December

2, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 33

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following private members'

statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the

Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay

of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to pay tribute and congratulate

Mr. Bill Ralph, Harbour Supervisor of the Port de Grave Harbour Authority, on

receiving two national awards.

He recently received a National Harbour Authority Achievement Award, an award

given by national governing body Small Craft Harbours, a program operated by the

federal Department of Fisheries of Oceans and presented in each of the five

regions across Canada.

On November 24, Mr. Ralph travelled to Ottawa to receive the Prix d'Excellence

Award. He was one of seven from this Province nominated for this regional award.

In his position as supervisor, Mr. Ralph is responsible for maintaining the

Port de Grave Harbour, a job he takes great pride in. On call twenty-four hours,

he is governed by a seven-member volunteer committee dealing with boat owners,

companies and the general public on a daily basis. He is committed and dedicated

to this position and to the successful operation of the Port de Grave Harbour

Authority.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Mr. Bill Ralph on

receiving these two prestigious awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here in this hon. House here today to congratulate Dr. Paul Bonisteel

for being selected as the Physician of the Year for Newfoundland and Labrador.

On October 31 of this year, Dr. Paul Bonisteel was presented with the award

during the annual Family Medicine Forum.

Dr. Paul Bonisteel is a very dedicated individual, not only to his patients

but also to his volunteer groups and the community. Dr. Paul Bonisteel, a

resident of New Habour, is actively involved in the local elementary school

council, the Ocean Net program that helps to clean up beaches, but most of all

the pride of his volunteerism, a soccer program that himself, his wife and a

group of local volunteers organize for the children of the area.

I ask that this hon. House join me in sending sincere congratulations to Dr.

Paul Bonisteel as this year's recipient of the Physician of the Year for

Newfoundland and Labrador by the Canadian College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to a long living

resident of the Town of Cox's Cove, Mrs. Emily Park. Mrs. Park was 100 years

old on August 3 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Park was born at Brakes Cove in 1909 and at the age of ten

years old moved to Cox's Cove with her parents and her younger brother and

sister. At the age of twenty-three years old, Aunt Emily married Harold and they

had nine children; seven of which are still alive today.

Mr. Speaker, on August 7, family and friends celebrated Aunt Emily's 100

birthday at the community hall, at which time Aunt Emily gave a great thank you,

starting with the Lord and her family, for her long life. Special guests, Mr.

Speaker, at this party were her younger sister, Sarah, age ninety-four, and her

younger brother, Gordon Joyce, age ninety-seven.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all hon. members here today to acknowledge Mrs. Aunt

Emily's 100 birthday and we wish her many more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the hon. House today to congratulate the class of 2009

of St. Kevin's High in the Goulds. On Wednesday, November 4, I, along with my

colleague, the MHA for Kilbride, had the pleasure of attending the graduating

exercises and distribution of awards and diplomas, along with the graduates'

parents and special guests.

The graduating class of St. Kevin's High witnessed ninety-six young men and

women take a new bold step in turning a page on one

chapter of their lives and

opening the page on the next.

Mr. Speaker, St. Kevin's High school supports the young people from Level I

to Level III and covers the area of Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove and the Goulds

region. It has a long tradition of excellence in athletics and academic

achievement, and the class of 2009, no doubt, has continued to contribute to the

school's tradition and will embrace the opportunities that exist for our young

people.

It was indeed a pleasure for me, as MHA, to share with these young

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a special night as they celebrate their

successful completion of high school and look to embrace the many opportunities

that await them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and thank the generosity of the many

business, community, religious groups, families and alumni for their

contribution of awards that allowed the hard work and dedication of many

graduates of St. Kevin's High to be acknowledged.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating St. Kevin's High

graduating class of 2009 for their achievements to date and wish them well in

all future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to ask members

to join me in congratulating all those involved in the recent Olympic Torch

Relay events held across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, from November 11-16, Newfoundland and Labrador played host to

the Olympic Flame as it passed through forty-two of our communities on its

cross-country journey to Vancouver, where it will arrive at BC Place for the

opening ceremonies of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games on February 12.

For the 330 torch bearers who had the honour of carrying the flame and for

those who witnessed it, including those in my home community of Conception Bay

South, it was certainly an emotional event.

Mr. Speaker, regional community celebrations were held in Labrador West,

Happy Valley-Goose Bay, St. Anthony, St. John's, Clarenville, Grand

Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook, and Channel-Port aux Basques. I want to thank the

organizers of those celebrations; those who provided entertainment, and all the

volunteers for their efforts in making these events a memorable experience for

the people of our Province. We showed the rest of the country, and indeed the

world, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the Olympic spirit.

Mr. Speaker, as we look forward to the Olympic Winter Games in February,

there will be several opportunities to highlight this Province on the national

and world stage. Last week, we were involved in the launch of Atlantic Canada

House, an Atlantic Canadian pavilion in Vancouver which will showcase all things

Newfoundland and Labrador - the Province's business, trade, culture, and

tourism opportunities.

There is also the Cultural Olympiad - which will put our emerging and

establishing professional talent out there for all the world to see.

Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 2010, it will be Newfoundland and Labrador Day

at the Olympics. Plans are being finalized to ensure we capitalize on this

opportunity to show the world who we are, and also to bring the Olympic

experience home to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am looking forward to being a part of Newfoundland and Labrador's Olympic

experience and to updating you further as February draws near.

Thank, you Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

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

I had the privilege of being one of the 330 torchbearers here in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. I applied back some two years ago to the CIBC site

and I was selected some six weeks before the actual torch run here in

Newfoundland, and I had the privilege of running as part of it in Stephenville.

If I had known the minister was going to give his statement today, I indeed

would have brought my torch with me so I could show you; which I will have for

all posterity, of course, to pass on to my kids. It was a great experience.

First of all, I have to commend as well the organizers. It was a

fantastically, well-organized event. From picking up the runners to where you

drop them off; how every community was organized with their regional committees

and so on. It was a massive organizational job to see that you stayed on time

and how the flame was kept lit all the way along and so on. It was a wonderful

undertaking to see how it was done. They were very professional about it and

very courteous throughout the whole time. It was indeed a great experience.

The committees, for example, put a lot of work into this. I know I got to run

in Stephenville because that was the

section that I got chosen for personally,

but in Port aux Basques, which also hosted the flame, terrible weather

conditions that night. Mother Nature did not co-operate. It was a very windy,

rainy, stormy night.

Hats off to the organizing committee who in jig time took what were very

challenging circumstances and with some quick thinking made everything work;

shifted everything from outdoors to indoors, and they had a great time. A lot of

the organizers who were, in fact, from other places other than Newfoundland

many from the Vancouver area - could not get over the hospitality that they were

shown under those very trying circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his remarks.

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

So, hats off to all of the organizers. It was a great event, and

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians certainly did do their part and they exhibited

a great deal of pride in the Olympics.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. While I did not run, as did my colleague from the Official

Opposition, I did attend a couple of the community events. I must say, they

really were well organized and I was impressed. One of them was here in St. John's

but the other was in Gambo. To be in a smaller community and see the excitement

and how well it was organized, I was really glad that I got to experience both

things, here in St. John's and also in Gambo.

The Olympics, there are all kinds of analyses out there about Olympics but

one thing is certain, that Olympics in a country is a moment to really give

impetus to an understanding of our own fitness and the need for exercise and

being fit. I think that is one of the benefits of having Olympics in our country

and of having the torch having been here in our own Province. I would encourage

the minister, with his department, to see if there are more ways, not just

between now and February but into the future, that we can encourage more

programs around personal fitness and setting our own personal goals for good

health.

The other thing I think that is really good is the Cultural Olympiad. We do

have a number of groups who are going to be there. I am aware of at least two,

and I am sure there are probably more. I think it is great that they have

decided to accept the invitation because they have to raise their own money to

get there, some of them. They probably may get some assistance, I am not sure,

but I know they are raising money because I have had requests. So, I thank them

for being willing to go to the Cultural Olympiad and to represent who we are as

a people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to inform my colleagues

of an initiative to better inform Aboriginal youth of our system of justice.

This past weekend I attended a Youth Justice Camp that took place in Hopedale,

an Inuit community on the North Coast of Labrador. The camp is organized by the

Public Legal Information Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, a non-profit

group dedicated to educating people about the law.

The Youth Justice Camp is designed to teach youth about the criminal justice

system in Canada and inform them of their rights and responsibilities under the

Youth Criminal Justice Act. This is only the second time a Youth Justice Camp

was held on the North Coast. The first camp was held in Nain this past spring.

Mr. Speaker, the proper administration of justice is very important to the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have made great strides in

improving our justice system for people throughout the Province. In Labrador,

much work has been carried out to make the administration of justice more

responsive to the needs of Aboriginal people in their communities. For example,

through the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador, two Aboriginal court clerk

positions have been filled in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; a co-ordinator position

was hired for the RCMP Community Justice Forums program to benefit coastal

communities; an Aboriginal justice symposium was held to promote dialogue

between the justice system and Aboriginal people. As well, in this fiscal year,

the provincial government has increased funding from $100,000 to $200,000 to

continue to support and enhance the grant program to advance violence prevention

for women, children and families in Aboriginal communities.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of the Public Legal Information

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe it is important we recognize

this organization's work to educate people, especially youth. The experiences

gained from this Youth Justice Camp are valuable to their educational growth.

Far too often we have seen young people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike,

make regrettable mistakes and decisions that can negatively affect their lives.

I believe that by influencing and educating youth through efforts such as this

Youth Justice Camp, we have the ability to provide them with the necessary

skills to assist them in making the right choices.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in this hon. House to join me and

congratulate the Public Legal Information Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador for its ongoing work, especially its efforts to help Aboriginal youth

become more aware of their rights and responsibilities in our justice system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that she attended the Youth Justice Camp in

her district, as we know where the population is mostly made up of Aboriginal

people. We all know that the key for any young people to succeed in life is to

have a good education in all aspects of their life. Just this summer, I had the

opportunity to spend a week in the Torngat Mountains National Park with ten

young people from her district who were very articulate, very educated young

people who were promoting the culture and the lifestyle of the Inuit people.

Mr. Speaker, from these young people, I saw tremendous talent, tremendous

skills, and kids who were very successful. Unfortunately, we have not to kid

ourselves, we live in a society today where 4 per cent of our population is

Aboriginal, yet 20 per cent of the people who are incarcerated in our jails are

also Aboriginal people. It shows the need for further education and for further

promotion of education and the justice system in our society.

Mr. Speaker, just recently I obtained a report through the access of

information and privacy commission regarding statistics around young people, in

Nain in particular. I was astonished to learn that at that time 72 per cent of

the children in the school in Nain had been directly affected by suicide of a

close family member. That is a tremendous kind of stress for young people in a

small community to be placed under and to have to struggle with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing I learned, Mr. Speaker, is that only 46 per cent of the young

people in this school are actually graduating. So, I think that while the

minister talks about the successful initiatives that have been launched there

are still a great deal to be done. We need to ensure that we continue to build a

healthy society, a healthy population of young Aboriginal people who have so

much to contribute to our communities and to our Province, and we are certainly

there to support her and her government in those initiatives.

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

Vidi.

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

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

I want to congratulate everybody who took

part in the camp, especially to the

youth because they had to make the decision to be there and I think that shows a

growing awareness and a commitment among the youth of the Aboriginal people in

Labrador. I think that is where change is going to happen is starting with our

youth. I congratulate also the public legal information for their work because

that takes a lot of work and they certainly need to be commended.

The Justice Minister of last year, around this time, noted that Aboriginal

people are overrepresented in Labrador corrections and he noted, at that time,

that 90 per cent of the current population were Aboriginal; I suspect the

statistic is much the same. This sort of unacceptable statistic shows us the

depth of the problem in the communities, especially in Labrador.

So this camp is a right step in the direction for trying to get at that, but

we do know that there are many causes for that and the causes are deep and they

are almost endemic: poverty, isolation, powerlessness. They go back in the

relationship between Aboriginal peoples and Europeans, when Europeans first

entered the scene.

There is much work that needs to be done, and we owe it to the Aboriginal

peoples to work with them to correct many of the mistakes of the past in order

to ensure that from here on in they will have a full position and full

participation in the life of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that includes the

justice system.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

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

What I look forward to is when our justice investments are not in

corrections, as I said last year, but for facilities for Innu, Inuit, and Metis

lawyers, judges and peace officers, that that number will grow in Labrador

because that is also going to help with the situation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at the risk today of being deemed a traitor, I will try to

address the few more questions to the Premier with regard to the Upper Churchill

deal.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources confirmed

that her province will not reopen the Upper Churchill deal.

I ask the Premier today: What is the next course of action for the Province?

Is there enough strength in the claim that you are professing to take this case

to the Supreme Court?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Churchill contract.

What CF(L)Co has done, Mr. Speaker, was asked Hydro-Quebec to reopen the

Upper Churchill contract. They have given a timeline of January 15 to get a

response in writing. Mr. Speaker, they will wait until they hear formally from

Hydro-Quebec. They understand clearly what options they have open to them at

CF(L)Co and, as Mr. Martin has said, they will make a decision on next steps at

that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister must be the only one in the country that is not tuned in. I

think we all heard it all over the national news in the last day that it is not

on, they are not prepared to open it.

I ask the minister: What is the next course of action for the Province? If

there is strength in your claim, you must have a plan B. What is the plan B?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have to keep going over this same ground again because the

Opposition really does not get it; nor do their former supporters and members of

their party and members of former governments get it.

Mr. Speaker, we did research for three years and we came to a conclusion that

there was a strong case, we felt, under Quebec's civil law on good faith. We

held a meeting with CF(L)Co where orally we presented that information to them.

CF(L)Co then went, got their own legal opinions, Mr. Speaker, and they have

decided on a course of action. This action lies solely within the purview of

CF(L)Co, Mr. Speaker, not the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let us talk about the information, because when I asked yesterday in the

House of Assembly to have legal opinions and information tabled for the people

of the public in Newfoundland and Labrador to see what was happening, I was told

by the Premier that this was confidential and that it had not been shared with

CF(L)Co. However, on Monday, Mr. Speaker, in Hansard, the Premier said, and I

quote, "we feel that we need to pursue this and the best way to pursue

this is in good faith. The best way to pursue good faith is to have this

information passed over to CF(L)Co."

So we got Monday's version, we got Tuesday's version, let's hear

Wednesday's version, Minister: Do Hydro-Quebec and the people of Quebec have

the information or do they not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, once again the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador has been researching good faith for over three years. We feel that

there is a very strong case where we can take issue with the Upper Churchill

contract. We held a meeting - the Department of Justice had a meeting with

CF(L)Co principles. They orally shared with them the information they had found.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MS DUNDERDALE: There is more than one way of communicating, I say to the

Leader of the Opposition. Now I know they got trouble reading and I know they

got trouble listening, but I am going to keep trying. There is more than one way

to communicate information. Once that communication was made

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: - to CF(L)Co, CF(L)Co went and got their own opinions. It

is on those opinions, Mr. Speaker, that their actions are based.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that they did give CF(L)Co the information. We did not

ask you if you gave it to them in writing, if you flew it to them, delivered it

to them, gave it to them orally or whatever the case was. We are asking that the

people of this Province have the information available to them that is now

available to the people of Quebec, through the shareholders of CF(L)Co, because

they have the information. We do not have any of the information. All we have to

go on is a claim in a press conference made by the government and by the head of

Nalcor. We have nothing to substantiate it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As indicated by the Deputy Premier, this review began in 2006 under the now

Minister of Finance. We met, Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions with the lawyers

in Montreal. I have met with these lawyers on at least six or seven occasions.

Not only have we reviewed the concept of good faith, as outlined in

article 1375

of the Quebec Civil Code, but we have also looked at issues, Mr. Speaker, such

as 92(

a) under recall issues, taxation issues. We have looked at the contract

itself, and at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, after extensive meetings with

the lawyers in Montreal, it was determined that good faith is the way to go, if

CF(L)Co chooses. That is what - as indicated by the Deputy Premier, that will be

their purview.

As the Opposition House Leader is aware, Mr. Speaker, in preparing a legal

case there are documents which are solicitor-client privileged and opinions

which are maintained for our own use. We will maintain those opinions for

what it is worth, I can state, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion there is a strong

case. There is a case which stands a real possibility or probability of success,

and that will

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems that the Minister of Health carries all the files over there these

days. So maybe he has all the information that he has given to CF(L)Co, and

maybe now

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: he can give us the same information. The people of the

Province that you claim to be standing up for.

Mr. Speaker, if he has looked at all the contracts, and he has looked at all

the clauses, maybe he could tell us what precedents exist with regard to the

1994 Quebec Civil Code that will allow us to have some real legal claim in this

situation. We know the Premier said outside the House the other day they do

exist. Nobody can seem to find them. So maybe the minister can tell us what they

are today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I know that the extensive research conducted by

the Liberal Opposition has failed to indicate - or to find a Supreme Court of

Canada case. In 1992, called the Bank

of Montreal versus Hydro-Quebec, where the duty to act in good faith is

recognized. Mr. Speaker, in

article 1375 it specifically recognized in this case

at the Supreme Court of Canada - and there was a previous case called Houle

which deals with this.

So, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Opposition, before they start spouting about

things they know nothing of, should conduct proper research. I would suggest to

the Leader of the Opposition that she should consult her colleague next to her

and get some good advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My learned colleague gives me great advice everyday, I say to you, minister.

Great advice everyday, I say to you, minister, but what we did not hear from you

is what precedence exists since 1994 when the Civil Code of Quebec was changed.

Maybe, minister, if you have all of that information there and they do exist, as

the Premier said in the foyer, well, maybe you can present those cases to us in

the House of Assembly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

One of the experts, or one of the lawyers we have retained in this case is a

Quebec jurist by the name of Jean-Louis Baudouin who is considered to be the

leading expert in Quebec on civil contract obligations. He has written a book

called Les Obligations .

Subsequent to the 1994 civil code, Justice Baudouin outlines in his book - or

the revised version of his book - again, the concept of good faith, and how

article 1375 now recognizes that. He refers to the same cases I talked about

earlier. Again, I do not mean to give lectures to the member opposite but she

has to understand how the law works, or she should let a lawyer answer, but, Mr.

Speaker, precedent contributes to statute and statute can then lead to further

development of the law.

We have to be creative. What do the Liberals want us to do, sit there and do

nothing about this contract which is stuck in our craw since 1969, a contract

that was brought in by your government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here we go again! When there are no answers, let's get the theatrics going.

Let's do the rant. Come on, Mr. Speaker, there is not one living, breathing

soul in this Province who does not want redress on the Upper Churchill. There is

not one living, breathing soul, Mr. Speaker, who does not want to get more money

out of this contract if they could get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this question and see if he can answer

it without the theatrics. They do not want to give the people of the Province

any legal opinions orally, written, or any explanations or anything to

substantiate the claim that they are making in the public, although they are

prepared to give it to everyone else.

I ask him today: Is he prepared to table the letter that was sent to

Hydro-Quebec and is he also prepared to table any information that was given to

CF(L)Co by the provincial government so it can be disclosed to the people of the

Province, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are no documents that were presented to CF(L)Co, so there

is nothing to table. The second thing is, Mr. Speaker, we did not send a letter

to Hydro-Quebec. CF(L)Co sent the letter to Hydro-Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and if

they want the letter than they should ask CF(L)Co for the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They do not read briefing notes; they do not write anything down. So I guess

it is hard to get a paper trail over there.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, my next questions are for the Minister of Labour. There

is currently a strike taking place on the Burin Peninsula that is having a

significant impact on fourteen NAPE workers and fourteen clients who are

disabled that they assist through the Support Employment Program. Mr. Speaker,

this strike involves unionized workers and they are striking simply because

Treasury Board and the government opposite is attempting to strip their

contracts and remove them from the provincial government classification system,

which was a commitment they made to these workers two years ago.

I ask the minister today: Why is government reneging on this commitment and

why are you not prepared to sign onto the commitment you made to these workers

two years ago?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think all of us, the employer corporation down in Burin, the union, the

government, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are obviously concerned

about the people with disabilities who have been adversely impacted by the fact

that the support workers have gone on strike.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, government is not the employer here.

The employees are employees of the Burin Marystown Community Training and

Employment Board. Government is simply the negotiator. NAPE in this case is the

bargaining agent for the employees and because this union happened to be

certified, because NAPE happened to be certified under the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act, government is named as the bargaining agent for the

employer. So government is the negotiator here. In this particular case, the

employer has offered a 20 per cent wage increase over four years. I think that

most people would agree that in this very uncertain economic time, in this

economic climate, this is an offer that is more than fair and reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that these workers do fall under the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act, therefore, as a minister in a government you have a

responsibility here to negotiate with them.

Mr. Speaker, if the government claims that they are concerned, why are you

refusing to move away from the demand that you have on the table right now,

which is to remove them from the classification system, a clause that your

government, when you were the minister, insisted be in their contract two years

ago?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The government's classification system I emphasize again that the

employees are employees of the Burin Marystown employment corporation; they are

not public sector employees. I know the president of NAPE has indicated that in The

Telegram today; I know it has been mentioned in the media today. The

employees work for the employer corporation; they are not public sector

employees.

The classification is essentially all about compensation. There are many

issues that were discussed as part of negotiations, but it came down to

compensation. Classification, in effect, is all about compensation. In this

particular case the employer corporation has offered 20 per cent over four

years, which most people in this Province would consider most fair and

reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is rather unfortunate. These workers are paid only between $9 and

$10 an hour for the work that they do. There are fourteen people with

disabilities today whose lives have been disrupted because government is

refusing to back away from one clause in this agreement.

I say to you, Minister: It is your responsibility; it is your obligation.

Will you not now agree to leave the clause in the contract, the very clause that

not just your government negotiated, but you as a minister signed on to two

years ago and let these people get back to work?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I believe the letter that the hon. member

refers to is a letter that was signed not by me, as the President of the

Treasury Board, it was signed by the chair of the Burin Marystown employment

corporation.

Mr. Speaker, there are twenty employment corporations throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador who do very valuable work. What they do is they hire people as job

support or work facilitators who work in turn with people who have disabilities

and they in turn work in the workplace and they are supported.

Government is very supportive of these employment corporations. Three of them

are unionized - one in Stephenville, one in Port aux Basques, and the one down

in Burin. Government is supportive. We provide funding. Services Canada provides

funding to enable these employment corporations to operate. Government provides

funding to hire the workers and that funding has increased this year by an extra

$600,000

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Environment.

Mr. Speaker, this past summer the citizens of the Province formed a committee

called: Save Our People Action Committee. It was formed to help save lives of

people who are travelling on our highways in Newfoundland and Labrador and

reduce the number of moose-vehicle accidents that are occurring.

I ask you today, Minister: Why have you not taken any steps to act on the

recommendations that they have put forward to you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say, and I am sure I speak on all members of

the House of Assembly, that our deepest sympathies go to those who have lost

their lives in moose-vehicle accidents and, of course, we are deeply concerned

for those who have been injured in such accidents as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have done extensive research on this issue. In fact, back in

2004 there was a comprehensive, strategic document that was prepared that

outlined six items. The Department of Environment and Conservation in

conjunction with the Department of Transportation and Works, we have acted on

all six of those recommendations, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to conduct

research and continue to ensure that we have reduced the number of moose-vehicle

accidents in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think that every person in this Province have been affected by an accident

on a highway with a moose; either with someone they know or someone they love or

themselves.

Mr. Speaker, many of these people feel that whatever actions the minister

claims she has taken is not adequate. This week I presented petitions of 26,000

people in this House of Assembly that feel that not enough is being done.

I ask the minister again today: Will she take this issue seriously? Will she

start acting on the recommendations that have been put forward by this

committee? In the meantime, I ask her to table the full document of 2004 and

outline the actions government has taken so far.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Opposition member. I am sure

every one of us has been impacted in one way or another; some, more severely

than others. Again, our deepest sympathies go out to these people.

In terms of the information that was in the report, I can list the six

actions for you: The first one was to have a high impact public awareness

campaign. Our government did do that back in 2003. We have the Be Moose Aware

campaigns through NTV. We have the moose hotline. We have the placemats through

the TCH and so on and so forth. One of the other ones was talking about targeted

driver education that of course ties into the public awareness. Enhance the

highway signage and brush cutting were the other two. Certainly, my colleague

from Transportation and Works can eloquently speak to those. Population

monitoring, we do on a frequent basis. We do censuses, hunter trends, we do

population modelling, and six is improving reporting on accidents, which we do

and we recently produced a map which we can further work towards reducing these

accidents. We can speak more to that this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing wrong with a public awareness campaign around this issue and

it should be and it should be a strong one with great messaging, but obviously

the actions taken by the government alone is not satisfying the public nor is it

reducing the number of accidents on our highways or the number of fatalities on

our highways because of moose-vehicle accidents.

I ask you today, Minister: Are you prepared to take the recommendations of

this committee seriously and move forward with implementing some of them within

very short order?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as a government we take this issue very

seriously. This is people's lives involved here and it is something that we

definitely take very seriously.

In terms of some of the actions that are taking place, and certainly my

colleague can speak to this, there has been a major emphasis on brush cutting,

and any of you who drive on the highway you know that this is very effective at

least, in my mind, it is very effective. There has also been increased signage.

There has been increased public awareness.

One of the things that we often do as well is speak to other jurisdictions,

both nationally and internationally, and this is no different under our

Administration than when the Liberals were in power because I know that there

was some work being done, talking to other Administrations and jurisdictions at

that time. The one key thing that comes out of that finding is the number one

thing that you can do to attempt to reduce moose-vehicle accidents is have a

very valid and effective public awareness campaign.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that the House of Commons were

debating potential NAFO amendments that could have a significant impact on our

fishery here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am certain that all members in this

House share the same concerns as it relates to these possible changes. Last

week, that debate was suddenly halted by the federal government.

Given that the lifeblood of rural Newfoundland has always been the sea, I ask

the Minister of Fisheries: Have you spoken with your federal counterpart on this

issue and have you been given any indication as to why this debate was suspended

last Tuesday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the items, certainly, that I have been briefed on since I come into

this portfolio is the exact item that the hon. member has brought attention to.

Let me outline for him, Mr. Speaker, some of the actions that have been

taken. Former minister, Minister Hedderson, made three representations in Ottawa

on this particular convention. The Premier has contacted Prime Minister Harper.

Our stand is very clear on this. We are not in agreement with this convention.

We fear that it will jeopardize jurisdiction of our rights with inside the

200-mile limit and, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to advocate that stand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that information, but again, I would ask the Minister of

Fisheries: Have we been given any indication as to why it was suspended on last

Tuesday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear what our stand is on

that. I have outlined what actions have been taken by the former Minister of

Fisheries, by our Premier. Our stand is very clear. Mr. Speaker, the answer to

his question is, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, at a fisheries symposium in Bonavista last week an

FFAW representative stated, and I quote: "Our costal communities are in

trouble. They are dying." Those words are of great concern to all people in

rural Newfoundland. Many of these people are in my district. An example is the

Town of Englee. Their plant has not seen any activity for five years.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Are you willing to reinstate

the licences that were attached to this historical operation at Englee?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me outline

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me outline a few facts for the new member

in terms of what this government has done. Our budget, Mr. Speaker, for the

Fisheries and Aquaculture department, $34 million; more than the other three

Atlantic Provinces combined.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: We have committed an $800,000 commitment to an MOU that

would involve three partners: the fisheries union, the processors, and

government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this member does not have to talk to any of us

about what our commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador is. We know what

the commitment is and the importance of the fishery to rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, and, Mr. Speaker, we will continue (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

He has been quizzed on the issue of the job coaches for people with intellectual

disabilities being on strike, and I want to get some clarification from him.

Two years ago when they were in negotiations, these same people with their

union and the board they work for, the Treasury Board insisted on there being

included with a contract a letter saying that this group would be covered by the

new classification plan. The same minister was there at that time, and as I

understand it, the same people with Treasury Board are all there.

So I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Will he please give us a rationale for

why all these same people who insisted on inserting themselves into the process

and insisted on this letter around classification are now saying it should be

taken back?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are twenty of these

employment corporations. Three of them have been unionized by NAPE, two have

been unionized under the or they have been certified by the labour relations

agency under the Collective Bargaining Act. Government has no involvement in the

negotiations of those contracts, but in this particular case in Burin, NAPE was

certified by the labour relations agency under the Public Service Collective

Bargaining Act. As a result of that, government is the negotiator. NAPE is a

negotiator for the employees, but government is designated as the negotiator for

the employer.

Any letters that were given were not given by government. These are not

public sector employees. They are not employees of government. These job coaches

are employees of the employment corporation and it is the chair of the

corporation that has provided this letter to (inaudible).

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Wait now, Mr. Speaker, I am really confused, because I

thought I heard the minister say to the Leader of the Opposition earlier that

government was not involved in the negotiations, that it was the board and NAPE

who were involved in negotiations. Now he is saying government was involved, as

indeed they were.

I am going to ask the minister then, as the Minister of Finance dealing with

a situation where you have workers who are covered by the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act, will he not step in? He is responsible for Treasury

Board as the minister of the portfolio he is in, and he was two years ago as

well. Will he step in and tell Treasury Board to take back this demand for the

concession of removing this letter from the contract?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I know this is confusing but the unions that are certified under the Labour

Relations Act, government has no involvement. Some employer out there, some

union organized and the employer it would be under the Labour Relations Act.

Government, of course, would have no involvement in those negotiations.

In this particular case, for some reason the Burin employment corporation got

certified under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act which makes

Treasury Board or makes government the negotiator. We are not the employer, we

are merely the negotiator. We play the same role as NAPE plays for the

employees; we negotiate on behalf of the employer, NAPE negotiates on behalf of

the employee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for Oral Questions has expired.

Before we move on to presenting reports, the Speaker would like to raise a

couple of issues that came from Question Period today. The Speaker is always

reluctant to interrupt the thirty minutes provided for question and answers.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; I remind the hon. minister that it

is improper and unparliamentary to refer to another member by their given name.

The Leader of the Official Opposition; I remind the Leader of the Official

Opposition that it is not only unparliamentary but against our own Standing

Orders to read directly from newspapers, letters or yes, even a copy of our own

Hansard during Question Period.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present this petition on behalf of

the people of our Province regarding the concerns about the moose population in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to note what the minister said earlier

about the steps that have been taken, and we certainly want to show appreciation

from the people of our Province on behalf of them for what has been done. I

would also like to note that certainly more would appear to be necessary.

Some of the comments that have been noted by the people that have signed this

petition have been such that it is about time and it is much needed; saving

lives is important and so on.

I would also like to make a note - not to make a joke of a serious situation,

but an American comedian by the name of Jeff Foxworthy said this about

Newfoundlanders. He said: If you know several people who have been hit by a

moose twice a day then you are probably a Newfoundlander.

So it really just kind of reiterates some of the awareness of the moose

problem in Newfoundland.

For myself, I had the unfortunate experience about four years ago of being

involved in a moose-vehicle accident and it is certainly not something that I

would want to take any family through. Myself and my wife and my daughter, we

were fortunate to survive that situation.

It is my pleasure again today to be able to present this petition and to call

upon government to just do more to ensure that the lives of our people are

protected.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

There being none, Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it being Private Members' Day, we call the

motion put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of CartwrightL'Anse

au Clair.

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

It is certainly a pleasure for me to rise in the House of Assembly today and

to speak to the private member's motion on moose-vehicle collisions and

reducing the number of accidents on our highway.

Mr. Speaker, this particular motion is because of the work of a tremendous

number of people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to

acknowledge those individuals that make up the organization called: Save Our

People Action Committee. This committee, Mr. Speaker, was formed because there

were individuals out there in the Province who felt that it was time, time for

government to take seriously the number of moose that are on our highways, the

number of fatalities as a result of collision with moose and the number of

accidents that are occurring each and every year. They felt that it was

necessary, Mr. Speaker, to become the champions of this issue knowing full well

that their efforts and their work would result in saving lives at the end of the

day and reducing harm to hundreds of people in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will not name all the committee, but one of the names that we

are very familiar with is that of Eugene Nippard. He is an individual who

spearheaded this organization and engaged other people, other people who had

their own stories and their own life experiences of moose accidents on our

highways. Many people who have been displaced from their jobs because of injury,

many people that are suffering still today with pain and financial hardship

because of these accidents and many others who are continuing to mourn and

grieve the loss of loved ones that they have lost as a result of these

accidents.

Mr. Speaker, their efforts came together to bring the support of 26,000

people in our Province who have signed their name to a petition asking the

government to please hear our message, to please understand that this is an

issue that you do have some control over. This is an issue that you can take

some active role in to ensure that the numbers of accidents are reduced, the

numbers of fatalities on our highways are reduced.

Mr. Speaker, to read into the record of Hansard, the motion as it is being

presented today to be voted on by all members of the House of Assembly:

WHEREAS it is estimated that there are over 120,000 moose living in

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

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

year; and

WHEREAS moose-vehicle collisions result in human fatalities and a higher

prevalence of head, neck and brain injuries than other motor vehicle accidents;

and

WHEREAS the cost estimates to the provincial health care system for just

initial emergency care due to moose-vehicle accidents is averaged at over

$600,000 a year, and cost estimates for vehicle damage is over $1 million

annually; and

WHEREAS other provinces with lower moose populations have taken significant

action to reduce moose-vehicle collisions; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not conducted a

recent study or review of new technologies and mitigative options such as

fencing, lighting systems, increased brush cutting and increased hunting quotas

that could potentially lower the number of moose-vehicle accidents;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the government

to initiate a comprehensive study to evaluate what technologies, mitigation

techniques and investments can be undertaken to reduce moose-vehicle collisions

in Newfoundland and Labrador;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this review include a detailed analysis of other

jurisdictions and evaluate options such as fencing, lighting systems, brush

cutting and increased hunting quotas;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government to

accept and implement the conclusions or recommendations of such review.

Mr. Speaker, that is the motion that we are debating here today. It is very

generic; it is very much a motherhood issue in this Province. It is an issue

that affects many people.

When I talked about the moose population I said there was probably about

120,000 moose, I think the latest figures I received in the last recent days is

telling us it is at about 140,000 in the Province today.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, moose is not native to Newfoundland and Labrador

and it was planted in the Province, and since that time we have seen the

population of moose continue to grow. We have seen more and more tragedy on our

highways as a result of it, and I think it is only fair that when people see

something that is preventable, or attempts can be made to prevent it, it is only

fair and right that government look at those particular options and to implement

them accordingly.

We see people that are injured and die in our Province every single day as a

result of injuries and accidents that we have no control over, and we can do

very little to reduce. However, when there is something that we do have some

control and we can implement some measures, if it means saving one person or

ensuring that ten people out of the 700 this year that had an accident could

have escaped it, then we have a responsibility to look at those particular

options.

Mr. Speaker, in other provinces across the country, they have taken measures

that have been somewhat different than things that have been done in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I heard the minister today talk about a public

awareness campaign that was launched by her department. I certainly commend her

and her government for doing that, but, Mr. Speaker, is it enough? Is it enough?

That is always the question. There is nothing wrong with having an informed

public. There is nothing wrong about educating people who live in our Province

who use our highways and those who visit Newfoundland and Labrador and use our

highways, to educate them that moose is an issue, that moose is a reality on our

highways, it is the environment that we live in. There is absolutely nothing

wrong with that, but is it enough? That always is the question that will remain

in the absence of other actions that could be taken.

I think this is where these individuals and these 26,000 people and I say

to you, Minister, in the last two weeks, I have had numbers of e-mails from

people who did not sign this petition simply because it was not available to

them or they did not see it who certainly wanted to add their support to this

particular issue as well.

Mr. Speaker, in other jurisdictions across Canada, there has been other

measures taken, and it is probably debatable as to what the effectiveness of

them might have been. There are some cases in New Brunswick where they have

taken initiatives where they have seen the number of accidents on their highways

reduced, and they have seen the number of fatalities reduced. When you see that

kind of data and information being provided, it warrants looking at it. It

warrants looking at that particular initiative to see if it works in this

Province. I am not going to stand here today and tell the minister that we need

more lighting or that we need fencing throughout our highway, but I will stand

here and tell the minister this, that there is more that can be done and there

is a whole list of options out there that need to be looked at.

We know for certain that if you drive through Jasper National Park or Banff

National Park, there is fencing for wildlife that has been put in place by the

federal government, but if your government does not believe in fencing, how can

we possibly even look at a lobby to the federal government that gets fencing

through our own national parks, which happen to be right on the Trans-Canada in

this Province, through Gros Morne National Park and through Terra Nova National

Park? In fact, it was only a few nights ago when I was coming through Terra Nova

National Park, me and some of my colleagues, that a moose popped right out in

the middle of the road. We were taking our time, but we still had to make a very

sharp turn to miss that moose, and we could have very well ended up off the

highway that night.

So you can be as cautious as you want, and you can be as careful, and you can

be as educated, it does not mean that you are still going to prevent accidents.

You can put up all the fencing that you like, you can put in all the lighting

that you might, it does not mean that you are going to stop every vehicle from

having an accident on that road. What it does mean, is that the more awareness,

the more options, the more attempts made to reduce the accidents and to save

lives, it will have an impact. I firmly believe that it will have an impact.

Mr. Speaker, in recent days this committee has raised this issue with a

number of ministers. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the previous minister works in

transportation. When they brought the issue to him, his comments in the media

were about money. The cost of doing this. There are always arguments that will

be made about the cost of one's life. I think it is a legitimate argument, but

I do not think you can dismiss the option simply because of the price tag. I do

not think anyone is asking that every single kilometre of the Trans-Canada

Highway be fenced from one end of Newfoundland to the other, but I think they

are asking that in areas where the accident rate is higher, in areas where the

tragedy has been greatest, in areas where there are higher moose populations,

that you would consider one of those particular initiatives that could help

mitigate the number of tragedies that are happening. That is a very sensible

request. That is why you have those kinds of fencing through other national

parks in the country, but not in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Environment and Conservation - who is still

the minister today in that position - was asked about it, she said that it is a

constant reminder, the moose are, of the hazards that are on our roads. So you

have to be cautious. She said people know that they have been there 100 years

and that they are a part of our ecology, but we really want people to be

cautious because nobody wants to see a tragedy.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we can be as cautious as we like and we can take the

minister's advice on caution, but the reality is that accidents are still

occurring, they are climbing every year, tragedies are still occurring, people

are still losing their lives. So is the word of caution enough? Well, it is not

enough for the people of the Province today, and they expect more.

Another minister, Mr. Speaker, when they were presented with this issue - and

it was the minister at the time, acting transportation minister, only a few

weeks ago who said that we are not convinced that the using of fencing is

effective. Where do you get the argument? Where is the information? We know that

where fencing is in other provinces and jurisdictions that it has helped reduce

the number of accidents on highways. Yet, the minister is saying we are not

convinced. So, we want to see the information. We want to know what you have

that tells you that fencing is not helping in New Brunswick, it is not helping

through the national park in Jasper, it is not helping through the national park

in Banff, and it is not contributing to saving lives and reducing accidents on

our highway. He also went on to say that our focus will be on brush cutting,

using mechanical harvesters and a public awareness campaign to tell people there

are certain times of the day, dusk and dawn, and there are certain times of the

year when we have to be more aware and we have to slow down.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the stories of a lot of these people, a

lot of them. In fact, I have hundreds of stories right here from people all over

this Province who have been able to share their stories with us about their own

accidents on these highways. It is not always about speed, it is not always

about careless driving. It is simply that, an accident. It is simply coming upon

a moose without being aware of it. It is simply taking all of the precautions

that you can advise a person to take and still ending up in tragedy. So is it

enough to give the words of wisdom to stay off the road at certain hours in the

night, to slow down at certain times in the day, to be more careful about what

you are doing, to be more cautious about how you drive? All of that is fair and

well, but you are not talking to children. You are talking to people who are

commuting every single day on our highways for work, for their jobs and for

other purposes. I think what they are asking the government is fair and is

simple.

Mr. Speaker, many of these people will suffer for the rest of their lives,

and I bet every one of you in your seats today in this House of Assembly has a

story you can tell. Either their own experience with moose on a highway, the

experiences of a friend, the experiences of a family member, the tragedy of

someone that you know. I know that as a result of that you have probably learned

more about the issue and I am sure that you are all concerned about the issue,

but the fact that we have concern is not going to save people's lives. The

concerns have to be attached to actions and they have to be real actions in

terms of doing something that will prove to be beneficial.

Mr. Speaker, even Randy Simms in a column that he wrote in the paper, he

talked about a good friend of his who had had an encounter with a moose. He even

went on to say that maybe one action, such as fencing, may not be the answer or

may be too costly for the Province to look at but it needs to be considered and

there needs to be other mitigating factors. There is a whole list of them. When

I get into my closing debate I will talk about some of them and what has been

done in other jurisdictions and what has worked. I hope that government is

prepared to take this issue serious enough so that we can do everything possible

within our power as parliamentarians in this Province to protect the lives of

people who use our highways and to reduce the number of accidents that are

occurring, and we should do it because we have an obligation to the 26,000

people who are coming before this House today asking for your support to address

this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion but forward by

the Opposition today. As I stated in Question Period, and I will restate again,

and I am sure I speak on behalf of everybody in this House, our deepest

sympathies go out to those who have lost a life due to a moose-vehicle accident.

Our deepest sympathies go out to the family and friends of those people and

certainly we are deeply concerned for those people who have been involved or

injured in an accident.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is a complicated issue and it is one where there is

no straightforward solution to it. I am just looking at the motion put forward,

and the first

Whereas talks about the population of moose here. So I thought I

would give a very brief background.

Moose were introduced in the Province in 1904, originally attempted in 1898,

but that was unsuccessful. There were four moose brought over from New

Brunswick. Since that time, over 100 years ago, the moose population has

fluctuated from anywhere from 80,000 to 140,000 and the hon. member opposite

mentioned that she believed that this year the population was at 140,000. She

may be referring to the peak year. The peak year was in 1998 when it was at

140,000. In fact, this year our population estimates show that it is at 120,000.

I would be more than happy to provide her with the graph of our information on

that.

This year, in terms of just some brief history around the licensing, there

are over 80,000 people that applied for licences and there are approximately

28,000 licences. Again, just to talk about the population, I just want to give

an idea about the densities of moose throughout the Province. As most people

know, the Northern Peninsula, the densities are quite high on the Northern

Peninsula. Here on the Eastern part of the Province, they are stabilizing and

fairly stable and healthy. In Central Newfoundland, the population there has in

fact decreased over the last five years; it has gone down anywhere between 40 to

60 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member opposite also mentioned Terra Nova Park. Just to give you a

feel for densities in comparison to the number of moose accidents, our

information tell us that there are about 120 moose in Terra Nova Park and in

2009 there were fifteen moose-vehicle accidents there. Compare that to Gros

Morne National Park where there is about 5,000 moose, there were eight

collisions there. Any collision is too much, we all agree to that; we would

rather see no collisions. I just wanted to point out to the member that when you

try to draw the correlation between moose density and the number of accidents,

it is difficult because when you plot this on a map, you see the Northern

Peninsula where there are high densities, the accident frequency there is not

necessarily as high. So I just wanted to give a little bit of background there

as to the population.

Her next

Whereas states that there has been 700 moose-vehicle collisions

occur each year. Just to clarify some of that, we get our statistics from the

RCMP in terms of moose-vehicle accidents, and she did mention that they are also

on the incline. The information that we have, it shows that there are around 400

to 450 accidents each year - and again this is information, we can certainly

give you the charts that came right from the RCMP. Again, 450, we would rather

see that there weren't any at all. We do not have the stats for 2009 yet, but

they were down in 2008 from 2007.

Her next

Whereas clause talks about it does result in human fatalities and a

higher prevalence of head and neck injuries. We certainly know this year - our

information as of October of this year - unfortunately there were four

fatalities, and our deepest sympathies go out to those people. When you look at

last year's numbers, thankfully, fortunately, there were no fatalities last

year. Of course, people who are injured, certainly, this does have implications

in terms of time off work and hospitalization and so on. We do know that this

does put a burden on our health care system and there are a cost associated with

these accidents, which is what her next

Whereas refers to.

Then the motion goes in to talk about action taken by other provinces, and it

goes on to say that this Province has not conducted a recent study or review of

technologies or mitigation measures. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that

we have done a lot of research in this area, and not just since we have been in

government; this research has been going on over the years when the Opposition

formed government. We continually talk to other jurisdictions about the

experiences that they have with wildlife. The Opposition member mentioned the

national park; Banff National Park. Of course there are issues with deer in New

Brunswick, kangaroo in Australia; there are all kinds of information there. We

do always speak to national and international organizations on this.

As I referred to in Question Period back in 2004, there was a comprehensive

strategy document that was done. As a result of that there were six

recommendations that came out of that; the first one being the high impact

public awareness campaign. Mr. Speaker, we have acted on that recommendation and

we have put significant dollars in the budget to have a public awareness

campaign. I am sure a lot of people when you listen to the open-line shows

would hear the hotline for moose, there is the NTV moose awareness campaign.

Of course, there are the placemats that are put throughout the Irving stations

on the Trans-Canada Highway and so on.

The second recommendation was targeted driver education. This also ties in to

public awareness. This is one area where I suggest we could do some further

work. I think maybe taking it upon ourselves to speak to the private driver

education companies and talk to them about the awareness and the hazards of the

road such as moose. So that is one that we can certainly do more work on.

The third recommendation was enhanced signage. My colleague from the

Department of Transportation and Works can certainly speak to that. I think we

all do a lot of driving, not only in this House, but the general public and so

on, and those signs, I believe, are very effective and a reminder of the hazards

that are out there on the road.

The forth recommendation, of course, is brush clearing, and again, my

colleague can speak to that. I have seen a significant increase in brush

clearing on the highways. With the new roads that are being paved now, there is

a significant emphasis on that.

The fifth recommendation was population monitoring. We did implement that and

we enhanced that. We do a census of the moose populations, we evaluate hunter

trends, and we constantly talk to the hunters, and we do population modeling. So

we did act on that recommendation.

The final recommendation of that strategy at the time was improved reporting

and evaluation. We have taken this one very seriously. In fact, just recently,

we have done a map of where the majority of accidents happen in our Province,

and we intend to use that map to do different moose management techniques,

should we see fit. So, of the six that were recommended, five have been acted

on, one to some degree, but I agree we can do further work there.

In terms of the public awareness campaign, too, Mr. Speaker, I think that it

is time that we did a review of that public awareness campaign as well. We do

know that the majority of accidents happen in June, July and August. Of course,

when the moose is getting rid of her yearling, the cow is getting rid of her

yearling to have her next calf, these yearlings are a little bit out of sorts

and tend to wander onto the highways. Of course, we also know that the majority

of accidents happen between dusk and dawn. So, I think we will take it upon our

department to do a review of that and see if we can change the effectiveness. It

has been very effective, from what I have been told, but perhaps maybe

advertising during different times of the day and different times of the year.

So we will certainly take it upon that to do that.

As I said, we always talk to other jurisdictions, but one of the things that

are mentioned in the motion is that we have not conducted a recent study or

review. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we have done a lot in the

area of review. We speak to other jurisdictions. We have done a complete

literature review. We look at the Journal of Wildlife Management and other

nationally and internationally known publications. So a lot of work has been

done there with the Wildlife Society Bulletin and we are always looking at

different mitigative measures that other provinces, other countries around the

world are doing. So there has been a great deal of research that has been done

by wildlife officials and by officials in the department of Transportation and

Works.

We have looked at a variety of options: scent deterrents, lighting, fencing

and other kinds of techniques. I will leave a lot of that to Transportation and

Works because that comes under their jurisdiction, but one of the conclusions

that I can state, from all of the research that we have done to date, is that

the most effective tool that comes back to us time and time again from our

review is that public awareness is the most effective tool that you can do. We

see it time and time again because a lot of these other technologies that have

been done are not proven on a scientific basis, and anytime we do anything in

the department we want to base it on science. Again, I recognize a lot of the

work that has been done.

One of the things I think that we can do a better job of, and I just

mentioned it recently, we plotted on a map where the majority of these accidents

happen. One of the things that I would propose we could do in conjunction with

Transportation and Works, and perhaps with Justice, is to do an analysis around

the factors of accidents. Look at the time of day, look at the location, look at

the weather conditions, and other factors at the time. If this review points to

areas of high or increasing moose density that also have areas of high

moose-vehicle collisions, then I will make the commitment that we will increase

the moose quotas in those areas.

Our current practice right now is to manage for sustainability but we will

certainly commit to evaluate quotas in light of population trends and

moose-vehicle collisions. So, that is something that we can build upon in your

motion here, to take it one step further. I also propose that once this review

is done that we make it public and we use it to inform government's decisions

as we go forward. So, really, there is a holistic approach that needs to be done

to deal with this very serious matter that is before us.

So, Mr. Speaker, having said all of that, the public awareness that we do,

the types of work that we do with other jurisdictions, the fact that I stated we

can review our public awareness campaign, we will take the information around

moose-vehicle collisions a step further and do further detailed analysis of

that. Based on all that I have said, I propose an amendment to the motion put

forward. I think it is an amendment that certainly the Opposition would not have

any problem supporting; just a few minor changes in the Whereases. Just to make

it more factual around the information, around the 700 accidents a year to

reflect the information that we have. Also, to point out - the way the amendment

reads right now it almost makes it look as if there has not been any

information, or any analysis done to date. I am not going to take credit that we

have done all of the analysis because this analysis started a while back, even

when the Opposition were in power. There has been continuous work there. So, to

make it sound like there has not been any work done I do not think is correct.

So I made an amendment to that as well - or, sorry, we made an amendment to

that.

I guess I will read into the record the amendments to the resolutions

themselves. First:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the government to build

upon its work to date by analyzing in detail, on an ongoing basis, the factors

associated with moose-vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the government

to complement this analysis with a detailed evaluation of the various

technologies and other measures, such as fencing, lighting systems, increased

brush cutting and increased hunting quotas, that may have been tested in other

jurisdictions, and the prudence and feasibility of applying such measures in

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon government to

report its findings to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to ensure

that these findings inform the government's decision-making.

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

Just to conclude, I would like to say that, again, our deepest sympathies go

out to the people. We want to, certainly as a government, work with the

Department of Transportation and Works and anybody really, to work towards

reducing the number of accidents. Any accident we would like to see avoided and

it is unfortunate when somebody's life is lost due to a moose but we certainly

want to ensure that there is a balance so that humans and wildlife can

co-operate. We have done a lot of work in this area. So I support the areas of

the motion in terms of calling for further study but I did want to point out

that a lot of work is being done and I have made recommendations here today I

think that strengthens the motion and areas where we can build upon the further

work that could be done.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problem with some of the amendments the minister has put forward

but I wanted to clarify for her that the number relating to the number of

moose-vehicle collisions in the Province is what was listed on your Web site in

the department. So if the number is wrong - I am sure there are other people out

there in the Province who are reading this as well - then I think it should be

corrected. I am not sure what number would be correct, the one that you

publicized on your Web site or the one you stated in the House of Assembly

today.

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

that point of order?

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

I will ensure that the information is updated on the Web site, because I did

notice that there this morning myself. So thank you for that.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will take a short recess to review the amendment

and ensure that it is in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has reviewed the amendment that is put forward by the Minister of

Environment and Conservation and finds the amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Point of order, it may be after the fact and may be too late, but for the

record in any case and I could not make the point of order until you resumed

the House obviously.

The House adjourned based upon an amendment put forward by the Minister of

Environment and Conservation. The minister did not table, first of all, any

copies to anyone of that amendment. It was put here - we only, in the

Opposition, got a copy of this amendment because we asked for it, which is,

number one, not acceptable and not appropriate; that is the first thing.

After we were given the amendment, twenty seconds later the bells in this

House started to go - twenty seconds later. We did not have an opportunity to

even read the two-page amendment that we have. I think that is absolutely

unacceptable and inappropriate. As I say, I could not make the point of order

until the House resumed to make the point of order, but I did indicate my

disagreement to the Table Officers about the process and the time that was

involved.

Now we have a situation where the House has resumed and Your Honour has made

a ruling before we have even had an opportunity to read the amendment. So, you

see what kind of predicament this procedure has placed the Opposition in. Before

we even get into the merits of whether or not we feel that the amendment is or

is not in order, that is just the process that unfolded here up to this point.

So it is inappropriate. Maybe the railroad is too strong, but it puts the

Opposition and we did not even get an opportunity, by the way, as I said, to

say whether we think that is appropriate or not. On a very cursory reading of

it, the opportunity that I have had to read it, since the bells have been going,

it is my view that the amendment is not in order, and I would have made those

comments if we had been allowed an opportunity.

The minister, by her own admission, in her statements in responding to this

motion, admitted that there was information that she give to this House today

that is different from what is on her own Web site. Then she turns around and

puts forward an amendment that has the very same information in it. Now we are

being asked to rely upon an amendment that she has put forward, information she

has, which is contrary to what she has given the public notice of on her Web

sites and we are supposed to accept it as an in order amendment.

So, before I get into why I think this is out of order and why it is not a

proper amendment, I would like some kind of ruling on do we or do we not get an

opportunity. Are we bound by what Your Honour just said, in terms of this being

in order, before we have even had a chance to read it?

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, I have a couple of

comments. One is that in our Standing Orders of motions for here in the House of

Assembly, certainly, there is no Standing Order that indicates when the motion

had to distributed, and I have reviewed that. Now if there is information there

that I am not aware of, or I am reading incorrectly, or you can point out a

Standing Order that addresses that particular concern, I will certainly take

that matter and review it.

In the review of motions and the amendments to a motion, and then it goes

into that would be Standing Order 40 in our Standing Orders, and it is

called the Exception with amendment, 41, and 42 addresses amendments as well,

and there is nothing there to say about the distribution or how we do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, it was certainly addressed when the Minister of Environment

spoke in her comments and explained in her comments regarding this motion as to

what she felt was appropriate, and then certainly laid down the amendment as she

thought, and as we thought was appropriate with the distribution. Also, as we

felt, was in accordance with the standing rules of the House of Assembly.

In addition to that, there was also an allegation during the point of order

that the information provided was inaccurate. In essence, Mr. Speaker, what was

provided was the most up-to-date, accurate information, and just because the Web

site for the department had not been updated does not mean that the minister did

not provide the best possible information. That was for clarification of the

motion rather than to substantially change the motion that was put forward.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes a motion can be put forward to modify

the question to increase the acceptability. If we have a motion here that we are

debating and if there is certainly some disagreement over whether the number on

the Web site or the most up-to-date information from the department is in

question, I think the intent here is to certainly increase the acceptability to

present this motion so that we did not substantially change the motion by

updating that information, but we certainly wanted to make sure it was more

acceptable based on providing the most up-to-date information that we have.

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

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

Again, I will not address any comments to the Government House Leader's

comments about what the amendment does or does not do. I would like an

opportunity to be able to read it to decide what we think it does. I am not

accepting what the Government House Leader says this does is what it is. We have

not even had a chance to read it yet.

With regard to what is or is not in the Standing Orders, when it is not in

the Standing Orders which are paramount in this House; we follow our

Standing Orders - we refer to the parliamentary guides, and in our case in this

House here, we have always used this book right here to decide

Marleau-Montpetit what is the acceptable dealings and how you introduce

amendments and so on.

Also, you resort to custom. It always, in the ten years that I have been here

and we have dealt with private members' motions, without exception, if anybody

proposes an amendment from either side, it is a courtesy and you always give it

to someone on the other side to say here is the amendment we are going to

propose. You allow a reasonable opportunity to read it, the Table Officers are

aware of it. The information is exchanged so that we do not run into these

circumstances where anybody is disadvantaged because of not following the

procedure.

We have a private member's motion here today, and private members'

motions are a very particular and important part of our process and democracy.

We have a private member's motion here today based on what 26,000 people felt

in a petition, and yet we take that we have people in the galleries who have

been impacted because of this. Yet, we end up here today in a wrangle over some

legalities about how an amendment is entered and the Chair is put in a position

to rule on it before the person who put it forward even had an opportunity to

read it. That is patently unfair, that is unreasonable, and I ask the Chair

again to please reconsider what has been said here and allow an opportunity. The

process was not followed, courtesy was not given, and it ought to be. At least

everybody can have their say, read what is there, and then make our arguments

one way or another, but to try to derail this thing and have a proper full

debate on it without allowing that opportunity is inappropriate.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in no way do we suggest that this debate should

not be an informed debate. It is a very serious debate. As the Opposition House

Leader indicated, it is based on concerns of thousands of people in Newfoundland

and Labrador. It is not the intention of this government, or of the member who

just spoke for this government, in any way to limit debate. This is meant to

provide a motion on a serious issue and to strengthen it, to have the amendments

there to strengthen it, and, Mr. Speaker, we have absolutely no problem

whatsoever if there is more time needed for the Opposition to review this so we

can resume debate on this matter. We are not rushing this through. We are not

saying that we do not want to give them any more time. What we are saying is

that this is a serious debate and we are more than willing to be co-operative

with the process here today.

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

the point of order.

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

With respect to the comments of the Opposition House Leader, distributing a

copy of the amendment is one thing but having the Opposition, or any party,

either side of the House having any input into whether or not the amendment is

in order, I do not think that has ever been the custom of this House. It is the

Table Officers and the Chair who make the decision whether or not an amendment

is in order, and I do not think they take input from either side, whether it is

our side or the other side, to determine whether an amendment is in order.

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

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

To the comments of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I would

certainly disagree with the comments that he made. We have had numerous cases in

this House during private member's motions and other ordinary legislative

amendments where something was put forward, the House broke, the parties read

the information, if the parties felt disadvantaged or that it was inappropriate,

or it is should not have been put forward, or it was not in order, we have had

an opportunity to debate that.

We have had full, frank debates and discussions back and forth; then the

Chair would rule. Then whatever the Chair said was binding upon the parties and

not subject to appeal. That is always the process that I have operated under

here. Today, it is not what we have. We were given a two-page amendment - the

original amendment was only two pages. The original motion was two pages. We are

given a two-page amendment and then the bells ring. That is not acceptable. That

is not fair play and that is not letting people be informed and make informed

decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: It is generally customary that an amendment would be shared

in the House. I think the Government House Leader has addressed that and has

given the opportunity to break to allow all parties to have input into - or to

review the amendment. Having said that, the Chair has looked at the amendment,

has discussed the amendment with House staff and has determined that the

amendment be in order.

To the hon. Opposition House Leader's point that he did not have time to

raise a point of order prior to the recess, there were two points of orders

raised after the tabling of the amendment. There was ample time at that point to

stand and

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There was ample time at that point to raise a point of order to the fact that

you had not received a copy. So the Chair takes exception to the fact that you

were not given time to raise a point of order, that you were not provided the

amendment prior to the recess.

In the meantime, I will ask direction from the Government House Leader and

the Opposition House Leader as to the amount of time that we will allow a recess

to review the amendment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have no actual time limit that we feel is

necessary. The Opposition have the amendment. They have probably given it a

cursory review at this time and we are certainly willing to co-operate with

whatever time they feel is necessary for them to study that and to be able to

respond appropriately here in the House.

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

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

We would request that we have at least ten minutes. If we do not require all

that time we will notify the Table Officers immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will now recess for ten minutes to allow the

Opposition and the NDP time to review the amendment.

Recess

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this private

member's motion. I would, for the record, like to make it clear that I am not,

and will not, and should not contest the ruling that the Chair made saying that

this was in order, the amendment that was put forward by the Minister of

Environment and Conservation, but I will make some comments as to what I do

think of the amendment because it is all wrapped up in the same debate of

course. We have the original motion that was made and we have the amendment put

forward by the minister to change that original motion.

Now I read, obviously, the private member's motion that we started with

here today. I have also taken

part in discussions with people concerning the

serious issue that we are dealing with - moose accidents on our highways and the

tragedies and damages that it cost to all of the residents of this Province.

I thought the motion, in its original form, was very clear, very precise; it

was factual. The information, in fact, that was put in here came right from the

government's own Web site -

MS JONES: Every clause.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Every clause. In fact, the

Whereas clauses came from

the government Web site; factual information. The last three concluding clauses

called for affirmative action, something to be done proactively, calling for

some action to be taken. There were three of them.

It concluded by saying, first of all, let's do a comprehensive study - that

was the first

Be It Resolved. In other words, do so; proactive. Let's do a

study to see what new technologies or mitigation factors there might be out

there; techniques. That is pretty proactive.

The government did not say that. The Minister of Environment and Conservation

did not say that in her amendment. She scrapped that, she scrapped that

proactive thing and said: Let's build upon the work that is done to date.

Nothing new, no more new studies, let us not do anything new, let us build upon

the work we have done to date.

In the second clause she says, what was called for in the original motion,

that review, that study that would be done would include a detailed analysis of

what happened in other jurisdictions and to evaluate options such as fencing,

lighting, brush cutting, et cetera. The government comes back and says we call

upon government to complement with a detailed evaluation of the various

technologies that have been tested in other jurisdictions. That one is almost on

all fours with the second one, almost. They were not satisfied with the wording

that was used; the wording was a little bit too positive for them. They had to

put in some walk-through clauses, some cop-outs.

On the third part this was the one that they definitely did not want any

part of, folks. I say this to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador who has

ever run into or could have run into a moose, and the people in the gallery.

IT RESOLVED that the House call upon government to accept and implement whatever

the conclusions and recommendations that came out of the review. What does the

government say here? We will report our findings to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. Whoop-de-do. Now if that is not taking what is a very serious,

well-intentioned, original motion that was intended to be proactive and watering

it down to the point where it is absolutely doing nothing, absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, cannot, in good conscience, stand in this House and

vote in support of an amendment that says we move from doing something to doing

nothing, absolutely nothing. I think this is an insult. I think this is an

insult to the 26,000 people who signed the petition. I think it is an insult to

anyone who has ever been involved with an accident involving moose.

We are calling upon government to do something. Study it, read it, then act.

This government is saying we will look at what we have done so far and once we

get our look done we will come and tell you what we have found. No commitment

whatsoever to do anything, Mr. Speaker, and that is not acceptable. Because it

is not acceptable and because I certainly could not bring myself, for principle,

to vote for the amendment, I certainly will not be voting, because this

amendment - let's not kid ourselves, folks, this might be very difficult to

explain to people of Newfoundland and Labrador why the Opposition might end up

voting against something that seems pretty good, but I will tell you, you have

to read it very clearly what they have done here with their cagey language. I am

not going to get caught in their cagey language. I am not getting conned by this

cagey language. Because it does not do what was properly and rightfully called

for, I will be voting against the amendment because this amendment, folks, what

is now an amendment, this amendment will become the new motion. If I cannot vote

for the amendment, I cannot vote for what will become the new motion. I think

there is a very good reason for that.

We have a serious issue. It was properly, fairly, unbiased, and without

partisanship, put forward in this House. Without partisanship, on behalf of

26,000-plus people in this Province, and what do we get? We get a government

playing games with words. Games with words. Well I did not come here to play

games with words. We have a serious issue and we need serious action.

So I just wanted to let the people of this Province, as difficult as it might

be to try to explain, that is why this member, on this private member's

resolution, would have voted yes, but I will certainly not vote yes to what has

been put forward to the minister which waters down, waters down what was a

well-intentioned, well explained proposition so that it means absolutely

nothing. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, and I will have no part of it.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I am very pleased to be able to get up today and speak to the

amended motion. It is a motion that creates a bit of emotion, I would say to

you, Mr. Speaker. When we look at what we are trying to do here in this House

today, is to address concerns that were brought to this government, to this

House, to this Opposition, from over 20,000 people, some of whom are sitting in

the gallery here today.

I am not on my feet to talk about semantics or whatever; I am on my feet

today to try to make sure that this government is responding to that petition

that was presented to us in good faith. In good faith, we have to respond, Mr.

Speaker. I am not getting up and going down about this amendment or that

amendment. We are here to try, both sides of the House, to come to some

agreement to how we can deal with the carnage that is happening on our highways,

God forbid, even as I speak. We know if it is 700 accidents, or 500 accidents,

or 200 one accident, Mr. Speaker, is more than I want to talk about any time

I get on my feet here.

There is a reality here. The reality that we have to, when the people of this

Province speak, we, as a government, respond. We have thought about what we are

going to say today. The previous minister, the Minister of Environment and

Conservation, got up today, and I thought, outlined where we are as a government

with regard to this particular issue. She bridged where we are today back maybe

a decade or more, because this is not an issue that happened just overnight;

this has been happening throughout, I guess, the last number of decades, as long

as we have had cars on the road and animals in the woods.

This is indeed something that we have to come to grips with. I feel very

strongly that what the amendment that we put forth here today addresses that

desire on the part of government to find ways in which we can address this

particular problem.

With regard to the Whereases, they lead to action. The comprehensive study -

and again, that seems to be what everyone is hung up on. Yet, I heard this

morning on the radio, the chair I guess of that committee, indicate that the

time for comprehensive studies is over and that action is required.

I heard the Minister of Environment and Conservation, get up and agree that

it is action that is required. Action that began with the study of moose years

gone by to where we are today. She clearly outlined, I believe it was six ways

of recommendations that came out of a comprehensive study that was carried out.

She also went further than that, Mr. Speaker, in case anyone was listening. She

went further than that and said that we are not going to stop there. She went

down through the responsibilities of her ministry and indicated that, yes, we

are looking at this amendment. This amendment is meant to build on what has

happened to date.

Further to that, we will look at and evaluate the measures that have been put

forth, besides what we are talking about here today. She alluded to identifying

hotspots, that probably are not even identified right now, and it is in these

hotspots that many of us find what we call these nuisance moose that seem to

gather in these places, seemingly waiting for their chance it seems, to walk out

into the traffic and cause the damage that we see; the carnage, the deaths, and,

of course, the destruction. Again, public awareness, driver education - I do not

need to go back over these. The monitoring, the improved reporting, the

identification of the hotspots, and if in case there are hotspots that are

clearly identifiable that are not identified yet, the minister spoke and said

that she will address it as necessary with increased quotas. Now that tells me

that is a response, that is a change, that is a moving forward.

She also alluded to my responsibility as Minister of Transportation and

Works, and I guess newly minted, but I can tell you, I commute at least 1,000

kilometres a week back and forth to my home. Sometimes more. I think a week or

two ago, I travelled the Bonavista Peninsula one day, I travelled the Northern

Peninsula another day, I was out in Stephenville yet another day, on the road,

and the last place I was, was down on the Baie Verte Peninsula. Do you know

something? Every place that I left, every event that I left, morning, noon or

night, do you know the warning that I was given? Watch out for the moose.

When my children go out of the house, they are driving now, and when they go

out of the house, I do not care if it is morning, noon, or night, do you know my

last words to them is, after I say I love them? I say watch out for the moose.

It is in our heads. We all know it, but there are children who have gone out of

homes that I am sure they watched out for the moose but they never returned. As

a matter of fact, one of my daughter's friends, just about a year ago, met

that faith. We know how serious this is, and for someone to get up, or anyone to

get up in this House today and try to politicize it, I think is wrong. I really

do. I really do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You are talking to a fellow who had a moose accident

(inaudible) talking to?

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to you, I am on my feet today

I am not going there, I am not going there. You can say what you like, but I

am not going there. I am saying, as I stand here, that we want to work with the

Opposition. We want to work with the 26,000 it is not only 26,000. If that

petition had to get around the Province it would have been 500,000, I say, for

those that could sign it. So, we know, and we do thank the people who are a part

of that group, again, to keep the issue out in front of us, to give us, as

Members of the House of Assembly, the opportunity to come in here and put a

motion forward to deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: So, I say, Mr. Speaker, I can get emotional just as well

as anybody. I guess this is not a place that I want to get emotional, because I

can. I would say to all members here, there is not a member sitting here, or

anyone in this gallery right now, who cannot list off maybe ten people who have

been maimed or killed by moose. I have attended the funerals. So we know, but

let's get down to the reality. As long as we have moose in this Province we

are going to have this problem, there is no doubt about that. With 120 moose,

plus or minus

AN HON. MEMBER: 120,000.

MR. HEDDERSON: - 120,000, plus or minus, we know we are going to continue

to have the problem. So we have to do everything that we possibly can. We have

done the regular stuff. With me, in Transportation and Works, only there a few

days, but this file is front and centre, because I know the importance of it. I

have instructed my officials to work with the officials in Environment and

Conservation to share all the information that they have so that I can

incorporate it into the strategies that we are putting forward.

With regard to brush cutting and the effectiveness of brush cutting; we look

at it. We hope there is better visibility. We hope, now that we are ordering in,

as a department, four mechanical brush cutters to be able to respond to perhaps

the hotspots that are going to be identified or those that exist, but every part

of our road system, hopefully, with this ability.

I do need to have some sort of a strategy, and that is why, again and I

put an open invitation out to Mr. Nippard and his committee this morning. I was

on the radio talking about this, but I will make it publicly here. I have asked

my officials to write a letter to Mr. Nippard and the committee, to come in and

to sit down with me and my officials and to talk about strategizing with regard

to brush cutting. Looking at what about the signage; we have increased the

signage out there. Is it enough, is it where it should be, is it what it should

be? We are going to build on that.

Also, what I like about this particular motion and we are asking the same

thing as the Opposition, because we know there are other jurisdictions that are

using other methods than what we are using. The big one is the fencing. With any

initiative, there are pros and cons to it. The New Brunswick, geared mostly to

deer, basically putting off sections of the highway. The RCMP are reporting less

motor vehicle accidents. That sounds good, but at the end of the fence

evidently, it is rising. That might tell us something.

We need to not just take someone's word for it or whatever, we need to make

sure, as the minister has assured us, that the investigation will be done to get

us all the the comparative analysis would be done to get me the information

that I need to see if indeed that is a possibility for here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. There are technologies out there, motion detectors, lighting and so

on. We have included that in here. So I have an obligation, as Transportation

and Works Minister, to look at this, report back - and it does not say to the

House. We report back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I do not

know if anyone in this House would disagree with at least making sure that we

keep in contact with the people that have put this request before us.

So, as I say, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared, as a government, to build on what

we have, and that is a key word. You do not have to reinvent a wheel. If it is

working in other jurisdiction and it will work here in this Province, we will

make sure that we invest to ensure that it is here as well, but it has to work.

We do not want to go putting strategies in place that are going to give our

people a false sense of security and make the situation worse. I have to ensure

that if I am making a decision that I am making an informed decision, an

informed decision that will make a difference and that will stop, and I say

stop, bring down - I do not know if it will ever, ever eliminate, but we have to

bring down the rate of accidents. We have to make sure that, as in a number of

years, we have that big, fat zero with regard fatalities. That is what I am

about. That is what my government is about and I assume that is what the members

on the opposite side are about.

It is my understanding, as I was part of putting that amendment forward, I

thought that it was a way for all of us to work together with the public, with

the committee, with these people who have spent a lot of time lobbying, a lot of

time making sure that they were doing the investigations that they required to

find out what was going on elsewhere. We need to get it all together. We need to

get it all together and move forward. This is too serious an issue to get into

petty politics, and I want no part of it.

I will make a commitment here, as Minister of Transportation and Works, that

I will work with the Opposition, that I will work with the general public, and I

will work with the committee, I will work with the devil himself if it brings

about change that can make our highways, our byways in Newfoundland and Labrador

safer for everybody.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to this well, I guess it is to

the amendment of the private member's resolution that was brought into the

House today.

I guess I was surprised with the amendment that was brought forward, I have

to say, because when I read the resolution, it looked like a very good

resolution to me. So to see the whole resolution basically amended - basically a

new resolution written, because that is what we have, the amendment, I think, is

a new resolution was disturbing for me. I do not think it was necessary and

I think that is what has started the partisan politics, actually.

To me, it is an example of why trying to deal with issues on the floor of the

House in this format is not the way to go. Yes, there are issues that we can ask

questions, we can try to get clarification, we have to get answers from

ministers on issues, and being in the House that is the role, but when we deal

with issues as important as the one that we have in front of us today, and it

has to be dealt with in this confrontational manner which the House sets up,

then we see the problem that we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador. This

kind of thing should be discussed on a committee level, an all-party committee

level, where we discuss and we get at why we may not all agree with what each

other is saying and we try to come to an agreement. This is not a format for

coming to an agreement; that is a real problem for me. If we had all-party

committees, like an all-party committee on this issue, then we could, all

together, call in people from other jurisdictions or do the literature searches,

look at what is there, and try to make sure that we, all together, can come to

an agreement on which way to go.

We do not have that here in this Province, and we have never had it. We have

not had it in our history, not as part of our structure and it is something that

the people do not even have an expectation about because they do not know how it

works in other jurisdictions where we have all-party committees. Other provinces

have them where they sit together on a regular basis, take various issues,

important issues for the people in their province, and work together as parties

together.

The NAFO resolution, which was brought up earlier today, that is an example

on the federal level where the all-party committee now, granted, it is with

a minority government, but that all-party committee passed the decision to

reject the changes that are being recommended to NAFO. An all-party committee

made that decision.

So, in the context of committees, we can work together and you can come to

some decisions, but the way things happened here today, that is not the way to

try to work together. So I am very disappointed. After today, something has to

happen does not matter what happens to the vote on the amendment and on the

resolution, because the moose are still out there, accidents are still

happening, and people have an expectation that something is going to be done.

So, no matter what happens here today, I hope that the people who are sitting

here in the gallery and the people who are watching and the people who are going

to watch the news after today are going to have a sense of commitment that

something is going to be done for them, because that is what the resolution is

all about.

Having said that, I had some things that I wanted to say to the resolution

and I want to put them out - and I do have time to do it. In the research that

needs to be done - and I do not know how widely either the Official Opposition

or the departments have gone in looking at various jurisdictions. If what I am

going to talk about now is something that you know, well forgive me, because

maybe a lot of people do not know, but one of the jurisdictions that I think has

done quite a bit of work is not in Canada at all, it is in Sweden, where

they have actually a major moose population in Sweden. I do not know, as I said,

if the departments have looked at the work that has been done in Sweden; it is

quite intense.

What is important, I think, about the Swedish study is that it does not look

at just one way of taking care of the issue. If you will pardon the expression,

because some people do not like it, it is quite holistic. It looks at quite a

number of angles and how they all fit together. I think that that is the way

that we have to go.

I read the petition that was brought to the House, and the petition does not

name just one thing, either, I noticed. I think there are more things that can

go in besides what is in that petition. I think we have a lot to learn from

Sweden.

One of the things, before I talk a lot about the Swedish model, one of the

things that is very significant about the study in Sweden is that they have

found out that after years of putting all their different things in place to try

to affect the moose-vehicle accidents, bring the numbers down, that education

and public awareness does not work that well. So you have to find other ways to

get to people.

When I read that I thought that is really true because there has been a lot

of public awareness with regard to driving too fast in areas where moose are

very prevalent. That is what the signs are all about on the highway. The sign is

a warning: In this area, more than anywhere else, you are going to find moose.

While it does not officially make us slow down, the sign reminds us. The idea is

we are supposed to be aware, and slowing down is part of it.

Well, I am not like my colleague who lives outside of St. John's and

travels the road everyday, but I travelled the highway a lot in October and

November. In November in particular, because of going back and forth to Terra

Nova district. I had to drive through the park quite a bit. What I found very

interesting - and every time I drive through the park I find this. In the summer

you do not sort of notice it, because there are so many vehicles everybody has

to slow down, but at this time of year that is not the case. What I noticed in

the park where the speed limit is lower anyway because it is a national park, it

is ninety kilometres instead of 100. I actually drive the speed limit, and I had

everything from huge trucks coming right up to the back of my car trying to

force me to go faster, plus everything else on the road; people passing me at

what I am sure was 120 and 130 kilometres.

We all know that there are a number of places in Terra Nova Park where moose

are an issue. That is one of the places where they are. I wondered, every time

it happened: How much education can you do? How much public awareness can you

do, because, obviously, it does not work. So, knowing that - and Sweden has

discovered that after years of having a whole lot of things in place. So,

knowing that, we obviously have to f