May 8, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 22

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

There are a number of outstanding matters before the Chair on which the Chair

has not given a ruling, a decision or made a comment, so before we begin our

Routine Proceedings today I would like to deal with two of these outstanding

matters.

On May 3, the hon. the Minister of Education rose on a point of privilege

alleging that a press release issued by the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne

had misrepresented her department's policies on the position of primary school

language arts. As I have ruled on a previous occasion, the authority is clear

that these circumstances do not fulfill the requirements of a breech of

privilege. I quote for members Beauchesne's 6 th Edition,

which states: "31.

(3) Statements made outside the House by a Member may

not be used as the basis for a question of privilege." I would therefore

rule that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established by the

minister.

On December 14, 2000, the hon. the Government House Leader rose on a point of

order concerning a display of books by the Member for St. John's West during

oral Question Period. It has been ruled on a number of occasions in this House

that it is not permitted to display exhibits. The definition of exhibit, in

parliamentary terms, is fairly broad. While it is obvious that such things as

fish, vegetation, bottles of salad dressing, crepe paper draped over desks, and

competing flag designs are exhibits, Speakers have also ruled out of order the

use of documents to illustrate remarks. In this case, it is the opinion of the

Chair that the use of the textbook by the Member for St. John's West would

fall within the prohibition against props and displays and the Chair so rules. I

might add that displays of tabled documents such as the Auditor General's

Report certainly would not fall under this prohibition.

Statements by Members

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Bonavista South.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Citizens Crime Prevention Association and the Newfoundland Liquor

Corporation recently joined with Province's police forces in the Anti-Drinking

and Driving Contest.

Seven thousand Grade 4 students took

part in the contest by drawing on

Newfoundland Liquor Corporation bags. The theme of the contest was: Drinking and

Driving is Everyone's Concern.

The zone winners were: Jessica Blake of Happy Valley, Goose Bay; Colin Brett

of Corner Brook; Katie Pynn of Springdale; Amanda Ryder of Bonavista; Samantha

Roberts of Mount Pearl.

Amanda Ryder of Matthew Elementary School, in Bonavista, was selected as the

provincial winner. Amanda is aged ten, a Grade 4 student. She is the daughter of

Calvin and Joyce Ryder of Elliston, Trinity Bay. For winning the contest Amanda

was awarded $500 for herself and another $800 for Matthew Elementary. Amanda's

teacher is Peggy Duffett.

I congratulate all participants in this awareness campaign, especially the

provincial winner, a constituent of mine, Amanda Ryder.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

congratulate a youth in my district who will be heading to British Columbia and

Indonesia as part of the Canada World Youth Exchange program.

Jaymee Miller, daughter of Ron and Sheila Miller of Marystown, is one of the

forty-five Canadian youth involved in the exchange program. She will spend

three-and-a-half months in British Columbia and will be involved in a community

based work placement. After that period, she will go to Indonesia and will live

with a local family and be directly involved in community work in that area.

The Canada Youth Exchange program strengthens awareness of local and global

issues and gets the youth directly involved with issues that affect the country

they are visiting.

I congratulate Jaymee on this accomplishment and I sincerely hope that her

experience in Indonesia will open new avenues to her in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador remains committed to clean

harbours for our Province.

The Province and the municipalities of St. John's, Mount Pearl and Paradise

have worked together and committed to the principle of cost sharing on the

project to clean up St. John's harbour. However, because of the size of the

project we need a third funding partner, the federal government.

In November, 2000, a joint letter was sent to the Federal Industry,

Environment, and Infrastructure Ministers to seek their support to bring the

federal government on side as a one-third funding partner in this venture.

For the past several years, our government has been very supportive of the

efforts of the Joint Mayors Committee and the St. John's Harbour ACAP Inc. We

have maintained an open and supportive dialogue with both groups, and have

partnered wherever possible to advance this important project. Since 1997, $10

million has been spent toward the first phase of the St. John's Harbour

cleanup. The Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has provided $4.5

million in this initial phase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, we are now demanding that the federal

government put up their one-third of the cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: It is unconscionable that the federal government has not

addressed this problem. They have the resources and they know full well that we

cannot take money from the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure program to clean

up St. John's Harbour. If we did do that, it would take every cent from the

program for the next four years. We cannot and will not do that. We need a

program in addition to the CNIP to address this urgent need.

The federal government has not executed their responsibility up until now. We

are asking them to address this problem immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, the problem is larger than St. John's. There

are other municipalities in this Province that have unhealthy harbours, such as

the City of Corner Brook, and they will require equal consideration. It is

therefore very important that municipalities join together to encourage the

federal government to establish a national program for clean harbours.

I have been advised that our Premier has discussed the issue with Premier

Lord of New Brunswick, as they are in a similar situation with the harbour in

St. John. We will support municipalities from this Province in a concerted

effort with municipalities throughout the country to demand the federal

government establish a national program for the cleanup of harbours.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador remains committed to the goal of

clean harbours for the municipalities of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the minister: Welcome on board to (inaudible). Welcome aboard!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: In fact, our caucus and our party from day one has said it,

and I agree: the government has given their commitment, and I congratulate the

government on giving their commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: But, the commitment of the federal government is what is at

stake here, I say, Mr. Speaker. Our federal Minister of Industry was down here

yesterday, and he stood on the waterfront in the last election campaign and said

it would be a priority of the federal government. Two PC members from St. John's

- East and West - have (inaudible) it to be a low priority.

It is the people of St. John's, Mount Pearl, Paradise and surrounding areas

that benefit. All of the tourists who come here, people from all over the world,

benefit by a cleaned up St. John's Harbour. I think it is reprehensible that

the federal government would treat it in a manner they would during an election

campaign, and come back now, turn their back and not even participate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I say to the minister, I welcome your statement by

going after the federal government. We could have gone after them before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We should have kept their feet to the fire on this issue,

right back from day one. Let's all get together and put pressure on the

federal government.

We had an opportunity yesterday when the minister was here to take him to

task publicly here in the House, not when he went back to Ottawa again, went

back home again. We will accept it any time. It is late, it is very late, but

now I ask the minister to ensure that it becomes a priority of expenditure for

the federal government. They are now sitting on a tremendous surplus, I might

add.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: It should be used for the benefit of all people in this

country, not only here in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What a bunch of phonies across the way, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Yesterday, the Premier said he wanted to have a separate fund

for the St. John's Harbour. Today, the Minister of Municipal Affairs says he

wants to have a national program all across Newfoundland and Labrador, all

across the country and New Brunswick.

All they are doing is providing excuses for their former leader to walk away

from the problem. All they are doing is making it easier for Mr. Tobin to weasel

out of his promise and say: Oh, we need a national program. The Newfoundland

Government does not know what it wants. We will have to wait until we get

everybody on side all across the country before we can do anything. That is what

Mr. Tobin is saying, and this statement gives him the support to do it because

this government does not know what it wants and really has no commitment to the

St. John's Harbour cleanup.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we proceed, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the

House of Assembly today, His Worship, Mayor David Luther of Corner Brook, who is

sitting in the Speaker's gallery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As hon. members will recall, yesterday the Premier announced that a committee

of ministers would examine potential concerns surrounding our Province's

drinking water. As chair of that committee, I rise today to table information

relevant to Newfoundland and Labrador's drinking water supplies.

The Department of Environment monitors approximately thirty chemical and

physical parameters, including trihalomethanes (THMs), in our public water

supplies. Communities are notified of the test results and the data is regularly

updated on the government's Web site. This data is publicly available, and

today I am tabling the most recent results of the chemical and physical

monitoring.

In addition to the chemical and physical monitoring done by my department,

routine bacteriological testing is conducted by the Department of Government

Services and Lands. While the test results are currently not in a format which

can be tabled in this House, I have asked officials to prepare the data for

public release. However, today I am tabling a list of the boil water advisories

currently in effect in the Province, including the date and reason why each

advisory was issued.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to update the hon. members and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador on some of government's other initiatives with

respect to drinking water safety. Last year, my department hired a drinking

water quality engineer to work solely with municipalities on Trihalomethanes,

commonly known as THMs, and other drinking water quality issues. To date, he has

met with over thirty-five communities to provide information, analysis, advice

and training relevant to each community, and he is continuing to meet with as

many communities as possible.

In addition, my department is working with the Departments of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, Health and Community Services, and Government Services and

Lands to develop a complete safe drinking water plan for the Province. In the

coming months, we will be addressing the sampling, training and infrastructure

needs of this initiative.

Mr. Speaker, government is committed to ensuring that the residents of our

Province have continued access to safe drinking water. As Minister of

Environment, it is my top priority to take whatever action is necessary to

ensure that the drinking water in Newfoundland and Labrador remains clean and

safe.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I guess, in keeping with the Premier's promise to have free flow of

information to the people of the Province, the minister is releasing information

that is available on the Web site.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that he has an official who has met with

thirty-five communities to provide training, information and analysis. At that

rate, I guess it will be ten to fifteen years before he gets through to every

community in the Province. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. It is simply

not good enough.

The minister is saying now that they are going to come up with a plan, they

are going to develop a complete safe drinking water plan in this Province. We

have been told by government for the past two to three years that they have had

a plan for safe, clean, quality drinking water. So, if they have a plan, what

are they developing one for now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker? They have no plan. They

have no enforceable standards. That is what he should be working on, putting in

place enforceable standards on the quality of our drinking water in this

Province, because the people of this Province need to be assured that their

water is safe to drink.

Over the past three years, you have been saying that. It is time to deliver.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's statement, itself, demonstrates how clearly inadequate this

department's program is. To suggest that they are now going to develop a

complete safe drinking water plan for the Province is an admission that they don't

have one to date. In addition, Mr. Speaker, to say that in the year since they

have hired somebody to deal with this issue they have only been able to consult

with thirty-five communities - with in excess of 200 boil water orders in the

Province, at that rate it will be six years before they get around to it.

Obviously, their program is inadequate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and their timing leaves something totally to be desired

about this most important issue.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the underlying fact, in both Walkerton and

North Battleford, that stands out is that while staff had some training to deal

with the control of pathogens in the water, it was only minimal.

Minister, in a Province that has almost half of the boil orders in all of

Canada, why is it that we do not demand that the operators of our water supplies

have the training and background to deal with and treat pathogens such as

parasites and bacteria in our water? Shouldn't we be training the operators of

our water supply systems, Mr. Minister, to guard against public health and

safety risks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If my memory serves me correct, and I know that it does, I outlined yesterday

in the House that we, as a department, are - not only my department, but the

Department of Government Services and Lands, Health and Community Services, the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Department of

Environment, have been working for some time with municipalities in the Province

with the quality water issue. As I said yesterday, it was only in March that my

department held a conference in Gander that was attended by well over 350 people

from municipalities around the Province. We have met with the Federation of

Municipalities and they, themselves - there was a great willingness to be

involved, because all of us in this Province and in this House know how

important quality water is to people. I understand where the member of the

Opposition is coming from but I also have to point out that on March 21, when I

stood in this House and read a statement about the importance of World Water Day

which was on March 22, every single member over there laughed their heads off,

Mr. Speaker. Every single one of them laughed their heads off.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: So, we cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. We have

to be serious. Water issue is a very serious issue. It is very vital to life and

human life in this Province and we take this issue very seriously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

If my memory serves me correctly, and I know it does, you just read a

statement saying we provided training to thirty-five communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this Province has no enforceable water

quality standards. In fact, our guidelines are substandard in this Province.

Minister, are you prepared to bring legislation in to set enforceable water

quality standards in this Province? If so, when are you going to do it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for some time we, in this Province, have been following the

Canadian drinking water standard guidelines which is in and used right across

this country. If my memory serves me correctly, I do not think there is anybody

in the country who has legislated water quality in that sense. Now, the hon.

member wants us to go out and point the finger at municipalities and say: Here

is what you have to do. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we went and did that he would be

up in arms saying: you are dictating to the municipalities.

What we are doing is we are out there working diligently. We are out there

working diligently with municipalities around the Province to ensure that the

water is safe. We are putting money this year, into quality water, into

chlorination and the engineers are out there checking to make sure that the

filtration systems are in order and that kind of thing. We have already worked

with Marystown, Clarenville, Terra Nova; and these kinds of situations which

exist have been corrected and adjusted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, there are areas in this Province, such as

Peters River in the Premier's district, where agriculture sites are very near

water supplies, and there are areas in this Province where there are

incinerators fuming out dioxans, furans, and other such chemicals into our water

supplies.

Why is it that this Province does not test for pathogens such as the parasite

that is evident in Saskatchewan, and cancer causing agents such as dioxans and

furans?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

To my knowledge, this particular parasite that was discovered in Saskatchewan

was never tested for before. What the member has to keep in mind, and everybody

else has to keep in mind, is that this particular parasite is not only

transmittable by water. This parasite lives in every warm-blooded animal, and it

can be transferred by human contact. We have to keep in mind that across this

country people do not test for every conceivable parasite or bug that might

exist. What they do, when there is an ailment of a number of people - say

fifteen or twenty people - affected by a particular ailment, in this it was case

was diarrhea, then the Department of Health will look into it and do the test to

determine if there is a cause from the water supply system. If you have one,

single, isolated case -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: - it is not an epidemic, it is not an outbreak, it is

an isolated case that can be transferred by human contact.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister again: Why is it you

are not testing for dioxans and furans in our water supplies in this Province?

This is a very serious issue, I say to you, minister. Why is it you are not

testing for these items in our water supplies?

Minister, your department has a report on the quality of the Province's

water supply; a report denied under the Freedom of Information Act on a number

of occasions; a report that obviously holds information vital to the people of

this Province. When are you going to release that report so that the people of

this Province have the information that they have a right to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just stood in the House and tabled the most recent results from the testing

that my department has done and other reports that are not published on the Web

site, which are the boil orders. These are here now for public view of why these

boil orders have to be put in place, so on and so forth. What I find unusual is

that - this is 2001 and we have now tabled in the House the most recent results

of the water testing in this Province and the member opposite wants to go back

five years and see what was going on five years ago, which has very little

relevance to what is happening today.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister this question - and

if he can give this House and the people of this Province today, an unqualified

guarantee that their drinking water is safe and they have nothing to worry

about, then I will not bother you about the quality and safety of our drinking

water again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I am

concerned about the drinking water quality in this Province. I will do my

diligence in trying to ensure, to the best of my ability and official of my

department, and will certainly keep as close an eye as humanly possible on this

particular issue, which is a very vital, important issue in the Province. What I

cannot do is give an unequivocal guarantee that everything is absolutely

perfect. I do not know of anybody in this world that could give that kind of a

guarantee. I am going to try my utmost to ensure that it is safe. We have said

that. With the policies, procedures and the testing that we have in place, we

say that the water is safe; but I cannot say absolutely certain because I have

no control over all the things and the possibilities that may happen in this

world. I have no control over it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Following up questions by my colleague, yesterday the Minister of the

Environment said there were no known cases of cryptosporidium reported in the

Province, yet the Canada Communicable Disease Report, volume 22, number 7,

clearly indicates that there was at least one known case reported. Why did the

minister not share this information? Maybe he could apprize the House as to the

circumstances surrounding that particular report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The answer is, yesterday I did not know. If I had known yesterday, I would

have shared the information with you.

What we were dealing with yesterday was this particular parasite in water.

The case that the hon. member raises today has to do with an individual who was

caring for a baby calf, who was in contact with the calf, and consequently

picked up this parasite. It has been investigated. It has absolutely nothing to

do with our water supply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Minister, water quality reports, as my colleague has said, are not just

any reports. We have asked in this House since 1996 to have the reports tabled

on a timely basis, to have that report tabled which your government has been

hiding for the last five years. When, we ask on this side of the House, are you

going to table the 1996 water quality report so we can get a complete picture of

what is happening?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I have said, we are certainly very attuned to what is happening with the

water supply in the Province. I do not answer this just on behalf of the members

opposite. I am answering this for all the people of the Province. I believe that

the people of this Province are more interested in what is happening today with

their water supply than what happened five years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today on the issue of shrimp allocations off the Coast of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

informed this House and the people of the Province that the government opposes

any further allocations to outside interests - further, I stress.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also informed the people of the Province that the

P.E.I. shrimp allocation was not a one-time deal as everybody understood it, but

rather a three-time deal, and that the P.E.I. consortium will get its allocation

again this year and again in 2002.

Last year, the former Minister of Fisheries suggested that there would be

riots in the streets over this allocation. I would like to ask the Premier, if

he would, to explain this apparent change in the government's position, and

explain his government's apparent acceptance of the decision to allocate

shrimp to a consortium in P.E.I.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I realize that the hon. gentleman was not here last year. I

also realize, therefore, that probably his colleagues have not informed him that

this government has always been opposed to - the former Minister of Fisheries

made that quite clear, and the present Minister of Fisheries has made it quite

clear -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Did you get fed today, again?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: We have always been opposed to the allocation of not only

shrimp but any of the offshore resources that are off this Province. The hon.

gentleman can try to do what he likes over there. The truth of the matter is

this: Last year when this was announced, it was announced as a three-year

temporary program; and the Minister of Fisheries, as I understand it, has

obtained from the federal Minister of Fisheries, his assurance that there is no

intention to increase that quota and that the thing will not be made permanent;

when the three years is up, that is it. I do not know what else he is looking

for.

We remain opposed to the allocation of any fish resources that rightfully

belong to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &

White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, what the Deputy Premier is saying today is

a little bit different from what we see in the paper and what we have heard in

this House just recently. The bottom line is that the minister said that the

government opposes any further allocation and they have not reiterated their

opposition to the P.E.I. one from last year.

Will the minister admit that as long as the federal minister continues to

issue the P.E.I. consortium its quota, it does not matter whether it is called

permanent or temporary, full-time or part-time; the bottom line is, they have

the allocation.

Can you tell me, Mr. Minister, that in two years time, after three years of

fishing that quota, you honestly believe that they are going to take it back?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I do not know how many ways the hon. gentleman needs to be told

what the position of this government is on that allocation. I do not know

whether he needs a movie, or whether he needs a script of some sort. The

Minister of Fisheries - and he can read Hansard and see it - stood in this House

yesterday and said quite clearly where this government stood. I will guarantee

you that it was never said more clearly than it was last year, where this

government stands on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: It was never said clearer. We maintain the same stand now. We

will go after the federal government, I say to him, regardless of its colour.

To see some of the atrocities that occurred, as a former Minister of

Fisheries over there knows, when he was Minister of Fisheries and when his

government was in power, this is not something new, I say to the hon. gentleman.

This is a battle that all of us in this House have carried on; and for him to

stand over there and try to say: Oh, you fellows over there are not pushing for

this; you do not want this. Mr. Speaker, I have to say to him, he is doing a

disservice to all of us, as Newfoundlanders, in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits

& White Bay North.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that it is not I, doing the disservice; he is doing the

disservice, in discrediting my question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier if he or the Premier or

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture informed Minister Dhaliwal or the

Prime Minister, in their recent discussions, about the fact that poor old P.E.I.

- the people in poor old P.E.I. - that there is not one P.E.I. fisherman who

actually got a job catching the fish in -

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and there is not one P.E.I. fish plant worker who is

getting a job out of it. The only people who are getting anything out of this,

Mr. Minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: I am asking the minister, Sir, if he told this to the Prime

Minister, that the only people who are getting anything out of this are the

P.E.I. business people who are getting a couple of million dollars.

I would like to ask if he has also told the minister that his decision on

this, and his apparent support of it today, actually says that the federal

government's principle of adjacency is superceded by this quota bartering?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: For the information of the hon. gentleman, the name of the

company is Polar Seafoods.

Yes, we know - and this is a point that we made last year - that not a bit of

that -

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, we made the point last year; a year ago, I say to the hon.

gentleman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Not only this year, but last year. My friend made it to the

Minister of Fisheries this year, and it was made to him last year, that not one

shrimp - the company will probably realize $750,000 in cash because they will

sell the quota offshore. Not one shrimp came ashore for P.E.I. I say to him that

we pointed out to him that this was totally ludicrous, totally ludicrous,

because you are not providing anything for the people of P.E.I. let alone

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: That was made plain to him last year, it was made plain to him

again this year, and we will continue, I say to the hon. gentleman, to make it

plain to him that this decision is ludicrous and that he should, as soon as

possible, as soon as his commitment is met, back away from it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Last week, the Minister of Human

Resources and Employment, responding to a question about the Human Rights

Commission ruling that government is indeed the employer of home care workers in

a self-managed home care sector, because government provides the funding; being

the employer, government has an obligation to provide workers' compensation to

home care workers in this system. The minister responded: It is not a matter

that we are awaiting, or to be forced by any quasi judicial body of the courts

to act on issues we think are of relevance and importance to the citizens of

this Province.

If this is the case, I ask the minister: Why, then, is the government

appealing this ruling by the Human Rights Commission to the Supreme Court of

Newfoundland?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I will not get into the details in any degree.

I do not think that would be appropriate, concerning the particular facts of

that case and the individual involved. Suffice it to say that the ruling made by

the adjudicator dealt with the

interpretation to be given to the word employer.

Of course, any decision that is rendered by any level of a judicial body can

have ramifications for many other circumstances. The purpose of the appeal here

is that we would like to do a judicial review of that adjudicator's

interpretation of the word employer; because, it has connotations not only for

that particular lady but potentially thousands of people in this Province

involved in the home care system, or involved in any other occupation that might

receive government funding. We feel, rather than have a specific ruling that is

unchallenged, we would like to have it judicially reviewed again and considered

to see if it is indeed a proper

interpretation of that word, employer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government spoke about the cost to the taxpayers to implement workers'

compensation benefits for the workers, and that government will do it as soon as

it can identify the funds. What about the costs incurred in appealing this

ruling? Why is this government incurring further court costs while in the

meantime home care workers in this system are still without workers'

compensation coverage? Isn't this just a way, I say to the minister, to delay

the inevitable and delay government in taking the responsibility it has, as an

employer, to these workers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate again that you take

appeals to get a determination, to see if that determination is indeed a fair

and reasonable

interpretation. The cost of the appeal is not a consideration

here. We have had a ruling from an adjudicator of a Human Rights Commission that

can have far-reaching consequences for this Province, regardless of which

government is here. We just want to make sure that it is indeed reasonable. The

way to do that is to appeal it to the court and the supreme court.

Obviously, there is cost involved in the appeal, but we cannot decide whether

we do or do not appeal something based upon the cost that might be associated

with it. This is not a case to deny or delay justice to the particular

individual involved in this case. There is a process. Because a very important

decision has been made, we would like to know, by having it judicially reviewed,

if it is proper, because it has consequences not only for that individual but

potentially thousands of others, and for any government in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Education; obviously, she is not

here, so the Acting Minister of Education.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind members that the absence of ministers or other members

from the House ought not to be referred to in this House.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: My questions regard St. Matthew's Elementary School in

St. John's. This school has an excellent special needs unit which provides

education to children who are severely physically and developmentally challenged

and they have very specific special needs. Parents have nothing but praise for

the unit because they know it is giving their children the best education

possible and a strong foundation for moving on in life. This unit has had

national awards and has been also written up in Maclean's Magazine as a

very effective unit. The government, through the board, seems to want to phase

out this unit against the parents wishes or against the students best interests.

Will the minister explain why?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister, I would like to

take the question under advisement and get the information, but also to indicate

that the government is very proud of the record that it has established in

helping special needs children in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe, from

everything I have read and discussions we have had, that we have probably one of

the best programs in Canada. Certainly, the minister, once we get the

information, will undertake to get the details and deal with the situation.

Also, we would like to get more information from the board about the situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to say to the minister that I do not know about the other

programs but the program up there is a very special program. As I said, it has

gotten national awards and has been written up in Maclean's Magazine,

therefore my question is: Why is the government phasing out this program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as a government that has been extremely

sensitive to special needs children in the Province, we certainly will check out

the situation. I am sure we will have discussions with the board and look at

where the board wants to go with the situation, but first off, we will get the

information.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Mr.

Minister, on April 10 I asked why women's hockey was not included in the

provincial Winter Games that are being held in Gander next year. Now is the time

to advise the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador whether women's hockey is

in or out. Is women's hockey going to be included in competitive sport in the

provincial Winter Games being held in Gander next year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, Gander has been selected to host our Winter

Games this coming year, in 2002, and we are very proud of the fact that we will

have the largest number of athletes at a winter games, which will be held in

Gander. On that note, we are dealing with that situation. We are talking with

the organizing committee. The Member for Gander and the Minister Responsible for

the Status of Women have been extremely helpful in these discussions. At this

point, Mr. Speaker, we are working on the situation and I would rather not have

provincial politics thrown into it at this point. I would like to get the

situation resolved. So I would ask the member -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are working on the situation.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My questions are for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

When Inco announced on April 25 it was moving ahead with a $1.4 billion U.S.

nickel cobalt project at Goro, New Caledonia, analysts said, and we agree, that

this in no way undermines prospects for developing Voisey's Bay sooner rather

than later. That is because the ovoid here is bigger, richer and so easily mined

that its copper will practically pay for the nickel extraction, and Inco knows

that.

My question for the Premier, and this in the form of updating members in this

House and the people of the Province: Has Inco come forward with proposals,

either informal or formal, to get things moving on Voisey's Bay development,

sooner rather than later?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated, I think, in the latest public update on the Voisey's Bay

situation and negotiations at the Board of Trade about thirty days ago - and I

said at that point that within thirty to sixty days we would, hopefully, be back

in a more formal negotiating stance with Inco, vis--vis the Voisey's Bay

project. So, in direct answer to his question: it is premature. We are not yet

at a point where we have exchanged any type of proposal formally with respect to

any part or any concept of that development. We are preparing ourselves well for

a good, hard and hopefully, successful negotiation. All of us will await its

outcome with interest because, I believe, we all have a genuine interest in

ensuring that, subject to the people of this Province getting the absolute

maximum benefits from that project, subject to that, we hope that we can

conclude a successful arrangement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair hereby tables the report of the Commission of

Internal Economy for the fiscal year April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000.

Petitions

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here I would like to present, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure

that it is in the right format, but I will read it if you don't mind.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) the Chair?

MR. TAYLOR: I haven't, no. I will read this line: We hereby petition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will hear the prayer of the petition and then -

MR. TAYLOR: We hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to take the necessary action to keep the promise that was made by our

former member, Minister Tobin, last year that our road would be top priority

this year, and finally make the commitment to begin the upgrading and paving of

our road, ASAP. It is from the Town of Conche.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Obviously, the petition is not in the proper form. Is the Chair asking for

leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, we try to encourage hon. members to present

petitions in the proper order. It is not difficult, we have the format here. It

is not an appropriate petition at all. It is not the kind of petition that

should be brought to the House, Mr. Speaker. So, it is not my intention to give

approval to that petition.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the hon. member presented the petition. I did indicate to him: Look

at the petition. It does petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

but unfortunately it was addressed also to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Many times petitions come to the House and we ask for leave to

present them because it is difficult to tell people who went around and got

names for a petition to go back and redo it. The intent is there to petition the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and that is why we figured it was

neutral enough to ask for leave to do it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will hear one submission on the point of order, but quickly.

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

MR. TULK: I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I think this should be followed

in the House, but if I am not greatly mistaken - and I would ask the Speaker to

clarify this - but I understand that last year or the year before we all agreed

on a procedure here whereby members would bring petitions to the House, because

of some of the formats that we were getting. I think it was this, that first of

all we would check with the Speaker's office or the Clerk's office - I am

not sure which - to see if the petition was in the right order and then there

would be a decision made by the Chair on the advice of the Clerk or something of

that nature. I would like that ruling, Mr. Speaker, if we could, to be clarified

again, if indeed we did make it.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, obviously, the petition that the hon.

member was presenting is not in order and there is no leave of the House.

Members ought to know - and I take this opportunity to remind members - that

before any petition is presented in the House we have requested members to

consult with the Table officers, to check and see if the petition is in order

and if changes have to be made to make it presentable to the House. Again, I ask

all hon. members, when they have a petition they want to present to this House

to check with the Table officers to make sure it is in order.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by well over 100 people in and

around the Town of Anchor Point. On the basis of proportion, this is a huge

petition considering the population of the area. I would like to read the prayer

of the petition in its proper form:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Anchor Point and their

supporters;

WHEREAS roads conditions have deteriorated to the point that some roads are

unsurpassable; and

WHEREAS upgrading of these roads are never beneficial past the next rainfall;

and

WHEREAS when work commences at the local plant, shrimp runoff and mud

accumulates in large potholes; and

WHEREAS some residents have to live with sewer running through their homes,

along with water from the spring thaw; and

WHEREAS sewage which accumulates in ditches along the roads creates a health

hazard;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to improve road conditions and water and sewer conditions in the Town of Anchor

Point, as is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a desperate situation. What the people are describing

are conditions that you would expect to find in the Third World; raw sewage

running beside the streets and through homes, and waste products accumulating in

large cesspools.

What I am describing is a small but prosperous town on the Northern

Peninsula. Anchor Point has a shrimp plant, a dragger fleet and an inshore

fishery. Anchor Point has flourished despite the harsh economic conditions which

have plagued most of the Northern Peninsula. Yet, there is not a plan in place

to ensure decent living conditions for the community. The people of Anchor Point

are desperate and asking for help. They are asking their government, which is

responsible for municipalities in the Province, for road conditions, and for

water and sewer conditions.

We see what is happening in Walkerton, Ontario and North Battleford,

Saskatchewan. Provincial governments take the blame when faulty municipal water

systems claim people's health. Hindsight is 20/20. In this case, even without

20/20 foresight, you can sometimes see that something needs to be done or else

there will be health consequences in Anchor Point. The question is: What are you

going to do about it?

Mr. Speaker, the buck stops right across the House from me on the desks of

the Minister of Transportation, Municipal Affairs, Health, and Environment. This

is a petition that should worry them all. You can never say you were not told

because the people of Anchor Point, their supporters, and their MHA are telling

you now, loudly and clearly, that there is a problem that must be addressed.

Attached to their petition are comments like these: Our roads, that we use

everyday, are worse now than they were in the nineteen century. We cannot keep

mufflers on our vehicles and the life expectancy of our vehicles is only half of

what it should be. When work starts in our local plant tractor-trailers start

using the road. We are left with potholes full of shrimp runoff and mud trenches

in the roads because they are too soft for big trucks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. YOUNG: What the people of Anchor Point -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the people of Anchor Point, and indeed the people of the Province, want

to know is when the ministers responsible for fixing such problems are going to

fix this one, and when they intend to act?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have a petition today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I have a petition today on behalf of the residents of the Shea Heights area

regarding wheelchair accessible housing in that community. The prayer of the

petition reads:

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the hon. House of

Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea

Heights area. We are asking the government to consider the fact that people with

disabilities and their family need to be able to utilize the support of family

and friends within the community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced to live

in units outside the community, it compromises the help and support that

families so vitally need. We are asking that serious consideration be given to

the construction of wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area so that

families with physical disabilities may avail of the essential support networks.

Mr. Speaker, while people on the other side of the House may mock this issue,

it is a very serious issue. It is a very serious issue indeed. Shea Heights is a

community larger than many of the communities in rural Newfoundland. It is a

community onto itself, although it is a part of St. John's. The families in

the Shea Heights area are very, very attached to the area. Their families,

relatives, people they grew up with, they want to stay there. The demand for

housing in the Shea Heights area is perhaps the area most in demand in all of

St. John's, which will tell you something: that the families in Shea Heights

wish to stay in that area.

It would really be shameful to take a family out of that area and put them

into a neighborhood or into an area where they do not know their neighbors,

where their family are not close by, where they cannot avail of the help and

support of their family and friends when they have a member of their family who

is restricted to a wheelchair.

This is a very important and very serious issue. It is an issue that we

really, really want government to look at very seriously and we want the

minister responsible for housing to look at very seriously. There is a demand,

there is a need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights

area. There are some 1,800 people living in that area, and to not have one

wheelchair accessible housing unit in that area is unbelievable. It is truly

unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number - the density of housing units in the Shea

Heights area is quite large.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: All we are asking is for government to put a wheelchair

accessible housing unit in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of Motions 3 and 4.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act."

(Bill 17)

On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Labour Relations Act." (Bill 18)

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 8, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 8.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Establish The Order Of

Newfoundland and Labrador." (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very proud today, actually, on behalf of the government and the people

of the Province, to introduce Bill 1 for consideration here in the Legislature.

Throughout the Commonwealth, the notion of having an order to recognize

exemplary service from the people of the Province, usually under auspices of the

Queen's representative, is very well established. Everybody is aware of

Canadians - Newfoundlanders who are Canadians - who have distinguished

themselves and received Orders of Canada. I think everyone recognizes the kind

of prestige that is associated with such an order.

We have had a consideration for some time that in Newfoundland and Labrador,

because of the very nature of our people and the culture that we grew up in, the

fact that there has been a long history of people in Newfoundland and Labrador

who have, as a very matter of course and a very matter of what seems to be very

normal, put aside their own best interest in terms of service to the community

and service to others in a whole range of areas.

I think that at this point in time, and I would hope, that the Legislature

and all members would join with us in terms of deciding, after appropriate

debate, to establish an Order of Newfoundland and Labrador so that we can

recognize the caring and compassion of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for

others, particularly in the Province, and that in fact it will recognize the

abilities, the talents, the inspiration and the accomplishments of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the year.

Mr. Speaker, it is important, if there is going to be such an award as the

Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, that it be removed from any suggestion

whatsoever that it is a political patronage appointment of any type; so the

appointments, obviously, cannot be in the hands of elected politicians. As much

as we all know that we are above reproach and would not think about patronage,

if we are doing these kinds of things we would, in fact, bestow such an honor as

an Order of Newfoundland and Labrador upon deserving Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. But, because we have the circumstance where a lot of people in the

general public do not particularly trust us to do that, and members opposite

would even suggest, maybe, while we are the government for the next twelve or

fifteen years, that we might even just give the Order of Newfoundland and

Labrador to Liberals -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Rather than even have any aura or specter of that kind of

a discussion surrounding such a distinguished honour as the Order of

Newfoundland and Labrador, it has to be totally non-partisan.

This bill lays out the process whereby the Chancellor of the Order would be

the Lieutenant-Governor for Newfoundland and Labrador. The Lieutenant-Governor

of Newfoundland and Labrador, whoever he or she may be, by virtue of assuming

that office, would automatically be a member and Chancellor of the Order.

Then there would be an advisory committee, that is laid out in the bill, that

appoints three people by virtue of their position. We have the Chief Justice,

the Clerk of the Council, and the President of Memorial University. That

particular group, those three, automatically, by virtue of them holding their

positions, would be members of the advisory board that would look at nominations

and make determinations for selection.

There would also be four members of the council who would be appointed by the

Cabinet, by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, for terms of three years, and

eligible for reappointment. That group would be charged with the responsibility

of educating the people of the Province as to this particular honour and

privilege, what it means, what it signifies, soliciting on an annual basis

nominations for possible inclusion and acceptance into the Order of Newfoundland

and Labrador, and go through a selection process.

Mr. Speaker, the details of that are laid out in the particular bill. It is a

pretty straightforward piece of legislation, but I think it is significant that

at this point in our history we take the time to put aside a mechanism and to

establish a mechanism whereby we can, in fact, honour Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who have put others ahead of themselves, and recognize outstanding

achievements in the arts, science, education, philanthropy, and any other area

where the people of the Province, through this advisory committee, would feel

that they should nominate someone for recognition and that the advisory

committee would feel that someone should be actually conferred the honour of

being a member of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. As well, it then

includes the privilege and the right to have the letters O.N.L., Order of

Newfoundland and Labrador, used after that person's name, thereafter, as a

recognition of the fact that they are a member of the Order of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, I am very proud and pleased to

introduce the bill and would be interested in hearing the points that are made

in the debate, hoping that this kind of an initiative would receive broad-based

support in the Legislature and broad-based support in the Province as we

recognize our most outstanding volunteers and citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that we will support this bill. We do not have a problem

with that. Some of his statements may be a little off the mark, about being here

for ten or fifteen more years. I am not so sure. You certainly want to make it

non-partisan, no doubt about it, and I do not have any problems with the three

positions there. In fact, I support three positions. Positions are appointed

politically; we know that. The four appointed from the Cabinet can be political.

It can be politically controlled, no doubt about it, even with the numbers in

the makeup here, but somebody has to be there and somebody has to appoint them.

I do not have a problem with the Chief Justice or the Clerk of the Executive

Council, or the president of Memorial University for that matter, but there is

one thing we do need to do and push, really, to make it truly, truly

legitimately and constitutionally correct: we do have to press Ottawa - that

final mark.

Even though our Province is the Province of Newfoundland - it is not

officially the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - we do need to press that

issue; because I remember here in 1996 when the Premier of the Province stood

there - not the Premier; I think it was in the Throne Speech, under the Premier

- and I happened to be sitting there at the time when the first thing in the

Throne Speech that year was to change the constitution to become the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That was the first commitment made by the government

under Premier Brian Tobin in 1996; and to this day, over five years later, we

are still the Province of Newfoundland. It is not the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, even though we call it that and I call it that. The Premier

probably calls it that, and nearly everybody else, because Labrador is a very

integral and important part and it is appropriate to have it mentioned here. We

do not have to wait for the federal government. Maybe the pressures in Quebec,

and the constitution, and their status has been delaying it and it did not come

up at an appropriate time. That is for another time. I do not want to detract

from the points here. It is an important gesture, and it is important, I think,

to look at an Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We do need an opportunity to recognize appropriately people who have made

outstanding contributions. They do not always get recognition. The Order of

Canada does not fill a void to cover people in this Province who have made

outstanding contributions to our Province, to our community, and to the country

and the world in general, who can be recognized. They do not really have to be

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I think the bill says. It could be somebody

who has impacted and has made a contribution to our Province, even though they

may not be members here. So, I do not see any great need. We have gone through

the bill. I have taken time to go through the specifics and so on of the bill,

and we do not have a problem. I do not see a need to belabour the point here.

I think it is important for people. Many people have contributed a lifetime

of work in their various endeavors, whatever they may be. I think it is nice to

be able to say we are being recognized by a body constituted by our Province,

that you have made a contribution and you are a member now of the Order of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is significant because many times people

toil all their lives and they do not get the recognition they deserve. I think

this is an opportunity now, being a provincial privilege, a provincial honour

bestowed on them, and I think we might be able to seek out people in that

capacity who deserve to be so honored by that.

We support that piece of legislation, I say to the Premier, and we will not

have any problem in moving that through the House in this session.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on Bill 1,

An Act To Establish The Order of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and to endorse my support for the legislation. I think it is

appropriate that the Premier be the person in whose name the legislation stands

and who spoke to it today. It is something that, clearly from the speech as well

of the Opposition House Leader, will likely get unanimous support of the House

of Assembly. I understand that other provinces have such an order. Particularly

in the case of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a history and

culture longer than that of Canada and it is appropriate that we have our

separate order recognizing distinguished citizens who have made a significant

contribution to their Province and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This type of honour, Mr. Speaker, as the Premier has mentioned, is in the

United Kingdom: the knighthoods and in some cases the conferring of membership

in the House of Lords by government to recognize individuals. It is something

that has been around for a long time in the British Commonwealth. This is

something that - obviously in this country we have had instances of Members of

this House of Assembly, former Premiers of this Province, being given

knighthoods. Sir Robert Bond is one example. Lord Morris would be someone who

went to the House of Lords, as a former Premier of this Province. We have our

own Legislature, Mr. Speaker, our own system of government, and our own ability,

as we are exercising here in this legislation, to establish an Order of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I know there have been some comments by the

Opposition House Leader about the potential nature of the board that might make

the nominations, obviously, as someone has to be chosen to do this.

It is very important and, I think, worth putting on the record upfront that

this committee, who will be responsible for designated awards and certainly in

the first instance, will have a very onerous responsibility to ensure that this

order has no political tinge, that those who are honoured are honoured for their

contribution and a contribution that should be recognized by all as being

meritorious and not seen in a cynical way, which it could easily step into, Mr.

Speaker. Perhaps the Premier can comment on that when he closes debate. We would

want to do everything to ensure that this order does not become an object of

cynical view of a reward for political support or favouritism. So, the very

heavy onus will rest on the committee and the board in making these nominations

to ensure that is the case. This order, if it is going to have any meaning in

this Province, is one which is of the highest level of service and obligation to

the people of this Province and represents something that can be, in fact, a

mark of distinction that people will be honoured to receive.

Mr. Speaker, there are many areas of activity that could be honoured by such

an order. We have many artists, for example, who might not be recognized on a

national basis but we, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, would want to

recognize their significant contribution to the cultural life of this Province

by granting such an order. Also, there are many other contributors to our

Province by way of volunteerism; by business excellence; by contributions to

their own profession, whether it be the profession of firefighter or whether it

be the profession, as I mentioned, of businessmen or any other profession which

may not attract a lot of public knowledge or interest, but their contribution

would be recognized.

In the area of volunteerism in sports, in the contribution to the athletic or

recreational life of the Province in a manner that is deserving of some

recognition. So, there are many areas where people - and even politics, Mr.

Speaker. By making a contribution to the political life of the Province some

individuals may merit recognition by such an order, hopefully long after they

are out of politics so no one will think that there is any partisan involvement

in that.

So, I will say that we support this initiative. We support that we find a way

of recognizing individuals who have made a significant contribution to the

Province but I do hope, and it is only a hope that I can express, Mr. Speaker,

that the early nomination and early appointments will be the ones that mark this

order as one of great distinction and set a standard for the future that would

give distinction and honour to the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. In saying

that, Mr. Speaker, I want to be on record as supporting the development and

establishment of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

If he speaks now he will close the debate.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might point out, I appreciate the commentary from both hon. members in

speaking to the bill. As an aside as well, in this year, the International Year

of the Volunteer, we will be awarding volunteer service medals in Newfoundland

and Labrador. From then on, most likely beginning in next year, the Order of

Newfoundland and Labrador, if approved, would be an annual undertaking for up to

eight as the bill lays out.

Mr. Speaker, many of the components of this particular piece of legislation

mirror other jurisdictions' approach to this matter. I do recognize, as both

hon. members have indicated, that it is in all of our best interests to make

sure that it is seen to be non-political, apolitical, non-partisan appointments

to the greatest extent possible.

Mr. Speaker, you might note as well, I did not say it in the introduction but

there are some exclusions in terms of - while serving as a Member of the House

of Assembly, we, ourselves, are not eligible to be members of the Order of

Newfoundland and Labrador. There are exclusions as well for MPs, Senators,

members of other legislatures, and members of the judiciary; judges are excluded

as well. So if any of us here would like to be considered for the Order of

Newfoundland and Labrador we will have to retire from this life and go on and

distinguish ourselves in some other noteworthy way within the general community

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do appreciate the commentary, Mr. Speaker. If there are other particular

items that come forward I am sure we will have an opportunity to address them

during the committee stage of this bill.

With that I would like to move second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish The Order of Newfoundland and

Labrador," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill 1)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 12, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Chiropractors

Act, The Dieticians Act, The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994 And The Social

Workers Association Act." (Bill 11)

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This piece of legislation has been necessitated by the Agreement on Internal

Trade which was signed by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments

back in 1994. It came into effect on July 1, 1995. What it does is deal with the

free movement of workers across provincial boundaries throughout this country.

In order to allow for that, there is a need to make some changes in our present

legislation to allow for the free movement.

This bill deals with the amendments to the Chiropractors Act and the

Pharmaceutical Association Act to allow the respective regulatory bodies to

recognize equivalent professional qualifications from other jurisdictions; an

amendment to the Dieticians Act to remove all references to the Canadian

Dietetic Association; and an Amendment to the Social Workers Association Act

which will allow the regulatory body to accommodate diploma prepared social

workers from other jurisdictions, under a restricted license, to require them to

upgrade their competency to attain full licensing requirements. The latter one

is of note because in some jurisdictions -

whereas in our jurisdictions right

now we require a university degree as a basic entrance level for people going

into social work. In other jurisdictions there is a diploma program. What we are

saying - in order to protect, as much as we can, our own people and to see that

this whole issue is dealt with fairly - is that people coming in from other

jurisdictions at the diploma level, we will accept them only if we cannot find

people with degrees. Once they do come in, then we will give them a period of

time to bring their certification and qualifications up to the standards of that

which we now have in this Province.

These are fairly basic, Mr. Speaker. As I said, they are required changes. We

need to have these in place before July 1 of this year so that this Province

will be in compliance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We, on this side, have looked at this piece of legislation which,

essentially, is just bringing things up to the standards that are acceptable in

this Province. There has been extensive consultation with the members of the

professional groups that are mentioned here: the chiropractors, the

pharmaceutical association, and the social workers professional group.

We agree that persons who are coming in should meet our standards and should

be given reasonable time. However, we would like to make the point that we do

not want the associations or the government, to act in a high-handed manner. I

do understand that there has been sufficient time allocated for people to bring

their qualifications up to the new standard. That is happening in the profession

with the registered nurses and with other groups. It is happening at the

university level as well. We feel that as time moves on it is necessary for us

to bring our minimum qualifications in sync with the rest of Canada and with

other provinces.

With that in mind, we, on this side, support the legislation knowing that

there has been consultation, knowing that it is a matter of streamlining our

legislation, making it consistent with other provinces, and the intent is

non-controversial. It is merely, shall we say, bringing our legislation in

keeping with the kinds of professional qualifications that are deemed to be

appropriate for the practice of these professions in our Province.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the minister's introduction to the bill and understand there

is a requirement for complying with mobility requirements, that these changes

would make sense.

I do have a concern with respect to the Social Workers Association Act. I

know back in 1992 when the act was passed, and prior to that, there was a lot of

concern within the social work profession with respect to grandfathering in

people, allowing people who did not have the standard of the BSW to practice

social work in the Province.

I note that paragraph 20(2)(

c) of the act is being amended here. The minister

indicated that this was in relation to temporary registrations. That, in fact,

is the case. It only refers to employees of the government of the Province, who

are employed after the commencement of the act and who practice social work in

the course of their employment, they shall be granted temporarily, for a term of

one year, which may be renewed for seven years, a period of temporary

registration. Is it the intention of the legislation, I am asking the minister,

to have these mobility provisions only relate to employees of the Government of

Newfoundland? That is what

section 20 deals with, and does not allow

registration of people generally.

I ask the minister whether this provision of the legislation, that is before

the House, Bill 11, has been vetted by the Social Workers Association or the

registration organization, and whether they are satisfied that this is not going

to interfere with their overall concerns of watering down the social work

requirement for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the basic requirement

being a Bachelor of Social Work degree? This does seem to be a watering down of

the requirement, that not even a Bachelor's degree is now required of any

kind, let alone a Bachelor of Social Work. I did not have any representations

from the Social Workers Association but it seems that this applies, first of

all, only to social workers employed by the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is only a temporary registration which can go on as long as seven

years. I guess the minister can advise what discussions have been had with the

Social Workers Association in terms of registration, and how they intend to

operate that. Is it the expectation that a new employee of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, who qualifies under this new section, would be

required within a certain number of years - is that number of years seven - to

actually meet the qualification, or is it intended to allow for temporary

registration on an ongoing basis for a period of up to five, six or seven years

without any requirement of meeting that condition, (inaudible) to the seventh

year?

It appears, under the existing act, that: Shall be registered temporarily for

one year. That temporary registration may be renewed annually for a total of no

more than seven years. I would assume, from the minister's comments, that

means they are required to register that person for the first year, but that the

second and subsequent year registrations are contingent upon some program of

studies or some commitment from an individual to undertake a program of studies

for the next ensuing years.

Other than those concerns, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem with the

legislation. Perhaps the minister can address that when he closes debate.

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

he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. member's questions, indeed, as I pointed out in my opening

remarks, the changes as they relate to social work is the one area that was of

some concern. The changes that are being made have, in fact, been vetted with

the association, have been dealt with by them, and my understanding is that they

are comfortable with what is being proposed.

Basically what it will do, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, right now,

because there is a different standard in our Province as compared to some other

jurisdictions - in fact, here right now we do require a university degree level

whereas in some jurisdictions there is a diploma program of two years. Anyone

coming in now, if they do not meet our qualifications, will be given a

restricted licence and will be given a period of time in which to upgrade their

competency to that which is accepted here in this Province.

I do not know if that satisfies the hon. member's question or not, but that

is my understanding of the changes that are being made here.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Chiropractors Act, The

Dieticians Act, The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994 And The Social Workers

Association Act," ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill 11).

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 14,

An Act To Amend

The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

Mr. Speaker, this act is a simple act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: I do not know where he is. I do not know where the minister is,

so I am introducing it, okay? I do not know where the minister is at the moment.

While we are looking for the minister, I will speak to the act, Bill 14.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very benign amendment. My understanding of it is that

there was a committee together to report on the salary of judges. They were

supposed to report at a certain time, at a certain date. Because of one

difficulty or the other -

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has now made his appearance. I will

defer and ask the Minister of Justice to continue with moving second reading of

Bill 14.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act to Amend The Provincial Court

Act, 1991." (Bill 14)

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the Provincial Court Act there is provision to appoint a tribunal which

would review the salaries and benefits payable to provincial court judges. The

section, as it read, or still reads now, says that tribunal, once appointed,

would report back by April 22. It is on a four-year basis. The tribunal, in

fact, has been struck. It was late getting struck and, because of that, they are

unable to report back by April 22 of this year. The way it works out, it is

going to be virtually impossible at any given time - the way they do their

appointments, given the amount of detail that they get into - of actually

getting the committee struck, the hearings done, the report compiled and back

into the House by April of any given session that they have this review.

We have had representations from the committee. To allow them to properly do

the work, we would extend the period from April 22 to September. In conformity

with their request, we have agreed to do that. That is the purpose of this

amendment.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader referred to this piece of legislation as benign.

It was benign until he minister arrived, and all of a sudden it has taken on

great historic significance.

Yes, we have no difficulty with the principle of the bill. The only

difficulty I have, and I have to say this to the minister, the purpose of this

amendment is to extend from April 22, 2001 to September 14, 2001 this particular

committee. The House has been in session since some time in March. This piece of

legislation is retroactive. This piece of legislation has a retroactive clause

in it that makes it retroactive to April 21, which is a couple of weeks ago.

This Legislature has been in session now since some time in March. It would seem

to me that the least the government could have done would be to have such a

benign - to use the Government House Leader's quote - to have such an

insignificant piece of legislation passed without having to invoke

retroactivity.

I say that for this reason: retroactivity in legislation, I would say to the

minister, is always repugnant. Sometimes it is necessary, but it is always

repugnant. It is never more repugnant than when it has to be done with something

that relates, in even a benign way, to the judiciary. This matter relates to the

judiciary. If we cannot have our House in order, to bring in a piece of

legislation that takes all of thirty seconds to pass, because I do not think

there is anybody going to object to it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I feel like making a speech. Do you have any objection?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I remember the Deputy Premier talking about

hobnail boots. The hobnail boots are being worn over there again today. We are

asked to pass retroactive legislation that relates to the judiciary, and we

should not have to do it; not that I object to doing it. If the House was not

sitting, that would be one thing, but the House was sitting. It has been in

session since some time in early March -

MR. SULLIVAN: Twelve days before that date.

MR. RIDEOUT: Twelve day before that date, so it could have been done, it

should have been done. I hope the minister, in humility, learns a lesson that

when this type of thing, if it ever comes up again, and the House is in session,

do it. Do not unnecessarily wave red flags with a piece of retroactive

legislation, that is not necessary.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with those few brief remarks, we would give our blessing

to the passage of the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I

move that we close second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,

1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill 14)

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

MR. LUSH: Order 13, second reading of Bill 12.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 13.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act And

The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999." (Bill 12)

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an amendment that is being brought forward at the request of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. Basically what it is, it is

allowing the doctors of the Province to incorporate their practices and their

operation. They put forward some valid arguments in cases, that this would be to

their advantage to do this.

Also we recognize, as a government, that having this available could probably

serve to assist us in the recruitment of new physicians to serve here in our

Province. It in no way limits the liability for allegations of malpractice or

negligence. It is just something that is being done, as I said, to better serve

the physicians of this Province. We feel it is a good amendment and we are

pleased to bring it forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We on this side want to lend support to this particular piece of legislation.

It is my understanding that this will permit the Newfoundland Department of

Health and Community Services to be, hopefully, more successful in attracting

medical practitioners, particularly specialists. I had some conversations in the

last couple of days with some of the people in the medical profession. They tell

me that they are not competitive. In fact, the only Province that does not have

a similar piece of legislation like this is Ontario. They are the only Province.

Newfoundland did not have this ability for doctors to incorporate themselves,

but Ontario still does not, so right now we, in this Province, will be able to

be on an equal footing with other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this will let us attract

specialities like, for example, cardiologists and oncologists and many other

specialists who find that it is far more attractive to them if they take up

practice, for example, in Nova Scotia. It is a piece of legislation that does

not take away from the liability of medical doctors. In fact, in

section 23.8(1)

it says: "Notwithstanding a provision to the contrary in the Corporations

Act , a medical practitioner who provides services or practises medicine

through or on behalf of a professional medical corporation is liable to a person

in relation to those services and the practice of medicine to the same extent

and in the same manner as if the medical practitioner provided those services as

an individual and that liability is not affected because of the medical

practitioner's relationship to the professional medical corporation as a

shareholder, director, officer, employee or in another capacity."

Mr. Speaker, we do believe that this protects the public of Newfoundland and

Labrador in the very same way that they are protected now, so there is nothing

here that would prevent any person in Newfoundland and Labrador from seeking

redress for any grievance they might have with a member of the medical

profession; but this does prevent the incorporation of the medical practitioner

or medical practitioners, because there can be more than one, and that will have

a beneficial effect when it comes to their being able to actually attain more

revenue and, I guess, keep more of their earned dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I have also spoken to the Newfoundland Dental Association and

they have told me that they have been pressing the government for a similar

amendment to the Dental Act. I have with me today a memorandum from the

Newfoundland Dental Association whereby they are seeking a similar kind of piece

of legislation. In a presentation they made to the then Minister of Health and

now the Premier of the Province, a year or so ago, they brought forward this

request. Since then we have lost some of our dental specialists in the Province

because they could find it more attractive to practice in other parts of Canada

or, for that matter, in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, in giving approval to this particular piece of legislation on

behalf of the medical practitioners in the Province, we also bring to the

government's attention the fact that the Dental Association, on behalf of all

the dentists in the Province, is seeking a similar piece of legislation that

would have the same effect, letting us attract and keep dental specialists that

we are now finding very difficult to attract. When we do attract them they often

find that they can make more money, save more of their earned dollars, if they

were to practice in some other province or in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, we are giving our word that we will vote in favour of this

particular amendment before the House today, the Medical Act. We are asking the

government if they will give some consideration to including or bringing forth

another amendment that will offer the same kind of benefit to the dentists in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on Bill 12 regarding the legislation to

permit the corporation of a professional practice of medicine. I think it

obviously has some advantages to the medical doctors themselves. It provides

some flexibility in terms of arranging their affairs and income, and other

provinces have gone down this road. We do need to have some flexibility there.

It will provide some additional attraction, as the minister pointed out, to

people intending to practice in the Province. It also has some other application

potential to the kind of practices that we are seeing, such as in Clarenville,

for example, where medical practice is operating with - in addition to medical

practitioners, nurse practitioners and other professionals. So you could

actually have a different type of medical practice, under professional

corporation, that could employ people to carry out certain functions.

I would like to see in this Province, Mr. Speaker, a stronger emphasis on a

community health approach where you can have a combination of doctors, nurse

practitioners and others working in conjunction to deliver health care service

so that we are not totally reliant on a medical doctor in each and every

community, in each and every instance, to provide services; particularly when

some of those services can be provided on a more efficient basis in some

respects, but also on a more present basis through other medical professions who

could provide advice, who could provide certain medical treatments, who could,

in fact, do a screening of who needs to see a doctor on an urgent basis and

provide delivery of health care to regions which may have difficulty, under any

circumstances, attracting a resident medical doctor.

I am thinking of a conversation in a meeting I had the other day with the

Executive Director of the Victorian Order of Nurses in Corner Brook who

described some of the activities of clinics that are undertaken by the VON. In

Lark Harbour, for example, they operate a nursing clinic a couple of days a week

and are able to provide certain medical services that would otherwise not be

available in the Lark Harbour area. This is a situation where there was a doctor

going there regularly - and there is no doctor going there regularly now. The

communities are serviced by a nursing clinic that operates two days a week.

We could see, and perhaps we should see a development of delivery of health

care services based on a community clinic model. Instead of fee-for-service

doctors, doctors who receive a salary or - as I understand happens in

Clarenville - doctors being paid on the basis of a salary or an hourly rate, and

the fee-for-service monies that are collected from MCP being used to pay not

only the doctors but also other medical practitioners or nurse practitioners

working in that kind of setting.

We do need to see some flexibility for various models being developed, and we

do generally support the legislation allowing medical professionals to

incorporate. I do not know if there is any calling on the government to do the

same for dentists or lawyers, which are allowed to be incorporated in some other

provinces. I do not know if our professionals have even gone so far as to

consider that here, but clearly, the medical profession have gotten the support

of their colleagues for this.

We do not have any serious objection to allowing medical practitioners to

incorporate their practices and have some flexibility in how they organize their

affairs in the conduct of that practice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. members for their input, and I now move second reading of

this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act And The Medical Care

Insurance Act, 1999," read a second time, ordered referred to the Committee

of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 12)

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, that the hon. the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board move: That This House Approves in General the

Budgetary Policy of the Government.

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

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

It is a pleasure to speak on the Budget today and make a few comments. There

are a couple of issues I would like to speak on regarding the Budget, obviously

water quality.

We spoke about water quality today. It is unfortunate that within the Budget

we did not see more funds made available for testing and treatment of water

throughout the Province. Obviously, it is an issue that is of great concern. We

seen what happened in Milwaukee a couple of years ago, what happened in

Walkerton just last year, and again now this year in Saskatchewan.

Water bodies are vulnerable to parasites and bacteria. We have, in our

Province, almost half of the water boil orders in all of Canada. There is a

great concern. When it comes to the health and safety of the people of this

Province - when you look at our water quality, that has to be the greatest

concern surrounding water quality issues in this Province. So why there is not

more treatment of our water, why there is not more testing of our water for more

bacteria, more parasites, more pathogens, why we do not do more testing, that is

the question. That is a very serious question.

The people of this Province are very concerned about their water quality.

Yes, we have gone into hotels and restaurants throughout the Province. I am sure

many of the members on the other side have seen the same type of thing, where

they have little signs posted next to the taps, not to drink the tap water

without boiling it. We have seen, in some hotels, where they advise you not to

brush your teeth with the water. What a message to send to tourists, to send to

visitors. That cannot be the type of message that we want to send to visitors

who come to this Province. That cannot be the type of message that we want to

send to people who are coming to this Province, when we are trying to build a

tourism industry; when we are trying to build an industry to replace some of the

jobs that were lost through the groundfishery.

When you look at situations, such as incinerators with dioxins and furans

that are emitted - the toxins from the incinerators - those toxins are going

directly into water bodies; rivers and streams that led into water bodies that

are used as drinking supplies. It is just incomprehensible, for a number of

reasons, why we would allow that to happen. We do not test for dioxins and

furans in our drinking water supplies. We do not test for those carcinogens. We

know what they do. We know that they are bio-accumulative. We know that they

build up through the food chain and yet we do not test for those items in our

drinking water supplies. That in itself is a very scary situation. Why we allow

that to continue to happen in our Province. Why we continue to allow municipal

solid waste to go to incinerators - and numbers of toxins are spewed out of

those incinerators, not only into our water supplies, but into the vegetation

around the area. That vegetation is affecting rabbits, moose, caribou and other

wildlife in those areas. They bio-accumulate, which means that eventually

through the food chain, rabbits and other rodents and so on are eaten by bigger

animals and eaten by people. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why we would allow

that to continue to happen. Now today we find out that we do not even test for

these toxins, these chemicals, in our drinking water. We allow the incinerators

to continue to spew tons and tons of emissions into the air around our water

bodies.

We have areas in the Province, such as Peters River, where we have a large

number of aquaculture related industries along Peters River. Peters River leads

into Peters Pond, which is the main drinking water supply for Botwood. The

minister knows what I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: I know all about Central Newfoundland, ask me anything.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Absolutely, and you have to agree that the drinking

supply for Botwood is not the most palatable.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would prefer to speak about my district, Sir.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the drinking water supply in Botwood, the

residents out in that area are concerned about it. It is my understanding they

are probably even - I will ask my colleague - looking for a new water supply for

that area out there?

AN HON. MEMBER: I heard something (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: You have to wonder why - when you have such contaminants

and such concerns about our water supply - government are not testing to ensure

the health and safety of the people who drink the water in those areas; why they

are not protecting the people who consume the water in those areas.

We are talking about incinerators and municipal solid waste. You look at what

they are doing in other provinces in reducing municipal solid waste that go to

incinerators and the great success that other provinces have had. Really,

Newfoundland is in the dark ages when it comes to reducing municipal solid

waste. Newfoundland is in the dark ages when it comes to recycling, and

recycling initiatives. When you look at other provinces - even one of our

closest neighbours, Nova Scotia, look at what they have done by reducing the

amount of municipal solid waste that goes into landfill facilities to about 50

per cent of what it was just six or seven years ago; look at the types of things

they have done in achieving that. By reducing municipal solid waste they have

reduced the number of landfill facilities down to some ten, twelve or fourteen

sites, I believe, now in Nova Scotia. They are hoping to get that down to less

than ten. Not counting landfill facilities, not counting landfill sites in this

Province, we have almost fifty incinerators; four times the amount of

incinerators that Nova Scotia has in landfills.

The incinerator that Nova Scotia has is not the old tee-pee style that we are

operating with. In fact, we do not have anything compared to what Nova Scotia

has in incinerators. They have a state-of-the-act facility up there that

reduces, significantly, the amount of emissions created by that incinerator and,

in fact, as an added bonus, generates electricity; and our incinerators are the

most antiquated technology that you can have. They are the old teepee style

incinerators where you just throw it in the high heat and the amount of

emissions - anybody who has driven out over the highway past Foxtrap or any

other area where there is an incinerator will know what I am talking about. You

can smell the fumes from the incinerator as you are driving by. I means, it is

the worst type of treatment you can force upon the environment, and those

emissions are falling over green spaces, over our water supply. Really, it is

almost shameful when you talk to other environment departments across Canada and

compare notes. It is shameful to compare what we are doing here with what they

are doing in other jurisdictions in Canada. It is shameful. It is shameful to

know that we create more dioxins and furans from our incinerators than the steel

industry in all of Canada. It is shameful to know that the incinerators in

Newfoundland have been noted by the American government as one of the most

significant environmental concerns in North America. It is shameful to know that

we are allowing this to continue to happen. Not only is it bad for the

environment, Mr. Speaker, it could be very, very hazardous to human health. It

is shameful to know that we are not taking greater actions - and I will

recognize and compliment government on some of the changes that they have made

to the beverage container recycling program, and on considering putting out

proposals for tire recycling; but those are ideas, Mr. Speaker, that we brought

to the floor to the House of Assembly, that we raised, two and three years ago,

that we asked government to consider two and three years ago, that we were told

two years ago by the Environment Minister at that time that those issues were

going to be addressed that year. A couple of years have gone and we are only now

addressing them.

While I commend them on taking the actions that they have on tire recycling,

I have to say that could have been done a couple of years ago. We could have

looked at those issues a couple of years ago when they were raised; when the

minister, at that time, said that we were going to address those issues.

Still, Mr. Speaker, I will say this: when you are talking about the couple of

good things that government have done, the couple of things they have done in a

positive direction, it is completely overshadowed by their lack of

responsibility or their lack of direction, their lack of accountability when it

comes to the environment, their lack of action when it comes to addressing

issues such as reducing municipal solid waste. To take some money out of the

beverage container recycling fund and to put that money out as grants and ask

the people throughout the Province to come up with ideas; to put some $4 million

out there and say that this is going to help solve municipal solid waste, it is

going to help reduce municipal solid waste, not only is it an insult to the

people who paid the deposit; not only is it an insult to the people who paid

their deposits on beverage containers in good faith that the money was to be

used to promote and enhance beverage container recycling and to help increase

the amount of beverage containers that are being recycled; not only is it a slap

in the face to those people, but really it is a slap in the face to the

environment when you consider that government threw some measly $3 million or $4

million at, you know, community groups and said: You guys try and figure out a

way to reduce municipal solid waste.

Government have to take the responsibility to reduce municipal solid waste,

as they have done in other provinces where they have reduced significantly the

amount of solid waste that goes to landfills; and they have proper landfills,

lined landfills, so that you do not have leaching occur, so that you do not have

leaching of toxic substances into the ground and into water tables and aquifers.

They have proper landfills where they have lined landfills in other

jurisdictions throughout North America - landfills, modern landfills - and what

do we have here? Some forty-five incinerators spewing tons and tons of toxic

emissions into the air, dioxins and furans, emissions that cause cancer,

emissions that bio-accumulate, emissions that do not go away. Long after they

have fallen from the air and you cannot see or smell those emissions, they are

still there building up in the environment.

Mr. Speaker, it shameful what this Province has done to protect our

environment. It is totally inadequate. They have not taken the proper direction

when dealing with the environment in this Province, not at all. We are further

behind than any other province in all of Canada, and further behind than perhaps

any of the United States. The way we treat our municipal solid waste, there are

Third World countries, I would say, that probably do a better job on dealing

with municipal solid waste. There are areas in the world, such as Nova Scotia,

where they have turned solid waste into a resource, where they have turned solid

waste into something valuable.

You may say, how could you do that? Well, look here. In Nova Scotia, they

have created some 600 meaningful jobs by reducing municipal solid waste. They

have created some 600 good jobs by turning waste into reusable products; by

setting up sorting lines at their landfill, where they actually open up garbage

bags and sort and put things into different piles and turn them into valuable

products; where people have curbside recycling, where people do curbside

recycling; where things like rubber tires are turned into car mats or safety

pylons.

AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: How much time do I have?

AN HON. MEMBER: Four minutes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Four minutes.

Where people turn rubber tires into things like safety pylons and floor mats

for cars, and cow mats and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not hard.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know it is not hard. Exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: They are turning them into blasting mats.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Well, there are an awful lot of tires going to our

landfills, absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you, not only on the environment but on a number of

issues, I am so disgusted with this government that I am going to move an

amendment here today. I am going to move an amendment. I am going to move the

following amendment: That all of the words after the word "that" be

struck and replaced with the following: This House acknowledge and condemn the

government's failure to represent accurately the Province's fiscal

situation; to manage competently the Province's Treasury; to protect

adequately the Province's resource wealth; to secure soundly the Province's

social programs; to invest wisely in the Province's youth; to deal fairly with

the Province's public employees; to maintain properly the Province's

infrastructure; to contract capably with the Province's investors; to fight

aggressively for the Province's best interests; to answer candidly to the

Province's people; to listen attentively to the people's concerns; to

administer accountably the Province's departments and agencies; to plan

prudently for the Province's growth; to respond creatively to the desperate

need for jobs, or to discharge effectively any of its other responsibilities.

This is seconded by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South.

I move this amendment.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you going to speak on it for a minute?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will, yes. Sure. Why not?

Mr. Speaker, I will speak on this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House will take a short recess to determine whether or not the amendment

is in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The Chair has reviewed the amendment and deems it

to be in order.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: He must be the leader today, is he? Are you the Leader of

the Opposition? (Inaudible) leader, is he?

MR. T. OSBORNE: And I did not need to buy a new suit to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak on this amendment a little bit. When you

look at what is contained here in the amendment to represent accurately the

Province's fiscal situation, how can government say they have represented the

people's fiscal situation properly? When you see things like - I believe it

was Term 29 back a couple of years ago, or Term 27. What was that, Roger?

MR. FITZGERALD: Twenty nine.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Absolutely, Term 29, where they took an up front

settlement from the federal government and, in lieu, wrote off, gave away,

agreed not to take, $8 million a year for some twenty years. How can you say

they are representing the people's fiscal situation properly when they took a

HST deal up front, took millions of dollars up front, and in turn lost valuable

revenue every year thereafter? How can you say that they are representing the

people's fiscal responsibility properly when the Auditor General questions the

financial practices of government; when the Auditor General says that government's

accounting practices are not up to scratch, that they are basically jigging the

books, working the books to make the financial situation look better than it is;

when the Auditor General says that the Province actually has a greater debt than

the books are showing, because of government's fiscal practices, the way

government do their books? How can you say that government are managing

competently the Province's Treasury? They are not. Again, the Auditor General

points to that.

The Minister Responsible for Finance and Treasury Board has put through what

government has said is a beautiful, gleaming example of a budget that we should

all be proud of. Yet, the Auditor General questions that and we question that.

It turns out that the numbers we have used, that the Member for Kilbride used in

questioning the previous Finance Minister, when all of the members on that side

laughed and mocked and joked, were far, far more accurate and in line with the

true picture of the fiscal situation in this Province than the government put

forward.

How can we say that this Province is adequately protecting the Province's

resource wealth, when the Premier is toying with the idea of letting some ore go

out of Voisey's Bay in return for getting some back at a later date? What

guarantees do we have that it is going to be the same grade, or when are we

going to get it back? What guarantees do we have that the process that Inco is

looking at using, is going to work? Why take the risk? How can we say that the

Province is adequately protecting the Province's resource wealth when we are

toying with the idea again of giving away our bulk water; when the previous

administration gave iron ore pellets from Labrador City to Sept-Iles, Quebec,

instead of processing it here; when we allow the shrimp to go to Prince Island

instead of being utilized to the maximum benefit of the people of this Province?

The Member for St. John's North said the roof is falling in. If we allow

government go continue to sit over there much longer, it may just fall in.

How can we say that the Province is securing soundly the Province's social

programs, when families who need medical attention often times need to go to the

mainland; when there are long lineups waiting for dialysis; when people sit in

hospital beds for weeks waiting for a two-hour operation that can send them home

the following day, waiting -

Mr. Speaker, can you hear me?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

How can we say that the Province is securing soundly the Province's social

program, when people are waiting in hospital beds for weeks for an operation

that could be done today and the person send home tomorrow? What is that costing

the Province, to have somebody sit in a hospital bed every day? What cost is

there to have them sit in a hospital bed for weeks? Do you know the reason that

was given in that particular case, Mr. Speaker? They could not get access to an

anaesthesiologist. So a person who went in on one day for day surgery, and was

supposed to go home the next day, they would not release him from hospital

because of the concern they had for him, and he sat there for over three weeks

waiting for an operation.

Mr. Speaker, how can we say that we are going to secure soundly the Province's

social programs. How can we say that? Because the Province is not. How can we

say that the Province is investing wisely in the Province's youth? Maybe the

investment per capita per youth has increased because of the number of youths

who have out-migrated from this Province to other areas of Canada and North

America. Madam Speaker, how can we say that we are investing in the Province's

youth when there are so many young people, educated people, bright young people,

leaving this Province? That is not investing in youth. It is certainly not

investing in youth.

How can we say that the Province is dealing fairly with the Province's

public employees. Ask the nurses. Ask the RNC. They will let you know. Because,

Madam Speaker, I will tell you, this Province does not have a happy group of

public employees, I can tell you that. That do not have a group of happy public

employees.

How can we say that the Province is maintaining properly the Province's

infrastructure when municipalities do not know whether their water is safe to

drink; when we have boil orders. Is that the answer, boiling water? Is that the

answer to handling of the Province's infrastructure, boil your water before

you drink it? How can we say that is properly managing the Province's

infrastructure?

How can we say, Madam speaker, that the Province has done a good job in

contracting capably with Province's investors when in the Speaker's own

district we gave away an industry for a dollar? How can we say that the Province

is contracting capably with the Province's investors? How can we say that,

when we did not secure the assets there? They failed to secure the assets. They

failed to put in place fines for promises not delivered by Friede Goldman.

How can we say that the Province did a good job in fighting aggressively for

the Province's best interests? Again I will point to Friede Goldman. Again I

will point to the shrimp allocations that went to PEI. You do not have to look

too far to see where government has failed.

How can we say that the government did a good job in answering candidly to

the Province's people, when we have a report on the quality and state of the

Province's water supply that the Province refused, under several requests

under the Freedom of Information Act, to release? How can they say that they

have answered to the people of the Province, when the Premier has promised more

open access to information in government departments and they still refuse to

release information?

How can we say that they are listening attentively to the people's concerns

when people are concerned about water? What is being done? Oh, boil your water

before you drink it. Do not brush your teeth with that water. When people are

leaving the Province looking for work elsewhere and we are looking at giving

away another resource instead of creating the employment here, when we are

looking at giving away a raw resource to have processed elsewhere, utilized

elsewhere, instead of processing that resource right here, how can we say that

we are listening to the people? I know we are on this side of the House. We are

listening to the people. How can we say that government is listening to the

people? You can't.

How can we say that government did a good job in administering accountability

to the Province's departments and agencies? Honestly, you cannot even get any

information from those departments and agencies. They refuse to give the

information.

How can we say that the Province did a good job to plan prudently for the

Province's growth,

when not only do we have out-migration, not only is the population shrinking,

but the only GDP growth that we can really boastfully say has boosted this

economy in the past couple of years has been the offshore oil industry. Rural

Newfoundland is dying. Rural Newfoundland cannot say that the offshore oil

industry is putting bread and butter on their table. Rural Newfoundland cannot

say that they have benefitted adequately from the jobs created by the offshore

oil industry.

When the former Minister of Fisheries can stand and say that it is cheaper to

bottle water than it is to process oil, and yet we are talking about letting it

go in bulk, how can we accept, as an Opposition, speaking on behalf of the

people of this Province - how can the people of this Province accept what the

government is doing? They cannot.

How can we say that government responded creatively to the desperate need for

jobs in this Province when they are going to let water go in bulk instead of

processing it here, when they are going to let water go in bulk instead of

bottling it here, labeling it here, and creating the jobs here? How can you do

that? You cannot. How can you say that government is doing a good job?

Government is not doing a good job. The people of the Province are going to let

government know what they think of government whenever the Premier builds up the

nerve to do the right thing, to call a by-election in Humber West. They will let

the governm