May 1, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 16

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to

the gallery today eleven Adult Basic Education Students from the school, Skill

for Success. They are accompanied by their instructors, Bernadette Galway and

Agnes Murphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, every year a special Canada Day Poster Contest

is held nationally on July 1. This contest gives young Canadians the opportunity

to learn about Canada's history and its achievements through the construction

of images that they choose to represent their view of Canada.

This year, the Canada Day Poster Contest was "A Celebration of Canadians

Firsts", prompting young Canadians to design a poster that expressed

personal exploits, notable achievements, and Canada's many achievements to the

world community.

Every year, the top poster design from provincial and territorial finalists

is chosen as the official Canada Day Poster. This poster is then distributed all

across the country. Finalists will get the opportunity to join thousands of

Canadians on July 1 at Parliament Hill to participate in Canada Day Festivities.

The Newfoundland and Labrador finalist was announced this Monday at the

Fairmont Newfoundland Hotel. The honour went to Suzanne van Niekerk, aged

sixteen, a student at Herdman Collegiate in Corner Brook. Katie Druken of St.

Kevin's High in the Goulds placed second, and Jennifer Brown of Discovery

Collegiate in Upper Amherst Cove rounded out the top three.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in

congratulating all three winners on their accomplishments and wish them the very

best of success as they represent Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take the opportunity today to send special birthday greeting to a

resident of Point Lance, St. Mary's Bay. Mr. Benedict Careen celebrated his

seventy-fifth birthday this past Saturday, April 27. Benedict has retired from a

life in the fishing industry and is enjoying his golden years with his wife

Nellie at their home nestled under the hills surrounding the community of Point

Lance. As many family and friends are aware, the welcome mat has always been in

place at Benedict and Nellie's home.

As Benedict turns seventy-five, he is in great health and enjoys spending

time in the outdoors. It is a very common sight to see Benedict travelling the

countryside around his home on his ski-doo in the wintertime and/or his

all-terrain bike. Maybe it is the fresh air off the waters of St. Mary's Bay

that keeps Benedict young and healthy.

It is not unique to turn seventy-five years of age, but I do believe the

family of Benedict and Nellie Careen of Point Lance is unique. They have eleven

children, all of whom live in Newfoundland and Labrador, all of whom are

involved directly or indirectly in the fishing industry. Up until approximately

two years ago, all eleven children lived in the community of Point Lance, which

by the way has a population of approximately 200 people. Today, ten of their

children still live in Point Lance and all have established their own homes

there. The youngest, Sylvia, married a couple of years ago and moved just up the

road to the community of St. Bride's.

I believe this situation goes to show a positive story about our fishing

industry. Here we have a very large family who have not only survived but

created a wonderful way of life for their families from the fishing industry.

This is an example of rural Newfoundland at its best. It is a credit to Benedict

and Nellie Careen, and in sending greetings and congratulations to Benedict on

his seventy-fifth birthday, I am sure that having all of his children and

grandchildren around him, especially in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador today, helping him celebrate is the greatest birthday gift of all.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in sending special birthday

greetings to Mr. Benedict Careen of Point Lance, St. Mary's Bay on his

seventy-fifth birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to echo yesterday's comments by the hon.

Member for Lewisporte about Mr. Alec D. Moores, and to also congratulate another

native of the Carbonear- Harbour Grace District who has been named to the Junior

Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ches Penney is an individual who has significantly

contributed to the growth and development of enterprise in this Province. Mr.

Penney is the brother of our hon. Minister of Labour and is President and Chief

Executive Officer of the Penney Group, one of this Province's largest private

commercial groups with annual revenues in excess of $350 million.

Born in Carbonear, Mr. Penney was the eldest of twelve children and learned

early the importance of accepting a leadership role. That leadership has made

Mr. Penney one of this Province's foremost business people.

The operations of the Penney Group have grown significantly over time into a

number of companies involved in heavy construction, concrete, land development,

along with many other successful ventures, employing several thousand people in

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, all members should recognize Mr. Penney, Mr. Alec D. Moores and

Sir Robert Gillespie Reid on their significant contribution to business

development in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Conception Bay South Concert Band which has

been in operation for some thirty years. I had the privilege and pleasure on

Saturday night to attend a function at the Queen Elizabeth Regional High School

in Foxtrap where they performed in concert as part of a fundraising effort for

their group.

Their contribution of music to the community, and indeed to the Province, is

nothing short of tremendous. Margaret Rowe, the concert band director, is to be

congratulated on a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to congratulate the people of Trinity-Conception who have raised

over $15,000 to help support the Janeway Children's Hospital.

On March 9, the people in this region organized the first ever Run for the

Janeway. It consisted of approximately 200 ATVs, beginning at the Shearstown

Lions Club and traveling sixty-six kilometres through a beautiful country

setting and returning back to Shearstown for the finale.

Alex Dawe, along with several others who organized this event, has received

nothing but great comments. Mr. Dawe, who has a grandson who has spent his

entire life at the Janeway, felt that by doing this they might be able to return

the generosity they have received from the facility.

After the run, approximately 500 people were served lunch and attended a

dance at the Shearstown Lions Club. Overall, the day was a great success and

there are plans already in motion for a similar event next year. To help expand

the event, Mr. Dawe plans to hold the event next year in mid-February so that

snowmobilers will be able to participate as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this House join with me in

congratulating the people of the Trinity-Conception region on raising $15,000 to

help the Janeway and encourage them to keep up the good work in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize May 5-11, as North

American Occupational Safety and Health Week, or NAOSH Week. This is the sixth

year that employers, government, labour and workers in Canada, the United States

and Mexico, will join forces to promote a greater awareness for the importance

of preventing workplace accidents and occupational illnesses.

The goal of NAOSH Week, which carries the theme: Prevention is the Cure, is

to focus the attention of employers, employees, the general public, and all

partners in occupational health and safety, on the importance of preventing

illness, injury or death in the workplace, and what we can do to make safety the

number one goal.

Setting aside a period of time to reflect specially on workplace health and

safety allows us to exchange ideas and experiences with other jurisdictions,

other workers and even family members, so that we may learn from each other.

Safe, healthy workplaces, where the rights and interests of employers and

employees are protected will continue to be a goal of this government. Positive

legislative changes brought forward in 2001, emphasize the importance of

accident prevention as well as early and safe return to work.

Health and safety on the job is everyone's responsibility. While employers

and employees have a responsibility to ensure safe and healthy workplaces,

government will endeavour to help foster a safety culture through its mandate to

provide legislation and regulations that reflect this commitment.

This year, let us all do our part towards prevention so we can safely say we

found a cure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Her, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement and to say

that we, on this side of the House, as well would like to join with the North

America Occupational Safety and Health Week. We would like to congratulate all

of those involved. I just attended two days of the Employers' Council of

Newfoundland and Labrador seminar on a safe return to work. Mr. Speaker, it is

very interesting that more people, more businesses and more employees in this

Province are becoming aware daily of their safety and, of course, of all of them

trying to get back to work.

I have also been involved with a family from my district who had the very

unfortunate incident of having the lady's husband and father of children

killed a few years ago in a very tragedy accident in this Province,

work-related, and I can only say how sad it is when people have to go through

such a traumatic experience as to see a loved one in their family lost. In this

case, lost forever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: So we would agree with the minister and would like to join in

and just say whatever we can do to help on this side of the House, we are only

too glad to do for the injured workers of this Province and to help people

obtain a safe return to work.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, would like to acknowledge the minister in her statement today and

talk about the Prevention is the Cure, and safety and health is not something

that can be fixed one day and it is good for a month. It is a continuous

process. It has to be worked on each and every minute that people are in the

workplace.

Now, referring the early and safe return to work, I would say, Mr. Speaker,

that governments are catching up because this came about through the duty to

accommodate human rights commissions throughout the country and arbitration

cases. So, it is important that employees can return to work earlier than they

could have before, but I will say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this is something that has to

be looked at very closely in each individual case because there are cases in

this Province today where workers are being forced to return to work too early,

aggravating their current injury and probably being off longer, in the

long-term, as a result of that.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to acknowledge and point out

that today is May 1, which is Labour Day in most of the world.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier and they are a follow-up to the

questions yesterday concerning the Hay study which was commissioned by the

government to provide an operational review of the Health Care Corporation at a

cost of about $460,000. In fact, government commissioned it and, in fact,

government owns that particular report.

It is also my understanding, from the answers yesterday given by the Minister

of Health, that this report was reviewed by his department, by officials in his

department, and as well as by the Health Care Corporation. Mr. Speaker, my

question for the Premier is: Would he take the time, please, to just go through,

for this House and for hon. members, the steps, the various procedures that were

taken in reviewing this report prior to its release? In other words, could you

give us a chronological sequence of exactly what happened from the time it was

commissioned until the time it was actually released?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the question in the House yesterday from the hon. Leader of

the Opposition, as he has referenced here today, I indicated that in fact we

were and had been in receipt of a draft report which had been reviewed by the

department and also by the Health Care Corporation. On the basis of that, the

particular issue that was under discussion was noted and had gone back to the

consultants. I raised it with them and expressed the concerns with regards to

it.

In terms of the particulars, I am not quite sure what the hon. member is

looking for. I am not trying to be evasive, but when he is asking for specifics

with regards to the steps, I would ask him if he could elaborate a little more.

I honestly don't quite follow where he is coming from.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Health if he could tell me by whom

the Hay study was reviewed, how many times it was reviewed, and if any

amendments were proposed and, in fact, incorporated into that study? Those are

the kinds of particulars I am looking for.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the specifics, as to who actually reviewed the report, if he

wants names I can't give him names, but I can certainly find names for him. As

he would be aware, in fact, I wasn't in the department when the report was

received. The information I have is that it was reviewed by the officials of the

department. The draft of the report was also reviewed by the Health Care

Corporation.

Now, if there were other matters there, it is my understanding - you know, I

would have to be careful, as I don't know. The only issue I am aware of that

had been raised for some consideration - there may have been others, and again I

could get confirmation on that - certainly was the issue with regards to the

emergency service at the Janeway. On the basis of that, the representation had

been made to the consultants and these concerns were raised. My understanding

was the consultants were prepared to make some minor adjustments, but in the

main, they said, they stood by what they had in the report and were not prepared

to make major adjustments to it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, from the minister's comments and

yesterday, that it was in fact reviewed by your department's officials, and,

in fact, concerns were expressed. I also understand from your statements in the

House, that you completely separate yourself from the statements in the Hay

report and, as well, you publicly apologized for those statements yesterday.

I ask the minister: In light of the fact that this report was publicly

released on March 27 th , and it is now over a month later, why, in

fact, the ministry or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did not

separate itself from those statements on March 27 th , when it could

have easily done so by disclaimer or by a dissenting opinion attached to that

report, similar to what it did with the water quality report that was released

some time ago? Why didn't you disassociate yourself, Minister, at that time,

rather than now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, probably we have to acknowledge that, in terms of

the understanding of the issue and the sensitivity of it, it may be an accurate

presentation in saying that maybe at that point in time - in fact, in the letter

that I have today communicated to legal counsel for them, I have acknowledged in

that particular letter that probably at that point in time maybe it is something

we should have done.

I guess from our perspective, maybe if we could be charged of anything, it

would be maybe not being fully sensitive as to how this issue would be responded

to by the particular officials or particular physicians who were involved.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the questioning, any time the issue has been raised,

and subsequent to that, when it became a concern, right from day one, there was

never any question that government made sure that they were, in fact - that they

positioned themselves as clearly not being in support of what was there.

Mr. Speaker, no one can point anywhere to evidence indicating anything

different that this minister or previous minister or officials from this

government have indicated in terms of the issue that is there. Whenever it has

been raised in questioning in this House, and outside of the House, this

minister has made it quite clear that we do not subscribe to the comments that

are there. We do have complete faith in the physicians who offer emergency

service to the children and families in this Province. In fact, we have said

repeatedly that the parents who depend on that service for their children have

no reason, in the opinion of this minister or this government, to have any

concerns with regard to the quality of care that will be provided today, as it

has been in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I would suggest to you that it is not a question of being

insensitive but a question of being incompetent. That is really what it comes

down to here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: In light of the fact that you now take the position that

you take, and you completely disassociate yourself and the government

disassociates itself from the comments in that report; a report that alleges

that emergency physicians at the Janeway are incompetent, unqualified, not

properly trained, that the nursing staff is over-burdened, and that there are

delays in providing emergency service, would you not agree, Minister, that you

have now exposed the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Health Care

Corporation, the Janeway Hospital, the emergency physicians, the nurses and the

entire staff, to possible legal litigation as a result of that negligent

exercise by this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition finally getting to being open about

his real concerns, which are that he would probably rather be a lawyer than a

politician.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this. Our concern is this, and we took it seriously

yesterday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - when we were approached through the NLMA some time ago

by a letter that did not come from the President of the NLMA. It was not matter

that was addressed in a meeting for dialogue. It was sent by a lawyer, and any

time the government gets a letter from a lawyer, then, Mr. Speaker, we take it

seriously to the point of making sure - and this is a very important point -

making sure that we do not send anything back in response without having it

vetted by lawyers, so that we make sure that we do not expose the government to

anything that is unnecessary or improper because of an improperly responded

letter, Mr. Speaker.

We took the time to deal with the issue seriously because we took it

seriously; and we understood yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that everybody's interest

in this Legislature was to do whatever was possible and necessary to make sure

that there was no disruption of service for the children at the Janeway

tomorrow. I understand that is close to being to being accomplished, if not

already accomplished, but today the Leader of the Opposition wants to raise the

issue again and condemn the government because now we might have settled the

issue at the Janeway - we might have - but he does not want that to happen. He

wants to now condemn the government and say that we were incompetent because we

took the time, Mr. Speaker, to make sure we gave a proper answer to a lawyer

acting on behalf of some doctors that we value very much so -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - that we wanted to make sure we gave the proper

response, Mr. Speaker, and we did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: You are pathetic, Premier. He finally rises, after two

days, so he can have a shot at lawyers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: What about your learned friend, my friend, the Minister of

Justice, who is a lawyer? Are you going to have a shot at him too? Your personal

attacks, is this what this is all about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's get to the meat of the issue, then. That Hay study

was delivered, that report was delivered, without a performance appraisal of

those doctors. Are you concerned, Premier, that parents and grandparents of

children in this Province are going in now as a result of the scathing remarks

in that report and asking these doctors and these nurses and the staff, are they

competent enough to deal with their children? That is what has happened as a

result of that report. Are you comfortable with the fact that now parents and

grandparents are going in and asking these doctors whether they can properly

treat these children? Because, they are concerned about it as parents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand is clearly this: A commission report by the

Department of Health and Community Services, in conjunction with the Health Care

Corporation of St. John's, who were in an $18 million deficit position and

looking for an examination of all aspects of their system so that we could have

some suggestions made as to how we could run the best possible level of health

care that we can afford in Newfoundland and Labrador, is a legitimate exercise

to go through. The HayGroup will defend their own words. They are not ours, and

if the Leader of the Opposition wants to provide free legal advice to the NLMA,

to the doctors, or anybody else as to what position they should take, and if

they want to sue somebody, so be it.

I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that when we get letters from lawyers on

behalf of any group we do check with legal council and make sure we deal with

the issue seriously.

If somebody is going to suggest that by commissioning a report, that somebody

has done something wrong, then we have a problem with that, Mr. Speaker. The

stand for this government is this: Every time we get a report we give it to

everybody in the Province so we can all work through the issues together. These

doctors and the NLMA can have the discussions with the minister any time that

they want, they can have a discussion with the authors of the report -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - any time they want. It is the authors of the report, if

anybody, who need to make a retraction if they are going to be convinced in

dialogue with the physicians, the lawyers and the NLMA that they have made a

grievous mistake.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: The report is written. We do not agree with it. The

Health Care Corporation does not agree with it. It is not the Health Care

Corporations, it is not ours -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I am a lawyer, I am a father and I am a grandparent and I

make no apologies for it. That is why I stand here and ask you these questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Why didn't

you have the guts enough yesterday to stand up -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that questions, again, should be directed to the

Speaker, to government, not to individuals across the way.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier why he didn't have the

stomach enough yesterday to stand up and apologize to these doctors and retract

these statements which he is now leaving to his minister to do today on his

behalf?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Were you just not interested enough again, Premier? Is that

the problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad, again, that the Leader of the Opposition, in his usual form, has

gone from an issue of real importance and concern to all of us, which was a

possible withdrawal of service at our children's hospital in the emergency

department, to wanting to condemn me personally and the government for this, Mr.

Speaker.

Let me make this point again: Does it make any more sense to anybody in

Newfoundland and Labrador that if we had asked his law firm to commission the

study, and if they had made some comments that we did not agree with, that I

should stand up and apologize for comments that were written by his law firm

because we asked them to do a study? That is what is being asked for in this

case, Mr. Speaker.

A group that has a reputation, a stellar reputation across Canada and around

the world, wrote a study on behalf of the Health Care Corporation and the

department. They made those comments, not the government. We have told the whole

world we do not agree with that part of the report. We do not plan to take any

action as a result of it, because of the fact that we do not agree with the

statements but it is not up to me to turn around and say: I apologize for the

HayGroup. The HayGroup has to apologize for itself if they believe that they

have said something completely wrong. We have told them we disagree. We have

told the doctors we disagree. We have told the people of the Newfoundland and

Labrador we disagree, but we cannot speak for the HayGroup. We do not own them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We are not part of them, and, Mr. Speaker, they speak for

themselves and, hopefully, they will speak on this issue when they have a

dialogue with the NLMA and the physicians, themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a final question for the hon. the Premier. Premier, would you

not agree that you have paid $460,000 for a document that enables people around

this Province to sue this government and the Janeway Hospital?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not to my knowledge. I have no information whatsoever that there are any

lawsuits pending as a result of comments made in a report that was commissioned

by the government on behalf of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. Mr.

Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, I guess, is that we

should have the ability, as a government, to commission a report and, at the

same time, tell the authors of the report what to put in it and what to say.

That is not how we operate, Mr. Speaker. These are independent specialists. They

were selected because they are the best in the field. We don't do business by

saying: We want a report, but don't say this, don't say that, don't talk

about this, do say this and do say something else. When we get the report we

take actions on things that we agree with and we tell people when we don't

agree, because they are not given the right to make the decisions, but they were

given the right to give their opinion and give us some information. We are

dealing with it. Some of the actions we will take.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: And, Mr. Speaker, the deficit of $18 million has been

eliminated as a result of some of the recommendations in the report, and we hope

they will be able to balance their budget in the future -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - as a result of some of the good, constructive

recommendations in this report; not ones like this that we don't agree with,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

A recent report of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council on groundfish

stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, once again pointed to the consumption of

fish by seals as the major impediment to the rebuilding of the once great cod

stocks in this area. The report cites consumption figures from DFO scientists

that estimate upwards of 39,000 tons of cod consumed by seals in the southern

Gulf of St. Lawrence alone, annually. The Council goes on to say that stock

rebuilding cannot be expected, even in the absence of a commercial fishery, if

action is not taken to reduce the size of the seal herds.

Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Minister of Fisheries, or whomever the Premier

decides should get up today, tell me how much more evidence they have been able

to determine, from their discussions with the federal government, how much more

evidence does the federal minister need to get action taken to reduce the size

of the seal herds that continue to threaten our cod stocks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess all of us, on both sides of the House, recognize, in the number of

years that I have been here, that the seal is a predator and it has been one of

the reasons why we have not had the return in cod stocks like they were in years

past. We all recognize that. The minister has given indications in this House

that we, as a government, have worked with the federal government to convince

them to increase the number of seals for the quota each year, and we will

continue to work with that.

We all recognize, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that the seals are an

impediment to the return of the cod stocks. We all know that. People who are in

this House, the forty-eight of us, who represent a half-a-million people across

this Province, know that. The fishermen who are out there know that. The people

in our communities, the small communities that dot the coastlines of

Newfoundland and Labrador, know that too.

We will continue to work with DFO to ensure that we will, in fact, find a

larger quota of seals so that we can find a larger stock of cod and groundfish

returning to the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this year the seal hunt presents us with an economic opportunity

and a conservation opportunity. The market conditions have never been better,

providing many in the fishery, particularly the small boat sector, and many

communities, with much-needed employment. Mr. Speaker, we have waited twenty

years for this opportunity, for the market conditions to be such that we might

we able to start down the road towards restoring some balance between the number

of seals and the amount of fish in the ocean. We cannot afford to miss this

opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask this: When does the minister intend to ask the

federal government what more it needs to allow the fishermen of this Province to

take more seals in this year's hunt, giving them much-needed revenue while

reducing the size of the seal herd as the FRCC has once again recommended?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the hon. member would know, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sets

the quota for the seal cull each year in this Province and in all of Canada. We

would like to see more, obviously - our minister have said that - because we

recognize the importance of the seals and the impact they have on the cod

fishery.

We will continue to work with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for

Canada, Mr. Thibault, and I am sure that when the minister returns to his office

tomorrow - I will talk to him today, and if there are certain things that the

hon. member opposite will want me to get, then I will contact the minister and

have it for him.

I can say here, as one of the members in this Legislature, we are all

concerned, and we recognize that it is an opportune time. A couple of years ago,

I remember when the Member for Port de Grave was the Minister of Fisheries and

seal pelts were $2 or $3 a pelt. Now there are $60 and even more than that. We

recognize the economic activity and we recognize what it can do for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, so we will continue to press that particular case

to the Fisheries Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is to the Acting Minister of Finance or the Premier of the

Province. I would like to ask the Premier: Why is Bill 7, that was tabled in

this House, looking for authorization to raise $200 million when the Budget

Estimates that were tabled here indicate a deficit of just $93 million?

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.

The answer is really quite simple. The cash position of the Province, as

reflected in the Budget, is one issue. It is a year-over-year cash position that

we expose, that we report.

The issue of how much borrowing we have to do year over year as a government

has nothing to do with the deficit in a given year, per se. It has to do with

our borrowing requirements to retire debt that matures and to add additional

flexibility to the Budget in addition to that. So the borrowing requirements of

the government on a year-to-year basis have nothing to do with the deficit, per

se.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it has nothing to do with it, I want to ask the minister: Why does it say

in the Resolution in Bill 7, that the money that they are authorizing to raise

is $200 million in addition to the sum or sums of money that may be required to

retire, repay, renew, or refund securities under

an act of the Province or may

be paid into the Newfoundland and Labrador Government Sinking Fund?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member answered his own question, and confirmed what I said. It has

nothing to do with the budget position, the $97 million deficit that we

announced in our budget. It has to do with other issues with respect to our

borrowing requirements, in addition to what was in the budget as reported by the

Minister of Finance, when she read it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister should be aware, as the Finance Minister too, that there are

certain statutory requirements that are non-budgetary items here in this budget.

I want to say to the minister that in addition to this is the money that they

are looking at. So, I want to ask him: Is government, or the minister,

anticipating a much higher deficit then this government has stated and tabled

here in the House and they are looking to cover that down the road in this

fiscal year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The explanation in the bill, again answers the question. It says that we are

seeking authorization to raise $200 million. It says in the explanatory notes,

accurately so: In addition to some that may be required. So, this is not tied to

the deficit that was announced in the budget. It talks here about requirement to

- we are borrowing $200 million under this bill that can be used to repay debt,

retire debt, to refund securities, or for other things that may have a

requirement attached to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and concerns government's

plans to spend $2.7 million of public money to build a golf course on top of the

rare sand dune ecosystem in Windmill Bight Provincial Park. Mr. Speaker, the

minister keeps saying there are other areas near Windmill Bight that are just

the same characteristics as the sand dune ecosystem, but scientists disagree,

Mr. Speaker, that that is not the case.

I want to ask the minister, if the Minister of Environment is truly

interested in protecting this rare ecosystem why doesn't he do the simple

thing and tell the people who are involved, or the government itself, to find

another place to build a golf course instead of trying to find the impossible,

Mr. Speaker, a replacement for this rare and unique sand dune ecosystem? Why

doesn't he do that, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question because

he is perpetuating another -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member is perpetuating a myth about the

alternative sites, for example, when it comes to the ecosystem in that region.

The document that we published two years ago, in the year 2000, Protecting Our

Natural Heritage, which the environmental community knows all about, identifies

at least two sites in that area, in this publication, which are going to be

under consideration, and now a third one is under consideration. So, there are

alternative sites for the ecosystem in that area and they will be evaluated as

the government has directed.

Mr. Speaker, there are two words called sustainable development. There are

developments that can occur and you can protect the environment and you can deal

with the environment. I also have today, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the guidelines

of an environmental protection plan which I will table in this House - which we

will be dealing with very shortly - and which will deal with the environmental

issues related to this project. The people out there very much believe that this

project can be successfully done and protect the environment at the same time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the area of Cape Freels, for example, are already

complaining about the possibility of this government trying to protect that

particular area. We have an area that has been protected for over three decades,

an area that has been identified by the Canadian Parks Service as an important

study area and a potential Aboriginal site. It is an area that needs continued

protection. A golf course can be built in many places. Why doesn't the

government do its job, protect the ecosystem for everybody instead of spending

$2.7 million of public money, and ask the people of the Province to pay an

additional price of losing this system?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, in this document, Deadman's Bay is

highlighted. Deadman's Bay, in that ecosystem in that area, is a provincial

park which we promote, and the sand dunes in that area are now protected as a

day use provincial park. That course has not been highlighted by some of the

media. Some have. Some haven't. But I will say this: There is a way to deal

with this issue, on a sustainable development way, with the proper criteria laid

down upfront. By the way, there is a golf course development in Terra Nova

National Park, approved by the national federal government, with a salmon river

going right through it. So, can it be done in an environmentally acceptable way?

We believe it can with the right conditions, and that is what we have said,

assessing all of the information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, last week in this House, the Minister of Justice and the acting

Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Renewal tabled guidelines covering the

hiring of external consultants and when he did, he said: These guidelines were

in place since 1985. What he neglected to say was that these guidelines were

updated under a Liberal Administration in 1992 and further updated again in

1993. What he tried to do, Mr. Speaker, is leave the impression that they

belonged to a former Tory government. Not true. They were updated and redrafted

by a Liberal Administration.

My question for him is this - if anybody has taken the time like I have, and

like our caucus has, to review each subhead in the Budget under Professional

Services, there is an appropriation of a total amount of approximately $25

million under Professional Services throughout the entire Budget. My question is

this: Given the fact that this government, under the leadership of this Premier,

has said that it is going to be the most transparent and accountable government

in Newfoundland's history, why is it, then, according to your guidelines, that

$25 million associated with Professional Services, that ministries in the

department can circumvent and not deal with public tender or requests for

proposals, and, in fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - send out $25 million worth of Professional Services

without anybody knowing who it is going to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It looks like another one of these filler questions as we get towards the end

of Question Period.

First of all, let's set the record straight again, because Dr. Spin is at

it again today. These guidelines for outside consultants were drafted by a Tory

Administration in 1985.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Just a second now, you will get the facts. If you want the

facts you will get them right here, right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: The fact is, the only amendments made by any administration

to these guidelines after they were drafted - and you can have your people check

this out - were the amounts referred to in terms of where clearances were

needed. For example, in 1985 when they were originally done, it talked about

contracts less than $30,000 or over $30,000. The only substantive amendments to

that document that he is referring to was due to inflationary affects, that

amount was raised from $30,000 to $50,000 contracts. That is the only difference

that are in those guidelines.

With respect to the other issue that he raised; this department, Industry,

Trade and Rural Development, are going through the Estimates process next

Monday, at 5:30 p.m. here in this House, on May 7. I would be more than pleased

at that time to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: - give any and all explanations that he would like with

respect to the issues of outside consulting contracts and shifting of funds from

one area of the department to another when it comes to purchasing personal

services. No questions. No problem with being totally open, totally transparent,

and totally accountable.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

"An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act, No. 2."

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the

communities of Branch, Point Lance, St. Bride's, Cuslett, Angels Cove and

Patrick's Cove on the Cape Shore. The prayer of the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and in

parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the

following prayer:

We, the undersigned citizens of the Cape Shore area hereby draw your

attention to the unsatisfactory and unsafe conditions as they now exist on Route

100 and Route 100-16, Cape Shore;

WHEREAS it is the duty of government through the enactment and enforcement of

the Highways Safety Act to protect its citizens not only from commuters but also

from unsafe highways; and

WHEREAS the safety of the travelling public must be the number one priority

of any government;

WHEREFORE your petitioners ask that government provide the necessary funding

to carry out the much needed repairs to Route 100 and Route 100-16, as in duty

bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, once again I stand to present a petition on behalf of the people

of the Cape Shore area and their concerns that they have put forward here

through petitions, through me in the House as their MHA, in relation to safety

concerns. They believe that safety concerns now exist on Route 100 and Route

100-16 normally known as Point Lance Road.

Mr. Speaker, from a place on the Cape Shore that we call Cuslett lookout,

over to the community of Branch in St. Mary's Bay, Route 100 and Route 100-16,

Point Lance Road, Mr. Speaker, there are some major problems and major concerns

that have been brought forward by the people.

I drive over this road myself on a continuous basis, Mr. Speaker. This road

was paved approximately around 1979 - the paving began and it has not seen a lot

of work since. There are a lot of concerns that people have, Mr. Speaker.

One of the major concerns they have touched on in one of the

WHEREAS of the

petition, is the safety concern. We have school buses that travel this road

everyday, carrying children back and forth to Fatima Academy in St. Bride's

and there is a major concern with that. We have emergency vehicles, fire

vehicles, and the ambulance service that travels back and forth over this road,

and it is causing some great concerns.

The cost of repairs to vehicles in that area over the past spring are

staggering. I have talked to several people who have had their cars or trucks

towed to a garage. Many, many repairs are needed and we all know that all of

these add up to an immense amount of money.

I received a copy of a letter this morning from three parents, three

individuals in Point Lance, that was sent to the minister, and it basically

explained the same things that I have talked about here in the House as it

relates to the concerns of these roads. Hopefully, the minister will have a look

at that letter and will instruct his officials to do something about the road

repairs in that area.

I had the opportunity yesterday to present to the minister some pictures -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: We had some picture that were forwarded to the minister

yesterday. I forwarded some pictures to show the conditions of the road and I

see by the expression on the minister's face that he found it hard to believe

that these roads actually exist, but they do, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, with the

pressure being put on by the people in the area, through me here in the House of

Assembly, and the letters to the minister, the much-needed repairs will be

carried out and the people of the Cape Shore can enjoy a safe road to drive

over. In this day and age now, I do not think it is too much to ask.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if we can revert to -

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, by leave. if I might. I have some information

with regard to the very pressing issue which we have been debating here in the

House for the last couple of days. I would like, by leave, to be able to report

to the House on a development which I was just informed of.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the hon. members.

As I indicated in Question Period today that I had, in fact, communicated in

writing to the legal counsel of the doctors in question with regard to the issue

that has been raised, I have just received a note in the House, sent to me by my

deputy, which has advised that we have been informed by Mr. Rob Ritter of the

NLMA that a letter is on its way to my office stating that the doctors have, in

fact, accepted the letter which I wrote to them, which does contain an apology

that they requested, and that there will be no service interruption tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: By leave, I am prepared to table the letter as the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition has asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are back on petitions.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We cannot continue with the petition until we have some order here in the

House. I ask hon. members to let the hon. Member for Labrador West present his

petition.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the members of the House, maybe they all should have gone to Mount

Pearl this weekend to the boxing tournament.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of

the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund and place it into general revenue.

The people in Labrador are very concerned that the removal of this amount of

money is seriously going to jeopardize Phase III of the Labrador Highway being

constructed. It is also going to jeopardize the ability of the Province to

repair roads on a much-needed basis on a year-round systematic basis as they

deteriorate; because, given the fact that we have gravel roads, no pavement, the

roads deteriorate. As one

section of the highway is being repaired, the other

part is deteriorating.

We are quite concerned, Mr. Speaker, that in the future government will not

have the ability to address these issues simply because they will not have the

money to do so. In the past, money was taken from this fund in order to do that.

I would like to say that the government knew what the reaction from Labrador

was going to be when they took this money from the Labrador Transportation Fund.

They knew that, and it is evident they knew it, because in the Budget

Highlights, where they highlight the main attractions of the Budget, in those

Budget Highlights was contained reference to the fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, if hon. members wish to engage in a conversation across the House,

then I suggest that they find an appropriate place to do it; because here is not

the appropriate place, when the hon. member is presenting a petition.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Budget Highlights generally highlight what is

happening in the Province, where government is spending lots of money to show

the people of the Province where, in fact, government is spending their money to

appease them.

It is interesting to note in the Budget Highlights this year, regarding

Labrador, which was specially mentioned, the $97 million the government knew was

going to draw flack from Labrador, they had highlighted in their Budget for this

year that they were going to do snow clearing in Labrador in the wintertime, and

that was a Budget highlight.

In addition to that, they talked about purchasing two graders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to raise this point of order, but I did

give the hon. gentleman the time allocated to present a petition. What I wanted

to do was to bring to hon. members' attention some of our rules regarding the

presentation of petitions, and it is important. We designed those rules. We

designed the rules of the House, and that is what makes it important. We are not

following the rules that had been imposed upon us by some foreign body. We are

working under the rules that we ourselves approved, and if we cannot follow the

rules that we ourselves approved then I do not think that speaks well of us.

Now, I hesitate because the hon. gentleman is normally a good parliamentarian

and follows all the rules of the House, but in this particular case with the

petition, Mr. Speaker, I noticed where, a couple of days ago, the hon. - let me,

first of all, just indicate to hon. members what are the same of the important

points about a petition.

Number one, "A petition to the House shall be presented by a member who

shall be answerable that it does not contain impertinent or improper

matter...". So, the hon. member is responsible for what it contains.

Another important point that I want to make is, "Every member offering a

petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the

parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the

material allegations that it contains." That is what a petition is supposed

to do, Mr. Speaker.

Lastly, and a very important point that we have always maintained in this

House, not in the Standing Orders but through tradition, is that it have a

prayer. Now, I noticed the member's petition yesterday that he presented, no

prayer. Again, the one today, no prayer, just carrying on in a debate. A

petition is not a place -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: I just tell the hon. member that a petition is not a place for

debate.

These rules are done for an obvious reason, to expedite the business of the

House, and petitions are not to have a debate. But yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the

hon. the member, when he presented his petition, said: I rise today to present a

petition on behalf of thousands of residents of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I took the hon. member for his word, a petition with a thousand

signatures, or a couple of thousand. It was brought to my attention that the

hon. member's petition contained twenty-one signatures.

Now, it is nothing to say that the hon. member cannot present his petitions

over a hundred-day period, but I think it is incumbent upon the hon. member to

indicate how many signatures are on that petition because that is what our

Standing Orders say, and not try to give the impression that he is presenting a

petition with a thousand signatures on it; because I would suggest that the hon.

member hasn't yet presented a petition with a thousand names to it. If you put

together the total of what he has presented, that it does not reach the

thousand.

I just say to hon. members, all of us, that it is important that we follow

the rules when we are presenting a petition, and much more important that we

follow them now under the new rules, because under the old rules other members

would see the petition. There were three people who could speak to them. Now it

is only the member presenting. So, that is very important that the member

presenting the petition does follow the rules so that we all know, when a

petition comes here, that it is following the rules and procedures of this

House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi-Vidi, to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has been in

this House a long time, but so have I. I have been here nearly a dozen years

now, and I have heard petitions presented, probably hundreds or thousands of

petitions presented in this House, and I would have to say, despite the

pontifications of the Government House Leader, I do not believe I have ever

heard of a petition presented in this House that confined itself specifically to

the rule mentioned by the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: This is a political House, I remind the Government House

Leader, not a legalistic House. The minister and the government is complaining

about legal

interpretations and talked about law. This is not a legal

interpretation. The petition presented by the Member for Labrador West was, in

fact, presented on behalf of thousands of people in Labrador. The petition that

he had in front of him was only signed by a certain number, but there are

thousands of people in Labrador who support that petition, who signed various

petition, and the petition does have a prayer, Mr. Speaker. It does have a

prayer. There is a prayer on the petition that is spelled out. There are a

number of:

WHEREAS. There is a prayer in the petition and the people in this

House - all of the people in this House, I would say to the Government House

Leader - plus everybody who sees us on television, knows exactly what is in the

petition and what it is about. It is perfectly appropriate for a member

presenting a petition to elaborate on any of the points in it. The points that

were being elaborated by the member are related to what is in the petition,

talking about what was announced in the 2002 Budget, and what the implications

of it were. It is perfectly in order, Mr. Speaker, perfectly in keeping with the

practice of this House, and not one inch out of order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point raised by the hon. Government House Leader, again, many times in

the past I have indicated to members that before presenting a petition here in

this House they ought to consult with the Table people here to make sure that

the petition is in order. A petition ought to contain a prayer, and any member

presenting a petition ought to restrict his comments to the materials and the

names on the petition, as outlined in our Standing Orders.

I would fully expect that any member presenting a petition here will conform

to these rules. If a member does not, then if it is raised, the Chair will have

to rule the petition out of order, as I said, if it has not been cleared, if it

does not have a prayer, and if it is not restricted to the material allegations

in the (inaudible).

It being Wednesday at 3:00 p.m, it is Private Members' Day. Under our

Orders of the Day we have the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, I believe,

who is presenting a resolution today.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, today I stand in my place to speak on a private member's

resolution that I introduced into the House yesterday. For the record, again, I

will read the petition and then I have a few words to say on it. Mr. Speaker, I

expect there will be a number of Members of the House of Assembly who will speak

to this petition.

WHEREAS the residents and visitors to the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador rely and depend heavily on our road system for transportation,

business, health care, tourism and for basic quality of life; and

WHEREAS provincial roads and highways are in a serious state of disrepair in

virtually every region of the Province; and

WHEREAS the condition of the Province's roads and highways are a

significant competitive disadvantage for Newfoundland and Labrador companies

that market products in Canada and the United States; and

WHEREAS there are over 900 kilometres of dirt roads and some 1,500 kilometres

of twenty-five-year-old paved roads in the Province; and

WHEREAS over $300 million is immediately required for provincial roads; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation admits $900

million is required in the long term to bring our roads to a national standard;

and

WHEREAS the government has said it will divert money from highway

construction on the Island over the next six years to build the Labrador

Highway; and

WHEREAS there is only $23 million budgeted in this year's Budget for

provincial roads, which is completely insufficient; and

WHEREAS the Roads for Rail Agreement is coming to an end;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the government negotiate a new cost-sharing

will bring the quality of the Province's roads and highways up to North

American standards and contribute to the Province's overall productivity and

competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I expect there will be a fair bit of debate in this

House of Assembly today on this private member's resolution; one, I think,

that is very important to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we all know, as Members of the House of Assembly, that the

roads, the highways and byroads and Provincial roads, are in a serious state of

disrepair in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We see this and we know

this, Mr. Speaker, by the number of petitions that come to this House of

Assembly. I have presented petitions here in this House of Assembly with respect

to the roads and the road conditions in my District of Cape St. Francis. I think

there is not a member on this side of the House that has not submitted petitions

to this House of Assembly and spoken to them about the serious state of

disrepair of the roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, talking

about the dirt roads in the Province, Mr. Speaker. Some districts have more than

others, depending on that, but we are in Confederation now some fifty-three

years, since 1949, and there are still some 900 kilometres of dirt roads in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker, in

my mind, with respect to what we are getting out of Confederation.

The Member for Baie Verte, often, is on his feet in this House of Assembly

presenting petitions. I know the government is probably doing what they can with

respect to the amount of money that they put into the provincial Budget - $23

million, Mr. Speaker - and I will speak to that as time goes on.

Not only is it a hazard in many cases, Mr. Speaker, but this is actually

having an impact on our businesses and industries in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Our truckers, for example, driving across the Island,

the highways that leave off the Trans-Canada and go to the various bays and

communities and towns in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the extra

gas they may spend, it is all a cost factor with respect to the delivery of

goods and services in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, it was only a couple of weeks ago that we

had Mr. David Gill of Terra Nova Shoes making a statement on how it costs extra

money, because of the bad conditions of the highways, the poor conditions of the

highways, the extra cost it is costing his company and the industries in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to get their goods to market: going across

the Province, getting on the ferry and getting it to the mainland, to the United

States and what have you.

The roads, from my understanding, Mr. Speaker, the roads in Newfoundland and

Labrador are probably in worse condition than any other roads in the country.

Now, we have the minister up every now and then saying that this is a problem

across the country. It is a national concern, a national problem. But - I will

get to this later on also - what is this Administration doing to get a

federal-provincial roads agreement, Mr. Speaker? We have had discussions. We

have had in this House of Assembly, questions asked with respect to that very

issue.

Another issue, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the condition of the roads in

this Province, is tourism. We have people coming onto the Island with their

trailers, going all over Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are not coming back

because of the conditions of the roads. We have our own residents living in the

larger areas who want to go across this Province, up the Northern Peninsula,

down the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. Ten or fifteen years ago the Northern

Peninsula was probably one of the best highways on the Island and now it is

probably one of the worst. I go up that way every year, Mr. Speaker, so I know

what I am talking about.

As a matter of fact, in my own district bus tours will not drive down and go

around the Marine Drive because of how bad the roads are. It was only the other

day the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was in my district to a

school opening down in Pouch Cove and I asked him to drive back up through the

community of Flatrock, the Town of Flatrock, and look at the Windgap and just

see how bad the roads are. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the paved roads are in worse

condition than the gravel roads; if you can believe that or not, but it is a

fact. The bus tours refused to drive over them a couple of years ago and won't

go down over these roads anymore because of the poor conditions.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there are some 900 kilometres of dirt road and 1,500

kilometres of twenty-five year old paved roads. This needs to be addressed. We

have the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, it was only the other day I

think he had some pictures here of roads in his district, paved roads, so-called

paved, with potholes everywhere, and in the middle of the road. You could not

avoid them. The paved roads are a problem themselves. They need to be redone in

many instances.

Years ago, of course, we heard stories of politicians, during an election,

going out and throwing payment over snow. These are some of the problems that

are coming back to haunt us today.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is

interjecting and saying that a certain politician has finally stopped it. Yes,

he finally stopped it because the Premier before him, who was known for it, I

will not get into names, Mr. Speaker -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is

throwing out Conservative premiers over the past (inaudible), but I think we all

know one of the worst for doing this type of thing during an election was the

very first premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We all know who

that individual was.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated, I believe, and I stand to be corrected

on this, that there are some $300 million, or more, requests in for work in this

Province from the various municipalities across this Province, the towns and the

communities that need to be done almost as an emergency situation; $300 million

required. What are we putting into it? What is this government putting into

Capital Works for road infrastructure in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador? Mr. Speaker, $23 million.

Also, the minister, I think, confirmed in the Estimates meetings this past

Monday morning that there is some $900 million required to bring our provincial

roads up to a national standard. Now, that is a lot of money. Where are we going

to get all this money, I would like to know, unless we get an agreement, a

federal-provincial agreement that needs to be done as soon as possible. I have

asked questions to the minister on this and he has said that they are working on

it. They have made presentations to the federal minister in Ottawa with respect

to this very serious issue. One day, Mr. Speaker, he stood up in this House of

Assembly and had a presentation that he said he presented to the federal

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. We have some questions with

respect to how comprehensive that presentation was. That is one of the reasons

why this Private Member's Resolution is before the House of Assembly today.

With respect to the $900 million, an ordinary individual can hardly fathom

how much money that really is, but when you drive the roads of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador you can certainly see that what he says is correct,

that we do need $900 million.

I do have a concern with the Premier, and some of the statements that the

Premier has made in this House of Assembly. I think it was on March 25, in this

House of Assembly the Premier stated - now we are only talking $230 million when

the minister has stated we need $300 million immediately, and that we need $900

million. But, he said, they would possibly take money from the Island portion of

the funds to do the Trans-Labrador Highway. Now, why is that? Because, very

simply put, this Administration has taken $97 million from the Labrador

Initiative Fund to balance the Budget, to try and balance the Budget. They are

still saying there is a $93 million deficit. In actual fact, right there alone,

in reality there is a $190 million deficit there alone, not looking at anything

else. But that $97 million taken from the Labrador Initiative Fund - members on

the other side of the House and members who represent Labrador, by the way,

fully support government taking $97 million out of the Labrador Initiative Fund

to help balance the Budget.

Now I say, Mr. Speaker, the old saying: A bird in the hand is worth two in

the bush. We now have the government taking $97 million that is there, that

could be spent on Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway, that could easily be

spent. There is nothing saying that it could not be spent on the Labrador

Highway. Ninety-seven million dollars that the government now will have to come

up with out of general revenues to go towards the completion of the

Trans-Labrador Highway. They are saying they are going to do it in six years. So

they are talking about, I think, $17 million a year that they have to come up

with to put into the Trans-Labrador Highway when they had $97 million there now.

I have a letter here that was to Letters to the Editor from the members for

Lake Melville, Torngat Mountains, Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who supports and

are proud - here it is: Labrador politicians are proud of government's

commitment to transportation initiatives. They are proud that the government is

taking $97 million out of the Labrador Initiative Fund to balance the Budget.

Now that is what they were proud of. If it were me, I would not be too proud of

it. I am not too happy that they are going to be taking money out of the Island

portion of the funds to complete the Labrador Highway when, in fact, they had

the money there to do it when there was actually no need to be doing this, when

we only have $23 million to put into the highways of this Province to upgrade

them. By the way, out of that $23 million there is going to be some $3.8 million

taken right off the top for engineering costs. Now I think we are down to $19.2

million for forty-eight districts of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador;

forty-eight.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have requested from the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation the breakdown, over the past two to three years, of where this

money has been spend, what districts it has been spent in. The minister will get

up and say: Well, it is going in priority, it is going into areas where it is

actually needed. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have become a bit suspicious in this House

of Assembly, and I wonder about that sometimes, because, when I look at my

district, in my area now I have dirt roads, and I have paved roads down my way.

Members on this side of the House have very serious concerns - and I know the

minister will get up and point to one or two members on this side of the House

and say: This member got x amount of dollars and that member got x amount of

dollars, Mr. Speaker. I am curious about this upcoming year too, Mr. Speaker, by

the way, very curious about where the money is going to be going this year, I

say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

We are asking, Mr. Speaker, that this government get very, very serious with

respect to the presentations to Ottawa with respect to the federal-provincial

agreements. Now, my concern, to be quite honest, is this, that the provincial

government and the Province had an agreement, the Labrador Initiatives

Agreement. It was in legislation. Now, we have the Province basically taking $97

million out of that. They had to bring legislation to this House of Assembly,

Mr. Speaker, to change that, and now they are going to go back to Ottawa and

look for a federal-provincial agreement on roads and road infrastructure. If I

was the federal minister, I would say: Well, you know, can we trust you people

to do what you say you are going to do with the money that we are going to give

you, or did give you, because you are bringing in legislation to break the

specific agreement we already had? I think that is something the minister has to

consider when he goes to Ottawa to look for money.

We have often, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly, asked the minister to

show and produce the - I won't say often, that is the wrong terminology. We

have asked that the minister produce the agreements, I suppose, to show us the

presentation he made to the federal member. I asked that, and he did table, I

think, the presentation in the House. When I looked at it, Mr. Speaker, I saw

one or two pages on the point thing where they requested funds, but there were

probably ten pages of history that has gone on in the past. I stand to be

corrected, it could be seven or eight pages, but a number of pages. The

agreement itself boiled down to a few.

He stood in his place, Mr. Speaker - and I support him on this - and he made

a request and talked about other roads in the Province that he has requested

funds to complete. I am quite pleased, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that

one of the roads he has requested to be done, under a new roads agreement, is

the Torbay bypass. It is something that desperately needs to be done. I think he

knows that or he wouldn't have included it on the list of work to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have a lot more to say on this, because I think it

pretty well speaks for itself, this Private Member's Resolution. The members

on this side of the House, I believe there are a number who want to speak to

this. I can go on at length, but I will have time at the end, Mr. Speaker, to

say a few more words. I expect that the minister will want to respond to some of

the points that I made. I will say to him, from this side of the House, if he

goes to Ottawa looking for funds for a federal-provincial agreement that will

service the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that will

service all the districts in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador equally -

and I understand that there are some areas that need more money than others,

there is no doubt about that - that we will support him. I will support him

wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker, with respect to a comprehensive agreement that can

be reached, the sooner the better, with the federal government, because, when it

comes down to it, they are going to have to pay a major part with respect to the

infrastructure and the road infrastructure in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to rise in the

debate on the private member's resolution as presented by the Member for Cape

St. Francis. I guess, to some extent, I agree with the resolution as presented

but I do have some difficulties with some parts of the resolution, and as we

proceed along I will outline some of the difficulties that I have with the

resolution.

The first

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS the residents and visitors to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador rely and depend heavily on our road system for

transportation, business, health care, tourism and for basic quality of life.

I do not think anybody can argue; that is a motherhood issue. Roads are so

important in terms of the quality of life, for transportation and everything

that we do in this Province and across this country, we need a good system and a

good network of roads. To argue with that point of view is like arguing with

motherhood.

When we get to the next two

WHEREAS, I do have some problems:

WHEREAS

provincial roads and highways are in a serious state of disrepair in virtually

every region of the Province; and

WHEREAS the condition of the Province's

roads and highways are a significant competitive disadvantage for Newfoundland

and Labrador companies that market products in Canada and the United States.

I cannot agree with these two

WHEREAS. I think that is a very negative

aspect; very, very negative and -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Bonavista South will have an opportunity

to get up and talk in the debate, I am sure that he will have an opportunity to

get up and speak in the debate, but I only have fifteen minutes and there are

lot of things I would like to say on this resolution. I would like for him to

listen because this is an important issue for people in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I have been in this House of Assembly for thirteen years, and I have some

great concerns in the last number of years that we seem to be sending out a

wrong type of message to people across this country and around the world in

terms of a very negative attitude. To say in a resolution in this House of

Assembly that our roads are in such a state of disrepair that we are impeding

business development in this Province, that is the wrong kind of message to be

sending out to the people in this world and around this country particularly.

The next

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS there are over 900 kilometres of dirt roads and

some 1,500 kilometres of twenty-five-year-old paved roads in the Province.

Give or take a few kilometres here or there, I have no problems with that

particular

WHEREAS. That is a statement that is fairly accurate and that speaks

to the need at hand.

WHEREAS over $300 million is immediately required for the Provincial Roads

Program.

I have not problem with that

WHEREAS.

WHEREAS the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation admits $900

million is required in the long term to bring our roads to a national standard.

As a matter of fact, in the presentation that I made to Minister Collenette

in Ottawa, I indicated that we were looking for a cost-shared agreement of $978

million over a ten-year period. That is the kind of funding that we were looking

at in terms of Ottawa; it was a $978 million cost-shared arrangement. That was

for the Trans-Labrador Highway, for major improvements to the Trans-Canada

Highway, some of our major trunk roads in terms of the Great Northern Peninsula.

The Burin Peninsula is pretty well looked after; there are some sections. The

Bonavista Peninsula is roughly around $5 million or $6 million to bring that up

to a respectable standard. On the Baie Verte Peninsula and some other areas of

the Province there is some work that needs to be done.

What we were saying is that we required $978 million over a ten-year period,

not $978 million immediately, in terms that we need $978 million because our

roads are in a drastic state of disrepair. That is not accurate. I think for us

to have, with a federal-provincial agreement, roughly $90 million a year would

be adequate in terms of addressing our particular needs. That is what was

presented to Minister Collenette in Ottawa in terms of the famous power point

presentation, but it was a proposal that we submitted to Ottawa.

The next

WHEREAS, I have a real difficulty with.

WHEREAS the government has

said it will divert money from highway construction on the Island over the next

six years to build the Trans- Labrador Highway.

That is inaccurate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: No. The problem that I have with the other side of the House

is that for a great number of years Labrador, for all intents and purposes,

under previous governments - it is only over the last five or six years that

Labrador has been getting the attention that it deserves, that we are zeroing in

on Labrador as a great opportunity for economic development within this

Province. What the Opposition is really saying in this resolution, that I have a

real problem with, what they are saying here is that Labrador is not a part of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In this House of Assembly we allocate

monies in the Budget. When we allocate monies for health care, education, HRE,

and all the other departments, we do not single out that we are going to spend

this amount of money in the Island part of Newfoundland and this

part in

Labrador. We consider Labrador to be part of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

The Opposition is saying that the Provincial Roads Program should only be

allocated to the Island part of the Province. That is inaccurate. That is where

the Opposition Party - I assume that is the -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious private member's resolution, and the

minister is up there and he is really playing politics. There is nowhere in this

document or in this private member's resolution where we say that Labrador is

not a part of the Province. Mr. Speaker, that is really childish, immature and

simple-minded, on behalf of the minister. We know that Labrador is part of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. What we are saying - and it

is in Hansard that the Premier of this Province made the statement that they

would take money from the Island portion of the funds to go to the

Trans-Labrador Highway. That is in Hansard on March 25, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services, and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: Unfortunately, it is too bad that the hon. member has to get

up on a point of order because he does have an opportunity at the end of this

debate to speak and respond to anything that is said on this side of the House

and the other side of the House. To get up on a point or order when he realizes

that there is only fifteen minutes in this debate....

I will read the resolution so that the people in Labrador are quite clear

about what the minister is saying and what the Opposition Party of Newfoundland

and Labrador is saying. The Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, its

policy is:

WHEREAS the government has said it will divert money from highway

construction on the Island over the next six years to build the Labrador

Highway.

We are talking about a provincial highways program, and when we talk about a

provincial highways program we are talking about Labrador too. Last year in the

provincial highways program, we did work on roads in Labrador out of the

provincial highways allocation. This year we plan to do some work on the road in

Labrador West, to put some Class A on the road in Labrador West. It will come

out of the Provincial Roads Program.

What my Opposition colleague is saying, he is saying that we will take the

$23 million that is allocated for the Provincial Roads Program, we will take $17

million of that and put on the Trans-Labrador Highway. That is not what this

government is saying. This government is saying that next year

MR. SHELLEY: You've got it all mixed up.

MR. BARRETT: No, this minister is not mixed up. What we are saying -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I wish the hon. Member for Baie Verte would just remain

quiet for awhile. I want to express the point of view -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Winsor-Springdale will have an

opportunity to speak in the debate, I assume; because I did, when I went to

Ottawa, express that the Long Island Causeway was a priority, too, for the

government, and we wanted the federal government to cost-share it.

What we, as a provincial government, are saying, is that construction of the

Trans-Labrador Highway is the number one priority of this government. The

Trans-Labrador Highway is the number one priority, and next year and over the

next six years - and we are going to pass it in legislation in this House. It is

on the Order Paper, a piece of legislation which says that this government is

committed to building the Trans-Labrador Highway over the next six-year period,

and that $17 million of the Provincial Roads Program which will be budgeted in

this House next year will be allocated to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: This government is committed to building the Trans-Labrador

Highway, and I want to repeat it. This government is committed to building the

Trans-Labrador Highway.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) from what you did this year with the money

from Labrador.

MR. BARRETT: Will the hon. Member for Bonavista South stay quiet, please?

This government is very, very committed to the people in Labrador and to the

construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

What hon. members on the other side of the House are assuming is that there

will be $23 million allocated for the provincial roads program next year. We

will budget in the provincial roads program next year, taking into consideration

the $17 million that is required for the Trans-Labrador Highway.

We assume that the PC Party in Newfoundland and Labrador is against the

Trans-Labrador Highway, will not support the Trans-Labrador Highway, but this

government and all the members on this side of the House are very committed. I

want to inform the hon. members that we will commit to that money. We will

commit to the Trans-Labrador Highway. I want to look at the Member for Labrador

West, look him right in the eye and say: this government is committed. The fact

is that with the Trans-Labrador Highway you can start at both ends of the

Trans-Labrador Highway.

Engineers tell us that the maximum that you can spend in any one particular

year on the Trans-Labrador Highway is around $17 million. We plan to do that

road over a six-year period because that is the maximum you can spend in any one

particular year, $17 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) worry about it.

MR. BARRETT: Well, this government is not worried about it because we are

very committed about doing it.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I propose the following amendments, moved by the hon.

Minister of Works, Services & Transportation and seconded by the Government

House Leader, that we will agree with this resolution if we move that by

striking out the second, third, seventh and eighth recital clauses and by

inserting immediately after the word "government" in the first line of

the resolution clause the words "continue to".

The new resolution as amended would then read:

WHEREAS the residents and visitors to the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador rely and depend heavily on our road system for transportation,

business, health care, tourism and for basic quality of life; and

WHEREAS there are over 900 kilometres of dirt roads and some 1,500 kilometres

of 25-year old paved roads in the Province; and

WHEREAS over $300 million is immediately required for provincial roads; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Works, Services & Transportation admits $900

million is required in the long term to bring our roads to a national standard;

and

WHEREAS the Roads for Rail Agreement is coming to an end;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government continue to negotiate a new

construction that will bring the quality of the province's roads and highways

up North American standards, and contribute to the province's overall

productivity and competitiveness.

This government has started the negotiations, and has presented our case to

Ottawa. Our MPs are working in terms of working with their federal counterparts

and hopefully, we will work with the other Ministers of Transportation across

this country, and the Deputy Ministers of Transportation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. BARRETT: - recently met in Ottawa and there is a negotiation process

going on with the provincial ministries of transport and with the government in

Ottawa.

So, Mr. Speaker, I gladly move these amendments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few brief comments with respect to the motion here

today and, in particular, to the response by the minister. I would like to start

off by referring to his comments, Mr. Speaker. He talked about the commitment

that government has to complete Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway over the

next six years. Now, they are so committed that they are going to pass

legislation in this House stating their commitment and etching it in stone. But

I want to remind people of the Province that we already have legislation in this

House establishing -

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) for a moment.

The Chair has been provided with a copy of the amendment and it is deemed to

be in order. So, we are now speaking to the amended motion.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, government is stating their commitment to Phase III of the

Trans-Labrador Highway by taking the $97 million out this year and going to pass

legislation that says they will complete that highway in a six-year period. They

are saying that is iron-clad, Mr. Speaker, because they are going to put it in

legislation. Well, I want to remind the minister that we have legislation today.

As I speak today, we have legislation that protects that $97 million that you

are taking that could be used to go towards the Phase III of the Trans-Labrador

Highway and, obviously, I say to the people of this Province, that piece of

paper doesn't mean much to this government.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: I hate to interrupt the hon. member in terms of his speech,

but the money that was in the Trans-Labrador fund was not allocated for the

Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway. It was there to provide the marine

services to the North Coast and the South Coast of Labrador and not to provide

money for Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway. That was never the intention

of the fund. Never was it the intention to allocate for Phase III. It was to

provide marine services. What this government has done, is that we have said we

will commit forever to provide the marine services in Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: I would like to speak to the minister's point of order,

Mr. Speaker, if I may.

When he rises on a point of order, he should do just that, not go on to make

a big elaborate speech.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Simply a disagreement between

two hon. gentlemen.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to, also, say to the minister when he states that this $97

million was not meant for Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway, that it was

also not meant to be used for general revenues to reduce the deficit of this

Province. Definitely a closer connection between that money and Phase III of the

Trans-Labrador Highway than it is between that money and reducing the deficit of

the Province. I want to make that clear to the minister.

Another point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill 10 had better

be written on tougher paper, I say to the minister, than the last bill that was

passed in this House by this government, because right now they are in the

process of tearing up the previous bill and passing a new one so they will get

$97 million. The net effect is that they receive $97 million, and they gave the

people of Labrador a promise. A promise, I do not believe and many others in

Labrador share my belief, that this government will not be able to keep. That is

what concerns me when I hear the minister talking about his commitments. There

is no stronger commitment in this Province than a piece of legislation and they

are about to destroy that piece of legislation that protects the money in that

fund and use it for general revenues.

Mr. Speaker, the roads in this Province are atrocious. Last summer, as I was

driving across the Trans-Labrador Highway - and I stated before in this House -

I met tourists travelling the Trans-Labrador Highway, who had the trailer

hitches broken off their vehicles. They told me that they really enjoyed their

trip to Labrador. They enjoyed the scenery, they enjoyed the activities that

took

part in, and they certainly enjoyed meeting the people, but they told me

also that they would not make that return trip and they would not recommend for

their friends to make that trip either unless the roads were improved to a much

better degree than they are at the present time.

Also, I know that after travelling around the Island, that roads on the

Island portion of the Province are in terrible shape as well. I guess all of

this put together really says to me that this government cannot keep up with

what needs to be done in this Province today. How are they going to do it in the

years to come, now that the $97 million that was in the Labrador Transportation

Fund will not be there? That money has been used over the past number of years

to do upgrading of that

section of highway already completed. They will not have

the ability because the fund will no longer exist. So now, any money spent in

this Province, whether it be in Labrador or whether it be on the Island portion

of the Province, I say to the minister, will have to come out of general

revenues. If they cannot keep up now with work required on the Island portion of

the Province, how in the name of God are they going to be able to do it when you

include the road transportation network in Labrador in the future? They will not

be able to, I suggest. They know that and we know that.

I think government read the people in Labrador correctly when they stated in

their Budget that they were going to remove this $97 million. They knew what

kind of reaction they were going to meet from Labrador, Mr. Speaker, because

they tried to butter up the people in Labrador in the Budget Highlights that

they presented on Budget Day. Where else in this Province did you ever see a

budget highlight, a main portion of a budget, being snowclearing on a

section of

highway? You certainly do not see it for the Burin Peninsula as a budget

highlight or the Baie Verte or the Northern Peninsula or the Bonavista. It is

not a budget highlight there, but judging - because they knew what the reaction

was going to be over this, they decided to put that as a budget highlight.

Even the purchasing of two graders; a budget highlight for Labrador. The

government is going to purchase two graders. I mean, give us a break! That is an

insult to our intelligence to put things like that in a budget highlight at the

same time you are stealing $97 million and just trying to make it look good that

you are commited to the area. No, Mr. Speaker, but I can say to the government

one thing, the one thing they don't have to spend money on is yellow paint to

paint the center line down the highway because there is certainly no pavement in

Labrador other than what is in the communities. So they cannot save money there,

Mr. Speaker. That is about the extent of their commitment to Labrador when it

comes to roads.

Mr. Speaker, this government does not have a commitment. They do not have a

commitment. They do not have a vision for Labrador when it comes to

transportation, but they do have a need for $97 million, and that is about to

happen over the next few days. But I can assure them that, from the Opposition

on this side of the House, they will not have an easy time gaining access to

that $97 million. They may be able to do it at some point in time because of

their numbers, but I can assure them that the Opposition, to this move, will

make sure that debate is carried on for as long as is possible to do so. It is

not going to be an easy ride for them to get access to this money.

I would certainly stand here today and say that the other members of this

House from Labrador - I know people in their areas, in their ridings, who are

not happy with what is happening to this fund either, Mr. Speaker, because this

fund -

MR. FITZGERALD: Did they have any petitions (inaudible)?

MR. COLLINS: I understood the Member for Bonavista South asked me if they

had any petitions. I have not seen them, but my understanding is they have; but

I do not know if they do because they have not been presented, so I am not sure.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that transportation is critical in Labrador. We have been

many years without a transportation network and, now that we have it, it

requires constant upgrading. It requires a considerable amount of money being

spent each year. Our fear, our worry, as a resident of Labrador, is: Where is

that money going to come from? I do not believe for a minute, and I do not

accept government's promise that they will spend the money necessary to do the

work that will be required, because they cannot do it now. Even when they were

drawing money from that fund, they still cannot keep up with the need that is

there.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. It is an important resolution

because, in order for us to develop tourism to its fullest potential, in order

for people in Labrador who are involved in the trucking industry to have the

ability to make a living to provide for their families, in order for the people

in Labrador to interact with each other, a good highway system is critical. That

does not exist today. I suggest that with the removal of this money from the

Trans-Labrador fund, it will not exist tomorrow either.

They can talk all they like about this money not being there for Phase III.

They can say that all they like, but, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is an

easier connection and a shorter line to draw between $97 million and Phase III

than it is $97 million and reduce the deficit that they have built up. The

connection can be much easier made, and not only for Phase III. Monies from that

fund have been used for the last number of years to provide and do the upgrading

of the road system that we already have. Money has come from that fund to do

that. Where, I ask the government, is that money going to come from in the

future? Where is that going to come in the future? It is not going to be there,

Mr. Speaker, and people in Labrador have the same fear.

I hear members opposite from Labrador shouting out. I have not heard what

they said, I was not listening to them, but I can assure them that many people

in their districts, as well as mine, know, and do not believe, that government

will have the ability to do what they say they intend to do with $17 million a

year for six years to complete Phase III.

I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker, and the majority of people -

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible) should not do it.

MR. COLLINS: I am not saying they should not do it, Mr. Speaker, I say to

the Member for Lake Melville. I am saying they should have left the $97 million

there and used a portion of that to go towards Phase III of the road.

They can try to justify all they want what is happening, but they can never

justify it to the people in Labrador. I can guarantee them that. They may be

able to justify it to certain people in Labrador, but not the majority, I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, not the majority. They may be able to justify it in their

own caucus, but again their caucus does not elect them. We are elected to look

after the people who voted in the last election, and I do not think it is in

their best interest to take $97 million now from a fund that was protected by

law, that the minister now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

says: Well, we are going to tear up that law, but believe us, we are going to

pass a new law; a new law that is going to be made of much tougher paper, much

harder to tear up in the future, and you are going to be protected by that.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that when this government says they are transparent I

believe them because you can see right through them. So they are transparent in

that sense, Mr. Speaker, you can see right through them, and the people of

Labrador can see through them because they do not believe for a minute that this

intention will be delivered, will be acted upon, because even by their own

admission they do not have the ability to do now what is required in this

Province.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise today and certainly speak to the motion that has been put

forward by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis and amended by the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the amendments that are proposed to this

resolution. I feel that yes, indeed, it is an important resolution for all the

communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that we have to have

significant revenues to maintain our Trans-Canada Highway system from one part

of the Province to the other. We have to have funds to be able to build roads

and build highways for those people in those communities that for many years

have gone without them.

I listened, Mr. Speaker, to the debate that has gone on over the past number

of days regarding roads in Labrador primarily, and roads around the Province,

and I can honestly tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if people, some people, had to

live on the Coast of Labrador, like I have had to all my life, without roads and

without connections, they would certainly understand the commitments that have

been made. They would understand the importance of delivering on those

commitments and the importance of what has been happening there over the last

number of years.

Mr. Speaker, you can spin a yarn any way you want to spin it, and I can tell

you that I have heard more spins in the last two weeks in this Legislature than

I have ever heard in my life. I can tell you that the money that has been spent

in Labrador on roads for communities is one of the most valuable contributions

to infrastructure that has ever made to the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I seem to miss the point when people stand in this House and

say that there was money taken out of the Labrador Transportation Initiative

Fund to fix up roads in Labrador, to upgrade roads in communities, to do this,

to do that, to keep marine services running. Well, that is what the dollars are

there for. They are there to serve the people of Labrador and to ensure that

they have good transportation networks.

You can either take the money that you have and use if wisely to invest for

the future and guarantee services to people, or you can let it set in an account

until it dwindles and dwindles and dwindles and there is nothing left. Well, I

can tell you that this government and I, for one member, are going to ensure

that the people in Labrador do not see a fund dwindle, but in fact what they see

is continuous building of roads and infrastructure and upgrading of a

transportation network.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Now, I agree with the resolution that was put forward and

amended because, Madam Speaker, I really do believe that the Government of

Canada has a responsibility here. They have a responsibility to ensure that the

highways in this country are to a proper standard and that all people have

access to a national highway system that is on par, I guess, from one end of the

country to the other.

This government has been actively lobbying the federal government to do a new

transportation initiative for the Province. I agree, all of us should encourage

them to continue those lobby efforts and to continue negotiating with the

federal government to ensure that we do get a good deal.

I realize that there are communities down in - the Member for Placentia &

St. Mary's yesterday showed me photos of roads down in his own district that

need to be upgraded. On the weekend, when I took the ferry from L'Anse au

Clair to St. Barbe, and drove up to the airport to fly back to St. John's on

Sunday evening, I drove the road on the Northern Peninsula around the Green

Island Brook area, I think it was, which I am sure needs work and upgrading. I

am sure there are many roads in our Province that need the same types of work

us as a Province to service these people and these communities. But, Madam

Speaker, I think what is more important is that the federal government realize

that Labrador is a part of this country and that the highway network in Labrador

should be a Trans-Canada Highway, just like every other part of this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: The Trans-Labrador Highway, as it is termed today, is partly

built. It is constructed from Labrador West to Churchill Falls to Happy

Valley-Goose Bay. It is constructed from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay, and Red

Bay to Charlottetown, and hopefully by the end of this year from Charlottetown

to Cartwright. Is it complete, Madam Speaker? By no means is it complete; but

as a government have committed to build the Phase III, which is the Cartwright

to Goose Bay portion of this road. Don't do half a job, Madam Speaker, we have

to do the full job for the people of Labrador, and that is what we are committed

to do.

Is that enough? No, it isn't. It is still a Trans-Labrador Highway and it

should be a Trans-Canada Highway. We should have the same designation as any

other province in this country and we feel that the federal government has not

been honouring its commitment to us as Labradorians. We should have a highway

that is first-class, to the same standards as any other region of this country.

In asking for this agreement with the feds, I want to point out that we also

want to ensure that they include us as part of the Trans-Canada Highway system.

Other members, as they speak today, I hope that they will support that because

that is very important to us in Labrador, that we be part of that Trans-Canada

Highway system.

Madam Speaker, I guess in the last few years we have seen a great deal of

transition take place in Labrador. I just talked about the sections of roads

that we have built. I am going to tell you, that unless we build the Cartwright

to Goose Bay piece of this highway we will not realize the full benefits and the

full potential of having a transportation connection and a transportation link.

I think I want to make something quite clear here today. The $97 million

people keep talking about that was in the Labrador Transportation Initiative, I

want to make quite clear that that money was left there to look after the marine

services in the northern area of Labrador and the southern ports of Labrador

which are not connected by road. That money could have sat in a bank account and

been dispersed over a period of time, after which time the dollars had been

spent, the monies had expired, the government of that day would have had to take

on the responsibility of paying for the service, or we could take the revenues

today and use it as investment toward other capital infrastructure in our

Province and pay for the ferry services today, not eight years from now.

I can tell you, as one member in Labrador, I honestly feel that the marine

services in Labrador are the responsibility of the provincial government, the

same as marine services are in all other regions of our Province. I agree that

they should own up and take the responsibility for that service today, not down

the road, and I am pleased that they have agreed to do that.

So, whatever way you look at, Madam Speaker, the services for which this fund

was intended to pay will be paid. The service will be first-class, and I say

that with a great deal of certainty because I know what it is like to live in a

community in coastal Labrador where you have to wait fourteen, sixteen and

eighteen days to receive a freight boat to get your freight service. I know that

it is going to be a better service, because when you have a boat that is docking

in your community every seven days, going north and going south, you have a

better service. That gives us a great deal of confidence in terms of where we

are going with servicing the people on the Coast of Labrador. Whether you pay

for that today in government revenues or whether you pay for it eight years from

now, the people are getting a better service than they have ever had in their

lives and I think that is important to stress.

For example, Madam Speaker, let me just tell you: In my own district, in

Cartwright, we would have a boat that would go probably once a week to

Lewisporte and Goose Bay. When the highway is completed into Cartwright,

starting next year we will have a ferry that will run from Cartwright to Rigolet

to Goose Bay every second day alternating back and forth. I mean, that is a

better service than we have ever had in our entire lives.

So, whether you look at the fact that the $97 million will sit in a fund for

eight years or whether you will start paying for the service right now, which is

what we have chosen to do, the service itself is still provided, the service is

still a better service than people have been used to getting in the past and it

will be a better service as we go on.

The key point to all of this, Madam Speaker, and the point which makes me

very proud, as the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and

as a resident of Labrador, is that this government, the only government that I

know of in the history of this Province that has ever looked at the Coast of

Labrador seriously in terms of major infrastructure, has committed to spending

$102 million over six years to build the Phase III of the highway. Now that is a

substantial commitment, a substantial investment, and so it should be.

Madam Speaker, some people will say that this will be on the backs of people

on the Island portion of our Province. I totally disagree. We are one Province,

we have to service all people and I feel that we service the people with the

greatest need first. No one will tell me, Madam Speaker, that the greatest need

is not those people who do not have a road connection, because it is. So,

however you administer or split the Budget in coming years, I certainly hope

that it is done, first and foremost, looking after the needs of those in our

Province that are the greatest, and the greatest need in transportation right

now - and I beg anyone to challenge me on it - is definitely in Labrador, where

you have no highway completion and many communities without roads. I feel that

this government has made the right decision, the appropriate decision, for this

time in our history to make those types of commitments and investments into

Labrador.

I tell you, it really disturbs me when I hear people say: Well, what about

the rest of the Province? What about all the other communities in the Province?

What are we going to do, not spend any money anywhere else? That really bothers

me, it really upsets me, because I thought that we were reaching a point in our

history, Madam Speaker, where we were looked at as one, inclusively, as the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador serving the needs of all the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: I am not saying that there are not other communities in this

Province that have needs. I am sure the Member for Baie Verte - I saw him stand

here many times and talk about roads in his own district that need resurfacing,

that need to be paved. I talked to a lady a couple of days ago from the

community of Conche, and I know the people there would love to have their roads

paved. They have been out and made their arguments. I said to her: I understand

where you come from, but do you understand where I come from, when I still have

communities that do not have a road. They certainly do, Madam Speaker, and they

support us in that, but it does not mean that they do not have needs as well.

I think sometimes we have to put these issues into perspective. I flew into a

community in my district, Williams Harbour, a few weeks ago and met with their

community, and they need eighteen kilometers of road to be connected to a

highway. You know we really do have to put this into perspective because they

deserve to have the same rights as everyone else. How can we sit here and say

that it is wrong to spend money out of the provincial Budget in Labrador, a

large portion of it, over the next six years? How can we say that, Madam

Speaker, and leave these people without infrastructure, without roads? We are

not saying there are not other needs, we are just asking to have this put into

perspective.

I think the lines here are drawn pretty clear. I certainly hope that we are

not going to be confined to a $23 million budget in transportation for the next

five years. I am sure that this government will, wherever possible, vote the

appropriate amounts that can be voted for a transportation infrastructure in our

Province. Having said that, Madam Speaker, I think that we have to understand

that there are communities in this Province that do not have roads, that there

are communities that should take precedent and priority, and I think that

government has made the right decision in doing that.

Now hopefully, through this resolution, through the collective efforts of

every member in this Legislature, that we will be able to, in supporting this

resolution, put greater emphasis, bring greater meaning to the Government of

Canada in terms of where we are coming from on transportation. We need to have a

new federal agreement for this Province. We need to, in order to ensure that we

can take on the responsibility of servicing all of those communities,

communities like Conche, communities like those on the Baie Verte Peninsula -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time is up.

MS JONES: By leave, Ma