The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following private members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to pay tribute and congratulate Mr. Bill Ralph, Harbour Supervisor of the Port de Grave Harbour Authority, on receiving two national awards.

He recently received a National Harbour Authority Achievement Award, an award given by national governing body Small Craft Harbours, a program operated by the federal Department of Fisheries of Oceans and presented in each of the five regions across Canada.

On November 24, Mr. Ralph travelled to Ottawa to receive the Prix d'Excellence Award. He was one of seven from this Province nominated for this regional award.

In his position as supervisor, Mr. Ralph is responsible for maintaining the Port de Grave Harbour, a job he takes great pride in. On call twenty-four hours, he is governed by a seven-member volunteer committee dealing with boat owners, companies and the general public on a daily basis. He is committed and dedicated to this position and to the successful operation of the Port de Grave Harbour Authority.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Mr. Bill Ralph on receiving these two prestigious awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here in this hon. House here today to congratulate Dr. Paul Bonisteel for being selected as the Physician of the Year for Newfoundland and Labrador. On October 31 of this year, Dr. Paul Bonisteel was presented with the award during the annual Family Medicine Forum.

Dr. Paul Bonisteel is a very dedicated individual, not only to his patients but also to his volunteer groups and the community. Dr. Paul Bonisteel, a resident of New Habour, is actively involved in the local elementary school council, the Ocean Net program that helps to clean up beaches, but most of all the pride of his volunteerism, a soccer program that himself, his wife and a group of local volunteers organize for the children of the area.

I ask that this hon. House join me in sending sincere congratulations to Dr. Paul Bonisteel as this year's recipient of the Physician of the Year for Newfoundland and Labrador by the Canadian College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to a long living resident of the Town of Cox's Cove, Mrs. Emily Park. Mrs. Park was 100 years old on August 3 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Park was born at Brakes Cove in 1909 and at the age of ten years old moved to Cox's Cove with her parents and her younger brother and sister. At the age of twenty-three years old, Aunt Emily married Harold and they had nine children; seven of which are still alive today.

Mr. Speaker, on August 7, family and friends celebrated Aunt Emily's 100 birthday at the community hall, at which time Aunt Emily gave a great thank you, starting with the Lord and her family, for her long life. Special guests, Mr. Speaker, at this party were her younger sister, Sarah, age ninety-four, and her younger brother, Gordon Joyce, age ninety-seven.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all hon. members here today to acknowledge Mrs. Aunt Emily's 100 birthday and we wish her many more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the hon. House today to congratulate the class of 2009 of St. Kevin's High in the Goulds. On Wednesday, November 4, I, along with my colleague, the MHA for Kilbride, had the pleasure of attending the graduating exercises and distribution of awards and diplomas, along with the graduates' parents and special guests.

The graduating class of St. Kevin's High witnessed ninety-six young men and women take a new bold step in turning a page on one chapter of their lives and opening the page on the next.

Mr. Speaker, St. Kevin's High school supports the young people from Level I to Level III and covers the area of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove and the Goulds region. It has a long tradition of excellence in athletics and academic achievement, and the class of 2009, no doubt, has continued to contribute to the school's tradition and will embrace the opportunities that exist for our young people.

It was indeed a pleasure for me, as MHA, to share with these young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a special night as they celebrate their successful completion of high school and look to embrace the many opportunities that await them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and thank the generosity of the many business, community, religious groups, families and alumni for their contribution of awards that allowed the hard work and dedication of many graduates of St. Kevin's High to be acknowledged.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating St. Kevin's High graduating class of 2009 for their achievements to date and wish them well in all future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to ask members to join me in congratulating all those involved in the recent Olympic Torch Relay events held across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, from November 11-16, Newfoundland and Labrador played host to the Olympic Flame as it passed through forty-two of our communities on its cross-country journey to Vancouver, where it will arrive at BC Place for the opening ceremonies of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games on February 12.

For the 330 torch bearers who had the honour of carrying the flame and for those who witnessed it, including those in my home community of Conception Bay South, it was certainly an emotional event.

Mr. Speaker, regional community celebrations were held in Labrador West, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, St. Anthony, St. John's, Clarenville, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook, and Channel-Port aux Basques. I want to thank the organizers of those celebrations; those who provided entertainment, and all the volunteers for their efforts in making these events a memorable experience for the people of our Province. We showed the rest of the country, and indeed the world, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the Olympic spirit.

Mr. Speaker, as we look forward to the Olympic Winter Games in February, there will be several opportunities to highlight this Province on the national and world stage. Last week, we were involved in the launch of Atlantic Canada House, an Atlantic Canadian pavilion in Vancouver which will showcase all things Newfoundland and Labrador - the Province's business, trade, culture, and tourism opportunities.

There is also the Cultural Olympiad - which will put our emerging and establishing professional talent out there for all the world to see.

Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 2010, it will be Newfoundland and Labrador Day at the Olympics. Plans are being finalized to ensure we capitalize on this opportunity to show the world who we are, and also to bring the Olympic experience home to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am looking forward to being a part of Newfoundland and Labrador's Olympic experience and to updating you further as February draws near.

Thank, you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I had the privilege of being one of the 330 torchbearers here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I applied back some two years ago to the CIBC site and I was selected some six weeks before the actual torch run here in Newfoundland, and I had the privilege of running as part of it in Stephenville. If I had known the minister was going to give his statement today, I indeed would have brought my torch with me so I could show you; which I will have for all posterity, of course, to pass on to my kids. It was a great experience.

First of all, I have to commend as well the organizers. It was a fantastically, well-organized event. From picking up the runners to where you drop them off; how every community was organized with their regional committees and so on. It was a massive organizational job to see that you stayed on time and how the flame was kept lit all the way along and so on. It was a wonderful undertaking to see how it was done. They were very professional about it and very courteous throughout the whole time. It was indeed a great experience.

The committees, for example, put a lot of work into this. I know I got to run in Stephenville because that was the section that I got chosen for personally, but in Port aux Basques, which also hosted the flame, terrible weather conditions that night. Mother Nature did not co-operate. It was a very windy, rainy, stormy night.

Hats off to the organizing committee who in jig time took what were very challenging circumstances and with some quick thinking made everything work; shifted everything from outdoors to indoors, and they had a great time. A lot of the organizers who were, in fact, from other places other than Newfoundland – many from the Vancouver area - could not get over the hospitality that they were shown under those very trying circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his remarks.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, hats off to all of the organizers. It was a great event, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians certainly did do their part and they exhibited a great deal of pride in the Olympics.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. While I did not run, as did my colleague from the Official Opposition, I did attend a couple of the community events. I must say, they really were well organized and I was impressed. One of them was here in St. John's but the other was in Gambo. To be in a smaller community and see the excitement and how well it was organized, I was really glad that I got to experience both things, here in St. John's and also in Gambo.

The Olympics, there are all kinds of analyses out there about Olympics but one thing is certain, that Olympics in a country is a moment to really give impetus to an understanding of our own fitness and the need for exercise and being fit. I think that is one of the benefits of having Olympics in our country and of having the torch having been here in our own Province. I would encourage the minister, with his department, to see if there are more ways, not just between now and February but into the future, that we can encourage more programs around personal fitness and setting our own personal goals for good health.

The other thing I think that is really good is the Cultural Olympiad. We do have a number of groups who are going to be there. I am aware of at least two, and I am sure there are probably more. I think it is great that they have decided to accept the invitation because they have to raise their own money to get there, some of them. They probably may get some assistance, I am not sure, but I know they are raising money because I have had requests. So, I thank them for being willing to go to the Cultural Olympiad and to represent who we are as a people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to inform my colleagues of an initiative to better inform Aboriginal youth of our system of justice. This past weekend I attended a Youth Justice Camp that took place in Hopedale, an Inuit community on the North Coast of Labrador. The camp is organized by the Public Legal Information Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, a non-profit group dedicated to educating people about the law.

The Youth Justice Camp is designed to teach youth about the criminal justice system in Canada and inform them of their rights and responsibilities under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is only the second time a Youth Justice Camp was held on the North Coast. The first camp was held in Nain this past spring.

Mr. Speaker, the proper administration of justice is very important to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have made great strides in improving our justice system for people throughout the Province. In Labrador, much work has been carried out to make the administration of justice more responsive to the needs of Aboriginal people in their communities. For example, through the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador, two Aboriginal court clerk positions have been filled in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; a co-ordinator position was hired for the RCMP Community Justice Forums program to benefit coastal communities; an Aboriginal justice symposium was held to promote dialogue between the justice system and Aboriginal people. As well, in this fiscal year, the provincial government has increased funding from $100,000 to $200,000 to continue to support and enhance the grant program to advance violence prevention for women, children and families in Aboriginal communities.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of the Public Legal Information Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe it is important we recognize this organization's work to educate people, especially youth. The experiences gained from this Youth Justice Camp are valuable to their educational growth.

Far too often we have seen young people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike, make regrettable mistakes and decisions that can negatively affect their lives. I believe that by influencing and educating youth through efforts such as this Youth Justice Camp, we have the ability to provide them with the necessary skills to assist them in making the right choices.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in this hon. House to join me and congratulate the Public Legal Information Association of Newfoundland and Labrador for its ongoing work, especially its efforts to help Aboriginal youth become more aware of their rights and responsibilities in our justice system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that she attended the Youth Justice Camp in her district, as we know where the population is mostly made up of Aboriginal people. We all know that the key for any young people to succeed in life is to have a good education in all aspects of their life. Just this summer, I had the opportunity to spend a week in the Torngat Mountains National Park with ten young people from her district who were very articulate, very educated young people who were promoting the culture and the lifestyle of the Inuit people.

Mr. Speaker, from these young people, I saw tremendous talent, tremendous skills, and kids who were very successful. Unfortunately, we have not to kid ourselves, we live in a society today where 4 per cent of our population is Aboriginal, yet 20 per cent of the people who are incarcerated in our jails are also Aboriginal people. It shows the need for further education and for further promotion of education and the justice system in our society.

Mr. Speaker, just recently I obtained a report through the access of information and privacy commission regarding statistics around young people, in Nain in particular. I was astonished to learn that at that time 72 per cent of the children in the school in Nain had been directly affected by suicide of a close family member. That is a tremendous kind of stress for young people in a small community to be placed under and to have to struggle with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing I learned, Mr. Speaker, is that only 46 per cent of the young people in this school are actually graduating. So, I think that while the minister talks about the successful initiatives that have been launched there are still a great deal to be done. We need to ensure that we continue to build a healthy society, a healthy population of young Aboriginal people who have so much to contribute to our communities and to our Province, and we are certainly there to support her and her government in those initiatives.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I want to congratulate everybody who took part in the camp, especially to the youth because they had to make the decision to be there and I think that shows a growing awareness and a commitment among the youth of the Aboriginal people in Labrador. I think that is where change is going to happen is starting with our youth. I congratulate also the public legal information for their work because that takes a lot of work and they certainly need to be commended.

The Justice Minister of last year, around this time, noted that Aboriginal people are overrepresented in Labrador corrections and he noted, at that time, that 90 per cent of the current population were Aboriginal; I suspect the statistic is much the same. This sort of unacceptable statistic shows us the depth of the problem in the communities, especially in Labrador.

So this camp is a right step in the direction for trying to get at that, but we do know that there are many causes for that and the causes are deep and they are almost endemic: poverty, isolation, powerlessness. They go back in the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and Europeans, when Europeans first entered the scene.

There is much work that needs to be done, and we owe it to the Aboriginal peoples to work with them to correct many of the mistakes of the past in order to ensure that from here on in they will have a full position and full participation in the life of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that includes the justice system.

I think I said this last year, but I am going to say it again –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

MS MICHAEL: I will; if I may, Mr. Speaker, just one more statement.

What I look forward to is when our justice investments are not in corrections, as I said last year, but for facilities for Innu, Inuit, and Metis lawyers, judges and peace officers, that that number will grow in Labrador because that is also going to help with the situation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at the risk today of being deemed a traitor, I will try to address the few more questions to the Premier with regard to the Upper Churchill deal.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources confirmed that her province will not reopen the Upper Churchill deal.

I ask the Premier today: What is the next course of action for the Province? Is there enough strength in the claim that you are professing to take this case to the Supreme Court?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, CF(L)Co did not ask the Government of Quebec to reopen the Upper Churchill contract.

What CF(L)Co has done, Mr. Speaker, was asked Hydro-Quebec to reopen the Upper Churchill contract. They have given a timeline of January 15 to get a response in writing. Mr. Speaker, they will wait until they hear formally from Hydro-Quebec. They understand clearly what options they have open to them at CF(L)Co and, as Mr. Martin has said, they will make a decision on next steps at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister must be the only one in the country that is not tuned in. I think we all heard it all over the national news in the last day that it is not on, they are not prepared to open it.

I ask the minister: What is the next course of action for the Province? If there is strength in your claim, you must have a plan B. What is the plan B?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have to keep going over this same ground again because the Opposition really does not get it; nor do their former supporters and members of their party and members of former governments get it.

Mr. Speaker, we did research for three years and we came to a conclusion that there was a strong case, we felt, under Quebec's civil law on good faith. We held a meeting with CF(L)Co where orally we presented that information to them. CF(L)Co then went, got their own legal opinions, Mr. Speaker, and they have decided on a course of action. This action lies solely within the purview of CF(L)Co, Mr. Speaker, not the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let us talk about the information, because when I asked yesterday in the House of Assembly to have legal opinions and information tabled for the people of the public in Newfoundland and Labrador to see what was happening, I was told by the Premier that this was confidential and that it had not been shared with CF(L)Co. However, on Monday, Mr. Speaker, in Hansard, the Premier said, and I quote, "…we feel that we need to pursue this and the best way to pursue this is in good faith. The best way to pursue good faith is to have this information passed over to CF(L)Co."

So we got Monday's version, we got Tuesday's version, let's hear Wednesday's version, Minister: Do Hydro-Quebec and the people of Quebec have the information or do they not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, once again the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been researching good faith for over three years. We feel that there is a very strong case where we can take issue with the Upper Churchill contract. We held a meeting - the Department of Justice had a meeting with CF(L)Co principles. They orally shared with them the information they had found.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MS DUNDERDALE: There is more than one way of communicating, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. Now I know they got trouble reading and I know they got trouble listening, but I am going to keep trying. There is more than one way to communicate information. Once that communication was made –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: - to CF(L)Co, CF(L)Co went and got their own opinions. It is on those opinions, Mr. Speaker, that their actions are based.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that they did give CF(L)Co the information. We did not ask you if you gave it to them in writing, if you flew it to them, delivered it to them, gave it to them orally or whatever the case was. We are asking that the people of this Province have the information available to them that is now available to the people of Quebec, through the shareholders of CF(L)Co, because they have the information. We do not have any of the information. All we have to go on is a claim in a press conference made by the government and by the head of Nalcor. We have nothing to substantiate it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As indicated by the Deputy Premier, this review began in 2006 under the now Minister of Finance. We met, Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions with the lawyers in Montreal. I have met with these lawyers on at least six or seven occasions. Not only have we reviewed the concept of good faith, as outlined in article 1375 of the Quebec Civil Code, but we have also looked at issues, Mr. Speaker, such as § 92(a) under recall issues, taxation issues. We have looked at the contract itself, and at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, after extensive meetings with the lawyers in Montreal, it was determined that good faith is the way to go, if CF(L)Co chooses. That is what - as indicated by the Deputy Premier, that will be their purview.

As the Opposition House Leader is aware, Mr. Speaker, in preparing a legal case there are documents which are solicitor-client privileged and opinions which are maintained for our own use. We will maintain those opinions – for what it is worth, I can state, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion there is a strong case. There is a case which stands a real possibility or probability of success, and that will –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: – be up to CF(L)Co if they determine to proceed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems that the Minister of Health carries all the files over there these days. So maybe he has all the information that he has given to CF(L)Co, and maybe now –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – he can give us the same information. The people of the Province that you claim to be standing up for.

Mr. Speaker, if he has looked at all the contracts, and he has looked at all the clauses, maybe he could tell us what precedents exist with regard to the 1994 Quebec Civil Code that will allow us to have some real legal claim in this situation. We know the Premier said outside the House the other day they do exist. Nobody can seem to find them. So maybe the minister can tell us what they are today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I know that the extensive research conducted by the Liberal Opposition has failed to indicate - or to find a Supreme Court of Canada case. In 1992, called the Bank of Montreal versus Hydro-Quebec, where the duty to act in good faith is recognized. Mr. Speaker, in article 1375 it specifically recognized in this case at the Supreme Court of Canada - and there was a previous case called Houle which deals with this.

So, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Opposition, before they start spouting about things they know nothing of, should conduct proper research. I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that she should consult her colleague next to her and get some good advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My learned colleague gives me great advice everyday, I say to you, minister. Great advice everyday, I say to you, minister, but what we did not hear from you is what precedence exists since 1994 when the Civil Code of Quebec was changed. Maybe, minister, if you have all of that information there and they do exist, as the Premier said in the foyer, well, maybe you can present those cases to us in the House of Assembly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

One of the experts, or one of the lawyers we have retained in this case is a Quebec jurist by the name of Jean-Louis Baudouin who is considered to be the leading expert in Quebec on civil contract obligations. He has written a book called Les Obligations.

Subsequent to the 1994 civil code, Justice Baudouin outlines in his book - or the revised version of his book - again, the concept of good faith, and how article 1375 now recognizes that. He refers to the same cases I talked about earlier. Again, I do not mean to give lectures to the member opposite but she has to understand how the law works, or she should let a lawyer answer, but, Mr. Speaker, precedent contributes to statute and statute can then lead to further development of the law.

We have to be creative. What do the Liberals want us to do, sit there and do nothing about this contract which is stuck in our craw since 1969, a contract that was brought in by your government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here we go again! When there are no answers, let's get the theatrics going. Let's do the rant. Come on, Mr. Speaker, there is not one living, breathing soul in this Province who does not want redress on the Upper Churchill. There is not one living, breathing soul, Mr. Speaker, who does not want to get more money out of this contract if they could get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to pose her question.

MS JONES: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this question and see if he can answer it without the theatrics. They do not want to give the people of the Province any legal opinions orally, written, or any explanations or anything to substantiate the claim that they are making in the public, although they are prepared to give it to everyone else.

I ask him today: Is he prepared to table the letter that was sent to Hydro-Quebec and is he also prepared to table any information that was given to CF(L)Co by the provincial government so it can be disclosed to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are no documents that were presented to CF(L)Co, so there is nothing to table. The second thing is, Mr. Speaker, we did not send a letter to Hydro-Quebec. CF(L)Co sent the letter to Hydro-Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and if they want the letter than they should ask CF(L)Co for the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They do not read briefing notes; they do not write anything down. So I guess it is hard to get a paper trail over there.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, my next questions are for the Minister of Labour. There is currently a strike taking place on the Burin Peninsula that is having a significant impact on fourteen NAPE workers and fourteen clients who are disabled that they assist through the Support Employment Program. Mr. Speaker, this strike involves unionized workers and they are striking simply because Treasury Board and the government opposite is attempting to strip their contracts and remove them from the provincial government classification system, which was a commitment they made to these workers two years ago.

I ask the minister today: Why is government reneging on this commitment and why are you not prepared to sign onto the commitment you made to these workers two years ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think all of us, the employer corporation down in Burin, the union, the government, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are obviously concerned about the people with disabilities who have been adversely impacted by the fact that the support workers have gone on strike.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, government is not the employer here. The employees are employees of the Burin Marystown Community Training and Employment Board. Government is simply the negotiator. NAPE in this case is the bargaining agent for the employees and because this union happened to be certified, because NAPE happened to be certified under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, government is named as the bargaining agent for the employer. So government is the negotiator here. In this particular case, the employer has offered a 20 per cent wage increase over four years. I think that most people would agree that in this very uncertain economic time, in this economic climate, this is an offer that is more than fair and reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that these workers do fall under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, therefore, as a minister in a government you have a responsibility here to negotiate with them.

Mr. Speaker, if the government claims that they are concerned, why are you refusing to move away from the demand that you have on the table right now, which is to remove them from the classification system, a clause that your government, when you were the minister, insisted be in their contract two years ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The government's classification system – I emphasize again that the employees are employees of the Burin Marystown employment corporation; they are not public sector employees. I know the president of NAPE has indicated that in The Telegram today; I know it has been mentioned in the media today. The employees work for the employer corporation; they are not public sector employees.

The classification is essentially all about compensation. There are many issues that were discussed as part of negotiations, but it came down to compensation. Classification, in effect, is all about compensation. In this particular case the employer corporation has offered 20 per cent over four years, which most people in this Province would consider most fair and reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is rather unfortunate. These workers are paid only between $9 and $10 an hour for the work that they do. There are fourteen people with disabilities today whose lives have been disrupted because government is refusing to back away from one clause in this agreement.

I say to you, Minister: It is your responsibility; it is your obligation. Will you not now agree to leave the clause in the contract, the very clause that not just your government negotiated, but you as a minister signed on to two years ago and let these people get back to work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I believe the letter that the hon. member refers to is a letter that was signed not by me, as the President of the Treasury Board, it was signed by the chair of the Burin Marystown employment corporation.

Mr. Speaker, there are twenty employment corporations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador who do very valuable work. What they do is they hire people as job support or work facilitators who work in turn with people who have disabilities and they in turn work in the workplace and they are supported.

Government is very supportive of these employment corporations. Three of them are unionized - one in Stephenville, one in Port aux Basques, and the one down in Burin. Government is supportive. We provide funding. Services Canada provides funding to enable these employment corporations to operate. Government provides funding to hire the workers and that funding has increased this year by an extra $600,000 –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - so more people can be served by the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, this past summer the citizens of the Province formed a committee called: Save Our People Action Committee. It was formed to help save lives of people who are travelling on our highways in Newfoundland and Labrador and reduce the number of moose-vehicle accidents that are occurring.

I ask you today, Minister: Why have you not taken any steps to act on the recommendations that they have put forward to you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say, and I am sure I speak on all members of the House of Assembly, that our deepest sympathies go to those who have lost their lives in moose-vehicle accidents and, of course, we are deeply concerned for those who have been injured in such accidents as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have done extensive research on this issue. In fact, back in 2004 there was a comprehensive, strategic document that was prepared that outlined six items. The Department of Environment and Conservation in conjunction with the Department of Transportation and Works, we have acted on all six of those recommendations, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to conduct research and continue to ensure that we have reduced the number of moose-vehicle accidents in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that every person in this Province have been affected by an accident on a highway with a moose; either with someone they know or someone they love or themselves.

Mr. Speaker, many of these people feel that whatever actions the minister claims she has taken is not adequate. This week I presented petitions of 26,000 people in this House of Assembly that feel that not enough is being done.

I ask the minister again today: Will she take this issue seriously? Will she start acting on the recommendations that have been put forward by this committee? In the meantime, I ask her to table the full document of 2004 and outline the actions government has taken so far.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Opposition member. I am sure every one of us has been impacted in one way or another; some, more severely than others. Again, our deepest sympathies go out to these people.

In terms of the information that was in the report, I can list the six actions for you: The first one was to have a high impact public awareness campaign. Our government did do that back in 2003. We have the Be Moose Aware campaigns through NTV. We have the moose hotline. We have the placemats through the TCH and so on and so forth. One of the other ones was talking about targeted driver education that of course ties into the public awareness. Enhance the highway signage and brush cutting were the other two. Certainly, my colleague from Transportation and Works can eloquently speak to those. Population monitoring, we do on a frequent basis. We do censuses, hunter trends, we do population modelling, and six is improving reporting on accidents, which we do and we recently produced a map which we can further work towards reducing these accidents. We can speak more to that this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing wrong with a public awareness campaign around this issue and it should be and it should be a strong one with great messaging, but obviously the actions taken by the government alone is not satisfying the public nor is it reducing the number of accidents on our highways or the number of fatalities on our highways because of moose-vehicle accidents.

I ask you today, Minister: Are you prepared to take the recommendations of this committee seriously and move forward with implementing some of them within very short order?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as a government we take this issue very seriously. This is people's lives involved here and it is something that we definitely take very seriously.

In terms of some of the actions that are taking place, and certainly my colleague can speak to this, there has been a major emphasis on brush cutting, and any of you who drive on the highway you know that this is very effective at least, in my mind, it is very effective. There has also been increased signage. There has been increased public awareness.

One of the things that we often do as well is speak to other jurisdictions, both nationally and internationally, and this is no different under our Administration than when the Liberals were in power because I know that there was some work being done, talking to other Administrations and jurisdictions at that time. The one key thing that comes out of that finding is the number one thing that you can do to attempt to reduce moose-vehicle accidents is have a very valid and effective public awareness campaign.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that the House of Commons were debating potential NAFO amendments that could have a significant impact on our fishery here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am certain that all members in this House share the same concerns as it relates to these possible changes. Last week, that debate was suddenly halted by the federal government.

Given that the lifeblood of rural Newfoundland has always been the sea, I ask the Minister of Fisheries: Have you spoken with your federal counterpart on this issue and have you been given any indication as to why this debate was suspended last Tuesday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the items, certainly, that I have been briefed on since I come into this portfolio is the exact item that the hon. member has brought attention to.

Let me outline for him, Mr. Speaker, some of the actions that have been taken. Former minister, Minister Hedderson, made three representations in Ottawa on this particular convention. The Premier has contacted Prime Minister Harper. Our stand is very clear on this. We are not in agreement with this convention. We fear that it will jeopardize jurisdiction of our rights with inside the 200-mile limit and, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to advocate that stand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that information, but again, I would ask the Minister of Fisheries: Have we been given any indication as to why it was suspended on last Tuesday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear what our stand is on that. I have outlined what actions have been taken by the former Minister of Fisheries, by our Premier. Our stand is very clear. Mr. Speaker, the answer to his question is, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, at a fisheries symposium in Bonavista last week an FFAW representative stated, and I quote: "Our costal communities are in trouble. They are dying." Those words are of great concern to all people in rural Newfoundland. Many of these people are in my district. An example is the Town of Englee. Their plant has not seen any activity for five years.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Are you willing to reinstate the licences that were attached to this historical operation at Englee?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me outline –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me outline a few facts for the new member in terms of what this government has done. Our budget, Mr. Speaker, for the Fisheries and Aquaculture department, $34 million; more than the other three Atlantic Provinces combined.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: We have committed an $800,000 commitment to an MOU that would involve three partners: the fisheries union, the processors, and government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this member does not have to talk to any of us about what our commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador is. We know what the commitment is and the importance of the fishery to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and, Mr. Speaker, we will continue (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. He has been quizzed on the issue of the job coaches for people with intellectual disabilities being on strike, and I want to get some clarification from him.

Two years ago when they were in negotiations, these same people with their union and the board they work for, the Treasury Board insisted on there being included with a contract a letter saying that this group would be covered by the new classification plan. The same minister was there at that time, and as I understand it, the same people with Treasury Board are all there.

So I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Will he please give us a rationale for why all these same people who insisted on inserting themselves into the process and insisted on this letter around classification are now saying it should be taken back?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are twenty of these employment corporations. Three of them have been unionized by NAPE, two have been unionized under the – or they have been certified by the labour relations agency under the Collective Bargaining Act. Government has no involvement in the negotiations of those contracts, but in this particular case in Burin, NAPE was certified by the labour relations agency under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. As a result of that, government is the negotiator. NAPE is a negotiator for the employees, but government is designated as the negotiator for the employer.

Any letters that were given were not given by government. These are not public sector employees. They are not employees of government. These job coaches are employees of the employment corporation and it is the chair of the corporation that has provided this letter to (inaudible).

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

MS MICHAEL: Wait now, Mr. Speaker, I am really confused, because I thought I heard the minister say to the Leader of the Opposition earlier that government was not involved in the negotiations, that it was the board and NAPE who were involved in negotiations. Now he is saying government was involved, as indeed they were.

I am going to ask the minister then, as the Minister of Finance dealing with a situation where you have workers who are covered by the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, will he not step in? He is responsible for Treasury Board as the minister of the portfolio he is in, and he was two years ago as well. Will he step in and tell Treasury Board to take back this demand for the concession of removing this letter from the contract?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I know this is confusing but the unions that are certified under the Labour Relations Act, government has no involvement. Some employer out there, some union organized and the employer – it would be under the Labour Relations Act. Government, of course, would have no involvement in those negotiations.

In this particular case, for some reason the Burin employment corporation got certified under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act which makes Treasury Board or makes government the negotiator. We are not the employer, we are merely the negotiator. We play the same role as NAPE plays for the employees; we negotiate on behalf of the employer, NAPE negotiates on behalf of the employee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for Oral Questions has expired.

Before we move on to presenting reports, the Speaker would like to raise a couple of issues that came from Question Period today. The Speaker is always reluctant to interrupt the thirty minutes provided for question and answers.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; I remind the hon. minister that it is improper and unparliamentary to refer to another member by their given name.

The Leader of the Official Opposition; I remind the Leader of the Official Opposition that it is not only unparliamentary but against our own Standing Orders to read directly from newspapers, letters or yes, even a copy of our own Hansard during Question Period.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present this petition on behalf of the people of our Province regarding the concerns about the moose population in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to note what the minister said earlier about the steps that have been taken, and we certainly want to show appreciation from the people of our Province on behalf of them for what has been done. I would also like to note that certainly more would appear to be necessary.

Some of the comments that have been noted by the people that have signed this petition have been such that it is about time and it is much needed; saving lives is important and so on.

I would also like to make a note - not to make a joke of a serious situation, but an American comedian by the name of Jeff Foxworthy said this about Newfoundlanders. He said: If you know several people who have been hit by a moose twice a day then you are probably a Newfoundlander.

So it really just kind of reiterates some of the awareness of the moose problem in Newfoundland.

For myself, I had the unfortunate experience about four years ago of being involved in a moose-vehicle accident and it is certainly not something that I would want to take any family through. Myself and my wife and my daughter, we were fortunate to survive that situation.

It is my pleasure again today to be able to present this petition and to call upon government to just do more to ensure that the lives of our people are protected.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

There being none, Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it being Private Members' Day, we call the motion put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright–L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to rise in the House of Assembly today and to speak to the private member's motion on moose-vehicle collisions and reducing the number of accidents on our highway.

Mr. Speaker, this particular motion is because of the work of a tremendous number of people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to acknowledge those individuals that make up the organization called: Save Our People Action Committee. This committee, Mr. Speaker, was formed because there were individuals out there in the Province who felt that it was time, time for government to take seriously the number of moose that are on our highways, the number of fatalities as a result of collision with moose and the number of accidents that are occurring each and every year. They felt that it was necessary, Mr. Speaker, to become the champions of this issue knowing full well that their efforts and their work would result in saving lives at the end of the day and reducing harm to hundreds of people in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will not name all the committee, but one of the names that we are very familiar with is that of Eugene Nippard. He is an individual who spearheaded this organization and engaged other people, other people who had their own stories and their own life experiences of moose accidents on our highways. Many people who have been displaced from their jobs because of injury, many people that are suffering still today with pain and financial hardship because of these accidents and many others who are continuing to mourn and grieve the loss of loved ones that they have lost as a result of these accidents.

Mr. Speaker, their efforts came together to bring the support of 26,000 people in our Province who have signed their name to a petition asking the government to please hear our message, to please understand that this is an issue that you do have some control over. This is an issue that you can take some active role in to ensure that the numbers of accidents are reduced, the numbers of fatalities on our highways are reduced.

Mr. Speaker, to read into the record of Hansard, the motion as it is being presented today to be voted on by all members of the House of Assembly:

WHEREAS it is estimated that there are over 120,000 moose living in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS more than 700 moose-vehicle collisions occur in our Province each year; and

WHEREAS moose-vehicle collisions result in human fatalities and a higher prevalence of head, neck and brain injuries than other motor vehicle accidents; and

WHEREAS the cost estimates to the provincial health care system for just initial emergency care due to moose-vehicle accidents is averaged at over $600,000 a year, and cost estimates for vehicle damage is over $1 million annually; and

WHEREAS other provinces with lower moose populations have taken significant action to reduce moose-vehicle collisions; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not conducted a recent study or review of new technologies and mitigative options such as fencing, lighting systems, increased brush cutting and increased hunting quotas that could potentially lower the number of moose-vehicle accidents;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the government to initiate a comprehensive study to evaluate what technologies, mitigation techniques and investments can be undertaken to reduce moose-vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this review include a detailed analysis of other jurisdictions and evaluate options such as fencing, lighting systems, brush cutting and increased hunting quotas;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government to accept and implement the conclusions or recommendations of such review.

Mr. Speaker, that is the motion that we are debating here today. It is very generic; it is very much a motherhood issue in this Province. It is an issue that affects many people.

When I talked about the moose population I said there was probably about 120,000 moose, I think the latest figures I received in the last recent days is telling us it is at about 140,000 in the Province today.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, moose is not native to Newfoundland and Labrador and it was planted in the Province, and since that time we have seen the population of moose continue to grow. We have seen more and more tragedy on our highways as a result of it, and I think it is only fair that when people see something that is preventable, or attempts can be made to prevent it, it is only fair and right that government look at those particular options and to implement them accordingly.

We see people that are injured and die in our Province every single day as a result of injuries and accidents that we have no control over, and we can do very little to reduce. However, when there is something that we do have some control and we can implement some measures, if it means saving one person or ensuring that ten people out of the 700 this year that had an accident could have escaped it, then we have a responsibility to look at those particular options.

Mr. Speaker, in other provinces across the country, they have taken measures that have been somewhat different than things that have been done in Newfoundland and Labrador. I heard the minister today talk about a public awareness campaign that was launched by her department. I certainly commend her and her government for doing that, but, Mr. Speaker, is it enough? Is it enough? That is always the question. There is nothing wrong with having an informed public. There is nothing wrong about educating people who live in our Province who use our highways and those who visit Newfoundland and Labrador and use our highways, to educate them that moose is an issue, that moose is a reality on our highways, it is the environment that we live in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but is it enough? That always is the question that will remain in the absence of other actions that could be taken.

I think this is where these individuals and these 26,000 people – and I say to you, Minister, in the last two weeks, I have had numbers of e-mails from people who did not sign this petition simply because it was not available to them or they did not see it who certainly wanted to add their support to this particular issue as well.

Mr. Speaker, in other jurisdictions across Canada, there has been other measures taken, and it is probably debatable as to what the effectiveness of them might have been. There are some cases in New Brunswick where they have taken initiatives where they have seen the number of accidents on their highways reduced, and they have seen the number of fatalities reduced. When you see that kind of data and information being provided, it warrants looking at it. It warrants looking at that particular initiative to see if it works in this Province. I am not going to stand here today and tell the minister that we need more lighting or that we need fencing throughout our highway, but I will stand here and tell the minister this, that there is more that can be done and there is a whole list of options out there that need to be looked at.

We know for certain that if you drive through Jasper National Park or Banff National Park, there is fencing for wildlife that has been put in place by the federal government, but if your government does not believe in fencing, how can we possibly even look at a lobby to the federal government that gets fencing through our own national parks, which happen to be right on the Trans-Canada in this Province, through Gros Morne National Park and through Terra Nova National Park? In fact, it was only a few nights ago when I was coming through Terra Nova National Park, me and some of my colleagues, that a moose popped right out in the middle of the road. We were taking our time, but we still had to make a very sharp turn to miss that moose, and we could have very well ended up off the highway that night.

So you can be as cautious as you want, and you can be as careful, and you can be as educated, it does not mean that you are still going to prevent accidents. You can put up all the fencing that you like, you can put in all the lighting that you might, it does not mean that you are going to stop every vehicle from having an accident on that road. What it does mean, is that the more awareness, the more options, the more attempts made to reduce the accidents and to save lives, it will have an impact. I firmly believe that it will have an impact.

Mr. Speaker, in recent days this committee has raised this issue with a number of ministers. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the previous minister works in transportation. When they brought the issue to him, his comments in the media were about money. The cost of doing this. There are always arguments that will be made about the cost of one's life. I think it is a legitimate argument, but I do not think you can dismiss the option simply because of the price tag. I do not think anyone is asking that every single kilometre of the Trans-Canada Highway be fenced from one end of Newfoundland to the other, but I think they are asking that in areas where the accident rate is higher, in areas where the tragedy has been greatest, in areas where there are higher moose populations, that you would consider one of those particular initiatives that could help mitigate the number of tragedies that are happening. That is a very sensible request. That is why you have those kinds of fencing through other national parks in the country, but not in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Environment and Conservation - who is still the minister today in that position - was asked about it, she said that it is a constant reminder, the moose are, of the hazards that are on our roads. So you have to be cautious. She said people know that they have been there 100 years and that they are a part of our ecology, but we really want people to be cautious because nobody wants to see a tragedy.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we can be as cautious as we like and we can take the minister's advice on caution, but the reality is that accidents are still occurring, they are climbing every year, tragedies are still occurring, people are still losing their lives. So is the word of caution enough? Well, it is not enough for the people of the Province today, and they expect more.

Another minister, Mr. Speaker, when they were presented with this issue - and it was the minister at the time, acting transportation minister, only a few weeks ago who said that we are not convinced that the using of fencing is effective. Where do you get the argument? Where is the information? We know that where fencing is in other provinces and jurisdictions that it has helped reduce the number of accidents on highways. Yet, the minister is saying we are not convinced. So, we want to see the information. We want to know what you have that tells you that fencing is not helping in New Brunswick, it is not helping through the national park in Jasper, it is not helping through the national park in Banff, and it is not contributing to saving lives and reducing accidents on our highway. He also went on to say that our focus will be on brush cutting, using mechanical harvesters and a public awareness campaign to tell people there are certain times of the day, dusk and dawn, and there are certain times of the year when we have to be more aware and we have to slow down.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the stories of a lot of these people, a lot of them. In fact, I have hundreds of stories right here from people all over this Province who have been able to share their stories with us about their own accidents on these highways. It is not always about speed, it is not always about careless driving. It is simply that, an accident. It is simply coming upon a moose without being aware of it. It is simply taking all of the precautions that you can advise a person to take and still ending up in tragedy. So is it enough to give the words of wisdom to stay off the road at certain hours in the night, to slow down at certain times in the day, to be more careful about what you are doing, to be more cautious about how you drive? All of that is fair and well, but you are not talking to children. You are talking to people who are commuting every single day on our highways for work, for their jobs and for other purposes. I think what they are asking the government is fair and is simple.

Mr. Speaker, many of these people will suffer for the rest of their lives, and I bet every one of you in your seats today in this House of Assembly has a story you can tell. Either their own experience with moose on a highway, the experiences of a friend, the experiences of a family member, the tragedy of someone that you know. I know that as a result of that you have probably learned more about the issue and I am sure that you are all concerned about the issue, but the fact that we have concern is not going to save people's lives. The concerns have to be attached to actions and they have to be real actions in terms of doing something that will prove to be beneficial.

Mr. Speaker, even Randy Simms in a column that he wrote in the paper, he talked about a good friend of his who had had an encounter with a moose. He even went on to say that maybe one action, such as fencing, may not be the answer or may be too costly for the Province to look at but it needs to be considered and there needs to be other mitigating factors. There is a whole list of them. When I get into my closing debate I will talk about some of them and what has been done in other jurisdictions and what has worked. I hope that government is prepared to take this issue serious enough so that we can do everything possible within our power as parliamentarians in this Province to protect the lives of people who use our highways and to reduce the number of accidents that are occurring, and we should do it because we have an obligation to the 26,000 people who are coming before this House today asking for your support to address this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion but forward by the Opposition today. As I stated in Question Period, and I will restate again, and I am sure I speak on behalf of everybody in this House, our deepest sympathies go out to those who have lost a life due to a moose-vehicle accident. Our deepest sympathies go out to the family and friends of those people and certainly we are deeply concerned for those people who have been involved or injured in an accident.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is a complicated issue and it is one where there is no straightforward solution to it. I am just looking at the motion put forward, and the first Whereas talks about the population of moose here. So I thought I would give a very brief background.

Moose were introduced in the Province in 1904, originally attempted in 1898, but that was unsuccessful. There were four moose brought over from New Brunswick. Since that time, over 100 years ago, the moose population has fluctuated from anywhere from 80,000 to 140,000 and the hon. member opposite mentioned that she believed that this year the population was at 140,000. She may be referring to the peak year. The peak year was in 1998 when it was at 140,000. In fact, this year our population estimates show that it is at 120,000. I would be more than happy to provide her with the graph of our information on that.

This year, in terms of just some brief history around the licensing, there are over 80,000 people that applied for licences and there are approximately 28,000 licences. Again, just to talk about the population, I just want to give an idea about the densities of moose throughout the Province. As most people know, the Northern Peninsula, the densities are quite high on the Northern Peninsula. Here on the Eastern part of the Province, they are stabilizing and fairly stable and healthy. In Central Newfoundland, the population there has in fact decreased over the last five years; it has gone down anywhere between 40 to 60 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member opposite also mentioned Terra Nova Park. Just to give you a feel for densities in comparison to the number of moose accidents, our information tell us that there are about 120 moose in Terra Nova Park and in 2009 there were fifteen moose-vehicle accidents there. Compare that to Gros Morne National Park where there is about 5,000 moose, there were eight collisions there. Any collision is too much, we all agree to that; we would rather see no collisions. I just wanted to point out to the member that when you try to draw the correlation between moose density and the number of accidents, it is difficult because when you plot this on a map, you see the Northern Peninsula where there are high densities, the accident frequency there is not necessarily as high. So I just wanted to give a little bit of background there as to the population.

Her next Whereas states that there has been 700 moose-vehicle collisions occur each year. Just to clarify some of that, we get our statistics from the RCMP in terms of moose-vehicle accidents, and she did mention that they are also on the incline. The information that we have, it shows that there are around 400 to 450 accidents each year - and again this is information, we can certainly give you the charts that came right from the RCMP. Again, 450, we would rather see that there weren't any at all. We do not have the stats for 2009 yet, but they were down in 2008 from 2007.

Her next Whereas clause talks about it does result in human fatalities and a higher prevalence of head and neck injuries. We certainly know this year - our information as of October of this year - unfortunately there were four fatalities, and our deepest sympathies go out to those people. When you look at last year's numbers, thankfully, fortunately, there were no fatalities last year. Of course, people who are injured, certainly, this does have implications in terms of time off work and hospitalization and so on. We do know that this does put a burden on our health care system and there are a cost associated with these accidents, which is what her next Whereas refers to.

Then the motion goes in to talk about action taken by other provinces, and it goes on to say that this Province has not conducted a recent study or review of technologies or mitigation measures. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we have done a lot of research in this area, and not just since we have been in government; this research has been going on over the years when the Opposition formed government. We continually talk to other jurisdictions about the experiences that they have with wildlife. The Opposition member mentioned the national park; Banff National Park. Of course there are issues with deer in New Brunswick, kangaroo in Australia; there are all kinds of information there. We do always speak to national and international organizations on this.

As I referred to in Question Period back in 2004, there was a comprehensive strategy document that was done. As a result of that there were six recommendations that came out of that; the first one being the high impact public awareness campaign. Mr. Speaker, we have acted on that recommendation and we have put significant dollars in the budget to have a public awareness campaign. I am sure a lot of people – when you listen to the open-line shows – would hear the hotline for moose, there is the NTV moose awareness campaign. Of course, there are the placemats that are put throughout the Irving stations on the Trans-Canada Highway and so on.

The second recommendation was targeted driver education. This also ties in to public awareness. This is one area where I suggest we could do some further work. I think maybe taking it upon ourselves to speak to the private driver education companies and talk to them about the awareness and the hazards of the road such as moose. So that is one that we can certainly do more work on.

The third recommendation was enhanced signage. My colleague from the Department of Transportation and Works can certainly speak to that. I think we all do a lot of driving, not only in this House, but the general public and so on, and those signs, I believe, are very effective and a reminder of the hazards that are out there on the road.

The forth recommendation, of course, is brush clearing, and again, my colleague can speak to that. I have seen a significant increase in brush clearing on the highways. With the new roads that are being paved now, there is a significant emphasis on that.

The fifth recommendation was population monitoring. We did implement that and we enhanced that. We do a census of the moose populations, we evaluate hunter trends, and we constantly talk to the hunters, and we do population modeling. So we did act on that recommendation.

The final recommendation of that strategy at the time was improved reporting and evaluation. We have taken this one very seriously. In fact, just recently, we have done a map of where the majority of accidents happen in our Province, and we intend to use that map to do different moose management techniques, should we see fit. So, of the six that were recommended, five have been acted on, one to some degree, but I agree we can do further work there.

In terms of the public awareness campaign, too, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is time that we did a review of that public awareness campaign as well. We do know that the majority of accidents happen in June, July and August. Of course, when the moose is getting rid of her yearling, the cow is getting rid of her yearling to have her next calf, these yearlings are a little bit out of sorts and tend to wander onto the highways. Of course, we also know that the majority of accidents happen between dusk and dawn. So, I think we will take it upon our department to do a review of that and see if we can change the effectiveness. It has been very effective, from what I have been told, but perhaps maybe advertising during different times of the day and different times of the year. So we will certainly take it upon that to do that.

As I said, we always talk to other jurisdictions, but one of the things that are mentioned in the motion is that we have not conducted a recent study or review. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we have done a lot in the area of review. We speak to other jurisdictions. We have done a complete literature review. We look at the Journal of Wildlife Management and other nationally and internationally known publications. So a lot of work has been done there with the Wildlife Society Bulletin and we are always looking at different mitigative measures that other provinces, other countries around the world are doing. So there has been a great deal of research that has been done by wildlife officials and by officials in the department of Transportation and Works.

We have looked at a variety of options: scent deterrents, lighting, fencing and other kinds of techniques. I will leave a lot of that to Transportation and Works because that comes under their jurisdiction, but one of the conclusions that I can state, from all of the research that we have done to date, is that the most effective tool that comes back to us time and time again from our review is that public awareness is the most effective tool that you can do. We see it time and time again because a lot of these other technologies that have been done are not proven on a scientific basis, and anytime we do anything in the department we want to base it on science. Again, I recognize a lot of the work that has been done.

One of the things I think that we can do a better job of, and I just mentioned it recently, we plotted on a map where the majority of these accidents happen. One of the things that I would propose we could do in conjunction with Transportation and Works, and perhaps with Justice, is to do an analysis around the factors of accidents. Look at the time of day, look at the location, look at the weather conditions, and other factors at the time. If this review points to areas of high or increasing moose density that also have areas of high moose-vehicle collisions, then I will make the commitment that we will increase the moose quotas in those areas.

Our current practice right now is to manage for sustainability but we will certainly commit to evaluate quotas in light of population trends and moose-vehicle collisions. So, that is something that we can build upon in your motion here, to take it one step further. I also propose that once this review is done that we make it public and we use it to inform government's decisions as we go forward. So, really, there is a holistic approach that needs to be done to deal with this very serious matter that is before us.

So, Mr. Speaker, having said all of that, the public awareness that we do, the types of work that we do with other jurisdictions, the fact that I stated we can review our public awareness campaign, we will take the information around moose-vehicle collisions a step further and do further detailed analysis of that. Based on all that I have said, I propose an amendment to the motion put forward. I think it is an amendment that certainly the Opposition would not have any problem supporting; just a few minor changes in the Whereases. Just to make it more factual around the information, around the 700 accidents a year to reflect the information that we have. Also, to point out - the way the amendment reads right now it almost makes it look as if there has not been any information, or any analysis done to date. I am not going to take credit that we have done all of the analysis because this analysis started a while back, even when the Opposition were in power. There has been continuous work there. So, to make it sound like there has not been any work done I do not think is correct. So I made an amendment to that as well - or, sorry, we made an amendment to that.

I guess I will read into the record the amendments to the resolutions themselves. First:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the government to build upon its work to date by analyzing in detail, on an ongoing basis, the factors associated with moose-vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the government to complement this analysis with a detailed evaluation of the various technologies and other measures, such as fencing, lighting systems, increased brush cutting and increased hunting quotas, that may have been tested in other jurisdictions, and the prudence and feasibility of applying such measures in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon government to report its findings to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to ensure that these findings inform the government's decision-making.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the amendment that I would put forward.

Just to conclude, I would like to say that, again, our deepest sympathies go out to the people. We want to, certainly as a government, work with the Department of Transportation and Works and anybody really, to work towards reducing the number of accidents. Any accident we would like to see avoided and it is unfortunate when somebody's life is lost due to a moose but we certainly want to ensure that there is a balance so that humans and wildlife can co-operate. We have done a lot of work in this area. So I support the areas of the motion in terms of calling for further study but I did want to point out that a lot of work is being done and I have made recommendations here today I think that strengthens the motion and areas where we can build upon the further work that could be done.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I see my time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problem with some of the amendments the minister has put forward but I wanted to clarify for her that the number relating to the number of moose-vehicle collisions in the Province is what was listed on your Web site in the department. So if the number is wrong - I am sure there are other people out there in the Province who are reading this as well - then I think it should be corrected. I am not sure what number would be correct, the one that you publicized on your Web site or the one you stated in the House of Assembly today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation, to that point of order?

MS JOHNSON: To that point of order, yes, Mr. Speaker.

I will ensure that the information is updated on the Web site, because I did notice that there this morning myself. So thank you for that.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will take a short recess to review the amendment and ensure that it is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has reviewed the amendment that is put forward by the Minister of Environment and Conservation and finds the amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order, it may be after the fact and may be too late, but for the record in any case – and I could not make the point of order until you resumed the House obviously.

The House adjourned based upon an amendment put forward by the Minister of Environment and Conservation. The minister did not table, first of all, any copies to anyone of that amendment. It was put here - we only, in the Opposition, got a copy of this amendment because we asked for it, which is, number one, not acceptable and not appropriate; that is the first thing.

After we were given the amendment, twenty seconds later the bells in this House started to go - twenty seconds later. We did not have an opportunity to even read the two-page amendment that we have. I think that is absolutely unacceptable and inappropriate. As I say, I could not make the point of order until the House resumed to make the point of order, but I did indicate my disagreement to the Table Officers about the process and the time that was involved.

Now we have a situation where the House has resumed and Your Honour has made a ruling before we have even had an opportunity to read the amendment. So, you see what kind of predicament this procedure has placed the Opposition in. Before we even get into the merits of whether or not we feel that the amendment is or is not in order, that is just the process that unfolded here up to this point.

So it is inappropriate. Maybe the railroad is too strong, but it puts the Opposition – and we did not even get an opportunity, by the way, as I said, to say whether we think that is appropriate or not. On a very cursory reading of it, the opportunity that I have had to read it, since the bells have been going, it is my view that the amendment is not in order, and I would have made those comments if we had been allowed an opportunity.

The minister, by her own admission, in her statements in responding to this motion, admitted that there was information that she give to this House today that is different from what is on her own Web site. Then she turns around and puts forward an amendment that has the very same information in it. Now we are being asked to rely upon an amendment that she has put forward, information she has, which is contrary to what she has given the public notice of on her Web sites and we are supposed to accept it as an in order amendment.

So, before I get into why I think this is out of order and why it is not a proper amendment, I would like some kind of ruling on do we or do we not get an opportunity. Are we bound by what Your Honour just said, in terms of this being in order, before we have even had a chance to read it?

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, I have a couple of comments. One is that in our Standing Orders of motions for here in the House of Assembly, certainly, there is no Standing Order that indicates when the motion had to distributed, and I have reviewed that. Now if there is information there that I am not aware of, or I am reading incorrectly, or you can point out a Standing Order that addresses that particular concern, I will certainly take that matter and review it.

In the review of motions and the amendments to a motion, and then it goes into – that would be Standing Order 40 in our Standing Orders, and it is called the Exception with amendment, 41, and 42 addresses amendments as well, and there is nothing there to say about the distribution or how we do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, it was certainly addressed when the Minister of Environment spoke in her comments and explained in her comments regarding this motion as to what she felt was appropriate, and then certainly laid down the amendment as she thought, and as we thought was appropriate with the distribution. Also, as we felt, was in accordance with the standing rules of the House of Assembly.

In addition to that, there was also an allegation during the point of order that the information provided was inaccurate. In essence, Mr. Speaker, what was provided was the most up-to-date, accurate information, and just because the Web site for the department had not been updated does not mean that the minister did not provide the best possible information. That was for clarification of the motion rather than to substantially change the motion that was put forward.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes a motion can be put forward to modify the question to increase the acceptability. If we have a motion here that we are debating and if there is certainly some disagreement over whether the number on the Web site or the most up-to-date information from the department is in question, I think the intent here is to certainly increase the acceptability to present this motion so that we did not substantially change the motion by updating that information, but we certainly wanted to make sure it was more acceptable based on providing the most up-to-date information that we have.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I will not address any comments to the Government House Leader's comments about what the amendment does or does not do. I would like an opportunity to be able to read it to decide what we think it does. I am not accepting what the Government House Leader says this does is what it is. We have not even had a chance to read it yet.

With regard to what is or is not in the Standing Orders, when it is not in the Standing Orders – which are paramount in this House; we follow our Standing Orders - we refer to the parliamentary guides, and in our case in this House here, we have always used this book right here to decide – Marleau-Montpetit – what is the acceptable dealings and how you introduce amendments and so on.

Also, you resort to custom. It always, in the ten years that I have been here and we have dealt with private members' motions, without exception, if anybody proposes an amendment from either side, it is a courtesy and you always give it to someone on the other side to say here is the amendment we are going to propose. You allow a reasonable opportunity to read it, the Table Officers are aware of it. The information is exchanged so that we do not run into these circumstances where anybody is disadvantaged because of not following the procedure.

We have a private member's motion here today, and private members' motions are a very particular and important part of our process and democracy. We have a private member's motion here today based on what 26,000 people felt in a petition, and yet we take that – we have people in the galleries who have been impacted because of this. Yet, we end up here today in a wrangle over some legalities about how an amendment is entered and the Chair is put in a position to rule on it before the person who put it forward even had an opportunity to read it. That is patently unfair, that is unreasonable, and I ask the Chair again to please reconsider what has been said here and allow an opportunity. The process was not followed, courtesy was not given, and it ought to be. At least everybody can have their say, read what is there, and then make our arguments one way or another, but to try to derail this thing and have a proper full debate on it without allowing that opportunity is inappropriate.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in no way do we suggest that this debate should not be an informed debate. It is a very serious debate. As the Opposition House Leader indicated, it is based on concerns of thousands of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not the intention of this government, or of the member who just spoke for this government, in any way to limit debate. This is meant to provide a motion on a serious issue and to strengthen it, to have the amendments there to strengthen it, and, Mr. Speaker, we have absolutely no problem whatsoever if there is more time needed for the Opposition to review this so we can resume debate on this matter. We are not rushing this through. We are not saying that we do not want to give them any more time. What we are saying is that this is a serious debate and we are more than willing to be co-operative with the process here today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to the point of order.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just a comment.

With respect to the comments of the Opposition House Leader, distributing a copy of the amendment is one thing but having the Opposition, or any party, either side of the House having any input into whether or not the amendment is in order, I do not think that has ever been the custom of this House. It is the Table Officers and the Chair who make the decision whether or not an amendment is in order, and I do not think they take input from either side, whether it is our side or the other side, to determine whether an amendment is in order.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the comments of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I would certainly disagree with the comments that he made. We have had numerous cases in this House during private member's motions and other ordinary legislative amendments where something was put forward, the House broke, the parties read the information, if the parties felt disadvantaged or that it was inappropriate, or it is should not have been put forward, or it was not in order, we have had an opportunity to debate that.

We have had full, frank debates and discussions back and forth; then the Chair would rule. Then whatever the Chair said was binding upon the parties and not subject to appeal. That is always the process that I have operated under here. Today, it is not what we have. We were given a two-page amendment - the original amendment was only two pages. The original motion was two pages. We are given a two-page amendment and then the bells ring. That is not acceptable. That is not fair play and that is not letting people be informed and make informed decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: It is generally customary that an amendment would be shared in the House. I think the Government House Leader has addressed that and has given the opportunity to break to allow all parties to have input into - or to review the amendment. Having said that, the Chair has looked at the amendment, has discussed the amendment with House staff and has determined that the amendment be in order.

To the hon. Opposition House Leader's point that he did not have time to raise a point of order prior to the recess, there were two points of orders raised after the tabling of the amendment. There was ample time at that point to stand and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There was ample time at that point to raise a point of order to the fact that you had not received a copy. So the Chair takes exception to the fact that you were not given time to raise a point of order, that you were not provided the amendment prior to the recess.

In the meantime, I will ask direction from the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader as to the amount of time that we will allow a recess to review the amendment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have no actual time limit that we feel is necessary. The Opposition have the amendment. They have probably given it a cursory review at this time and we are certainly willing to co-operate with whatever time they feel is necessary for them to study that and to be able to respond appropriately here in the House.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would request that we have at least ten minutes. If we do not require all that time we will notify the Table Officers immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will now recess for ten minutes to allow the Opposition and the NDP time to review the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. The Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this private member's motion. I would, for the record, like to make it clear that I am not, and will not, and should not contest the ruling that the Chair made saying that this was in order, the amendment that was put forward by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, but I will make some comments as to what I do think of the amendment because it is all wrapped up in the same debate of course. We have the original motion that was made and we have the amendment put forward by the minister to change that original motion.

Now I read, obviously, the private member's motion that we started with here today. I have also taken part in discussions with people concerning the serious issue that we are dealing with - moose accidents on our highways and the tragedies and damages that it cost to all of the residents of this Province.

I thought the motion, in its original form, was very clear, very precise; it was factual. The information, in fact, that was put in here came right from the government's own Web site -

MS JONES: Every clause.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Every clause. In fact, the Whereas clauses came from the government Web site; factual information. The last three concluding clauses called for affirmative action, something to be done proactively, calling for some action to be taken. There were three of them.

It concluded by saying, first of all, let's do a comprehensive study - that was the first Be It Resolved. In other words, do so; proactive. Let's do a study to see what new technologies or mitigation factors there might be out there; techniques. That is pretty proactive.

The government did not say that. The Minister of Environment and Conservation did not say that in her amendment. She scrapped that, she scrapped that proactive thing and said: Let's build upon the work that is done to date. Nothing new, no more new studies, let us not do anything new, let us build upon the work we have done to date.

In the second clause she says, what was called for in the original motion, that review, that study that would be done would include a detailed analysis of what happened in other jurisdictions and to evaluate options such as fencing, lighting, brush cutting, et cetera. The government comes back and says we call upon government to complement with a detailed evaluation of the various technologies that have been tested in other jurisdictions. That one is almost on all fours with the second one, almost. They were not satisfied with the wording that was used; the wording was a little bit too positive for them. They had to put in some walk-through clauses, some cop-outs.

On the third part – this was the one that they definitely did not want any part of, folks. I say this to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador who has ever run into or could have run into a moose, and the people in the gallery. BE IT RESOLVED that the House call upon government to accept and implement whatever the conclusions and recommendations that came out of the review. What does the government say here? We will report our findings to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Whoop-de-do. Now if that is not taking what is a very serious, well-intentioned, original motion that was intended to be proactive and watering it down to the point where it is absolutely doing nothing, absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, cannot, in good conscience, stand in this House and vote in support of an amendment that says we move from doing something to doing nothing, absolutely nothing. I think this is an insult. I think this is an insult to the 26,000 people who signed the petition. I think it is an insult to anyone who has ever been involved with an accident involving moose.

We are calling upon government to do something. Study it, read it, then act. This government is saying we will look at what we have done so far and once we get our look done we will come and tell you what we have found. No commitment whatsoever to do anything, Mr. Speaker, and that is not acceptable. Because it is not acceptable and because I certainly could not bring myself, for principle, to vote for the amendment, I certainly will not be voting, because this amendment - let's not kid ourselves, folks, this might be very difficult to explain to people of Newfoundland and Labrador why the Opposition might end up voting against something that seems pretty good, but I will tell you, you have to read it very clearly what they have done here with their cagey language. I am not going to get caught in their cagey language. I am not getting conned by this cagey language. Because it does not do what was properly and rightfully called for, I will be voting against the amendment because this amendment, folks, what is now an amendment, this amendment will become the new motion. If I cannot vote for the amendment, I cannot vote for what will become the new motion. I think there is a very good reason for that.

We have a serious issue. It was properly, fairly, unbiased, and without partisanship, put forward in this House. Without partisanship, on behalf of 26,000-plus people in this Province, and what do we get? We get a government playing games with words. Games with words. Well I did not come here to play games with words. We have a serious issue and we need serious action.

So I just wanted to let the people of this Province, as difficult as it might be to try to explain, that is why this member, on this private member's resolution, would have voted yes, but I will certainly not vote yes to what has been put forward to the minister which waters down, waters down what was a well-intentioned, well explained proposition so that it means absolutely nothing. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, and I will have no part of it.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I am very pleased to be able to get up today and speak to the amended motion. It is a motion that creates a bit of emotion, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker. When we look at what we are trying to do here in this House today, is to address concerns that were brought to this government, to this House, to this Opposition, from over 20,000 people, some of whom are sitting in the gallery here today.

I am not on my feet to talk about semantics or whatever; I am on my feet today to try to make sure that this government is responding to that petition that was presented to us in good faith. In good faith, we have to respond, Mr. Speaker. I am not getting up and going down about this amendment or that amendment. We are here to try, both sides of the House, to come to some agreement to how we can deal with the carnage that is happening on our highways, God forbid, even as I speak. We know if it is 700 accidents, or 500 accidents, or 200 – one accident, Mr. Speaker, is more than I want to talk about any time I get on my feet here.

There is a reality here. The reality that we have to, when the people of this Province speak, we, as a government, respond. We have thought about what we are going to say today. The previous minister, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, got up today, and I thought, outlined where we are as a government with regard to this particular issue. She bridged where we are today back maybe a decade or more, because this is not an issue that happened just overnight; this has been happening throughout, I guess, the last number of decades, as long as we have had cars on the road and animals in the woods.

This is indeed something that we have to come to grips with. I feel very strongly that what the amendment that we put forth here today addresses that desire on the part of government to find ways in which we can address this particular problem.

With regard to the Whereases, they lead to action. The comprehensive study - and again, that seems to be what everyone is hung up on. Yet, I heard this morning on the radio, the chair I guess of that committee, indicate that the time for comprehensive studies is over and that action is required.

I heard the Minister of Environment and Conservation, get up and agree that it is action that is required. Action that began with the study of moose years gone by to where we are today. She clearly outlined, I believe it was six ways of recommendations that came out of a comprehensive study that was carried out. She also went further than that, Mr. Speaker, in case anyone was listening. She went further than that and said that we are not going to stop there. She went down through the responsibilities of her ministry and indicated that, yes, we are looking at this amendment. This amendment is meant to build on what has happened to date.

Further to that, we will look at and evaluate the measures that have been put forth, besides what we are talking about here today. She alluded to identifying hotspots, that probably are not even identified right now, and it is in these hotspots that many of us find what we call these nuisance moose that seem to gather in these places, seemingly waiting for their chance it seems, to walk out into the traffic and cause the damage that we see; the carnage, the deaths, and, of course, the destruction. Again, public awareness, driver education - I do not need to go back over these. The monitoring, the improved reporting, the identification of the hotspots, and if in case there are hotspots that are clearly identifiable that are not identified yet, the minister spoke and said that she will address it as necessary with increased quotas. Now that tells me that is a response, that is a change, that is a moving forward.

She also alluded to my responsibility as Minister of Transportation and Works, and I guess newly minted, but I can tell you, I commute at least 1,000 kilometres a week back and forth to my home. Sometimes more. I think a week or two ago, I travelled the Bonavista Peninsula one day, I travelled the Northern Peninsula another day, I was out in Stephenville yet another day, on the road, and the last place I was, was down on the Baie Verte Peninsula. Do you know something? Every place that I left, every event that I left, morning, noon or night, do you know the warning that I was given? Watch out for the moose.

When my children go out of the house, they are driving now, and when they go out of the house, I do not care if it is morning, noon, or night, do you know my last words to them is, after I say I love them? I say watch out for the moose. It is in our heads. We all know it, but there are children who have gone out of homes that I am sure they watched out for the moose but they never returned. As a matter of fact, one of my daughter's friends, just about a year ago, met that faith. We know how serious this is, and for someone to get up, or anyone to get up in this House today and try to politicize it, I think is wrong. I really do. I really do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: We are going to work, hopefully, with the Opposition –

AN HON. MEMBER: You are talking to a fellow who had a moose accident (inaudible) talking to?

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to you, I am on my feet today – I am not going there, I am not going there. You can say what you like, but I am not going there. I am saying, as I stand here, that we want to work with the Opposition. We want to work with the 26,000 – it is not only 26,000. If that petition had to get around the Province it would have been 500,000, I say, for those that could sign it. So, we know, and we do thank the people who are a part of that group, again, to keep the issue out in front of us, to give us, as Members of the House of Assembly, the opportunity to come in here and put a motion forward to deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: So, I say, Mr. Speaker, I can get emotional just as well as anybody. I guess this is not a place that I want to get emotional, because I can. I would say to all members here, there is not a member sitting here, or anyone in this gallery right now, who cannot list off maybe ten people who have been maimed or killed by moose. I have attended the funerals. So we know, but let's get down to the reality. As long as we have moose in this Province we are going to have this problem, there is no doubt about that. With 120 moose, plus or minus –

AN HON. MEMBER: 120,000.

MR. HEDDERSON: - 120,000, plus or minus, we know we are going to continue to have the problem. So we have to do everything that we possibly can. We have done the regular stuff. With me, in Transportation and Works, only there a few days, but this file is front and centre, because I know the importance of it. I have instructed my officials to work with the officials in Environment and Conservation to share all the information that they have so that I can incorporate it into the strategies that we are putting forward.

With regard to brush cutting and the effectiveness of brush cutting; we look at it. We hope there is better visibility. We hope, now that we are ordering in, as a department, four mechanical brush cutters to be able to respond to perhaps the hotspots that are going to be identified or those that exist, but every part of our road system, hopefully, with this ability.

I do need to have some sort of a strategy, and that is why, again – and I put an open invitation out to Mr. Nippard and his committee this morning. I was on the radio talking about this, but I will make it publicly here. I have asked my officials to write a letter to Mr. Nippard and the committee, to come in and to sit down with me and my officials and to talk about strategizing with regard to brush cutting. Looking at what about the signage; we have increased the signage out there. Is it enough, is it where it should be, is it what it should be? We are going to build on that.

Also, what I like about this particular motion – and we are asking the same thing as the Opposition, because we know there are other jurisdictions that are using other methods than what we are using. The big one is the fencing. With any initiative, there are pros and cons to it. The New Brunswick, geared mostly to deer, basically putting off sections of the highway. The RCMP are reporting less motor vehicle accidents. That sounds good, but at the end of the fence evidently, it is rising. That might tell us something.

We need to not just take someone's word for it or whatever, we need to make sure, as the minister has assured us, that the investigation will be done to get us all the – the comparative analysis would be done to get me the information that I need to see if indeed that is a possibility for here in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are technologies out there, motion detectors, lighting and so on. We have included that in here. So I have an obligation, as Transportation and Works Minister, to look at this, report back - and it does not say to the House. We report back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I do not know if anyone in this House would disagree with at least making sure that we keep in contact with the people that have put this request before us.

So, as I say, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared, as a government, to build on what we have, and that is a key word. You do not have to reinvent a wheel. If it is working in other jurisdiction and it will work here in this Province, we will make sure that we invest to ensure that it is here as well, but it has to work. We do not want to go putting strategies in place that are going to give our people a false sense of security and make the situation worse. I have to ensure that if I am making a decision that I am making an informed decision, an informed decision that will make a difference and that will stop, and I say stop, bring down - I do not know if it will ever, ever eliminate, but we have to bring down the rate of accidents. We have to make sure that, as in a number of years, we have that big, fat zero with regard fatalities. That is what I am about. That is what my government is about and I assume that is what the members on the opposite side are about.

It is my understanding, as I was part of putting that amendment forward, I thought that it was a way for all of us to work together with the public, with the committee, with these people who have spent a lot of time lobbying, a lot of time making sure that they were doing the investigations that they required to find out what was going on elsewhere. We need to get it all together. We need to get it all together and move forward. This is too serious an issue to get into petty politics, and I want no part of it.

I will make a commitment here, as Minister of Transportation and Works, that I will work with the Opposition, that I will work with the general public, and I will work with the committee, I will work with the devil himself if it brings about change that can make our highways, our byways in Newfoundland and Labrador safer for everybody.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to this – well, I guess it is to the amendment of the private member's resolution that was brought into the House today.

I guess I was surprised with the amendment that was brought forward, I have to say, because when I read the resolution, it looked like a very good resolution to me. So to see the whole resolution basically amended - basically a new resolution written, because that is what we have, the amendment, I think, is a new resolution – was disturbing for me. I do not think it was necessary and I think that is what has started the partisan politics, actually.

To me, it is an example of why trying to deal with issues on the floor of the House in this format is not the way to go. Yes, there are issues that we can ask questions, we can try to get clarification, we have to get answers from ministers on issues, and being in the House that is the role, but when we deal with issues as important as the one that we have in front of us today, and it has to be dealt with in this confrontational manner which the House sets up, then we see the problem that we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador. This kind of thing should be discussed on a committee level, an all-party committee level, where we discuss and we get at why we may not all agree with what each other is saying and we try to come to an agreement. This is not a format for coming to an agreement; that is a real problem for me. If we had all-party committees, like an all-party committee on this issue, then we could, all together, call in people from other jurisdictions or do the literature searches, look at what is there, and try to make sure that we, all together, can come to an agreement on which way to go.

We do not have that here in this Province, and we have never had it. We have not had it in our history, not as part of our structure and it is something that the people do not even have an expectation about because they do not know how it works in other jurisdictions where we have all-party committees. Other provinces have them where they sit together on a regular basis, take various issues, important issues for the people in their province, and work together as parties together.

The NAFO resolution, which was brought up earlier today, that is an example on the federal level where the all-party committee – now, granted, it is with a minority government, but that all-party committee passed the decision to reject the changes that are being recommended to NAFO. An all-party committee made that decision.

So, in the context of committees, we can work together and you can come to some decisions, but the way things happened here today, that is not the way to try to work together. So I am very disappointed. After today, something has to happen – does not matter what happens to the vote on the amendment and on the resolution, because the moose are still out there, accidents are still happening, and people have an expectation that something is going to be done. So, no matter what happens here today, I hope that the people who are sitting here in the gallery and the people who are watching and the people who are going to watch the news after today are going to have a sense of commitment that something is going to be done for them, because that is what the resolution is all about.

Having said that, I had some things that I wanted to say to the resolution and I want to put them out - and I do have time to do it. In the research that needs to be done - and I do not know how widely either the Official Opposition or the departments have gone in looking at various jurisdictions. If what I am going to talk about now is something that you know, well forgive me, because maybe a lot of people do not know, but one of the jurisdictions that I think has done quite a bit of work is – not in Canada at all, it is in Sweden, where they have actually a major moose population in Sweden. I do not know, as I said, if the departments have looked at the work that has been done in Sweden; it is quite intense.

What is important, I think, about the Swedish study is that it does not look at just one way of taking care of the issue. If you will pardon the expression, because some people do not like it, it is quite holistic. It looks at quite a number of angles and how they all fit together. I think that that is the way that we have to go.

I read the petition that was brought to the House, and the petition does not name just one thing, either, I noticed. I think there are more things that can go in besides what is in that petition. I think we have a lot to learn from Sweden.

One of the things, before I talk a lot about the Swedish model, one of the things that is very significant about the study in Sweden is that they have found out that after years of putting all their different things in place to try to affect the moose-vehicle accidents, bring the numbers down, that education and public awareness does not work that well. So you have to find other ways to get to people.

When I read that I thought that is really true because there has been a lot of public awareness with regard to driving too fast in areas where moose are very prevalent. That is what the signs are all about on the highway. The sign is a warning: In this area, more than anywhere else, you are going to find moose. While it does not officially make us slow down, the sign reminds us. The idea is we are supposed to be aware, and slowing down is part of it.

Well, I am not like my colleague who lives outside of St. John's and travels the road everyday, but I travelled the highway a lot in October and November. In November in particular, because of going back and forth to Terra Nova district. I had to drive through the park quite a bit. What I found very interesting - and every time I drive through the park I find this. In the summer you do not sort of notice it, because there are so many vehicles everybody has to slow down, but at this time of year that is not the case. What I noticed in the park where the speed limit is lower anyway because it is a national park, it is ninety kilometres instead of 100. I actually drive the speed limit, and I had everything from huge trucks coming right up to the back of my car trying to force me to go faster, plus everything else on the road; people passing me at what I am sure was 120 and 130 kilometres.

We all know that there are a number of places in Terra Nova Park where moose are an issue. That is one of the places where they are. I wondered, every time it happened: How much education can you do? How much public awareness can you do, because, obviously, it does not work. So, knowing that - and Sweden has discovered that after years of having a whole lot of things in place. So, knowing that, we obviously have to find ways to see: well, how many things do have to be put in place if we are really going to cut down on the number of moose-vehicle accidents, and especially fatalities? How much is going to have to be put in place?

What Sweden found is that quite a bit has to be put in place. They put in place three models. Now I think we do some of this in our Province but I think what they did was put a number of factors together and evaluated, based on all of those factors. The models indicated traffic volume, vehicle speed - I am sorry. What the models indicated is that traffic volume, vehicle speed and the occurrence of fences were the dominant factors determining the motor vehicle risks, identifying 72.7 per cent of all accident sites. In other words, wherever there were accidents, traffic volume was a factor, vehicle speed was a factor, and whether or not there was a fence there were factors; that these three together were the major pieces. That may explain, especially the traffic volume and vehicle speed.

I had somebody up on the Northern Peninsula in the St. Anthony area say to me when I was there in October: I do not understand you crowd down on the Avalon Peninsula having all those accidents and fatalities with moose. We do not have them up here. Why don't we have them? Well, I think part of the thing is traffic volume and vehicle speed. You cannot go as fast on the roads because of the type of roads and they certainly do not have the volume that we have on the Avalon Peninsula. So, that really made sense to me when I read it. Other factors include the amount of and distance to forest cover. Well, I think that is something we talk about and that is something we recognize. That is what the brush cutting has been about, although we do not have enough brush cutting going on.

There are places, for example, up on the Northern Peninsula where brush cutting was happening in October but only because of the money that was given to help the plant workers get some work so they could get their EI. The money would not have been there. The brush cutting was necessary and you could see how effective the brush cutting would be. It was good brush cutting but it was not a normal part of the plan. It was because money was put in so the workers could get their hours. Well we need brush cutting happening all the time wherever moose are prevalent. So the amount of and distance to forest cover; density of intersections between forest edges, I think we can all see that; private roads, probably not as much of a factor for us; and density of moose abundance. We can throw in a whole lot of other things, the time of day, the time of the year. All of those are factors.

So there are many things that have to be looked at, and it has to be a holistic approach. We cannot cherry-pick. That is why I am very disappointed with the third part of the resolution, the amendment that has been put on the table, because I think if we had a group put together that really knew its business and went and looked at all the jurisdictions where this issue is being dealt with and did their homework, that they would put together recommendations where everything fit together. Therefore, the department and the government should be ready to take those recommendations and put all of them in place, because you cannot cherry-pick recommendations.

One of the problems when you do a report is the people doing the report very often do have that perspective, that they see everything that they are saying in the report and all the recommendations that they are putting in place in the report, they all fit together. One of the real hardships of being a person on that side of writing the report is: Are they going to see that they all fit together or are they going to cherry-pick? That is a real problem. I know, I went through that when I was on the Voisey's Bay Environmental Assessment Panel. We, as a panel, said specifically that we recommended the mine go ahead if every single thing that we said was put in place and every single thing was not put in place because it was cherry-picked.

So that was our vision. That was our understanding, and I think it is really important when a committee or a commission or whatever is put in place, that those receiving the report from that body or that individual understand that unless the committee goes completely wacko, that they know what they are doing when they make the recommendation, that all the recommendations fit together.

So that is why I am disappointed in the amendment that has been brought to the floor. It is not enough to say, oh, whatever this committee does will inform our decision. Is if we really put together a group that really knows what they are doing, then we should be ready to take their recommendation, as I said, unless they go completely off board, and that would be a different story. I do not like the idea of not believing that when you put something together, the recommendations are then going to be worth following.

So, for that reason, I do not like the amendment. I am disappointed in the amendment. I am sorry that we could not have come to an agreement here, but I also think, like I said, that this is an example, to me, of why we need all party committees in this House, so that we can learn to sit down together in a non-confrontational way so that we can work out issues. I think the Management Commission is working at doing that. We even have - some of you may have noticed. You probably do not watch us when we are doing the work here, when we are on television, but we have started sitting here in the middle of the floor, around the table, because it was too confrontational. Well, it was not so much confrontational in that setting, but we could not talk to one another. We had to reach out to see each one another and it was really affecting who we were. Now that we have had a couple of sessions sitting around the table, we are more natural together and we are talking and working things out.

There is a place for this setting - Question Period, obviously, is one. There is a place for this setting, but not for our developing of policy and not dealing with issues as important as the one that we are dealing with today. So this is the setting we have and this is where we have come to today. What I would like to remind us all of is, no matter how the voting goes here this afternoon, the issue remains, and both ministers obviously are going to be held accountable for everything they have said here in the House, not just by us but by the public.

I would also like to remind the government that when a report is brought to the House of Assembly and you are accountable to the House of Assembly, you are accountable to the whole Province, you are accountable to the people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: If I just may have leave to one more sentence, please?

MR. SPEAKER: It being Private Members' Day and the clock being at 4:45 p.m., I ask –

MS MICHAEL: Oh, 4:45 p.m.

MS BURKE: (Inaudible) time to clue up.

MS MICHAEL: That is fine.

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

MS BURKE: Yes, she does.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, by leave.

MS MICHAEL: Just one more sentence, thank you.

The one point I wanted to make was that when we bring something to the House, we are not just bringing it to politicians; we are bringing it to the elected body. We sit here representing the public, but the public are watching us. It is to the public that we are reporting when something is brought to the House.

I say that to just refute a bit what the Minister of – what are you now, Minister? – Transportation and Works said when he spoke.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to thank all of those in the House of Assembly today who contributed in the debate on this very important motion on behalf of thousands of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat saddened as I speak in this closing session of the debate on this motion, simply because our hope had been, in bringing this forward to the House of Assembly, to our colleagues here, that they would certainly see the importance of action on this particular issue. Action on behalf of the many thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians whose lives have been affected by accidents with moose on our highway. The many families who continue to suffer today because of the loss that they themselves have occurred, the human loss.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that a motion that was very non-partisan, very much asking the government in a very gentle fashion to take this issue seriously and to take action on it, has turned out to be one of complete inaction on government's part.

It is unfortunate today that the minister could bring forward an amendment asking this House to endorse her government in doing nothing whatsoever to address this important issue on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. For that, Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed.

What these individuals are asking is not rocket science. It is actually methods and mitigation techniques that have been implemented in other provinces and jurisdictions. It is, in fact, Mr. Speaker, options that have been done and measured in other provinces and have been measured to be effective in counteracting the number of moose accidents on their highways. Why this government would not be prepared, not be prepared to implement those same types of recommendations in this Province, is beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, the only real action asked for in the motion that I proposed today was the action of government to, upon reviewing these particular techniques, would follow the recommendations that they would be given. That is the one thing that they took out of this motion. They took out the only piece that asked them to do something on behalf of all of these people. Instead of moving forward with the recommendations of what would be a very non-biased, non-partisan consultant or company or whatever the case may be, and move forward to implement the recommendations that would come forward from that process, the minister and her government has decided to take that out of the motion altogether and to say that we would present the findings to the public.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if they are true to their word, they would do that anyway, because they are the same government who say they will release all of their public documents within thirty days. So how is that any different from the hallmark of the government that already exists in the release of information?

So, Mr. Speaker, the motion, amended today, is basically saying support us, support our amendments, and we will do nothing. Well, that is unacceptable and it is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, what these individuals in the Province have asked for is very simple. First, they have asked for the government to give them some consideration. Not one minister has sat down to meet with this group in the eight or ten months that they have been there. They have consistently asked for meetings with at least three different ministers in three different departments on that side of the House, and the concerns of 26,000 people were not important enough for one of those ministers to take their time to meet with them. Maybe that is the reason, today, you come in here and you think that doing nothing is acceptable. Well, it is not acceptable.

The other thing they have asked for, they have asked that you look at increasing the moose hunting quotas. They never got to have a discussion with you around it. They asked that you increase brush cutting activities and you target it in specific areas, and you have a plan to maintain those areas, and that you cut it a certain distance from the sides of the road. No one would every have that discussion with them.

They asked that there be introduction of wildlife fencing on certain areas of are highway, especially where there are national and provincial parks. Something, in fact, that has been done in other provinces, as I said earlier, and upon evaluation, was determined to be effective. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look at some of the areas where this has been done, they will tell you immediately, from the evaluations, that there have been results, there have been reductions in the number of accidents in those particular sites.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, on the fencing, in British Columbia, I think it was – no, in Banff, which I referenced earlier today. As a result of just twenty-six kilometres of fencing there has been a 96 per cent reduction in road related mortalities in that particular areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, they do not have to look too far to find out what this committee wants. It would be nice if they would meet with them. Mr. Speaker, what they are asking for has been done in other areas. They are asking for a twenty-four hour phone line where citizens can call in moose sightings and get up-to-date information on the numbers of moose accidents that have occurred on our highways or where moose might be. They have asked, Mr. Speaker, that nuisance moose be removed from the highway, that there be a number that you can call. If you happen to spot a moose on the highway, whether it is out here on the bypass, whether it is crossing on the Trans-Canada, you can at least call and say there is a moose on the highway and can it be removed. No rocket scientist, Mr. Speaker.

Where I live, you call in when there are black bears on the highway. I see wildlife officials come in at least three and four times again last summer with cages and put them out on the side of the road, take the black bears right out of the area, and fly them in, and drop them in the country. I have seen them do it with polar bears. These people are asking that there be a number to call if there is a moose.

I heard this one lady on the radio, yesterday morning I think it was, talking about the tragic death of her husband on a highway in an area where a moose had been spotted for two days. She is questioning if that moose had been removed, if there had been a number to call, and someone had come and removed that moose from the highway, would her husband be alive today? A question I cannot answer for her, a question I am sure none of you can answer for her, but it is certainly a very valid question.

These are the kinds of things that these individuals in our Province – citizens out there that are concerned – are asking you to do. If you are not going to have enough respect for these people that over eight months not make the time to even sit down and meet with them, the very least that you could do when their motion comes to the floor of this House of Assembly is to respect it enough to take their concerns seriously and to take action on it. I am frankly very disappointed that you do not see the merits of doing that.

Mr. Speaker, what these individuals are asking for, is not asking for anything that has not been done in other jurisdictions of the country. They are not asking government to implement something that is foreign. They are asking them to take safeguards and measures that have been effective in other provinces across Canada, and they have been effective in provinces that have much smaller populations of moose than we have.

Whether we can reduce the number of accidents on our highway by one, by 100, by 200, we will have made a difference. Everyday we wish that there is a way that we could find a cure for something to save more lives in our Province that we have not yet been able to do. Well, this is one thing that we can do to save lives in this Province. One thing we can do is to take more action and that action starts with listening to the people who have knowledge, who have experience, who have concerns and have experiences that they want to share with you.

Mr. Speaker, we will not support the amendment that has been put forward by the government today because it is an amendment that says we will do nothing on behalf of the people of the Province. You can colour coat it however you like. That is exactly what it says. It would have been just as easy today if you were to come in here with a motion that would have at least said that we will endorse the recommendations of an independent review, that will recommend certain options. Whether those recommendations would be implemented over six months or six years, it would have been action being taken on behalf of the government to a very legitimate concern being expressed by people, but you have chosen not to do that.

We will continue to bring this particular issue back to the floor of the House of Assembly, and we will continue to act on the lobby that is out there on behalf of the people of this Province until there is more action by the government. I do not think it is good enough to say we are doing a public relations campaign or that we have increased the amount of money that we spend in our brush cutting budget. I do not know where that money is being spent. I know where it is being spent in my district where there are no moose, but I do not know where it is being actually spent in the Province, that it is being targeted to reducing accidents on our highways by moose.

There needs to be more of a concerted effort on behalf of government to utilize the resources that you have and that you are putting out there now to bring this population down, the number of accidents down, and there also needs to be more of an effort to implement new techniques. Some of them are very simple and very easy to do and they are very cost-effective to government. It is absolutely beyond me why you are not prepared to do it.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people who asked us to bring representation to this issue, we will continue to lobby and we will continue to question government in terms of what their actions will be because we feel that every life is worth saving. Every single accident that can be prevented needs to be prevented. We feel that government has a responsibility to act accordingly to ensure that those things happen. Unfortunately, we will have to vote against an amendment that asks the government to do nothing and therefore we will have to vote against the motion.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, in reflection that many members in this House of Assembly will realize that their actions today are doing nothing to help the many people and many families out there who are actually suffering because of accidents with moose on our highways.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the resolution, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution, as amended, is carried.

On motion, resolution, as amended, carried.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day and the business of the House being concluded, this House does now stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m. of the clock tomorrow, being Thursday.