May 10, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to remember the life of Canon George Earle who passed away this

morning at the age of eighty-six. Born in Change Islands, Canon Earle studied at

Memorial University College, Queen's College and the University of Durham in

England.

Canon Earle was a long-standing pillar in the Anglican Church of Newfoundland

and Labrador. As a result of his service, he was installed as Canon of the

Cathedral in St. John's in 1971. Canon Earle's dedication to his Church and

the people in it is to be commended and is to be recognized, no less recognized

than Canon Earle's dedication indeed to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador as a whole.

Aside from his role as a clergy, Canon Earle was a major figure in education

in this Province, serving as principal of Queen's College at Memorial from

1957 to 1965. From 1965 until his retirement in 1979, Canon Earle served as

Provost of Queen's College.

Aside from his professional roles, Canon Earle also made significant

contributions to this Provinces's volunteer and arts communities. He was

involved with a number of arts institutes and organizations, including the

Kiwanis Club and the Canadian Mental Health Association. In his retirement,

Canon Earle was chosen to portray a character in Yarns from Pigeon Inlet .

Indeed, in that regard he was an inspiration, we know, for the Leader of the

Opposition in his own significant performances recently. He published two

Newfoundland folklore books.

I know I speak on behalf of all members of the House when we pass on our

condolences to Canon Earle's friends, and more importantly to his family. We

say that his was a life well lived and indeed an inspiration to all of us in

Newfoundland and Labrador. He will be remembered by all the people of this

Province, and he will be remembered fondly.

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

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

Indeed, on this side of the House, we would like to make unanimous,

certainly, our sending condolences to the family of Canon Earle. There is no

doubt that this Newfoundlander lived an exemplary life, a life of service, a

life of example for many people, and contributed greatly in many aspects to the

life of Newfoundland and Labrador culturally and historically in a broad sense.

I certainly join with the Premier, Mr. Speaker, in asking you to send on our

behalf, as Members of the House of Assembly, our condolences to his family and

to ensure that this place will remember him fondly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to join in the remarks of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition

in recognizing the significant contribution of Canon George Earle. He was indeed

a Newfoundland and Labrador treasure by his life and his personality, his

character and his contribution to our Province. In addition to the comments of

the Premier here of course, I think we all know that Canon Earle was a

well-known public speaker, a terrific humourist, and a major transmitter of our

culture to new generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I would join in asking that we pass on our condolences to his family. I know

a couple of his children were at university when I was. We all remember Canon

George Earle very well and I hope he will be remembered for many years to come

in this Province.

Statements by Members

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to take this opportunity to inform hon. members that last night the

House of Commons voted unanimously to endorse a private member's motion

presented by NDP Member of Parliament Yvon Godin on unemployment insurance

benefits for seasonal workers. The motion as passed by the House reads as

follows: That in the opinion of this House the government should take immediate

action to review employment insurance benefits for seasonal workers.

The vote on the motion took place after three hours of debate, spread out

over six months, on the impact of UI reforms on seasonal workers. Although

government members rejected an NDP sub-amendment that would have seen

cross-country hearings on the subject, it is hoped that government will respond

quickly to the spirit of this motion and implement substantial changes to the

unemployment insurance system.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, when we changed the rules of

this House this fall, knows full well that what we did was set down, and it was

agreed by all sides, that those things would be used primarily for members'

statements about their own constituency and so on, and not to make political

statements on the performance of governments, on the policy of governments, or

to take positions.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask him to refrain from doing that, and in the absence

of him doing that, I would ask that the Speaker rule him out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the member's statement is about a matter that

was passed in the House of Commons unanimously last night. Clearly, if it was

passed in the House of Commons it is not a matter of contention. It is a matter

which the Standing Orders recognize. It is a matter of local, national or

international interest. Certainly the rules with respect to UI are of

substantial interest in this Province. The fact that the House of Commons has

passed a unanimous resolution obviously means that it is not contentious.

Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader does not want to hear what the

House of Commons in Ottawa unanimously has the say about unemployment insurance

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - then I suppose that is up to him, but it is certainly

within the (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, clearly the statement presented by the hon. member, in

the opinion of the Chair, does not meet the criteria that was set down for

members' statements. I ask hon. members from here on in to make sure they

follow the guidelines that are set down in the Standing Orders when they present

members' statements.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to pass along

my congratulations to the Burin Peninsula's community newspaper, The

Southern Gazette , on twenty-five years of providing local news to its

residents at home and abroad.

The Southern Gazette printed its first issue on May 29, 1975, and since

that time have chronicled the massive changes that have taken place on the Burin

Peninsula. Local news coverage is vitally important to so many of us in this

Legislature, and I am pleased that The Southern Gazette has reached this

milestone. I congratulate editor, George MacVicar and all Gazette staff,

past and present, for their efforts in chronicling the living history of the

Burin Peninsula.

Walter Litman once said: For the newspaper is, in all literariness, the bible

of democracy, the book of which people determine its conduct.

As we recognize the efforts of the Burin Peninsula's local community

newspaper, I want to send my wish for a long and successful future to The

Southern Gazette as they continue their quest to provide news and matters to

Burin Peninsula residents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: I was waiting for the phone call, I guess, that Graham had

that particular (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today the winners of

the Provincial Occupational Health and Safety Recognition Awards. The awards are

the initiative of the Department of Environment and Labour and the Workplace

Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. The Recognition Awards are offered

to all employers within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the

purpose of the awards is to recognize the efforts of individuals and

organizations in the prevention of workplace accidents and injuries.

The Award of Merit is given to an employee or employees who, through alert

and correct action, has saved some person life and/or prevented a serious

workplace injury. This year's winners are Thomas Knott and Rex Carter. These

two individuals helped save the life of an employee of Chaisson Construction who

was completely engulfed when a twenty-foot high stockpile of Class A material

fell on him.

The Award for Outstanding Health and Safety Committee/Representative is given

to the most proactive workplace health and safety committee/representatives that

identifies concerns and implements recommendations, performs safety audits, and

demonstrates leadership in their workplace. This year's award winner is the

Occupational Health and Safety Committee of Health and Community Services-

Eastern Region. This committee is very proactive in its promotion of safety

activities throughout the organization. The committee has established a Safety

Talk Program, provides employees with guest speakers to present health and

safety topics, conducts workplace inspections, and distributes promotional

materials to employees.

The Health and Safety Program Award is given to a company whose leadership

and commitment have resulted in the implementation of an outstanding health and

safety program. This year's award winner is Newfoundland Power - Eastern

Region. This Company, with the support and commitment of its Occupational Health

and Safety Committee and all its employees, have demonstrated an excellent

health and safety program.

The Minister's Award of Excellence is given to a company that has

demonstrated over time an improved safety record, enhanced product quality,

improved training courses and overall company success. This year's award

winner is Hotel Newfoundland. The Hotel has successfully reduced the frequency

rate of lost time accidents in the workplace from 65.79 in 1993 to 4.8 in 1999,

a reduction of 92.7 per cent in the frequency rate. The Hotel initiated a

communications campaign followed by the introduction of the Safety Training

Observation Program in 1994.

The awards were presented at the ceremony today at the Fluvarium. The

ceremony was organized to highlight North American Occupational Safety and

Health Week, which runs from May 15 to May 21. The theme for this year is: Work

Safely for a Healthy Future.

I want to congratulate the winners of this year's awards and I applaud

everyone who was nominated for an award, because it is through their continued

hard work that we are making workplaces safer.

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

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

First I would like to thank the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't panic again, now that I am on my feet. Relax!

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement beforehand.

We, on this side, would also congradulate Mr. Thomas Knott and Mr. Rex Carter

for their help in saving a life. We would also like to congradulate the winners

of the Award for Outstanding Health and Safety Committee/Representative, the

Health and Safety Program Award, and the Minister's Award of Excellence; and

we would encourage the groups to keep up the good work. Also, we would encourage

all individuals in the Province to keep in mind the North American Occupational

Safety and Health Week which runs from May 15 to May 21, 2000.

Again, the minister is right and proper in making these awards and

recognizing these people in the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

congratulate the winners of the awards. It has taken a long time in this

Province and in this country to get laws in place that will protect workers

while at work, and it is only fitting and proper now that the NAOSH committees

in each workplace adopt programs that will enhance the right of workers and the

protection of workers.

I guess the greatest award of all for any worker is to be able to come home

at the end of the work day free from injury, and to be able to retire at the end

of a work life free from injury and disease that happens from time to time in

different workplaces around this Province. We applaud any efforts made by

government, employers and workers in this Province that further enhance safety

and health in the workplace.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize the work of Dr. Sam Ratnam and the

group of researchers at the Province's Public Health Laboratory. Through the

assistance of the Faculty of Medicine of Memorial University and the

Newfoundland Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, our researchers have

devised a study which sees them leading the charge in the fight against cervical

cancer in this country.

Cervical cancer is the second most frequent cause of cancer death in women

worldwide after breast cancer, and it affects about 500,000 women around the

world each year. In Canada, nearly 1,500 new cases of cervical cancer are

diagnosed each year, with about 450 women dying from the disease. In 1997, in

Newfoundland alone, there were about 450 women diagnosed with pre-cancerous

signs in the cervix, fifty-eight of whom were confirmed to have invasive

cervical cancer.

Dr. Ratnam and the group at the Public Health Laboratory in St. John's have

been recognized both nationally and internationally, including by the

International Society for HPV and Cervical Cancer, for their leading-edge work

in designing a study which combines the well-known Pap smear test with another

test for viruses known as the underlying cause of cervical cancer - HPV for

short.

Recently, the Laboratory screened just over 2,000 women between ages eighteen

and sixty-nine years using the two tests. The conclusion of the study is that a

combination of the two tests, rather than one in isolation of the other, could

significantly improve the chances of detecting pre-cancerous cervical signs to

about 100 per cent. The standard Pap smear test alone had a pick-up rate of just

50 per cent when used by itself. Women, then, can be treated early, and

hopefully avoid full blown cervical cancer in the future. Newfoundland and

Labrador is the only province in Canada to offer the HPV test on a trial basis

through gynecologists in the Province.

Prevention plays a very important role in our overall health and well-being.

The work of local researchers in preventing cervical cancer is critical. On

behalf of all hon. members, I wish to commend the people at our Public Health

Laboratory for their important work in this area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly too echo the sentiments in recognizing Dr. Ratnam and the work

with researchers, with the Public Health Laboratory and the Newfoundland Cancer

Treatment and Research Foundation, and the Faculty of Medicine at Memorial.

Areas where we can have early prevention is very positive in people being able

to deal with this and go on and lead a long productive life; not alone in

detection, I say, but when it is detected, doing something about it.

Before I came to the House I spoke this morning with a lady from Fair Haven,

for example, who had cancer surgery two-and-a-half years ago. That lady was told

in January that the cancer could now be back in her liver. She has been

scheduled for surgery and it has been cancelled continuously, and now she is

being told it could be pushed back until June because of bed closures. This is a

woman who had cancer before.

I spoke yesterday with a sixty-one-year-old woman from St. John's who had a

mastectomy four years ago. She has been told she has to wait six months to get a

mammogram. That is the standard, basically, after having a mastectomy on one of

the breasts, now again the possibility - and she can't get a mammogram. There

is no point of having diagnostic equipment if we can't put people in there and

get them diagnosed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no point in diagnosing people when we can't give

them the surgery or the help they need. It is not just -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Leave denied by the Member for Bellevue, the district that

the lady spoke to me from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister in recognizing the importance of the

level and standards of research that are undertaken in this Province. Dr. Sam

Ratnam and many others in the university and the scientific and medical

community are conducting important research in this Province and, obviously, in

the area of cervical cancer and other cancers. The importance of early detection

has been well recognized, and I am delighted that we are playing an important

role in that here. I do have to say as well that once you have early detection

you do have to have early treatment and early responses to the problems that you

have, and that is where we fall short in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My first question today is for the Minister of Mines and Energy. For the past

two years we have been calling for an update on the Lower Churchill talks. We

have asked questions in this House with respect to the status of the

negotiations on market price, on floor price, on the transmission line, on where

engineering work will be done, the status of aboriginal issues related to that,

or conclusion of aboriginal issues.

Yesterday the Minister of Mines and Energy talked about how they are going to

negotiate with somebody else now. Could he elaborate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh yes. The minister talked about: Maybe we can negotiate

with somebody else and that the talks with Quebec Hydro should be suspended and

we will move elsewhere, maybe in New York or somewhere else in the US. Could he

elaborate? Is he prepared to say today what he almost said yesterday, that the

Lower Churchill talks are in fact dead and that the Province is negotiating or

about to negotiate with somebody else? Could he elaborate on his statement

please?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I said yesterday in answer to a question was - and the question was

whether or not the project deal was dead. I said no, there are other potential

partners for this project, including some of the major enterprises in the US,

and if we don't do a deal with Quebec we may do it with other people. There is

more than one potential partner in this project and we intend to pursue those if

this does not go ahead.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: More than one potential partner. Minister, I would like to

ask you another question. Your boss here for the last two years has been talking

about the reasons, the logic of dealing with Quebec and why we should pursue it.

If there are more potential partners for this project, when did you start to

realize that? Have you spoken to any of those potential partners? Will you talk

about those potential partners today?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning we have known there are many

potential partners for this project. What we have said from the beginning is

Quebec, being our neighbour, where we share a transmission and borders, is a

logical one. If it does not make sense to do a deal with Quebec, if there is a

better deal for the Province with another partner, we will pursue that as well.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Two years ago in this House I asked the question: Why is

it, if deregulation is so good, we have to deal with Quebec? If we have the

ability to partner with other groups or other people to develop the Lower

Churchill, why is it we have to deal with Quebec? The answer was that the only

people that we could deal with were the people of Quebec and Hydro Quebec. That

is what the Premier said.

I would like to ask you, Premier: What is the status of negotiations, now

that you are back? Can you get a handle on your minister and the omni-minister

of health who seems to be the minister of everything in everyone else's

absence? Could you tell us finally, please, now that your minister has let the

cat out of the bag, what is the real status of negotiations with Quebec? If it

is off the rails, why don't you go before the public and at least be truthful

and give it the decent burial that it deserves?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. Leader of the

Opposition, he really does not understand negotiations.

The first thing you do when you negotiate is you look for the highest value

in a transaction. One thing that Quebec Hydro has is that they can add value to

the transaction. They have water that they were looking at shipping across the

border that could be mutually milled and sold back to the market and would

enhance the value of the project for us all. So they were a natural partner, and

they were the logical ones that we would explore it with first. If we cannot

reach an agreement on the value of the transaction and the distribution of it,

then there are other partners for us there to consider as well.

That is where matters stand presently. We are still negotiating with Hydro

Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: Excuse me, let me finish the answer.

As with any deal, if there are one hundred items on the table, fifty are

easily resolved, forty are tougher, and the last ten are the most difficult of

all. When you get down to those it sometimes may be impossible, sometimes it

takes a longer period of time. From our point of view, we would rather have the

right deal than a fast deal, whether it is with Hydro Quebec or some other

potential partner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It is clear what has happened here: Paul, you got yourself

in to this, now you get the rest of us out of it. That is what is going on here.

Let me ask him this question. The people have a right to be skeptical about

the government's sudden discovery of a new potential investor in Lower

Churchill, in view of the fact that things aren't going as we planned with

Hydro Quebec and the Province, the sudden spin now of information during a

provincial by-election that may be it can be developed in another way.

Minister, what evidence can you give to the people of the Province that this

is not just political rhetoric, but yet just another spin of information about a

deal that is not going anywhere and doesn't have the potential of going

anywhere?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting to watch the Leader

of the Opposition in the House today. He almost looks in a celebratory mood.

Joy, joy, joy, there is a possibility the deal may not be going ahead. He is

smiling. He is happy. He is cracking jokes. He thinks it is wonderful.

This is the same Leader of the Opposition, the same gentleman, who up until a

few days ago was telling the people of the Province: They are about to sign a

deal, they are going to sign it any day. There is no transmission line. The deal

ought not to signed. We will rise or fall on a transmission line. Today, he is

saying: Can you give this thing a proper funeral, it is obvious there is no

deal?

The Leader of the Opposition has only one interest, and that is in seeing

progress denied or progress delayed. The fact of the matter is these

negotiations to this point have yielded for Newfoundland and Labrador, to this

point in time, a guaranteed winter availability contract which has restored $1

billion of revenue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador over the life of

this contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker these negotiations thus far have resulted in

the recall of 130 megawatts of power. Since 1998, there is already flowing to

the treasury of this Province $70 million cash already in hand from that recall

sale, worth another $600 million over the life of the contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are exploring a development with

Quebec. Because New York State can't divert water from New York into Labrador,

in the Smallwood Reservoir. Only Quebec can divert water. That is the reason we

talked to Quebec first.

That doesn't prevent us from exploring all of our options and making the

best deal we can, in particular by making it clear that we are prepared to talk

to another partner if the deal on the table with Quebec is not acceptable to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is good negotiation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier says it is interesting to watch

the Leader of the Opposition. It must be, because at least I am here to be

watched is all I can say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask this question to the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now, this is a serious matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the question.

There is serious concern, obviously, amongst the public. Since 1998, after

the original announcement, the framework agreement that you announced on March

8, 1998, on five different occasions as Premier you have promised to give an

update to the people of the Province. Are you saying now that you are prepared,

at least in this Legislature, to give a full update on the status of the

negotiations on Lower Churchill with the Province of Quebec on the framework in

terms of diversions of water? Are you saying that you will give an update on

what the outstanding issue is regarding market price or floor price? Are you

saying that you are going to give an update on the contentious issues regarding

where the procurement work will be managed, where the engineering work will be

managed? Are you saying that you will finally give the people of the Province an

update on what the status of these negotiations are?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition makes reference

to the fact that I wasn't in the House. Indeed I wasn't. I was with the

other premiers from Atlantic Canada at a meeting, a trade mission, of the

Atlantic premiers and New England governors and with the Prime Minister. If the

Leader of the Opposition believes I should not have been there he should stand

and say so. Prior to that I was in Houston, together with the Premier of Nova

Scotia, presenting on behalf of this Province our position as an emerging oil

and gas player. If the Leader of the Opposition believes I should not have been

there he should say so. I can only say that if the Leader of the Opposition is

advertising that when it comes to the markets of the world - were he in this job

and he is not - but were he in this job he would miss those meetings, then all I

can say is thank God he is in the job that he does best, Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he doesn't do that all that well.

When it comes to Churchill Falls let the flip-flop, let the transparency, of

the Leader of the Opposition be clear. This is a Leader of the Opposition that

has tried desperately for the last three or four weeks to rally the Province

against the deal: They are about to sign the deal and there shouldn't be a

deal without a transmission line! Because Mr. Peckford came back and told him

how to be a good little Leader of the Opposition. Fight against the transmission

line!

Mr. Speaker, while he has been chasing a shadowy transmission line we have

been chasing a good deal, but until we have one we won't sign!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: That is a classic example of answering the question.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see shake, rattle and roll going on in the

Legislature because that is all we get. We have stood and asked questions for

four weeks on a very substantive issue that you sold yourself on, sir. You were

the one who was going to sign the deal, you were the one who was going to bring

home the bacon, and what do we have? Nothing in the frying pan to show for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask you this question, Premier. Nothing in the

frying pan to show for it, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: This is the Premier and the government that sought a

mandate to conclude, successfully, negotiations with the Province of Quebec on a

Lower Churchill deal. All I am asking for, Premier, on behalf of the people of

the Province - because they want to know - is what the status of those

negotiations are two years later. How much money have we spent on those

negotiations, either from the public treasury or from Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro? When are you and the Premier of Quebec going to meet to see if there is

going to be one, if there is not going to be one? If that is the case, when is

it that you are going to move on to something real and substantive, to deliver

something, finally, to the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me see if I have this right. This is the

same Leader of the Opposition who a few days ago was up shouting, bawling and

screaming that the Province was about to sign a deal, and the deal shouldn't

be signed. I think I have even seen some clippings, headlines saying: Don't

sign deal says Leader of the Opposition. Now he is up saying: When are you going

to sign a deal?

Is this the same leader? Are you one of a twin? Can you keep your stories

straight?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speakers, the only leaders who are in the frying pan

in this Chamber are the leaders on the other side. They get about a year or two

and then the caucus decides to have a wiener roast. I would suggest to the

Leader of the Opposition to watch their matches and keep them out of their

hands. The summer season is coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: When you have nothing to say, what do you do? A good

offense is the best defense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear where I stand on this

issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

A final supplementary. Doesn't the Premier remember, a week after he signed

a deal in this Legislature, standing up and saying: Do you support this deal

that I have negotiated with Quebec? Do you support what I have done for the

people of the Province?

Does he remember my response? If he doesn't, let me remind him. I said at

that time that I would not endorse, I would not embrace, nor would I condemn

until I saw all the details. Fortunately for the people of the Province, the

reason we have the details is because of questioning in this House.

I will ask you again. The media are right there. You can comment to them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask you a very simple question: At what point are

the negotiations with Quebec? Does it look like the deal is off the rails? Does

it look like there will be a deal, as you said there would be? And if not, when

will you be in a position to tell the people of the Province what is the real

status on the Lower Churchill negotiations with the Province of Quebec? Pretty

straightforward, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking

about the status of these negotiations, and indeed the Minister of Mines and

Energy has indicated in the last several days where these negotiations are. He

has indicated there is not likely to be an MOU in place this spring, and that

for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a reason we gave, I think, a

month or so ago when we talked about the development of a new market in the

United States which is reference-based marketing, zonal marketing, and the

pricing mechanism in ensuring that if power goes into the U.S. market that we

just do not get the first price across the boarder. We get the maximum price as

a share, as an owner, as a majority owner of that project as it goes, for

example, into the New York marketplace.

Those are the kinds of the issues that we are trying to deal with today. The

reference-based or zonal-based pricing is a phenomena which has come about as a

result of deregulation primarily taking place starting last fall, the fall of

Zonal-based or reference-based pricing is in place, for example, in the New

York market. It has not matured yet in the New England market. We are talking

about a multi-billion dollar agreement. Until we understand not just what it

takes to produce power but also to price power in a way where we get a fair

return on the rent, we are not about to proceed with undue haste. That really is

the major issue.

The Leader of the Opposition has raised the concern about a transmission

line. He has said that he believes there should be no deal unless there is a

transmission line. We have said a transmission line should only be part of a

deal if it makes sense, and there is a fundamental difference between both sides

of the House.

The Minister of Mines and Energy has done a tremendous job in a previous role

of overseeing the fiscal evolution of this Province, one from a huge deficit to

a balanced set of books, one that has seen our economy go from -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - worst in the Province, worst in the country -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - to the fastest growing in the country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in the Minister of

Mines and Energy, and the Leader of the Opposition should have full confidence

as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Mines

and Energy. The minister has hinted that government is ready to approve the

Hibernia partners' request to increase annual oil production.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Increased production at Hibernia will shorten the life

of the well and reduce royalties, tax revenues, jobs and other economic benefits

that the Province would receive over the productive life of the well.

I ask the minister: Has Hibernia agreed to a new package of benefits that

will compensate the Province for those particular losses?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated recently, we have received a proposal from the proponents at

Hibernia to deal with the Province's losses and we are considering it.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In the past, Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously has

referenced the term royalties. I ask the minister: How significant are those

changes, and will they compensate not only for the lower gross royalties that

result from faster depletion of the well but for other economic benefits that

will be affected, such as tax revenues and reduced benefits from a longer period

of employment?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raises a whole lot of issues that are really something I don't

care to discuss at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DICKS: What I am only prepared to say at this time is that we have

been negotiating with the owners as to what, if any, should be an adequate and

proper compensation to the problem for the increased production of oil. When a

decision is made, either yes or no, we will make it known publicly, and hold a

press conference and announce what it is.

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

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask the minister: Why would the Province enter into a

new presumably richer royalty regime with Hibernia before the federal government

agrees to reduce the claw back on equalization? Ottawa now claws back

seventy-five cents on every dollar that we get from Hibernia. Three-quarters of

the benefit of any changes you now make will go back to Ottawa.

The federal Finance Minister says he is prepared to reduce the claw back, or

even eliminate it for a period of time. Why not wait, I ask the minister, for

Mr. Martin to deliver on his by-election inspired promise before you do anything

to change the existing arrangement with Hibernia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike the hon. member, I would not refuse additional royalties from the oil

companies, waiting on the federal government to change the equalization program.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister,

recently we saw the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announce a

reduction in the harvesting levels of snow crab on the East and the Northeast

Coast by approximately 15,000 tonnes. This reduction was brought about by DFO

doing a bottom trawl survey last November, with results showing a reduction in

biomass and poor prospects for recruitment in this current year. I ask the

minister if there were any snow crab recruitment surveys carried out inside the

fifty-mile zone? If so, would the minister inform the House of the results of

those surveys?

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

MR. EFFORD: To the best of my information, there were no surveys inside

of the fifty-mile zone.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is also my understanding that there has

been no scientific study done in the inside, inshore areas. New inshore fishing

zones created just last year, I say to the minister, are meaningless unless

quotas for the zones are based on existing stocks in that particular zone. Since

the minister has already stated publicly that he is against crab permit holders

being issued licences, I ask the minister, is it now his intention to remove

small boat fishermen completely from this industry by making it impossible for

them to survive by the drastic cuts placed on them by the unfair allocation of a

reduction?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been around this House of Assembly for

fifteen years and I have never heard such foolish questions come from a critic

on fisheries in fifteen years. To say that we are opposed to small boat

fishermen is absolutely false. Are we opposed to the cut in the crab quotas? No,

we are not opposed to the cut in the crab quotas. It is being cautious, based on

scientific information about the trawl surveys they did last year.

Conservation must apply first, before anything else. If a precautionary cut

can take place for one year, it is better to do that now and take a 15 per cent

cut than to fish the crab to extinction, like they did in Alaska, and we will

have no fishery at all. Which makes better sense?

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, that is the problem. He has

already admitted that there has been no study done. There is no scientific

information.

If the minister is so intent when he continually talks about helping the

small boat fishermen survive in this industry, I have to ask him to explain how

he can be so silent in allowing 15 per cent of fishermen being allowed to

harvest 85 per cent of the snow crab total allowable catch, while 85 per cent of

the fishermen are allowed to only harvest 15 per cent of the total allowable

catch? I say to the minister, is this his idea of the fishery of the future? If

it is, where does the small boat fisherman fit in?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important question. I

think the people of Newfoundland have a right to know where the member opposite

stands, because the fact of the matter is -

MR. FITZGERALD: Where do you stand?

PREMIER TOBIN: I will tell you where I stand. I am the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans who put the small boats in the crab fishery. I am the one

that issued the first licenses and put them in in the first place, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just asked a question

which has the affect, in a very difficult time, a time of cutbacks, of divide

the fleets. Because what he just said is he does not want the full-time and

supplementary fishermen to continue fishing. I want to ask the member whether or

not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: No, let me ask the question. I want to ask you a question,

because you are playing a game of pride and prejudice division in the fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, one correction. The minister didn't issue

licenses, he issued permits to those small boat owners. The other point is, I

say to the Premier, the facts I stated are true, that 15 per cent of the

fishermen harvest 85 per cent (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of order.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I put my answer by concluding in saying that

the kind of question that has just been asked is really an attempt to divide the

fleets. It begs this question: Is the member asking government to take the

position that all of the supplementary and all of the full-time crab licenses

should be cancelled? Because if his position is we should take the full quota,

subdivide it equally amongst everybody, then he should have the courage to stand

and say that. If his position on the other hand is that in reducing quotas we

have to be careful to give a break to those most vulnerable - that is, the small

boat fishermen - then I agree with him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. In January of this year Husky Oil Company and

TransAlta began commercial operation of a 215 megawatt cogeneration plant in

Lloydminster, Alberta, using natural gas at a capital cost of $160 million. This

government has been pursuing for over two years an 800 megawatt electricity

in-feed from the Lower Churchill at a projected cost of $2.2 billion. Given that

these numbers show that natural gas cogeneration could have electricity

generation costs of about one-quarter the cost of transmission alone from Gull

Island, what efforts has this government made to pursue the natural gas

alternative for electricity generation that would have the additional benefit of

an onshore gas and petrochemical industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition

for his question, because the question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Leader of the Opposition.

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry. Perhaps it was just wishful thinking on my

part.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I see my entire caucus is not with me on

that.

That is a valid question. That is a sensible public policy question. The

question is: If it is cheaper to generate electricity through conversion of

natural gas through electricity than it is to build a $2 billion transmission

line from Labrador to the Island, shouldn't the government be looking at that

option? The answer to the Leader of the NDP is in fact we are.

There are four natural gas studies now underway. They are being done in

partnership between the Province, the federal government, the Newfoundland

Offshore Industries Association, and a number of the major players in the

offshore oil and gas sector are also doing studies. The whole purpose of those

studies is to demonstrate: is it viable, should there be pipeline or

non-pipeline solutions in terms of getting natural gas ashore or harvesting

natural gas, and can it meet long-term, in terms of benefits to the Province in

our electricity needs, the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador?

If the answer is yes it can - and we have to await the outcome of the studies

- then clearly we would be foolish, as has been suggested by the official Leader

of the Opposition, to commit ourselves, as he has said: It doesn't matter

whether it is right or wrong, efficient, inefficient, feasible or not feasible,

if there is no transmission line there will be no Churchill Falls, even if we go

bankrupt building it.

Mr. Speaker, not since Frank Moores exploded powder on both sides of the

Strait of Belle Isle have we seen such a foolish policy!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Premier. Given that the short-term failure of the

Churchill River project negotiations and the fact that the transmission line

appears, at least from the federal government's point of view, to have been a

non-starter for almost two years now, shouldn't the government have been

moving faster so that we could be looking at the possibility of a gas pipeline?

Along with the project that is about to develop, the White Rose project, what is

government going to do to ensure that every consideration is given to bringing

gas onshore quickly so that we can have electricity generation as needed, an

onshore gas industry, and hopefully a petrochemical industry to follow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the NDP again

for his excellent question which, of and by itself, points out the absolute

shallowness of the position being taken by the Leader of the Official

Opposition, which is: It doesn't matter if we have gas, it doesn't matter if

gas can come ashore, it doesn't matter if we can develop a new multibillion

dollar industry, it doesn't matter if gas is cheaper than a transmission line,

we are going to have a tinker toy set no matter what, or we are not going to

have a development.

The Leader of the NDP is quite right to say to government: We need to move

quickly, thoroughly and in an exhaustive fashion to examine all of our natural

gas options. I thank him for pointing that out, and I assure him that we will

exercise and exhaust every bit of intelligence, energy and effort we can make in

pursuit of this most noble goal that he has put before the House of Assembly

today.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of

Education.

Minister, for two consecutive days in the House you have used the following

comparison to defend your government's commitment to education. At a time when

we had 162,000 students in our school system we had 6,648 teachers in the

system. Today we have 60,000, and we still have 6,300 teachers. The minister is

comparing the number of teachers in schools today with the allocation provided

in 1972, nearly thirty years ago.

Minister, is this your type of educational reform to get the educational

system back thirty years?

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

MS FOOTE: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I want to table the report of

the Public Tender Act exceptions for March 2000.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to

the House today this private member's resolution. It is an important

resolution and it is one that hopefully will be given the attention that it

deserves by all members of this House.

I will just read it into the record:

C-82,

An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Impaired Driving) and that law came

into effect on July 1, 1999;

AND

WHEREAS Bill C-82, as enacted, requires the courts to

prohibit those convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol from driving

a motor vehicle for a specified time;

AND

WHEREAS Bill C-82, as enacted, also recognizes that some

provinces have initiated, in conjunction with these prohibition orders, the use

of an Ignition Interlock Device installed in a vehicle which intermittently

requires a driver to provide a breath sample for in-vehicle alcohol content

analysis and disables the vehicle's ignition if the breath sample fails the

alcohol content test;

AND

WHEREAS the use of an Ignition Interlock Device gives the

public greater assurance that an offender re-entering the driving population

will drive only when sober;

AND

WHEREAS provinces with the Ignition Interlock Device have

reported that the re-arrest rate among offenders using the device is appreciably

lower than that of jurisdictions not using the device;

AND

WHEREAS drunk driving is the number one criminal cause of

death in Canada and is the largest killer of youth;

AND

WHEREAS drunk driving is a serious criminal offence and

must be treated with the full force of law and not merely as a matter of social

impropriety;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the

provincial government to implement the use in this Province of the Ignition

Interlock Device to help protect the public from death and disablement caused by

drunk driving.

This particular resolution, and the wording of it, is largely

due to the efforts and hard work of a well-known organization here in Canada,

namely, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It has indeed been an effort on behalf of

that particular association that has led to this Province, I suppose, debating

this resolution as we are doing this afternoon in the House of Assembly.

It is important to note as well that in other jurisdictions

in Canada, both in the Provinces of Alberta and Quebec, the Interlock Device

system is now available and can be considered as an option by the trial judge

when dealing with sentences as a result of impaired driving charges and

convictions. I understand that it is only a matter of time before this

particular consideration is given in the Province of Manitoba, so we will, in

fact, have three jurisdictions in Canada. I understand as well that some

thirty-seven or thirty-eight states in the United States now have a system using

the Interlock Device.

It is important to note as well that all of this stems from

legislation that was addressed in October of 1999 when the federal Minister of

Justice and Attorney General of Canada tabled in the House of Commons the report

of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled, Toward

Eliminating Impaired Driving.

It is important to note as well that there were a number of

significant recommendations in this report leading to Bill C-82 . It talks about

and addresses tougher penalties for impaired driving, but it is interesting to

note as well that it deals specifically with the very subject matter and basis

of today's resolution. Bill C-82 amended the Criminal Code to require

sentencing judges to consider as an aggravating factor, a blood alcohol level

exceeding twice the criminal offense level and to specify that judges can order

convicted impaired drivers to undergo assessment and treatment for alcohol

addiction and to use an Ignition Interlock where such programs are available.

It is interesting that our federal counterparts, I guess, the

lawmakers of the federal Parliament in this particular Bill C-82, have

recognized the importance of steps having to be taken to protect the rights of

innocent citizens and victims by imposing stiffer penalties to those individuals

in our society who take it upon themselves to drive a motor vehicle while they

are legally impaired.

One way that can be done, I say, one way that this very

serious problem in our society can be addressed, is to perhaps work with the

very credible association known as Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

In addition, in discussions that I had only yesterday with

the Minister of Government Services and Lands, in some way to work with and

encourage a committee, which I understand is presently ongoing and which has

been stuck presumably by the minister and his department, a group of

professional individuals who are well-versed in the problems associated with

impaired driving in our Province. Perhaps in addition to that, in response to

Bill C-82, a committee has been struck to look at a number of features and a

number of ways and means that can be introduced to the court system in this

Province, or alternatively to the motor vehicle registry in this Province, as a

means to allow the trial judge to deal effectively as an option in sentencing as

a result of a repeat offender for a person charged and subsequently convicted

for impaired driving.

What this resolution does, it recognizes several things. It

recognizes the spirit and the thrust of Bill C-82,

an act of the federal

Parliament of Canada. It recognizes the good work of Mothers Against Drunk

Driving, and in particular the Newfoundland branch led by Gwen Mercer and

Richard Murphy. Ms. Mercer is with us in the gallery this afternoon.

It also recognizes, I think, the approach that has been taken

by the minister in ensuring that a committee is struck to deal with a variety of

issues dealing with the impact and consequences of impaired driving which will

include this Interlock Device, which is the basis and subject matter of today's

resolution. It encompasses all of this.

We can send a strong message, it seems to me, if we, as

members of this hon. House this afternoon, hopefully, preferably in a unanimous

fashion, by accepting the wording of this resolution; because what that will do

is, it will send, I think, a very clear message to a body of people, a body of

professionals who have now been put together with the minister's assistance,

to recognize the fact that in addition to a number of areas and issues that had

to be addressed by this committee in response to a serious social ill, namely

impaired driving in this Province or indeed in this country, but it will send a

message that in particular the hard work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving

dealing with this Interlock Device will be specifically addressed.

That is the benefit, I say to the minister, and I say that to

all members on both sides of the House, and hopefully the impact that this

resolution will have. It will basically send a message to government, and to

this committee in particular dealing with this particular issue, that the

Ignition Interlock Device would be a very meaningful and effective option that

would be available to a trial judge; that, when considering a sentencing option

and a sentencing alternative to a repeat offender, an individual who just treats

this law as if it were nothing, will be forced to treat it as a serious breach

of how he or she should conduct himself or herself in society, and the trial

judge will have, as an option available to him or her, the application of an

Ignition Interlock Device which has been, as I have indicated earlier, accepted

in two other Canadian jurisdictions, ready to be accepted in a third province,

namely Manitoba, recognized in some thirty-eight out of fifty states of the

United States. It goes to show, it seems to me, that it is an option that is

taken seriously in many other principle jurisdictions and is one that we, as

lawmakers, perhaps should take equally seriously.

I would encourage all members to accept the spirit and the

thrust of this resolution and, in so doing, recognize the work that the

committee is doing but in particular recognize the good, hard, genuine,

well-spirited work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving who feel that a resolution

such as this will draw the necessary attention to this particular type of

conduct that many people in our society unfortunately just treat as minor and

unimportant.

I would encourage all members on both sides of the House to

accept the wording and spirit of this resolution and hopefully, in a spirit of

unanimity, accept this particular private member's resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that members are going to be quite pleased at the

fact that I am standing here today to speak in support of the resolution. I just

want to take a few minutes to talk about a few of the issues and the initiatives

that have been taken to deal with the issue of impaired driving over the last

few years.

I, too, would support the hon. member's mention of Ms Gwen

Mercer, head of the MADD Association, which is the Mothers Against Drunk

Driving, especially in this Province. They have done an awful lot of work

towards this initiative and also dealing with the whole aspect of impaired

driving in the Province. Without those kinds of organizations, I don't think

we would advance as quickly as we have to deal with the issues because we need

all the support we can get out there when we deal with these kinds of issues.

The interlock ignition system is one initiative that

government has been considering over the last couple of years. We have done a

number of things in terms of the Highway Traffic Act to deal with penalties for

impaired driving. We understand that the Interlock system is one of those

initiatives that the Criminal Code has now included in their amendments. In

Alberta and Quebec the provincial governments have initiated the legislation

that will allow them to have the Interlock system as an option that the courts

can use.

In the process of reviewing the situation with the Ignition

Interlock in this Province, what we have done in the last little while is

initiated a committee that is made up of the Departments of Government Services

and Lands, Health and Community Services and Justice, the RCMP, the RNC, and

also the Newfoundland Safety Council. Just recently I met with Ms Mercer and I

have asked that they be a part of the committee that will deal with the issue of

the Ignition Interlock.

I think some things we have to remember when we are looking

at this particular initiative is the fact that with the Criminal Code of Canada

now using the Interlock system as an option we are basically required to take a

very serious look at that. We did look at it a few years ago, but the technology

and a number of other issues didn't permit us to take a serious look at that.

Under the Highway Traffic Act, what we have done in the last couple of years in

the amendments that we have made to it is increase the suspended periods for

impaired driving. The Criminal Code last fall also increased the penalties for

the first, second and third offences.

We are moving in the right direction in all areas of trying

to deal with the impaired driving aspects that we have. I think one thing we

have to remember, and we should all remember it, is that every time there is a

driver on the highway that does not have full control, that means our highways

are not safe, not only to the driver but to all the other motoring public who

are in vehicles on the highway. I think we always have to be cognizant of that.

We have to deal with that issue every time we get an opportunity. This is one

opportunity, I believe, that we will see after the resolution today, to really

get into high gear and look at this whole initiative of the Ignition Interlock

system.

One of the things, I think, we have to consider when we are

dealing with the Interlock system is that we have to understand that this only

takes place, and this is only an initiative for, convicted, impaired drivers. We

are also focusing on the repeat offenders. That is what this program is designed

to really take a serious look at.

One of the things we have to do in this Province, because we

are not as big a province as either Alberta or Quebec which have greater numbers

than we have, is the availability of this particular service in the rural areas.

That is what the committee will be looking at, the ways and means that we can

deal with this Interlock system in the rural areas, in the outlying areas, in

the isolated areas, because if we are going to implement this program in this

Province we have to ensure that we have all of the bases covered.

Another aspect that we are looking at is the affordability.

There is a cost to this. The convicted impaired driver is always the person who

pays the cost of this particular system. Liability is another issue that we are

looking at. As to the application in this Province, is it going to be a

voluntary thing or is it going to be a mandatory thing? The committee will be

looking at all of these issues in terms of the Ignition Interlock system.

Perhaps I could just substantiate some of this by the

statistics that we have dealt with over the last number of years. I will just

give you the comparisons between 1995 and 1999. In impaired driving offences, in

1995 this Province recorded 2,071 cases. In 1999 we incurred about 1,007 cases.

So we are moving in the right direction with the particular initiatives that we

have taken over the years, but we can see other areas such as the Ignition

Interlock system that may enhance this and drop these stats even further, which

is the initiative that we have to take. We would like to see these stats at

zero. We know that it is impractical to see it at zero, but as close to zero as

we can get.

For people who are stopped for twenty-four hour infractions,

in 1995 there were 2,072 cases and in 1999 there were 1,349, which is a

substantial drop, but still not down to a level that we feel is acceptable.

Under the Criminal Code, for driving while disqualified, in

1995 there were eighty-two cases in this Province and in 1999 there were

thirty-three. All of our statistics are showing that we are moving in the right

direction. Under driving while disqualified under the Highway Traffic Act

requirements, in 1996 there were 238 cases and in 1999 there were 280, which is

going in the wrong direction.

In dealing with the impaired driving situation, our

statistics show that approximately 10 per cent of these cases are repeat

offenders, so we really have to bear down and start dealing with these in a very

serious manner. They are chronic. We have to start looking at much stiffer

penalties and perhaps even alternative ways of dealing with them. This is one.

One of the things that the Interlock system will do, and has done in Alberta and

Quebec, it has reduced the period of suspension provided that they meet all of

the requirements when they go through the Ignition Interlock program.

Here again I would perhaps encourage everybody, if they get

an opportunity, in order to see how the Interlock system works Ms Mercer brought

in a short videotape that I viewed the other day when I had a meeting with her.

It is really interesting to see how that particular program works. I would

suggest we all try to look at that particular video in order to get a good feel

as to how the program works. It is kind of difficult to stand here and detail

how the program works, but it is an effective program. One of the things that it

does, if it works and if the drivers comply with it, over a period of time it

reduces the actual sentence that they have to carry out after their convictions.

My understanding is that both sides of this House are going

to vote on this resolution, I think the work that all of the groups out there

have done, MADD in particular - very headlined in terms of taking the initiative

to deal with these things. There is also a Students Against Drunk Driving

Association out there that we deal with as a department, and of course the

National Safety Council has always been a good partner in this, and the police

forces. These are the guys who are out there collecting all of this information

and also out there arresting these people.

We have had great cooperation from all of the groups that are

trying to deal with this. I believe a resolution such as this will only enhance

our opportunity to move forward in a much quicker manner in terms of dealing

with Ignition Interlock system. I will commit, on behalf of the government, that

we will work as diligently as we can, and with all the partners and all the

stakeholders, to ensure that we reduce the risk on own highways of impaired

drivers. I stand here to support the resolution today, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on

the resolution before the House concerning the effect or the consequences of

Bill C-82 enacted by the House of Commons. This legislation can provide another

option to sentencing judges with respect to how to provide a proper deterrent

and a proper protection of the public, probably more so, with respect to the

consequence of impaired driving charges in our Province.

We have seen over the last twenty or twenty-five years, I

suppose, a very significant change in the attitude towards impaired driving and

impaired driving offenses. I was in law school more than twenty years ago now so

I have seen the changes over the years, not only in the attitude towards

impaired driving by the courts in sentencing, in the laws themselves, and in the

effectiveness of the laws as they relate to impaired driving.

What we have seen in that space of time, and going back a

little bit further, is a significant change in the attitudes where one time,

although it was always an offence to be driving while impaired, it was in some

cases considered socially acceptable. It was considered a fact of life. People

would make jokes about it, how people were driving all over the road, and it was

treated with some humour. That was the state of public attitudes towards

drinking and driving, and that has started to change. It has changed

significantly, and now it has changed to the point where there is a strong

feeling of lack of tolerance legally, socially and otherwise of people driving

while impaired. We have seen that in changes to our own law. We have seen that

in recent changes to the ability of our police forces and peace officers to give

an immediate twenty-four hour suspension for a level of alcohol content that is

less than the criminal point of .08, but nevertheless, significant enough to

cause some impairment. So we have seen recognition of that fact.

One of the problems that we have, one of the things that we

have seen is that there is a fair amount of recidivism, if you will, of people

who are once convicted of an impaired driving offence. We see that people go

back a second, third and sometimes a fourth time with offences, despite the fact

that the laws have also changed with respect to how second offences are treated,

how third offences are treated. There are automatic jail terms now for a second

offence of impaired driving or refusing a Breathalyzer. This has also provided

an additional deterrent but it has not stopped it. It hasn't prevented

recurrences of impaired driving offences for those who have a proclivity to

continue to drive while impaired or while suspended or, in fact, may ignore the

law entirely. Some of that is due to total social - I was going to say

sociopath, because people are not prepared to accept the rules and want to do

whatever they want regardless of the law. Some of it is a matter of people who

have serious addictions to alcohol and once they drink they drive. I am not

saying that that takes away any blame, but what it does is it makes our roads

less safe for those who have a habit or a proclivity to both drink and drive.

We see this as a motion that would enable our courts - if it

is passed, adopted and studied by the Minister of Justice and his officials as

to how it might be implemented and where it might be effective - it seems to be

another option that should be available to our court system to deal with

particular offences and particular offenders who come before the courts as a

result of drunk driving offences. I see it not as something that would apply to

each and every case but something that would be available to the judge, such as

the other sentencing options that are there, that are available, that can be

considered by a court as to what the appropriate mechanism is and what the

appropriate sentence might be. I believe that judges should have some

flexibility in appropriate sentences, and while everybody doesn't agree with

each and every sentence before the court, obviously there is a principle of

judicial independence that should be adhered to.

I am thinking right now of the controversy in Ontario where

it is being moved - I don't know, it may have even passed - where the Ontario

Legislature is seeking to have some sort of annual report card on judges who

fail to give the maximum sentence for every offence. I don't think many people

know, for example, that the maximum sentence for break and enter is life

imprisonment. The maximum sentence for break and enter into a dwelling house is

life imprisonment. So, somebody, like some unfortunate person who broke into my

house a couple of years ago and did not take very much of anything, would be

liable to a sentence of life imprisonment; and, somehow or other if he is not

given life imprisonment, that should be the subject of public debate and

discussion.

That is obviously not what happened to this particular

individual who was given a sentence that was appropriate to the circumstances.

That is not something that I see. I do not see this as something that would be

an automatic thing in each and every case, but that would be a sentencing option

available to the courts.

I know that the organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving,

and Ms Mercer, who has been a valiant advocate of proper and appropriate

sentences for people who are involved in impaired driving and are before our

courts, I think that much good work has been done to raise the attention of the

public to the consequences of impaired driving. We have sad situations all

across this country, and certainly within this Province, where people are

innocent victims of impaired drivers, whose lives have changed forever and in

some cases ended tragically by the actions of an impaired driver. Anything that

can be done appropriately to reduce the number of drunk driving cases should be

considered by this House and certainly by the courts when imposing sentencing.

I want to say that I believe this motion to be a good one,

that can be supported by me and my party in giving the courts an additional way

of dealing with offenders who come before the courts, and I know that the

Minister of Justice will listen to what members of this House have to say about

it in terms of us reflecting to some extent the public mood and that of our

constituents as to what we deem to be appropriate ways, directions in which the

law could go, which our own courts could go and our own Department of Justice

could go, in achieving a desirable result of attempting, as the resolution

itself says, to help protect the public from death and disablement caused by

drunk driving.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand here today and

say a few words in support of this most commendable resolution that has been put

before the House by my colleague from St. John's East.

I must say I am encouraged, and I should say this right off

the top as well, by what I think is unanimity in this Chamber for once. It is

not often we are unanimous on an item.

MR. TULK: Do you know what? That is twice in a week.

MR. RIDEOUT: Twice in a week, my God.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) waltzing around (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The next thing, we are going to be waltzing

up and down the aisle. I am going to be waltzing and dancing with the Minister

of Fisheries, and the Leader of the NDP is going to be waltzing with the Premier

MR. E. BYRNE: He was already today.

MR. RIDEOUT: - as he was already today.

Anyway, on a serious note because this is a serious -

MR. TULK: I am not waltzing with (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, you will have to waltz with Loyola.

On a serious note, it is alright to inject a little levity in

debate from time to time but this is a very serious resolution and addresses a

very serious - it is more than a serious issue in our society. It addresses a

cancer on the body politic of the society in this country, because that is what,

in my view, drunk driving and repeated drunk driving is.

You know, you see a state in this Province today and in this

country where you have repeat offenders for this very serious crime. You see it

to the extent that some of them do not give a darn whether they are licenced any

more. They are unlicenced and impaired, uninsured and impaired. They are just

menaces. It is just a cancer on society in this country, the attitude some

people have toward this serious crime of impaired driving. The tragedy and the

heartache and the sorrow that those people, by their irresponsible actions,

bring on families and individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador is - really, I

suppose, in a way, words sort of elude us in being able to articulate in the

proper fashion the sorrow, the heartache and the pain that have been inflicted

upon families in this Province and in this country by such irresponsibility.

I remember when I was in Ottawa attending law school, back

between 1994 and 1997. I am not sure what year it was, but I believe it might

have been 1996. A very good friend of mine, Senator Marjory LeBreton, had

basically her whole family - her daughter and, I believe, one or two

grandchildren - and a son-in-law very seriously hurt, but a daughter and one or

two grandchildren wiped out. They were going from the Senator's home for a

family dinner back to their own home when they were wiped out by a person who I

am sure was a second offender, but it might have even been a third or fourth

offender. That is the kind of horror story that all of us, I am sure, in our own

way could bring forward and bring forth to this House.

That is why I found it so encouraging, for one of the first

times in my life in dealing with this horrific issue of impaired driving, I was

so encouraged a couple of weeks ago when the Association, Mothers Against Drunk

Driving, represented in this Province by Gwen Mercer and Richard Murphy, came in

and demonstrated to our caucus the evolution of technology in a way that perhaps

will allow us to wrestle this sickness, this cancerous crime, to the ground.

I was never so impressed before, and I am always impressed

with technology and the technological advances; but this Ignition Interlock

Device, when they demonstrated how it works and how it could work to keep people

from operating something that perhaps in more respects is more lethal than a

gun. Because there is nothing more lethal than crashing down the highways in

this country at 100 or more kilometers an hour with a drunk person behind the

wheel. There is nothing more lethal than a vehicle. It is bound to happen, at

some point, that people are going to be seriously hurt and perhaps, as we know

in many cases, even killed.

I was really interested in seeing how this technological

advance was going to be a help in perhaps not eradicating this disease from our

midst and from our society, but hopefully a tool in being able to further to

confine what irresponsible citizens among us are doing to themselves and to

others.

This device, as I understand it, is personalized. The only

person who can start up or engage the ignition of that vehicle after the device

is installed is the person whose breath is stored on the computer chip in that

particular vehicle. It is no good of me trying to hoodwink the machine by asking

my friend to blow for me. That doesn't work any more. It has gone past that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can borrow his car (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, he would be awfully stupid to loan me

his vehicle.

What I am trying to get at is the advance in technology that

has been made here with this particular machine. It is personalized to the

individual, and it is impossible for any other individual to be able to

jumpstart that particular machine and get the vehicle to work.

There are also safety features built into it. If you blow an

amount that is past a certain point, then obviously you can't engage the

machine and get the vehicle going. If you are into a long drive, I think after

so many minutes it will prompt you to blow another sample

AN HON. MEMBER: Three minutes.

MR. RIDEOUT: Three minutes. If you fail, it will give you

so many minutes warning to get over to the side of the road and pull off.

It is a great technological advance and I would encourage the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as quickly as possible to bring in the

enabling legislation that would allow the courts, in this jurisdiction, to

consider this particular device among anything else that the courts may wish to

consider. We are not saying that the court has to impose the use of this

particular device in every case. That is within the court's jurisdiction,

having considered all of the facts before it, but it should be an option that

the courts can impose in this jurisdiction. With the unanimity that we see in

this House on the issue today, I would think it would be a piece of legislation

that would pass through this House very quickly. I don't envision that there

would be any great debate, any great division or any great contradiction among

members on all sides having indicated that they intend to support this

particular resolution today.

I believe that we all, as representatives of our various constituents, have a

responsibility to educate ourselves into ways that we can eradicate, if

possible, but to control, to the extent possible, hauling drunk drivers off our

streets and our highways. There has already been too much carnage, there has

already been too much suffering, there has already been too much pain, there has

already been one death too many because of this irresponsible behavior by a few

people - unfortunately, more than a few, but certainly a small percentage of our

society. Nevertheless, a percentage that is enough to cause difficulty, pain,

heartache and agony.

I am encouraged by the conduct of members in this Legislature today in their

indication of support for this resolution. I too want to join with others who

have spoken in complementing the association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and

their officers who have taken the initiative, quite strongly, and rightly so, to

bring this matter to our attention, to the attention of members on all sides of

the House. I think they have done it with vigor, they have done it with

determination, and I think the result today is that they have done it with

effectiveness.

Finally, I want to complement my colleague for St. John's East in really

taking the initiative to make sure that this particular matter got before the

Legislature before we perhaps disperse over the next several days to go about

our business for the summer. It was really a lot of lobbying and arm twisting, I

can tell you, by him and our caucus. We only get a private member's day every

second Wednesday, and every one of us have matters that we want to bring forth

on Private Members' Day, but the fortitude, the determination and the lobbying

of our colleague for St. John's East made sure that this most important

resolution was the resolution that was dealt with today.

I commend that to the House, and lest I do any damage to the unanimity from

the other side, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General it certainly gives me great

pleasure as well to speak in support of this resolution. The Department of

Justice is, of course, part of the committee, along with Government Services and

Lands, that is dealing with this issue. There has been an ongoing dialogue with

various agencies concerned with this initiative including the Mothers Against

Drunk Driving and the Newfoundland Safety Council. In fact, I have met

personally with Mr. Ray O'Neill, the president of the Council, who has been so

kind as to explain to me exactly how the device works.

Like the hon. Member for Lewisporte, who refers to instances where the

effects of drunk driving are seen in terms of his friendships, I also, in the

course of my twenty years of practice in this Province, have seen many instances

where drunk driving has led to carnage on our highways, the emotional and mental

distress that it causes to the relatives involved in this matter, and of course

the economic cost involved in these instances.

I would concur, as well, that it is certainly on the agenda to bring forward

legislation so that this very worthwhile and proper initiative can be

implemented. I would also say that not only is government intent upon bringing

about the appropriate legislation in a timely fashion, but once it is

implemented I would urge the judiciary in this Province, once the mechanisms are

put in place, to make liberal use of these provisions. There is absolutely no

excuse or reason why anything that can be done of a preventative nature to

prevent anyone from drunk driving should not be implemented. I wholeheartedly

support this endorsement and can state for the record that it is certainly an

initiative of my department, along with the Minister for Government Services and

Lands, to have the appropriate legislative framework and legislation in place as

early as possible to see that it is implemented.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If the member speaks now he closes the debate.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take this opportunity for a few minutes just to close debate on this

resolution and state at the outset that it is indeed a pleasure to see members

on both sides cooperating in such a manner, really for the benefit of all our

citizens in our entire Province, because what this resolution does, it is a step

towards added protection of the ordinary citizen.

When I hear the Minister of Government Services and Lands give a commitment

in the way he did that will give real focus and attention to this important

issue, and when I hear the Minister of Justice and Attorney General state

emphatically that he will work closely with this committee and work with his

colleague the Minister of Government Services and Lands, these are real

commitments. For the first time in my life I in fact appreciated the term

liberal, in terms of the fact that yes, there should be liberal usage of this as

an option. A trial court judge should indeed be given the option to have this

provision available to him or her in dealing with this very serious issue.

I do truly appreciate the commentary on behalf of both ministers, the Leader

of the New Democratic Party, and my colleague the Member for Lewisporte. It

appears that we have all put politics aside on this very important issue and

have dealt with it in a very genuine and real way to protect the ordinary

citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador from - and I will adopt the word used by my

colleague the Member for Lewisporte - the cancer and the menace that is caused

by impaired driving in our Province, in our jurisdiction.

I thank all members for their contribution and I look forward to unanimous

passage of this private member's resolution.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the resolution, aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary minded, nay.'

I declare that the resolution has been carried unanimously.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could I would ask the Clerk - I know the

Speaker said this was a unanimous decision, but we would like that so recorded,

that it was a unanimous decision, so that we don't have to go through

Division.

I think we have agreed that rather than waste the day, we will spend some

time doing government business. We have now passed that matter. There is very

little point in us debating the resolution put forward any further since we all

agree.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I didn't say it was a wasted day. The hon. gentleman is

always looking too much for the negative. I said "rather than waste the

day." Now if he wants me to say: the rest of the day... Is that okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Words are important.

MR. TULK: That is okay, is it? Okay, very important. Rather than waste

the rest of the day, because the previous part of this day was spent in a very

good pursuit and saw the House come together on a very important issue, I say to

the hon. gentleman, rather than do that, Mr. Speaker, we are going to revert to

Committee of the Whole.

I would so move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to

consider certain bills.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. TULK: Are you ready, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: We are, Sir.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I call Order 10, "An Act To

Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994." (Bill 7)

CHAIR: Order 10, Bill 7.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association

Act, 1994." (Bill 7)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order 11, Committee of the Whole on a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act." (Bill 8)

CHAIR: Motion 11, Bill 8.

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

(Bill 8)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order 12, "An Act To Amend The Mineral

Act." (Bill 14)

CHAIR: Order 12, Bill 14.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act." (Bill 14)

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I think the Chair is being rushed too much. I

think we need to relax a little bit.

Order 13, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act." (Bill 15)

CHAIR: Order 13, Bill 15.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act." (Bill 15)

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, another example of the Apple

Dumpling Gang.

Bill 15,

An Act To Amend The Lands Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not sure if it is the Apple Dumpling

Gang any more or if it is the Care Bears on that side of the House of Assembly.

We have the greedy bear right there, we have the Premier as the good news bear,

the Minister of Mines and Energy is the bad news bear, and the Minister of

Health is the don't care bear.

This again is an example of years ago -

MR. TULK: What about me?

MR. J. BYRNE: If there is such a thing as an ostrich bear,

it would be that man there. In the meantime -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You might have to give me some more yet

today. This is only a full glass.

MR. MATTHEWS: Would you mind if I brought you a drink

instead?

MR. J. BYRNE: I wouldn't attempt to drink it. I wouldn't

be that brave an individual, I say to the Minister of Finance.

Back in the 1970s, the Crown Lands Act was amended to increase

the reservations around rivers and ponds in the Province. The reservation used

to be ten metres and the government of the day increased it to fifteen meters,

to have access to the waterways of the Province for the individuals of the

public of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that was a good thing

to do. Right here, we see, "This Bill would amend

section 7 of the Lands

Act with respect to the buffer of Crown land around the waterways in the

province."

In the last part of this here, under clause 7.(1.1) it says,

"Notwithstanding subsection (1), where lands are granted, leased or

licensed under this Part...." "...the strip of Crown lands around and

adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river

may be no less than 10 metres wide."

Why? I have to ask the question: Why are they doing this? Why

are they amending it? Back when the previous Premier, Mr .Wells, was Premier of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, he made some amendments to the Crown

Lands Act which I opposed at the time and I still oppose, which gave people the

right to apply for Crown lands right to the water's edge. At that time I

opposed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going back a long ways.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is not that long. It was only seven or

eight years ago that the previous Premier was here. The previous Premier, Clyde

Wells, made that.

Back in the 1970s - now, I am not talking about that, but the

more recent one when the Premier changed it. Why did he change it? Some people

figured it had something to do with the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, Newfoundland Hydro at the time, to give companies access, and

private companies who wanted to produce energy in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, to have access to the water's edge, which was normally giving

access to the public of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This amendment here, I would like the minister, when he gets

up, to address this - I expect he will - to tell us why they are bringing this

forward now. Why are they reducing the reservation on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You are not. See, now the minister is

confused, Mr. Chairman.

It says, "...the strip of Crown lands around and

adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river

may be no less than 10 metres wide." Previous to this it was no less than

15 metres wide. You are not increasing it; you are decreasing it, I say to the

minister. If you want to increase it, so be it. If you are decreasing by 15

metres and you want to increase it, it should go up to 20 metres, not 10 metres.

AN HON. MEMBER: ((Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You are not. Look, it says,

"Notwithstanding subsection (1), where lands are granted, leased or

licensed under this Part...." "...the strip of Crown lands around and

adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river

may be no less than 10 metres wide." So, a reservation could be 10 metres

wide. You could have a reservation on the lakes and on the ponds of 10 metres,

not 15 metres. If you want to increase it, you would go from 15 metres up to 20

metres, I would think.

Maybe the minister might want to withdraw this piece of

legislation, if he is saying it should be increased, and bring it back in the

fall sitting. I would like for the minister, when he gets on his feet, to answer

the question: Why are you changing it now? In the 1970s when they changed the

Crown Lands Act, they increased it from 10 metres up to 15 metres. Also, at that

time, under

section 134.(

b) of the Crown Lands Act, they brought in an amendment

to -

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Which bill are we talking about? Bill 15?

MR. McLEAN:

Section 7.(1).

MR. J. BYRNE:

Section 7 (1). Are you reading the bottom

down there?

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Maybe I am reading it wrong, but it says -

imagine what people here think - "Notwithstanding subsection (1), where

lands are granted...." "Where Crown lands that border on a lake, pond,

river, the seashore or foreshore are granted, leased or licensed under this

Part, it is considered, in the absence of an express grant, lease or licence of

those Crown lands, that a strip of Crown lands not less than 15 metres wide

around and adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of

the river was not intended to pass and did not pass to the grantee, lessee or

licensee."

Now, to finish on reading it, "Notwithstanding subsection

(1)..." - which is what you are referring to - "...where lands are

granted, leased or licensed under this Part..." -

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, what are you doing it for? What is it

here for, I say to the minister? Finish reading clause 1(7)(1)(1.1) -

"Notwithstanding subsection (1), where lands are granted, leased or

licensed under this Part" - and go to the bottom, where it says: "the

strip of Crown lands around and adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore

or along each bank of the river may be no less than 10 metres wide." So the

minimum becomes the maximum.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). They are grandfathering is

what is there now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is not what it says. Read it. That

is not what it says, not I am reading here.

It says: "may be no less than 10 metres wide." When

the minister gets up to respond to my concerns here, will he explain to me

section (7)(1)(1.1) and the last paragraph on the very bottom of the page there

which says: "the strip of Crown lands around the adjoining lake, pond,

seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river may be no less than 10

metres wide." Get up and answer it, tell me what that means.

CHAIR : The hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think if the hon. member would read

section 7(1.1), it says:

"Notwithstanding subsection (1)...," which identifies that there is a

fifteen metre reservation. Now there will be a fifteen metre reservation with

this amendment. The

section reads: "Notwithstanding subsection (1), where

land are granted, leased or licensed under this Part (

a) for residential

purposes..." If there is a house already there and the reservation was ten

metres, we cannot change that now. We are not going to change that. We are going

to grandfather that in, but any new applications will not be accepted for

anything less than fifteen metres from the shore reservation.

Do you understand what I am saying? Any application that comes

in now after this legislation is approved, and it is within a fifteen metre

reservation, it will not be approved. It will be rejected and we will be

indicating to the person that you have to pull your application back because we

now have a fifteen metre reservation instead of a ten metre reservation. We have

expanded it five metres from what it was under the existing legislation.

Anything new will not be permitted within fifteen metres of the shoreline.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will take the minister at his word about

what he is saying the intent of this piece of legislation is, but it is not the

way I am reading it, I say to the minister.

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I hope you are right, if this is going to

approved today. I will vote against it anyway. It will only be one. I will be on

record just to cover myself, I say to the Minister of Education. I am curious -

MR. SHELLEY: In other words: I agree with you 100 per cent

but you are wrong.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I don't agree with him. I will say if

it is going to go through this House - they have the majority over there and

they use it all the time.

I say to the Minister of Education that we are going to have a

meeting on Friday. There is a very interesting meeting coming up. I hope she is

going to be agreeing to with what I am going be saying at that meeting with

respect to that new school in Pouch Cove.

I have to get back to this.

MR. SHELLEY: Relevance, Mr. Chairman.

MR. J. BYRNE: The relevance is this, that the school is

going to be built on pastureland and there is a river flowing through that

property. Again, it could impact upon the right of way.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is extremely relevant.

MR. J. BYRNE: Sure that is relevant. You can make anything

relevant.

I will read it again; "Notwithstanding subsection (1),

where lands are granted, leased or licensed under this Part (

a) for residential

purposes..." I will move to (c), where it says: "for the purpose of a

grant, lease or licence under a lease, licence or permit to occupy issued before

the coming into force of this subsection...," and so on. I still don't

know, I'm still not getting it, I have to say to you, Mr. Chairman. There is

something I am not getting on this one. I don't know if it is a mental block

or I have been dealing with lands too much over the years, and dealing with

Crown lands and know what goes on. I think what the minister is saying and the

intent of this piece of legislation, he might in his mind have it clear, but I

really don't think that this is saying it.

In the meantime -

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You are not increasing the reservation, I

say. The Crown Lands Act now - for any grants, leases, permits or whatever

permits to occupy, you have to have a fifteen metre reservation now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It was enacted in legislation. It was so. Go

check.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is, I say to the minister. Because I'm

telling you, when I was in private business - and I worked over at Crown Lands

for seven years, by the way. Anyway, I will take the minister at his word. He

seems to know what he is talking about.

MS BETTNEY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Speak up, I say to the Minister of Human

Resources. What was it?

MS BETTNEY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Which one are we talking about? Which

minister?

MR. SHELLEY: All of them, right?

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely. The Minister of Human Resources

and Employment says that the minister always knows what he is talking about. I

had to ask the question which minister because I haven't come across one yet,

in the seven years that I have been in this House of Assembly, who knows what he

is talking about. Now if you want to say that the minister thinks he knows what

he is talking about, the one in the House of Assembly that would win that prize

over everybody else, bar none, no contest, would be the Minister of Health. He

is the omni-minister over there who thinks he knows it all. He has the answers

for everything, but there are other ministers over there - the Member for

Bellevue is pointing at me now. I say to the Member for Bellevue, if he is upset

with people on his own side of the House, don't take it out on us. If you are

upset with certain individuals over there don't try and take it out on us,

because you have a face on you the past few weeks that long that you -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) dirt road.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. So I say to the Member for Bellevue,

keep quiet and I won't bring any attention to the fact that you are upset with

certain people on that side of the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: He wouldn't even look after his

constituent in Fair Haven. I spoke to her three times. (Inaudible) talk to the

Opposition.

MR. J. BYRNE: I won't embarrass the Member for Bellevue

with that one. Any individual who wants to read the Hansard of today will know

what the Member for Ferryland is talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I won't say any more because he says he

was trying to build me up.

Anyway, back to this issue.

MR. SHELLEY: You started that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, see what you started. The Minister of

Human Resources and Employment, and I noticed how quick she got out of it. She

is like Statler and Waldorf in The Muppet Show , making the comments and

then backing off.

MR. SHELLEY: What a racket she started.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bellevue says he was

protecting his member. You shouldn't set yourself up like that. Don't, stay

quiet now while you are ahead.

Anyway, with respect to this Bill 15 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know what you are talking about.

With respect to Bill 15, I am going on record now to say to

the Minister of Government Services and Lands that when the vote comes I am

going to vote nay on this because I don't think this says what the minister

wants to say.

Who is in charge over there now?

AN HON. MEMBER: You know it is the omni-minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: The omni-minister is in charge. I say I am

going to sit down now, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't get me going on that today because I

am telling you, the Minister of Education is going to have 500 people in her

office on Friday or Monday morning if we don't get what we want

MS FOOTE: There is a lot of room in my office.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, there is not enough for 500 people.

MS FOOTE: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, there is not enough for 500 people, I

say to the Minister of Education. This is a very serious issue, I say, what is

going on down there. I have only touched on it with the media. There is another

little issue that I am holding back, I say to the Minister of Education, that I

am going to make public. You need not worry. It is coming within the next

forty-eight hours. I can tell you that, I say to the Minister of Education. She

won't be smiling then, I can guarantee you that, when she has 500 people

knocking on her door wondering why certain people are not being treated the same

as others. That is what is going to happen, and she is going to be wondering why

we have an elected school board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is like this. Whenever I am up speaking

the Minister of Education says that she supports me, that she voted for me. I

know where she voted. She didn't vote in my district, but by the mere fact

that she didn't vote in my district is supporting me, I say to the Minister of

Education. It is a vote that wasn't there against me.

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Indirectly supported me. How is that? That

is good. That is not bad.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, with those few words I am going to sit

down and hopefully - and today is supposed to be Private Members' Day. On this

side of the House, again, I think that this side of the House is being so

cooperative with the government, because we are here to point out the flaws in

the legislation. It is starting to scare me here. The Government House Leader,

when he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely, that is never going to happen.

You will never question that. I can say to the members on the other side of the

House, you will never need to question where I am sitting in this House of

Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know what you mean. Don't even talk

about that, that gives me the shivers altogether. The only time that I am going

to be moving from this here, I am not going to be moving to my right or to my

left. I'm going straight ahead on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, right

across the floor, but it is going to be after an election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going to be on that side of the House

but not with the bunch that is there now. It is when we, on this side of the

House, move to that side of the House after the next election.

MR. COLLINS: Jack, you are as far to the right now as you

can move.

MR. J. BYRNE: Far to the right, yes.

Just for clarification purposes, the Member for Labrador West

has said that I am as far right as I can go. Physically in this House of

Assembly I am as far right as I can go, I say to the member. There are

individuals to my right, sitting in this House of Assembly, and God granted me

the space between the two desks. That was a godsend, I say to the minister.

Those two individuals there should be over in the Speaker's gallery.

In the meantime, I am going to let the minister get up now and

have his final say on this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It depends on what he says if I am getting

up again.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand the member is having a real problem trying to

understand this very difficult amendment that we are putting through on

section

7 of the Lands Act. Let me just say to him, for clarification and on the record,

that the existing ten metre reservation is being moved to fifteen metres, an

additional five metres.

The fifteen metre reservation will apply, in the future not only to cottage

lot development, but to all outfitting lodges and most other developments, with

the only exceptions being able to remain in the ten metre reservation churches,

schools, cemeteries, municipal buildings and municipal parks. Those are the only

exceptions that will still be able to remain in the ten metre reservation. All

other applications beyond this, when the legislation is approved, will have to

be beyond the fifteen metre reservation. That means fifteen metres from the

shoreline.

Hopefully, that will clarify for the member that this amendment improves the

situation that we were dealing with during the Outdoor Resources Committee. A

lot of people said we were trying to privatize the waterways by allowing people

to develop on the water shorelines and things like that. We are going the other

way. We are not going the way of privatization as the member might think. We are

going away from that and identifying that you have to be further away from the

shoreline in order to develop.

That is as clear as I can get it. I don't know how else to clarify it under

section 7, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act." (Bill 15).

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, Order 14, "An Act Respecting The

Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments," Bill 16.

On motion, clauses 1 through 12 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 13 carry?

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: I realize the Minister of Justice is not here, so maybe the

omni-minister can pass along the concern to him.

I am just, for the first time, noticing clause 13. It says, "This Act

applies to (

a) a Canadian judgement made in a proceeding commenced after this

Act comes into force; ..." - that is no problem - "(

b) a Canadian

judgement made in a proceeding commenced before this Act comes into force and in

which the judgment debtor took part." That, to me, at least speaks in part

of retroactive legislation, and every time I see retroactivity, or the

possibility of retroactivity in legislation, you know, the antenna just goes up.

I know there are times when it is absolutely necessary and it has to be done

but, generally speaking, retroactive legislation is not good unless there is a

good explanation for it.

I am not intending to hang up the Committee on this bill. I would just ask

that perhaps the acting Government House Leader might undertake to have his

colleague provide us with an explanation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly see that is done. I have

already had someone try to raise the Minister of Justice to bring it to his

attention, and we might even have a further explanation before the day is out.

On motion, clauses 13 and 14 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, we will continue on with the Order Paper. Order

15, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities

Act, 1999." (Bill 17)

CHAIR: Order 15, Bill 17.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 17)

On motion, clauses 1 through11 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 12 carry?

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 17,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act.

When the minister was on her feet the other day introducing this, she made a few

comments and I made note of them. The biggest thing that is being impacted, of

course, by this piece of legislation is clause 12.

When the new Municipalities Act came into play on January 1, 2000, it was

nine years, believe it or not, in the making. They had the cooperation of the

municipalities, the Federation of Municipalities, and they had the staff at the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs working on it. I remember

standing in my place last fall and last spring and talking about the

Municipalities Act and the changes to it, and how it would give more latitude to

the municipalities to manage their own affairs. We all thought it was a great. I

remember at the time standing in my place and saying that I hope that we would

not be back here making amendments and changes to the Municipalities Act in the

near future. We hoped we wouldn't have to do that. What has happened? The very

first time that we sit in the House of Assembly, the very first session after

the Easter break, we are here now debating twelve amendments or changes to the

clauses of the Municipalities Act. Why? I have to ask the question: Why?

In the New Year, just after Christmas, before the municipalities had the

leeway, if there was some councillor who could not make their tax payments for

the year, they could work out a deal with the municipalities and pay $20 a

month, $40 a month, or quarterly or whatever the case may be, and pay off their

taxes. The council made a decision that they would not kick these people off the

council. The Minister of Environment and Labour would know this. He was a former

councillor, I think. What happened in the New Year when the new Municipalities

Act came into place - gets a directive, I suppose, from the minister saying:

Boot them all off council; 135 individuals who had donated their time for the

well-being of their municipality, the well-being of the people in the town, and

some of these individuals were embarrassed, I would say, to have the town - just

carte blanche, gone. We do not have any discretion; you are gone. Not only that,

because you were kicked off council you cannot run for council in September of

2001, and rightly so. I have to congratulate the minister on this. At least she

found a solution to that problem. This is a good solution. At least now those

individuals who were removed from council can have the opportunity, in September

of 2001, to at least put their names forward, and if the people in the town want

to decide to put these people back on council, they will be put back on council;

but I think they should not have been in that position in the first place.

I suggested, the other day when I was discussing this piece of legislation,

that maybe what should happen is that people who are serving on councils or who

are running for councils, if they are elected to the town councils in

municipalities in the Province, they would not have to pay their property tax on

their residence. This problem would not arise, it would not have arisen, and it

would encourage people to run; but the Government House Leader rightly pointed

out a good point: that, if that is the case, some people could have a house

valued at $150,000 in a municipality and someone have a house valued at $50,000

and it would not be fair to those individuals because they could be putting in

the same time on work on councils. How that could be arranged, the property tax

could be forgiven up to a certain amount. Once you went over that, you would

have to pay the difference. That is just one possibility. I throw it out for

discussion.

Anyway, I am not going to say much more on this. I think I addressed most of

my concerns on this when I spoke on it the first time around so I am just going

to take my place now and thank you for you time.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are on clause 12 are we?

CHAIR: Clause 12.

MR. RIDEOUT: I want to make a point on clause 12 before we finish debate

on this bill, a point similar to a point I made, I believe, on debate on the

Environmental Assessment Act a couple of days ago. This is a piece of

legislation that, if I am reading it properly, was enacted by this Legislature

in 1999 and here we are amending that legislation probably less than a year from

its enactment. I am not sure if it was the fall of 1999 because in the fall of

1999 I did not spend any time here, for reasons members know, but I thought I

recalled being in the House when this piece of legislation passed, so it might

have been the spring of 1999 when it passed. Nevertheless, it is a piece of

legislation that within the last twelve months or so was passed by this

Legislature and here we find ourselves back again today, as we are doing with a

number of other pieces of legislation over the last few days, with fairly

significant amendments. Significant to the extent that there are a number of

clauses that have to be amended.

I am going to make this point once again, that if this piece of legislation -

and this piece of legislation had a lot of public scrutiny but it did not have

committee scrutiny. If this piece of legislation had been put before a

Legislation Review Committee, I suspect we would not be here doing wholesale

amendments today, about one year after the bill was originally passed. I think

we are doing courts in this Province a disfavor. I think we are doing ordinary

citizens of this Province a disfavor.

I believe there were hundreds of citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who

had to resign from positions on municipalities -

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and thirty-five.

MR. RIDEOUT: One-hundred and thirty-five people had to resign their

positions on municipalities in this Province because of what should have perhaps

been picked in legislative review.

I think in doing that we are doing, number one, the citizens of the Province

a disservice; and number two, we are unnecessarily putting courts in a position

of having to rule against citizens in this Province. Because if they did not

resign somebody would bring it to the courts. So why can we not be a little bit

more careful?

I mean, after all, members, colleagues, friends, we are making laws here.

That is what we are doing, these are laws. Once the law is made somebody is

responsible for implementing it. To have to come back to this Legislature within

twelve months of passing a significantly large piece of legislation, I think

there is something wrong.

This is the second or third time I have seen it this week. It is the second

or third time that we are amending legislation that is only a year or so old. I

think it is time for us to get our act together. There is a vehicle to do that,

and that is to have legislative review committees review some of this larger

legislation. Not everything, I'm not suggesting that, but some of these larger

pieces of legislation. Because I firmly believe that if a legislative review

committee reviewed some of those pieces of legislation there is enough

experience, common sense and wisdom on both sides of the House that a lot of

those errors or omissions would become apparent and would be corrected right

there and then in the appropriate committee, not having to bring back

legislation a year or so later.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to support passage of the

bill.

On motion, clause 12 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, Order 16, "An Act To Amend The Municipal

Affairs Act," Bill 18.

CHAIR