look at that in terms of the demerit points. Consider a phasing in, consider a first and second offence approach in terms of demerit points, or consider a lesser number of demerit points instead of treating it with the same full force as careless driving might be treated.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying that we support this legislation in principle at second reading.

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

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

I have to say that it is an honour for me today to stand and support this bill, the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, that will see it an offence to use hand-held phones.

Mr. Speaker, speaking on a cellular phone, I can assure you, is a very dangerous practice and it is used all too often in this Province, and no doubt has caused many accidents. Transport Canada, in a study during February of this year, found that changes in the way people drive while using cellular phones has been proven very fatal.

The New England Journal, Mr. Speaker, in 1997 reported that drivers speaking on cellular phones were four times more likely than other drivers to be involved in accidents. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very serious situation. To me it puts it in the same category almost as if someone was an impaired driver on the highway.

There was also a study done where 699 drivers with cellular phones, who had their phone records investigated after they were involved in accidents, it was proven that 170 of them had been talking on the phone at that particular time. That, Mr. Speaker, is 24 per cent. To me that is an alarming statistic.

I stand in support of this bill today, not because I believe that the minister is trying to be the first one in the country to implement it, and this will be the first legislation, but I take it very seriously and I think the people in this Province do, as well, because there was an opinion poll done where they said they felt it was serious or somewhat serious or very serious, when 95 per cent of them responded to that opinion poll.

I can honestly speak from personal experience. Maybe I should be ashamed to say what I am going to say, but I am not, to my hon. colleague across the way. If I can help someone -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) supported John Efford.

MR. BUTLER: No, Sir.

What I am going to say is an offence that I almost carried out by using a cellular phone while driving. I should be ashamed to admit that, but if I can help somebody else or save a life I don't mind relating it.

While commuting back and forth to the district two or three years ago, I used a cellular phone regularly, returning calls to people. I will never forget the evening when I was going out the Trans Canada - and thank God it was a double lane highway - and while I was dialing the number, as has been stated here by other gentlemen, I lost total concentration in what I was doing in that vehicle. When I dialed the number and the phone was ringing and I put it to my ear, I looked and I was halfway across the center line of that highway, heading towards the other side of the road. I am going to tell you it is a scary feeling, because I didn't know what I should do for that split second, because I didn't know where the vehicles were coming from behind me or what lane they were in. I can assure you I don't mind admitting that because it taught me one lesson. Probably I should have been doing what the Member for Bonavista South said, that he never does it. I congratulate him on that.

MR. FITZGERALD: I didn't say that.

MR. BUTLER: Well, you said you never use the phone, hon. member, while you are driving on the highway.

MR. FITZGERALD: I didn't say that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to interrupt the hon. member while he is speaking because I am going to have my chance to speak as well, but I don't want the hon. member saying something that this hon. member was supposed to have said. This hon. member certainly did not say he never used his cellphone, because I think we are all guilty of that. I will say what I think of this piece of legislation when I get my chance to stand here in my own place and have my own time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: I would like to go back to why I made that comment, because when the hon. minister was up introducing this bill my hon. friend from Bonavista South across the way said, no, that does not refer to me, I do not do it. That is the only reason I made the comment, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that public safety must be clearly the overriding concern in this matter. It is not who comes in with the legislation first. This Province has recognized that problem and, hopefully, other provinces will do it as well. When people drive, there is no doubt about it, there is a momentary lapse of concentration that has to be dealt with and it could lead to devastating consequences.

I know, Mr. Speaker, the other gentleman spoke in favour of this bill and that is all wonderful, and when it comes to the part where it states what the fines will be for a first offence, I think it is from $45 to $180 and you lose four points. Well, I want to say today that I made that infraction without causing an accident. If someone came along and gave me a fine of $180, I would have been very thankful because it probably would have taught me a lesson a lot earlier than what I did.

Having said that, I want to congratulate the minister and his department for bringing in this amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. I believe it is our duty on behalf of the residents of this Province to support this legislation so that our highways can be a safer place for all residents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak on this. I think this is a bill that nobody in this House will deny is probably long overdue. We have all been using cellphones while driving, Mr. Speaker. I do not think anybody in this House can say otherwise. We heard the minister say that it is not the mechanics of the cellphone, it is being caught up in the conversation. If that is the case, is banning hand-held cellphones what the minister is looking for? If we are saying that it is being caught up in the conversation, I do not necessarily feel that is the case. I would prefer to think that it is looking down, as the former speaker, the Member for Port de Grave, said, and dialing the number. You are taking your eyes off the road, you are focusing your concentration on something else. I think that is the problem. I think that is where most people find themselves losing concentration of what they are doing. I know I have done that. I know that I have dialed a number, then looked up and realized that I came dangerously close to hitting a parked car or whatever the case maybe.

I think this legislation is long overdue. I think that, you know, we have to do something, whether or not we should look for voice-operated telephones that will automatically identify the number when you say call home or call the office. Maybe that is what we should be looking for because even if you have the headphones on, or even if you have a speaker phone in the car, you still have to look down and dial the number. You still have to take your eyes off the road to dial the number on that telephone, in most cases, to carry out a conversation.

I mean there are many distractions. I can recall seeing people holding the paper up and reading the paper while driving or looking in the rearview mirror and seeing somebody putting on lipstick or combing their hair while driving. There are several distractions while driving. This addresses one of those distractions. I do not think it is necessarily the conversation that we have to be concerned with, it is taking your eyes off the road to dial that number.

The State of New York has recently put in legislation to ban the use of hand-held cellphones. I wonder what the stats are there for accidents prior to the ban as a result of cellphone use and after the ban. What type of significance would a piece of legislation like this make in reducing accident stats? If it can be proven that it will significantly reduce the number of accidents, will the insurance companies respond likewise and adjust the rates? Will a piece of legislation like this have a positive benefit on every driver in this Province who pays insurance? Will the insurance companies look at this as a progressive move and reduce rates? Because, as well as saving lives and reducing the number of accidents, this is one of the things that insurance companies, the medical board and others have asked for. If it is going to reduce the number of accidents, if we can look at the stats in New York and say that the number of accidents have dropped by 5 per cent or 10 per cent, perhaps a reduction in insurance rates of 5 or 10 per cent would be worthy of the insurance companies. Maybe this can save people money.

If you look at the number of people, Madam Speaker, who pick up telephones while driving, it is no different really than having a conversation with the person next to you or in the back seat. It is no different than having a conversation with somebody else in the vehicle provided you can concentrate on the task that is before you and that is operating that motor vehicle. If you can keep your eyes on the road and keep your concentration on the road then a headset or speaker phone is fine, but the concern I have is still taking your eyes off the road, taking your concentration away from the road to dial the number.

Voice operated cellphones are becoming more and more common. Should we be looking at two sets of rules here? Should we be allowing the operation of cellphones where you have to take one hand off the wheel and try to maneuver, dialing the number with one hand still on the wheel just because you have a headset on? Is it going far enough? Should we be looking at going a step further?

There are a number of considerations here, Madam Speaker. While we are all in favour of this particular bill there are a number of considerations we have to look at. There are a number of considerations. It is a good first step. The minister has said that. It is a good first step. Should we go a little bit further? Should we be looking at that? Are we going to force the insurance companies to reduce rates once this legislation is put in place? Are we going to go to the insurance company - because drivers in this Province are being crucified by the insurance companies. We have one of the highest rates in all of Canada. If we are one of the first provinces in Canada to introduce legislation like this it should reflect the premiums that people are paying, in my opinion, and the minister responsible for this particular bill is also the minister responsible for dealing with insurance companies. I would ask that the minister go back to the insurance companies and address this issue and ask that this particular piece of legislation be taken into consideration when peoples policies are renewed in the coming months or next year, or as their policies come up.

There are a number of other aspects to this legislation that are not addressed in the bill. I ask the minister, I ask government, to take these into consideration; to look at these other areas in this bill as well, to take these suggestions that I am making today, in particular the one with the insurance companies. I do not think there is a person in this Province who would disagree with the fact that if this is going to reduce accidents then it should reduce the amount of insurance that policyholders in this Province are paying.

On that note, Madam Speaker, I will thank you and thank the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to support my colleague, the Minister of Government Services and Land, in this piece of legislation. Sometimes I wonder what we ever did before cellphones came into practice, but I have to say that I am probably as big a culprit as anyone when it comes to taking advantage of having a cellphone in my car.

Having said that, I support this legislation. Clearly, it is long overdue. I think the overriding factor here has to be public safety and that has to be the main concern when we bring in a piece of legislation of this type. When you look at the fact that we have had approximately 3,000 car accidents on an annual basis in this Province, you would have to wonder how many of those can be attributed to the use of cellphones. Even if it is one-third or one-tenth of that number, then I think this legislation will do the job it is meant to do, and that is cut down on the number of accidents.

We sometimes look at an innovation like the cellphone and feel really appreciative of it; and so we should, of course. The member opposite mentioned the fact that it is really useful when you find yourself in a difficult situation, but many of us today cannot go from point A to point B without making a call, or taking a call.

I have to agree with the research that has been done, that, in fact, it is the conversation, getting caught up in the conversation, when you sometimes lose track of what you are doing and your only thought is what is being said to you on the other end of the phone. That is the kind of thing that bothers me. I know, I have been involved in situations where someone ahead of me has been talking on a cellphone and has been going slower than the speed limit would advocate. I think that is a problem as well; just as well as going too fast or making a turn while you are on a cellphone, or moving from one lane to another and not really paying proper attention to what you are doing. These are serious infractions and I think anything we can do to cut down on those than we need to do.

I think as a government we have a responsibility to ensure that our roads are safe. This is one way we can do just that. In fact, what we are doing here today is responding to what the public has asked us to do. When you look at a 95 per cent of our population suggesting that: yes, we should do this. We should ban the use of hand-held cellphones. Then we are responding - as this government does all the time - to what the people say we should do. We did our polling on that and there was a clear indication that people do not agree with drivers using hand-held cellphones while they are driving.

I think if you look at what has been happening across the country, that even though we are the first Province to make this move - and I commend the minister on bringing forth this - that even though we are the first Province to do it, other provinces know that it is the right thing to do but somehow have not gotten around to it.

I am very proud of this minister and this government for being the leader and for leading the way, as we have done on a number of fronts in this country. So, I am very proud of this minister and this government for doing that. In fact, if you look at the coverage in the media on this particular issue, certainly in Newfoundland when you read what The Telegram has said, is that it is important to make it a public safety issue. When it is a public safety issue then we really need to act. We have a responsibility as a government to act whenever public safety is involved. If you look at what The Globe and Mail has said, they again applauded this minister and this government for, in fact, leading the way because it is a serious issue whenever there is a chance that there could be an accident as a result of - a driver being involved in an accident as a result of speaking on a cellphone.

It is important, I think, that we recognize there are other distractions as well. Some we can do something about and some we cannot. This is one that, in fact, we can do something about, and we are doing it. I again applaud the minister for taking the leadership role on this one because it is something that we could have just sat back and said: Well, you know, if it is going to upset the insurance industry or if it is going to upset someone else; if it is going to upset those drivers who drive while speaking on a cellphone then maybe we should not do it. But, we did not do that, Madam Speaker. We said: No, this is the right thing to do. We are going to move forward with it. I think it is a wonderful initiative. It is one that there is a lot of support from. We referenced the medical association. We referenced senior citizens, but overall our polling has shown that 95 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians support this initiative. I applaud the minister again, and I support this particular piece of legislation.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to rise and say a few words on the bill that is before the House, and to say that I support the legislation that would ban handheld cellphone usage while driving. I think it is important that we learn from an early age that we keep two hands on the wheel, and use of the hand-held cellphone, obviously, makes it impossible to do that.

There have been enough tragedies in this Province and across this country by people who were using cellphones at the time of an accident. As the minister pointed out, a lot of times it is the conversation. It is not the act of dialing the number so much as being intent on the conversation and really focused on the conversation you are having that causes a distraction which ultimately leads to loss of control or not being observant about your surroundings.

I might also take the opportunity to point out, Madam Speaker, that this is not quite as big a problem in Labrador because there is no cellphone coverage once you get ten kilometers outside of town; something that I will be taking up with the Minister of Transportation on that issue in the coming weeks and months. It is important that when we are driving, even if we are in vehicles by ourselves, there are approaching vehicles that, for the most part, contain small children and other people who can be hurt by acts that we perform when we are not paying attention to the surroundings we are in.

I would also like to say that this is going to be a very hard piece of legislation to enforce. Maybe not so much around the cities because you can observe people inside their vehicles for the most part, but during night driving you certainly will not be able to enforce this the same as during daylight hours. Secondly, on the highway, when vehicles are moving at a higher rate of speed people on the phones with hand-held devices would be much harder to detect than during city driving.

I want to say to the minister that I support him bringing this piece of legislation before the House. I think it is important that we take action. Any action that can prevent even one life from being taken is worthwhile debate in this House and worthwhile being supported by members of this House.

I commend the minister for bringing this piece of legislation forward. As I indicated when I stood to speak on this piece of legislation, we will certainly be supporting it when it comes by way of a vote.

Thank you.

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

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am just going to take a few moments to endorse the bill as well as being brought forward by the minister.

When we look at the number of times that we travel about this city or any other part of the Province and we wonder what is happening in the vehicle in front of us only to find that as they turn their heads or turn their cars we see this device attached to their ear. It is not the device that we want. The one we want is the one that allows you to have two hands on the wheel and a speaker in front of you; but one hand on the wheel, one hand on their ear.

Far too many people, Madam Speaker, can cause all of us to have a tragic situation which can develop from an accident that they may cause or cause others to have. I have actually seen situations while driving along myself when someone has dropped the phone and they disappear from view of the vehicle. I know what they are doing, they are groping trying to find either the phone or the cord to haul the phone back.

In terms of this piece of legislation, I believe the minister has taken the lead not only in terms of what is happening in this Province but indeed across Canada. I believe it is a piece of legislation that I can, I think, without any hesitation, say that other jurisdictions across this country will grab on to very quickly and that this piece of legislation will be the benchmark for what will take place in other jurisdictions across Canada. It is one of those, I think, that we can speak on until 5:30 this afternoon. I think the result would be exactly the same. There probably is now unanimous support in this Legislature for this piece of legislation. I am sure that with maybe one or two more speakers the minister will probably close debate on this so that we can get on with it and allow the act and allow the legislation to go forward for the betterment of all of us and for the safety of all of us as well.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I stand today to say a few words on Bill 15, an Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act as it relates to cellphone use. I commend the minister for bringing forward this piece of legislation but, Madam Speaker, I always think back to when you go to get your driver's licence, the kinds of tests you have go through to get your driver's licence, and what is involved in that testing and how it relates back to what you actually have to encounter when you become a driver. Far too often there is not enough information provided and expected from a person who is about to get their driver's licence. That is the time to reach out to people, because an education campaign is worth all the pieces of legislation and all the four pages that the minister has put forward here in this piece of legislation. It certainly would be more effective than anything that you can bring into this House to tell people about what you should do and what you should not do, and what the repercussions will be if you do not do it.

We go and we get our driver's licence and there are all kinds of questions asked about the shape of a stop sign, or the shape of a yield sign, or what the speed limit is, and how you change lanes. There is nothing on a driver's licence test to give you any information about insurance, for instance. If you are to drive a vehicle in this Province today it is just as compulsory to have insurance as it is to have a driver's licence, but there is not one question on a driver's licence about insurance. You talk to people today about public liability, about Section B, about comprehensive coverage, and you talk to them about SEF 44 or SEF 42. I bet you most of us do not know if it is fit to eat.

We are talking about bringing forward a piece of legislation here today to deal with the use of cellphones while you are driving. Madam Speaker, maybe we should get into making sure that people, when they go to get their driver's licence, at least have to study not only the shape of a stop sign or a yield sign, or how to change lanes; maybe we should start teaching them and expect them to be tested on such things as the repercussions of drinking and driving, the use of cellphones, what insurance coverage means, what the different terms mean. It is just as important as a driver's licence, and you need to know it in order to be a safe, responsible driver in this Province today.

Madam Speaker, a few years ago - and I remember reading this somewhere; I am not old enough to know about it - I remember reading somewhere about the debate that took place when windshield wipers were put on cars, because it was supposed to have some effect where you would be hypnotized because of the windshield wipers going back and forth. I say to you, Madam Speaker, that was a debate that took place, I am certain, if someone had seen fit to write about it.

I remember reading, again, when radios were introduced into automobiles, and there was a debate that took place there because of the distractions with radios. There were dials at that time. If you had one of those push-buttons, brother, I tell you, you had a good radio. You had a good car. That seems to have looked after itself today because we have progressed to the point that you just know where the button is. You just push it and the radio picks up whatever station you want to play. It is not so distracting, but it was a big distraction and there was a debate whether we should allow radios in automobiles, whether we should allow stereos in automobiles.

MR. SULLIVAN: There are TVs in automobiles.

MR. FITZGERALD: There are TVs in automobiles. You are right, there are TVs in automobiles, and there are people who go around with fax machines in automobiles. It is not uncommon; I have seen it. I have seen people reading the newspaper driving down the road, driving and reading the newspaper in automobiles.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Government ads, I guess.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Member for Trinity North said they were probably reading the government ads, but that would not be a distraction because it is just a big picture and they would be able to see that quite clearly.

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a debate that should take place. We might say that maybe we should go a step further and do away with cellphones altogether, but we are not living in the perfect world. We are living in a world where we move ahead, and if there is technology out there then I think most of us will adapt to that technology and use it, and use it when the opportune time arrives.

I do not know how we are going to dish out those fines, I say to the minister. The minister talked about the fines would range from, I thought he said $45 to - I forget the other -

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and eighty dollars.

MR. FITZGERALD: To $180, so I would assume the $45 would be the first offence and then there would another offence and the $180 would probably be the third or fourth offence.

MR. NOEL: At the judge's discretion.

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, it is at the judge's discretion. So, he could charge you anywhere from $45 to $180.

A lot of the cars that I see, Madam Speaker, you do not even know if there is a driver in the car, let alone them using the cellphone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why is that?

MR. FITZGERALD: Because of the tinted glass, I say to the minister. The minister said, why is that? You can drive along the highway today and you meet a vehicle coming at you and you do not even know if there is a driver there. So, I do not know how the highway enforcement officer and the RCMP or the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is going to have much of a handle. It is kind of hard to be looking at somebody as they come towards them, wondering if they have a cellphone up or if they have something else up to their ear by looking through their front windshield, I say to the minister. It is going to kind of hard to do. It is going to be a job, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, to enforce the legislation that you are bringing forward.

We can preach, we can talk about it. I am not sure it will be enforceable. There is no point in bringing in legislation, and bringing in rules and regulations, unless you are going to have the teeth to be able to enforce it, because it does need enforcing. It is something that needs to happen. We are all guilty of it, me as well as anybody else. In the most part of my district, I say to the minister, I have no other choice but to stop to use the phone, because you can only get the cellphone service in certain areas. You know where you get it, you know where you get the signal, so you pull off and you stop and make your telephone calls.

MR. SULLIVAN: Most people drive slower (inaudible), I find.

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know if it makes you drive slower or not, but it is certainly a distraction. Now you can go and buy your cellphone and it has the earpiece where you can listen and still keep both hands on the wheel. You have your little speaker phone there. So I guess the only thing you have to do is dial the number, and that is probably the biggest distraction of all, when you reach out and you try to dial the number. No doubt it is distracting.

Madam Speaker, if we are going to bring in rules and regulations, number one, you have to enforce them, you have to be able to enforce them, and number two, before you bring in rules and regulations and before you bring in legislation, I think there should be an education campaign carried out, to see how people react to the education campaign. Maybe that is something that could be appearing in the newspaper ads, instead of what we are seeing. That might be an idea, information for the public interest, not promoting individuals or promoting parties or promoting what has already been done by buying taxpayers with their own money. That might be an opportunity for the minister to tell the Premier to step aside for a couple of weeks and: Let me use your space for the public safety of the Province. That might be a way that we can do an education campaign, or take the Premier's picture out of it. As the Member for Ferryland said, use that three-quarters of a page to carry that particular message. That might be something that needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, cellphones are here to stay. Whether we have one or whether you want to use it or not, cellphones are here to stay. It is a way of keeping in touch, it is a way of doing business, it is a way of being somewhere where you cannot be. It is a way of maintaining a contact with people.

I know in my own case, for me to drive to my district and back to St. John's it is six hours, over six hours, I say to members opposite. Within that six-hour period if I don't have a cellphone then I am out of business for six hours. So, yes, the cellphones are important, yes, we are all guilty of using them, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, I am probably just as guilty as anybody else here. I am not so certain that bringing in rules and regulations or bringing in legislation is going to be the deterrent that we want. It is certainly a factor towards accidents. I guess when you talk about the cost of insurance, every time you have an accident the cost of your insurance naturally goes up, or the cost to somebody goes up. If this can save one life or prevent one accident, then it is certainly worth it.

I say to the minister, in the future before you bring in rules and regulations and before you bring in legislation, maybe we can look at doing an education campaign. Maybe we can look at putting the message out there to inform people of the dangers, let them know about equipment that is available, let them know what the alternatives are, rather than saying: We don't want you using cellphones now while you are driving, so we are going to bring in rules and regulations, we are going to put you in court and we are going to allow the judge to charge you anywhere from $45 to $180. That is the easy way out. Be responsible, carry out a campaign, make people aware of what it is, what the dangers are, and maybe you might meet with much more success than telling people what they can do and what they cannot do.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am delighted today to stand with my colleague, the Minister of Government Services and Lands, in supporting his bill, Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. What this bill tells us is that passing this act will make it an offence to use a hand-held cellular phone while driving a motor vehicle on our highways.

It is interesting today to see that all Members of this House of Assembly would like to speak to this issue because I am quite certain that all Members of this House of Assembly use cellular telephones. All of us do. Many of us who started using cellular telephones were the ones that were hand-held, but I feel quite certain that most of us in this House today use the ones that are hands-free. I know that I do, and I imagine most of us members use the hands-free ones today.

I think this is a very important piece of legislation. When you look at the fact that you are driving on the highway and you have to contend with high speeds, road conditions, weather conditions, and, of course, moose, and all of the other issues that would make us look at the fact of, how safe are we on our highways? Do we need to be holding a cellular telephone, adding to the stress, and probably not making us as safe as we could be on our highways?

When you think of people using cellular telephones, you probably think of an age group that are working people, they are middle-aged or they are working professionals, but what we have to consider today, too, is that young people who are taking safe driving courses in high school, for the first time they are behind the wheel of a car. Naturally, they have a CD on and they are excited about the prospects of driving, probably for the first time, Madam Speaker. Then, all of a sudden, they are using a cellular telephone and that is one more thing they have to think about. Are we doing the right thing by letting young people have that to think about? Can we reduce the hazards, the possibilities, of making sure that when you get behind the wheel you have one less thing to think about?

By just having hands-free cellular you are not using your hands, you are not using your eyes, in fact, to talk to people on a cellular telephone. I think there are a lot of advantages and this is a good first step. Maybe in time we may consider - the minister might want to consider - going further with this legislation, but I believe for the moment this is a huge step in ensuring we are doing what we can as a government, and as a Province, in ensuring safety on our highways.

I want to mention to the Member for Labrador West - he is absent from this House now but he did mention the fact that he would like to speak to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about the possibility of having cellular service in Labrador West. I would say the best thing for him to do is first check with the cellular provider, which would be NewTel/Aliant Telecom.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't be Group Telecom?

MS THISTLE: No, not at all.

I tell you, I have had a great experience with NewTel. They have been able to accommodate the residence in my particular District of Grand Falls-Buchans. We now have cellular service for the residents of Badger and all the cabins around Badger, so it has been a real plus in promoting safety for people who are up in the woods. We now can access cellular service on the Buchans highway. So I must say I commend NewTel for making cellular service available in that particular area.

I also want to mention that Workplace, Health and Safety Commission falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour, and the Commission's staff are not permitted to use their cellular phones while operating a vehicle. They must pull over, whether hand-held or otherwise. Since we are promoting safety as a department, I am glad that our Workplace, Health and Safety Commission has made that ruling for the employees there. I know that is the fact as well for City of St. John's employees and Aliant Telecom and Newfoundland Power. I think that is a very important move for employers to mention to their employees, to take whatever safety precautions they can in eliminating and reducing highway accidents.

When you drive the highway, as I do, and many members do - I am driving on a weekly basis from St. John's to Grand Falls, Windsor and Buchans - when you come across those white crosses on the highway, all of a sudden it sinks in there are many of those white crosses, the markers on our highway, and some people have now put almost like a grave site around them and have put flowers there on a regular basis. You wonder to yourself, Madam Speaker, when you see those highway markers/crosses on the Trans-Canada Highway and other highways in our Province, how did those accidents occur? Was it road conditions? Was it someone who was sleepy at the wheel? Was it someone who was using a cellular telephone? I do not know. Certainly, when we all drive across our highways, we think about that.

Some of our members mentioned today: How can you enforce such a piece of legislation? Well, as this act outlines, there are four demerit points which will be assigned to the violation for each conviction. Who amongst us can afford to lose four points off our driving licence? None of us. We all want to have a good record so that we know that when we get behind the wheel, if we are stopped by the RCMP or the RNC, we can produce our licence and we have our twelve points to work with. So I do say that it is a deterrent. There is a penalty fee and there is a deterrent there by the reduction in points.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I think this is a good piece of legislation. I stand committed to it and I support it 100 per cent. I commend the minister for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to have a few words this afternoon on Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

Of course, Madam Speaker, I have to agree with the vast majority of what has been said here today. We are all guilty of using our cellphones as we travel on the highway. As a matter of fact, I think probably about two weeks ago as I was going out the highway here I passed the hon. Government House Leader, and I was the one on the phone. We all recognize that it does take your attention away from the important task at hand, which is driving.

Madam Speaker, I think there is merit to the bill in banning the use of hand-held cellphones, but I think the hon. Member for Bonavista South had a very valid point when he pointed out the need for an education program for drivers in general.

While we are all here today admitting our guilt to using hand-held cellphones while we are driving down the road over the past number of years since we had access to them, none of us have mentioned the fact that on many occasions we drive along with a hamburger in one hand and a hand on the steering wheel, or the fact that we drive along reaching and looking for CDs to stick in the stereo while we have one hand on the wheel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or lighting a cigarette.

MR. TAYLOR: Or lighting a cigarette while we are driving down the road, or trying to find a pack of cigarettes while we are driving down the road.

I know just a couple of nights ago, as I was driving back from Plum Point, I had a bottle of water stuck on the dash and the bottle was too big for the cup holder. Of course, while I was driving along the road, away goes the bottle of water. I happened to be thirsty so I had to reach over on the floor to get it.

These are the things that we do that are just as dangerous to the driving public. The fact that we drive around with one hand on the wheel - it is not the fact that we have the hand-held cellphone up; it is the fact that we have one hand on the wheel and one hand somewhere else. That is the problem, Madam Speaker. We all know what happens when you are driving down the road and a moose pops up on the road, and you have one hand on the wheel. You do not have that same ability to react and pull away from a moose. You do not have the same ability to keep control of your vehicle when you hit slush on the highway, or black ice on the highway. These are things, as the Member for Bonavista South said - there are many things related to the Highway Traffic Act and highway safety over and above the banning of hand-held cellphones.

Madam Speaker, I have to say that it would appear to me - and I do not know what the statistics are to back this up; I know there are some statistics that can be referenced - I think we would all recognize that the most dangerous time on a cellphone is the time that you are dialing the number.

You have to recognize that this is a good first step, but we also have to recognize that there are a lot of problems with cellphone use and driver attention when they are behind the wheel. For a lot of people who do have cellphones and who do use them, it is alright to say that this equipment is available, that a voice-activated phone is available, that hands-free stuff is available. That is alright to say, but for a lot of these people, Madam Speaker, a $500 phone is not an option. A basic cellphone is the only option. Madam Speaker, we have to recognize that.

The other question that I would ask, and our critic posed this question in his comments earlier, is: Are we going to see - there are two important things here - a reduction in the number of accidents as a result of eliminating hand-held cellphones? If we do, if we only see one less accident, one less fatality because of that, then this bill will be successful. Also, Madam Speaker, we have to ask the insurance companies: Are we going to see a reduction in the insurance rates as a result of this legislation? That is the question that we have to ask as well. We are - which has already been referenced here and outside of this House many times - paying excessively high insurance premiums here in this Province. I know I, for one, get frightened every time I go to renew my insurance.

Madam Speaker, the question here is: Are we going to do this? Is the minister going to have anything in place that is going to be able to quantitatively assess the impact of this legislation? Not just qualitatively, not just to say that we believe this is good, but at the end of one year or two years, looking back one or two years and looking ahead one or two years before and after this legislation is implemented so that we can see what affect this has had; so that if the insurance companies do not make the appropriate adjustments that we will be able to show them statistical information which says that our driving record has improved as a result of this bill today. That is important to every person out there. If a person is going to invest $500 for a new voice activated hands-free cellphone, then I would hope that person is going to see a reduction in their insurance premium at the end of the day. Maybe we should explore with the insurance companies something along those lines.

Madam Speaker, as I said, I only have a few comments. I do not think I need to belabour it. I do support the bill as a first step but there are a lot of issues surrounding this bill, a lot of issues around highway traffic safety that are far bigger than hand-held cellular telephones.

MR. J. BYRNE: The condition of the roads.

MR. TAYLOR: The attention that we pay on the roads - as my friend from Cape St. Francis just said, the condition of the roads is an equally important issue. We do have to look at other issues other than this. It is all right that we are bringing this up here today, but if you drive the Northern Peninsula Highway as often as I do and see the condition of the roads with the bumps and the cracks and the fact that the pavement is twenty-five years old, I can tell you that on most days the water buildup on the road in the ruts is a lot more dangerous than the cellphone that might be aboard a car.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mr. Snow): The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would just like to add a few words, I guess, and really repeat, perhaps to some extent, some of the points that have been made this afternoon by members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation, presumably, is being introduced and debated from the point of view that in banning the use of hand-held cellphones we will be contributing to greater safety measures on our highways, on our streets, and on our roads in the Province; which ultimately, of course, is in the best interest of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. From that point of view, this is legislation that presumably will be supported, and I would think unanimously, by members on both sides of the House.

However, my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I think touched on an element of this debate which is worth addressing just for a couple of moments. It is almost like a test of balance of probabilities in terms of what is in the greater public interest and how can we better protect our drivers, passengers, and pedestrians, presumably, in our Province.

It is not a clear-cut case because I know the industry has voiced some concerns. When I say industry I mean the cellphone industry. They use examples - for example, there are many ways that drivers are distracted. This can be done by a small child in a vehicle, a pet in a vehicle or simply loud music in a vehicle. Of course, there are other ways in which drivers can be distracted other than simply using a cellphone. That raises insurance issues, which were raised, quite effectively, by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South.

The industry also states - and I think the industry makes a very valid point when it says: there is already legislation on our books pursuant to the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act that deal with undue care and attention of an individual in care and control of a motor vehicle. In some sense we already have legislation within our Province that potentially has the same impact of what we are trying to discuss and agree upon this afternoon in terms of the use of a hands-free, or a cellphone by a particular driver. Therefore, the industry claims - and with some validity - the fact is that legislation is in place. Is it necessary to prolong this and introduce new legislation when legislation on the books can already adequately deal with this particular issue?

Also, another point that the industry makes is the whole concept of enforcement. I am sure our protectors of society, namely the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, one of the first points that would be made by a police officer is: How do we enforce this? The whole issue of enforceability. Of course, when the police department and police officers themselves claim that enforceability may be an issue, it is something, obviously, that we have to take into account.

There is an element of this legislation that, I am sure, is somewhat troublesome because it certainly introduces the whole concept of the regulation of the individual. This is another example as to how individuals, as private citizens in a free and open society, are once again being regulated in terms of their day-to-day conduct and their day to-day-living. That, too, I think raises an issue, at least is worthy of some discussion. It is a Big Brother issue. It is, again, an issue where our lives are being regulated. It is a Big Brother issue, and therefore those comments, it seems to me, are worthy of some note.

However, having said all of that, we get back to what is in the best interest of the people of our Province. Therefore, we have to look at - to use the expression of one of my colleagues - on balance, what is in the greater public interest and what is in the greater public good. From that point of view, Mr. Speaker, the legislation, from a statistical point of view, it appears that it works. From a statistical point of view, it obviously will help save lives, prevent serious injury, and prevent fatalities. So, therefore, we can only conclude that this type of legislation, being in the greater public interest and being in the greater public good, is worthwhile legislation and is worthy of support by Members of this Legislature.

There is really no need to pursue the matter any further, Mr. Speaker, because as can be seen by the tenor of the discussion thus far this afternoon, it will largely be supported, but not unanimously supported by members on both sides. However, I think it is important to mention that this concept of regulation in a free and open society of an individual in his day-to-day life, or her day-to-day life, is something that I think we are mindful of and as legislators we have to be mindful of, but again we have to look at what is in the greater public interest and the greater public good, and from that point of view, I feel certain in saying that this particular bill will, in all likelihood, receive unanimous support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I stand in my place today to speak to Bill 15 and the amendments, as the minister has put forward, dealing with cellphone legislation. The purpose of second reading is to deal with the general principle involved. We will get to a stage, presumably, where we will deal in the committee with the specific sections of the bill. We will deal with the fines that the government is proposing, the minister is proposing, the deterrence, which is the purpose underlining the fines, and the loss of points, et cetera. So that will be an opportunity to dealing with those in a very specific way when we get to the committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, I do support the legislation, as people on this side do, but I want to deal with the impact in terms of how it will be policed. How will it be enforced? How will that impact upon the current state of the police forces in the Province, particularly the RNC? I would like to deal with that for a moment now.

Ten years ago, even less than that - if you look at the number of people in the RNC today, province-wide, compared to what they were, say, seven or eight years ago, we are dealing with a situation where we have eighty less police officers in our system today than we did eight or nine years ago. Recently in my own District of Kilbride, in one particular area - much of the information that I am about to get into came about as a result of a series of break-ins that have occurred and the residents in the area who have taken responsible action to deal with that situation in terms of neighborhood watch programs, et cetera. As a result of going through that, myself certainly as the elected provincial representative and ward councillor, John Dinn, in the area, we handled a series of public and private meetings with individuals in the community, within the RNC and within the police force. What is astonishing is some of the information that has come to my attention and certainly to other members as well.

It is an important point because it deals with the effectiveness of our police force in being able to enforce the governance of law. This legislation certainly does deal with that because it does. Passing this legislation as we will - it seems to me, anyway, that the will of the House, every member in the House, is supporting the legislation.

The impact of this particular piece of legislation adds yet another burden of responsibility to a police force that right now is seriously diminished in terms of numbers of police officers and seriously diminished in the financial resources that have been at its disposal, to a point where ordinary laws such as speeding, such as impaired driving, such as rolling through a stop sign, such as jumping a red light, such as undercover police officers not in uniform - but another responsibility on an already stressed, very stressed, police force that the provincial government manages. For example, Mr. Speaker, when this legislation is passed in this House, when it goes through second reading, committee, third reading, and ends up back to the Cabinet to be proclaimed as presented, in the regular course of duties it is yet another responsibility that they have to take on.

One has to question, legitimately and in a bonafide way, given the current state of person power, officers within the system, given the current state of financial resources, that when adding another piece of legislation to a list of things for our police force, to increase their responsibility in terms of patrolling, we have to question, and I think legitimately, the ability of our current force, with its current state, based upon the administration, what they have been provided and what they have been told to live with, the ability to be able to essentially police this particular piece of legislation.

No one can question, I do not believe, based upon the current studies that exist -some of which I have seen, some of which have been referred to today which I have not seen - that the safety issue involved is one that everyone should be concerned about.

I recently watched on 20/20, I believe it was, not last Friday night but the Friday night before, where one state had taken this legislation and put it into effect. Other states were not sure about it. As the minister has correctly pointed out, when this legislation is passed, we are the first Province in Canada to do so. Is that correct? The minister has nodded his head yes. Only one state, out of all the states in the United States, has passed it.

Some of the questions that they raised, for example, what about pets in cars. Should we now make it mandatory to ensure that either pets are in kennels when traveling to and from places, or pet seatbelts? There was a company not so long ago, I believe, out of the Member for Ferryland's District, in Petty Harbour, that talked about instituting and manufacturing seatbelts for pets. It is a legitimate question. Imagine a head-on collision or going off the road, if you have a fifty or sixty pound pet in the car, or even smaller. A projectile, a moving projectile, is essentially what it is. If your son or daughter was not in the seatbelt and you went off the road at forty-five, fifty kilometres or 100 kilometres an hour, that individual becomes more of a hazard in the car than the hazard you face outside the car, because it is a moving projectile in terms of insurance standards; the term they use.

So, it raises the question: If we are going to ban cellphones, which is seen unto itself as an legitimate exercise and seen unto itself to have an interest which is in the common good for all of us, why not move further? Why not move to institute other regulations for safety devices or to, certainly, limit the amount of activity, in a car or a van or any sort of motorized vehicle, that would be seen as unsafe? That may be one.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of cigarette smoking in a car, would that be seen, reaching for cigarettes, lighting a cigarette, moving around, as an undue hazard, unto itself. Let's take into account government's own regulations or government's own push recently to sue the tobacco companies, which is another issue. A number of public policy issues come into play on that.

You know, other sorts of issues that we can bring into effect, legitimate issues dealing with safety in motorized vehicles is one question. The public may want us to move in that direction. Who knows? We do not know that for sure, but maybe they do. But, I guess, the extra burdens that will be placed upon an already stretched police force to ensure and to enforce the spirit, on the one hand, and the intent of this legislation, is a question, I think, that deserves some debate and some merit. Hopefully, when the minister gets up to conclude debate on second reading, maybe he can touch on some of those issues or his thoughts, or, in his capacity as minister, the government's thoughts on this particular issue.

Another point I would like to make dealing with this particular piece of legislation: Has the minister, for example, entered into any discussion, or has he had any discussions, or has he been informed by those companies who were involved in the sale of cellphones and the delivery of cellphone service in the Province, has he had any discussions whatsoever or have they had any discussions with him on this particular issue and how the amount of cellphone service would impact the expansion of cellphone service in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Nobody can question, if you compare five years ago and today, that the ability - or the cellphone service has dramatically increased in a positive way in terms of where you can get cellphone service and where you cannot. I would think most people who travel the Province from one end to the other, as I have and as members of the caucus have, and I am sure members of the government have, I would assume, could also raise the question that there is still much room for improvement in terms of cellphone service, digital service throughout the Province.

I attended a conference early in September, in Washington. The Member for Bay of Islands was one of the other people there, but the cellphone service that I got from Washington was better than the cellphone service that I could get in my own home Province, much clearer, much better, and I was phoning home.

The issue, I guess, or the point that I would make, is: Have you been informed? Will it slow down expansion of cellphone service? Will it have any impact whatsoever? Will there be no impact upon the continuous improvements that have been made to cellphone and digital service in the Province as a whole? If so, and if you have had those discussions, or if the minister has been provided with that type of information, would he be so kind as to table it in the House so that all members can get a look at that information? And as we continue to deliberate on Bill 15, and the spirit and intent of it, as we continue to deliberate when we get into Committee stage in terms of the details, actual clause-by-clause debate of Bill 15, that we, as members, may be provided with the courtesy of having that information at our disposal; because I believe he has - I am not sure, I cannot say for sure - but I believe there have been some discussions on that matter. Would that be a correct assumption to make?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: He says yes. The Minister of Government Services and Lands indicated that he has had those discussions. So I would like him, if he could, in his capacity as minister - and I do not think it is too much to ask for - I think it would be a courtesy, a common courtesy, an expected courtesy to all members of the House, irrespective of what side we sit on, to be provided with some additional information. If the minister would be so kind as to live up to the billing of his leader, talking about the most open and transparent and accountable government in Newfoundland and Labrador's history, then I would think that the request would be taken in the spirit that it is meant, so that we could have more information to deal with it. Because if that is the case - and I am not saying people are going to come down against the spirit and intent of what this particular piece of legislation is hoping to do, and express through the pages that have been tabled, but certainly as an added piece of information that I think people would want.

I would also like to ask him: Has he had any discussions dealing with his Cabinet colleague, the Minister of Justice and the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development? Has he been given any information, or has any information been provided, or have you had any discussions about our police forces' ability to be able to enforce this particular piece of legislation, all of the deterrents outlined in it dealing with fines, dealing with the court process, if those fines are not paid in due course? Have there been any discussions whatsoever, I would say to the minister, dealing with that? Would he be able to answer like he has in the other instance, for example?

Minister, have there been any discussions dealing with the impact of the police forces' ability to deal with this, for example? Have you had any of those, or have any discussions or information or letters been provided to you outlining some concerns about the ability of the legislation to be enforced in a real and tangible way that makes it realistic and makes it real on the street? Because we can pass whatever we want in here. If there were no tangible measures or no ways to enforce the spirit and intent and the embodiment of what we pass in legislation, then really it is not worth very much, is it?

Have there been any discussions along those lines, Minister?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, so you are willing to tell me on the impact of the expansion of cellphone service - you said there were some discussions and that yes, you had them - but on this instance, with respect to the police force, you cannot tell me.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am asking, have you? Have there been any discussions regarding the ability of the police force to enforce, in a real and tangible way that makes this piece of legislation relevant outside of this Chamber, to the people in the street throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, have any of those discussions taken place?

If he is not willing to answer now, maybe he will deal with that issue, or that question and the issues surrounding that question, when he rises to his feet.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we also have to be concerned because for every good action that we may do in here, no matter how well-intentioned we are, no matter how good as individuals we may be, no matter what type of legislation we pass, whether it is Bill 15 on cellphone use, or whether it is dealing with impaired driving, or whether it is dealing with Voisey's Bay amendments to the mineral/mining tax act, or whether it is dealing with issues, as we have in the past, like issues surrounding the ability to provide public auditing in the Province, there is always an impact and impacts that must be considered.

Right now, for example, people who are involved in the cellphone industry spend millions of dollars on promotion and safety. That is not an opinion; that is an incontestable fact. So, the industry itself, this will have an impact on them, duly noted and recognized.

As we have all said, members in this House support the spirit and intent of this particular piece of legislation. However, no law is widely accepted overnight. No law that is passed here or in the Parliament of Canada or any other Legislature in a democratic world for that matter, there is no 100 per cent obedience the very next day. You take seatbelts. It took almost two generations, twenty to twenty-five years, before the public got it about what seatbelts can do and how many lives will be saved. That is the fact of it. So, I will ask him this: Has he had any discussions with the industry about the safety programs that will continue? This is something that I do not see happening. How could you ask the industry to continue to spend millions of dollars on a law, or on an issue, on the promotion of cellphone use in a car, safety use in a car, if we pass a law here today which makes it illegal? Effectively what you would be asking the industry to do is to continue to spend money to advise people on the safe use of a cellphone in a motorized vehicle when it is clearly against the law.

I will ask the minister this question: In terms of informing the public when this bill is passed, so that before it becomes law, before it is proclaimed by Cabinet, does this government have any plan to inform the public, which would essentially replace what the industry is now spending millions of dollars on, about this law, about now it is illegal to use your cellphone. Here is why it is illegal. Do you have any plan to talk about how important it is from a safety consideration? I can tell the minister that would be an ad campaign that would be in the public interest, not like the one that his Premier has going right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Does he have, and does government have, a plan to replace the millions of dollars that industry is now spending on promotion of public safety in the safe use of cellphones in the cars? So what is your plan? How do you plan, as a government, and your department, to promote and get the message out on this particular piece of legislation with respect to informing the public on the one hand that this law or this piece of legislation is passed, that it will be proclaimed on a certain day, and that the new law will take effect on a certain day?

Mr. Speaker, those are legitimate issues that I believe need to be addressed. To recap for him, in a nutshell, or in a Reader's Digest version, when he rises to his feet, will he take the opportunity to talk about: How does he plan to promote it, that will replace the millions of dollars right now that industry is spending on promoting safety and proper cellphone use in a motorized vehicle?

Secondly, he has talked about and admitted that there have been discussions with himself, as minister, and his government, related to the impact that this particular piece of legislation will have on the expansion of cellphone service in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He said he did have those discussions, if I am not mistaken. My colleagues can confirm that because they saw him nod his head yes. So, what will be the impact? Because, if he has had those discussions, then he has a duty to inform the public and, in particular, members of this Legislature, what those discussions were.

Thirdly, what are the discussions that have taken place, either that he has instigated or have been instigated for him by outside interests or other interests on the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, just to conclude?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: I thank the Government House Leader for giving me just another twenty minutes to conclude. I am sorry, just a few minutes to conclude.

The last point I will make is this: What impact or what discussions have this minister had on the impact that this legislation will have on the two police forces in this Province and their ability to enforce the legislation? I reference specifically the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary because of the underutilization of resources that they have and their very much now stretched ability to respond to the very basic things because of the administration or because of this government's handling of that administration.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, when he rises to his feet, what discussions has he had in particular with the insurance industry that will ensure or see, because of this new law in promotion of safety, certainly will have an impact or should have an impact on the amount of insurance that people pay, and an impact that would see insurance rates marginally go down probably.

I know today, for example, if you have a home security system in your house, there is a 10 per cent automatic deduction because you do. So, I would assume that the principle involved in that would be the same principle that is involved here, that government have taken the initiative to be the first government in Canada to bring in such legislation and therefore I can safely assume - I hope I can safely assume - that as a result of this minister's action and this particular piece of legislation, that the minister has also taken it upon himself to ensure that consumers and purchasers and buyers of insurance, car insurance or any insurance for a motorized vehicle in this Province, that we may see some declining impact as a result of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to rise in the debate on this legislation, which is the first in Canada. It is the first piece of legislation in Canada to ban hand-held cellphones in vehicles on our highways.

In September, I was in Winnipeg to attend the Council of Ministers of Transportation across this country and I was very, very proud that our Minister of Government Services and Lands did a presentation to the other ministers across the country. There did not seem to be the political will by the other jurisdictions in Canada, even though they recognized that this was extremely important and was extremely important for the safety of people driving on our highways. It was important to have this piece of legislation but, because of the timing of the legislation, it would not be appropriate at this particular time. My colleague in Nova Scotia - it was so close to an election that he did not think it was time to do it.

One of the greatest handicaps, I guess, we had in terms of the use of cellular phones is that politicians are the greatest abusers of the use of cellphones on our highways. As a result, they have a tendency - and that was admitted by some of the ministers across the country - that they did not know what they would be able to do without their cellphones, because in going back and forth to their constituencies they stay in touch with people.

I was just wondering what happened long before cellphones. As a matter of fact, I guess in the early days of representatives in this House of Assembly there were not any telephones at all so you had to respond by letter. I guess as we become more and more conscious of the technology that is available to us, we utilize it to our advantage.

There is no doubt about it, the research indicates that using the cellphone is a hazard on our highways. The hon. Member for St. John's East talked about taking away people's liberties, people's rights to do things, taking away their freedom, but I think if I am traveling on the highway and I am using a cellphone and by using a cellphone I cause an accident that wipes out a family, then I think that is very serious business. It has been proven that cellphone use is hazardous, so I think we should ban it. I am very, very proud to be part of a government that is leading the country. This government is leading the country in a lot of things. I guess we are innovative and we are on the ball, in terms of being forward thinking and progressive and very liberal in our actions. It shows you again that this is good government.

I would also like to respond to my hon. colleague for Labrador West in terms of the cellphone use in Labrador West. As you know, once you leave Wabush - and I guess it is only about thirty or forty kilometers outside Wabush that you can use a cellphone. Of course in the reverse, out of Goose Bay. I think there are probably about thirty kilometers where you can actually utilize cellphones. There are also, I guess, places on the Island too. I know there are certain areas on the Burin Peninsula that I sort of enjoy when I go to the Burin Peninsula part of my district, because I cannot even get messages from my telephone. So it gives you some piece and quiet actually to be away from the cellphone sometimes.

MR. SULLIVAN: You never got my (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I never got yours? No, by the time I got around to you the technology had deleted you. Unfortunately the Member for Ferryland was deleted by the time I got around to getting his message.

I want to inform the Member for Labrador West - I know that he is listening - what we have decided to do, as a department, we have initiated action to install satellite phones in certain areas on the Trans-Labrador Highway. We are negotiating with the companies in terms of air time and other logistics. We are also making the premises suitable so that there will be easy access for people who want to use the satellite phones. We do have depots along the way and we will be providing the accommodations and providing the satellite phones for people who need to use them in emergency situations.

I think one of the great things about cellphones is they can be used in emergency situations. I know that a lot of us, probably over the last number of years, have had occasions when we have had to use cellphones. Some people even run out of gas on the highway, and they need to have gas delivered or something needs to happen. It happens to just about everybody who ever drove a car, they have run out of gas. Unfortunately, the Conservative policy of dividing the highway closed a lot of the businesses on the Trans Canada, and, unfortunately, we do not have the services from Whitbourne to St. John's that we once had, because the policy of dividing the highways actually closed most of our facilities on the highway.

I am very, very happy today to stand here, to support my colleague, who I think is very, very innovative and is presenting great legislation for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to Bill 15, I know the minister has made some reference to some people doing research. I will be quite interested in seeing any documented evidence of research to substantiate that. If the minister has it, I would certainly like to read it. This is a topic that has not come up just recently. There has been a lot of talk over the last while on cellphone use. I am wondering if the minister, since this first surfaced - actually it is more than a year ago, way back, maybe two years ago. I am not sure when it first got discussed in political circles, but the minister gave notice this spring on a bill. I believe it was back in May the minister gave notice. I am wondering if they have researched accident reports for any reference to cellphone use that may have resulted in accidents. Do we have any concrete information to support that? I am not so sure, I say to the minister, whether we need legislation to enforce that.

Right now there is legislation on the books under imprudent driving. If someone is going down a highway with a cellphone, zigzagging and not mindful of his driving, that is imprudent driving. You look at the guy on the commercial for Wendy's, he has the two-for-one burger and he drives his forklift and runs into everything in his path to advertise the Wendy hamburger. That, to me, is imprudent driving. Maybe we should limit eating two hamburgers at a time when driving, I might add. Eating, reading newspapers, that is imprudent driving. Somebody has to make a determination now. What about I hold a walkie-talkie going down the highway, I hold a hand-held transistor radio and am moving stations? What about two-way radios. Taxi operators need two-way radio communication to operate their business. That is excluded, I know, but all these are -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Chinese food?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am getting a lot of interference from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: How do you handle your chopsticks when you are driving?

MR. SULLIVAN: A lot. I am handling them with great skill and dexterity, I say to the minister, something he did not do as Minister of Health or Minister of Mines and Energy or Minister of Finance, I might add.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it is contagious. His colleague right next to him is getting the same symptoms now that he has had for so long. So, that is how we handle it, I tell the minister.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should be very much concerned about this specific piece of legislation because it is not, basically, whether it is a two-way radio or a cellphone your are holding onto or a walkie-talkie or citizens' band radios, it is the manner in which a person is operating a vehicle and exercises that caution while driving. If you are eating and driving, reading a newspaper and driving - are we going to ban newspapers held in the hand of a driver? Are we going to band transistor radios held in the hand of a driver? Are we going to band any objects held in the hand of a driver that can be a means of communication? Is that what the intent is?

The police officer has the responsibility and he has the power to give someone a ticket who is driving imprudently. That is right there in the regulations today in the Highway Traffic Act. What is this going to do? This is going to make a cellphone illegal, to hold a cellphone, basically, when you are driving. It is not illegal to have a child on your lap. It is not illegal to have a dog's head out the window and sitting in your lap while you are driving along, and that happens. I have met people on the highway, the dog was half out the window in the lap of the driver. Are we going to ban dogs in the hands of drivers and declare that a fine, I say to the minister?

There are so many instances, I might add. Are we going to do an ad campaign now against Wendy's because they produce hamburgers that people can eat while driving; those types of things. I might add -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) a conversation with your dog?

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not have a conversation with a dog. I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, I do not talk to dogs at all. I do not speak to them at all, even though there are a couple close to me that try to talk to me, and I will not say anymore, but they are just yapping everyday like their owner. I can say, they have very much in common. I will not say anything else about Fred and Winnie now, the Government Services and Lands Minister in talking about dogs, but I can tell you I think the minister should give very serious consideration. Is it the cellphone use or is it the driver's actions during the cellphone use? Because that could be applied to any other communication tool or any particular thing.

Minister, maybe you should be more intent on doing your public relations campaign, to notify people that this Province is now going to give resources to police officers to ensure that people who are driving imprudently on the highways have to exert greater responsibility and fine them for doing so; issue tickets and so on. That would solve it because it would give the discretion as to what an imprudent driver is. In other words, some people go down a highway at various speeds, reckless, and other people do not. That does not make someone guilty because they happen to be behind the wheel of a vehicle, it is what you do behind the wheel. There are things where the authority rests in the act right now. They want to be first in something, maybe that is why. They want to be first in something. We are last in the country in budget reporting. We are last, basically, in accountability. We are last in about everything, and now they want to be first in something. First in what? We are first in banning a hand-held object that can be used to communicate while you are going down the highway.

Is it more dangerous for a taxi driver to be communicating when he has another call than somebody to be talking on a telephone or putting in a call or receiving a call? Which is more dangerous? We do not want to shut down the taxi business in our Province today; but one thing it may do, if you cannot use it, it will save some money for us on the cellphone bill. It will probably be a little cheaper on my pocketbook and everybody else's, because we will not be able to use the phones as frequently. I know it will put extra hours onto a day for people working because - in jobs like ours, for example - and other people depend on it for a living. Transportation and deliveries and couriers, they depend a lot on cellphone service to do their job. It will put extra hours on a day at an extra cost to businesses. It will put a basic extra cost on people because they will have to sit an extra two or three hours in an office or another hour somewhere because of that.

When you look at it generally, using a cellphone and talking and driving could be considered a risk. So, can all these other items that the minister - and the government has not even cared to address or look at. Are we singling out one specific item that is a higher risk than others? If the minister can show any documented evidence which said: cellphone use has resulted in accidents, based on compilation of reports from police officers and a historical account to show that, then I would say: Bring it in and let's get on with it. There are numerous other specific areas, I can tell you, that are contributing to accidents. Somebody going 40 kilometres an hour on a highway that says 80 kilometres, is that a risk? Yes, I would consider that a risk, when you are going half the speed that you are allowed to go. That is a risk because they are going slow.

There is a penalty now, if you want to enforce it, on cellphones by saying: The person is driving imprudently, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Can the minister stand up, the person responsible for the Highway Traffic Act, and tell me that a person cannot be charged for being on a cellphone if they are not discharging the proper use of their vehicle in a safe matter? They can be charged right now. So, do we need it? That is the question that begs to be asked: Do we need it? On first blush, yes. A lot of these areas are a risk and they are a factor there.

I see the time now, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to bring people back here all night. They want to recover from today, I guess their first day here. I will now adjourn debate, it being closing time for the day.

Thank you.

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

MR. LUSH: We now adjourn.

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