December 9, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 49

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

number of groups to the House of Assembly today.

First of all I would like to welcome, on behalf of all members, Mrs. Gwen

Mercer, President of the Avalon

Chapter of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving,

who is seated in the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well I would like to welcome ninety students from three

of the Canadian Issues classes in Mount Pearl Senior High. These students are

accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Darrell Penney and Mr. Jim Locke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome ten participants in the

Youth Service Canada program. This is sponsored by the Lower Trinity South

Development Association. They are accompanied by teachers Betty Tuck and

Patricia Cumby, and assistants Francis and Mildred Glynn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the consent of hon. members I would like to draw to the attention of

Members of the House the swearing in today of the hon. Mary Elizabeth Heneghan

to the Federal Court of Canada. Beth Heneghan is the granddaughter of P.J.

Lewis, a former member of this House of Assembly, and has practiced law in St.

John's since 1980. She is, I think - members will note - only the second

appointment to the Federal Court of Canada from Newfoundland since Confederation

in 1949, and the first woman appointee. I th ink it is

worthy of note in this House of Assembly. I should add that it is a very well

received and popular appointment amongst the Bar and Bench of this Province. We

wish to congratulate her on her appointment and wish her well as a judge of the

Federal Court of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the

comments just made by the Leader of the NDP. Indeed, Beth Heneghan is a

distinguished lawyer and practitioner of the law, and has recently been elevated

to the federal court, the circuit court, which will travel around the country

and thus will be located in the city of Ottawa.

Madam Justice Heneghan has been a stalwart and effective advocate on behalf

of her clients. I confess today that I have been on the receiving end, as

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on one occasion of her effective and energetic

and, I'm happy to say, on that occasion not too persuasive, but just about,

representation.

I know that all members take a measure of pride in seeing such a

distinguished individual, a citizen of our Province, a lawyer, take on these

important duties. This reflects well upon the whole of the legal community of

our Province and it is with pride that we wish her well in her new endeavor.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We join, I'm sure, with all members of this Legislature in congratulating

Madam Justice Beth Heneghan. I had the privilege and the opportunity to attend

the swearing in ceremony this morning in Courtroom One of the Supreme Court of

Newfoundland. It is indeed an honor that such a distinguished lawyer, a native

Newfoundlander, has now been appointed a member of the Trial Division of the

Federal Court of Canada. As was expressed this morning, the federal court, as

the Premier indicated, is a circuit cou rt, to some extent,

but it is also both a bilingual court and a bi-jural court dealing with aspects

of the common law and the civil law of Quebec.

We certainly join with all members, I am sure, in recognizing this great

distinction and congratulating Madam Justice Heneghan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker,

in recent weeks government has heard - individual members; indeed, I have as an

individual member and as Premier - from individuals and groups concerned about

the extension of opening hours for bars in the Province during the period of the

New Year's celebrations.

Recently, I had correspondence from the local

chapter of MADD, or Mothers

Against Drunk Driving, and I am very delighted to acknowledge the President of

the MADD Canada Avalon Chapter, Mrs. Gwen Mercer, who is in the Speaker's

gallery today, and who joins us today in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mrs. Mercer wrote me several weeks ago voicing her

concerns about these extended hours on behalf of the

chapter and asked that

government consider a different approach.

We have listened to those concerns, and today we are responding to those

concerns.

I am pleased to inform the House today, and through the House the people of

the Province, that government has decided to limit extended bar hours on New

Year's Eve to an extension of three hours, not the six which were proposed by

the Liquor Corporation that would have caused, indeed, bars to have been open

around the clock.

Simply put, the Liquor Corporation will now grant a three-hour extension for

all licensees who ask for it on New Year's Eve. By adding those three hours to

the normal weekend closing time of 3:00 a.m., we believe this limited extension

provides licensees with adequate opportunity to tailor their product to the New

Year's Eve

schedule and for any special millennium functions they may have

planned.

I want to acknowledge today that the provision we are announcing today was

exactly the suggestion made by MADD with respect to bar opening hours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: We believe it is a good suggestion. Government is

supportive of the efforts of organizations such as MADD to educate the public

about the consequences of impaired driving and to encourage socially responsible

use of alcohol.

I want to ensure all residents of the Province that enforcement of existing

penalties for misuse of alcohol will not be decreased during the holiday season.

I am very confident that our law enforcement agencies in this Province will

continue to do an excellent job in minimizing alcohol related incidents.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Mrs. Mercer and to all of the participants of

the organization MADD, which I think is doing an outstanding job in reminding us

all, those of us who partake in alcohol refreshments on occasion, those of us

who have the opportunity and responsibility to legislate, that I believe the

contribution you make is an important one, and I believe the suggestion you have

made is a useful one. That is why we have acted upon it.

I want to say, in your presence here today, and while making this

announcement to all the people of the Province as we enter this holiday season -

we shared some cheer last night with the Opposition members, who indeed provided

that cheer to us, the first of the annual traditional right here to spend a few

moments in a non-partisan environment - that this is a time to be with families

and it is time to celebrate, but it is also a time to exercise great caution.

Our loved ones are near and dear to us, family members, in particular our

children, those who are driving for the first time, those who are perhaps of

legal age for the first time; let this announcement today not only be an

announcement of a bit of sanity and a rational approach to the celebratory

season, but let it be a reminder to all of us to exercise our Christmas season

with caution, care, and prudence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, join in and congratulate Mrs. Mercer on her efforts as President of

the Avalon

Chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I think we can never be too

cautious or exercise too great a control over something that has had a

devastating effect, as I am sure everybody here can attest to, and by adding

three hours and not adding an extra three beyond that. I certainly hope that

people who have been out and drinking too heavily could use that extra three

hours to sober up rather than get drunk. That would be a good use of that time,

I would say.

I think, with reference to the statement here, enforcement of use of alcohol

not to be decreased, I certainly hope that will not be the case during not only

Christmas season but other holiday seasons. There is a tendency, I think,

historically to increase consumption of alcohol and increase the risk. During

those periods, if at all possible, certainly an enforcement aspect - hopefully

there will be increases in enforcement and tighter controls to ensure that the

public safety is protected in the long term.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, would like to acknowledge and thank MADD on their initiative for

suggesting this change, and as well acknowledge government's responding to

them in a like manner. It is important that the enforcement of driving while

under alcohol influence be kept down to a minimum. I think the extension of

three hours certainly grants enough time to people who may want to bring in the

new millennium in a special way but, at the same time, I think by not having a

free-for-all bar, so to speak, with a cut-off time in place of an extra three

hours, also sends a message that there is time to bring things to a conclusion

and not to overdo them. I think this message that is being sent out will

certainly go a long way in people's minds to make them realize the hazards of

drinking and driving, and practice a safe holiday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to confirm that, with our October and most of our November

tourism performance numbers now in, we are still on track for non-resident

visitation to top 400,000 people for the first time in our history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: The final numbers cannot be calculated until year end but,

with the usual strong Christmas season, we expect we will still meet our

original forecast of approximately 400,000 people who will have visited the

Province by December 31, spending somewhere in the vicinity of $260 million.

This will translate into growth in non-resident visitation of 8 per cent over

last year and 31 per cent since 1996.

Mr. Speaker, this continued strength is good news for the Province as it

heads into the year 2000 and the Vikings!1000 Years: Make the Journey

celebrations. The success of the travel/tourism industry in general, and the

success of the accommodation sector specifically, can be attributed to a number

of factors including a heightened awareness of the tourism product promoted by

special celebrations and events such as Cabot 500 and Soiree 99 and the

upcoming Viking!1000, and the overall expanding economy

fueled in part by increased business travel.

This increase can be further viewed by specific modes of transportation which

visitors use. For example: Non-resident auto visitation increased by 10 per cent

for the first ten months of this year. The number of passengers visiting the

Province by air charter is up by 14 per cent for the first eleven months, and

scheduled air passenger traffic flying into the Province is up by 8 per cent for

the first ten months of this year. Direct international arrivals at the St. John's

Airport has increased 9 per cent for the first eleven months. Total airport

activity at all major airports is up 9 per cent for the first ten months of this

year. Marine Atlantic's motor coach traffic from May to October is up 18 per

cent this year. Cruise ship activity is up 71 per cent this year. Car rental

revenue at the St. John's Airport increased 11 per cent for the first ten

months of 1999.

Mr. Speaker, data provided by Pannell Kerr Forster in their report, Trends in

the Canadian Hotel Industry, shows that the Province's occupancy rate reached

69.6 per cent for the first nine months of 1999, an increase of 10 per cent over

1998 levels. In St. John's, the occupancy rate reached 73.9 per cent for the

January to September time period, an increase of 12 per cent over last year's

record level.

Mr. Speaker, we are especially pleased with the figures released recently by

Pannell Kerr Forster's report regarding hotel occupancy rates. According to

the report, Newfoundland and Labrador continues to lead the nation in growth in

hotel occupancy rates for the first nine months of 1999. Growth in occupancy

levels were also seen in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia,

while the overall national rate dropped 1 percentage point.

The increases in occupancy rates achieved in Atlantic Canada outpaced those

achieved in other regions of the country. Meanwhile, the growth in Newfoundland

and Labrador's accommodations

section was 2.5 times greater than the growth

experienced in the rest of Atlantic Canada, and ten times that of the growth in

the country as a whole.

Not only are we continuing to lead the country in growth in hotel occupancy

levels, we are also doing so at a time when the overall growth rate in the

country as a whole has dropped. This is a remarkable indicator of the tourism

industry and the overall economic environment in the Province as a whole.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a leader in this country as we enter the new

millennium, and I am confident that the momentum will continue during Vikings!

1000 years: Make the Journey, and will create new historic records next year

here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for advancing me a copy of his ministerial

statement. Now we know he has been out crunching the numbers and the numbers are

good, the numbers are great, I say to the minister. The tourism industry is one

of the fastest growing industries in the Province. With a record of only being a

short while in the ministry, I say to the minister, and in all honesty, you have

done a fairly good job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: But!

MR. MANNING: But, I say,

with a record like this I have to ask the question that the minister has asked

himself but cannot get an answer for. I have to ask him: Mr. Premier, why don't

you give him Marble Mountain?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: With the record

of achievement that I have before me here today, and the record of failure that

we have raised in this House over the past couple of days in regards to Marble

Mountain, I ask: Why isn't Marble Mountain under the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation where it should be, and under this minister?

Yes, there is no doubt about it, we have a great tourism industry in this

Province. Many people have played a

part in it, from the government to the many

people that are out and around the Province, the crowd that have put their money

to action in building the accommodations. We have great historic sites here. We

have much that we can sell to the world. There is no doubt about it,

Newfoundland and Labrador is being sold to the world. People are traveling here

from all over the world because of our culture, our heritage, our historic

sites, our accommodations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: They are traveling here because we have something to offer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - and the tourism industry is now part of the global

economy. We are not competing with someone down the road. We are competing with

the rest of the world, and only by working together, through government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. MANNING: The minister is willing to give me leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. MANNING: I can have all afternoon now, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that this is only by government working hand in hand with

the entrepreneurs that are out and around this Province and developing a tourism

product here that will be the envy of the world. We have much to offer in this

Province. A star grading system, brought in a couple of years ago for our

accommodations, has done wonders for the accommodation sector. I am very

familiar with the tourism industry, as the minister is fully aware. I say all

the celebrations, whether it was Cabot, Soiree `99, Vikings 1000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: No, I am not that pleased, Mr. Speaker.

I just say that many people have contributed to what we have. In all

seriousness, many people have contributed to a great tourism product in this

Province. It is something that we all can be proud of. I think that we have

something to offer, whether it is through these celebrations that we promote our

Province, such as Cabot, Soiree `99, or come home year celebrations. We had a

come home year celebration in our hometown this year and due to the minister

getting called out on an emergency call, if we can remember that day, he did not

get to make it. Maybe the next celebration we have in our area he will be

welcome to come.

I will just say that it is great to see that the work and the efforts of many

people in the Province has paid off. I look forward to a further growing of the

tourism industry. I want to remind the minister that I take size 38.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister of Tourism to tell us

what kind of a tourism grant he just put in the riding of the member who just

spoke.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I figure one more Christmas party and all these desks can be put together.

It is great to hear of the increased tourism in the Province. I think it says

a lot about the promotion that has been taking place over the last number of

years. I certainly welcome the addition of new monies to our economy. After all,

it has been said we live in the best country in the world, and this Province has

to be the best part of that best country.

In light of the tourism industry, I think it becomes more important to have a

new ferry service on the Gulf so that when people go back to their homes, at the

end of their vacation, they have a lot of good things to say instead of negative

things about the ferry. I think it is also important that we start to consider

improved services on the ferry from Lewisporte to Goose Bay so that people, when

visiting this area of the country, can come in and make the round circle in

through one way and out the next or the other way around.

I think that with all the tourism we have had in the past few years, the

increase in tourism, and with what is expected in a few years to come, I do not

think there is any answer - but the question now is answered - that the condos

in Marble Mountain will be open on a daily basis.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise before the House today to inform my hon. colleagues of a

new business endeavor in this Province.

This afternoon, I will be participating in a news conference for the

announcement of the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation.

This company is a unique partnership with Taiwan and Newfoundland and

Labrador businesses, which will identify industrial development opportunities in

the Province.

The company is supported by a major shareholder, the Yao-Hwa Investment Fund

in Taiwan, which has executed a share purchase for $7.39 million Canadian that

will give the fund a non-majority position in the company.

This partnership came as a result of a relationship that developed between my

department and a businessman from Taiwan, Mr. Tim Lo.

My predecessor, Minister Foote, played a key role in this ongoing

relationship while in the Industry, Trade and Technology portfolio.

Following a government visit to Taiwan, led by Minister Foote last year, and

a subsequent high level Taiwanese delegation visit to the Province in June of

this year, a new business partnership has been developed.

During the course of our relationship with Taiwan, we introduced Taiwanese

business leaders to our Province's private sector business leaders. Today, we

see the successful result of this interaction. A new company has been

established, Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation (NLDC).

In fact, I just returned yesterday from a business visit to Taiwan to

finalize the arrangement, and to witness the formal establishment of the company

and receipt of the funds.

The head office will be here in St. John's, and there will be a branch

office in Taiwan.

My department has been pleased with the results of this endeavor to date.

This initial investment serves as a starting point to study the feasibility of

economic development opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It clearly demonstrates what we have known for a long time - that the world

sees this place, this Province, as a place of opportunity.

Our intention now is to let private enterprise do what it does best: to

operate this company to the best of its ability and to build a stronger economy

in this Province through identification and implementation of new business

opportunities.

My department will, of course, work closely with NLDC to offer advice and

assistance wherever we can.

I would like to welcome today Mr. Tim Lo, our Taiwanese partner, and Mr.

Brian Dobbin, the Newfoundland and Labrador partner, to the gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: They have both worked diligently to bring this idea to

fruition.

I invite my hon. members to join me in welcoming this new company to our

Province and in wishing them every success in helping to develop our economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister today for a copy of her statement in

advance, and to also thank the minister today - which we kind of got away from

in this House - I am glad that the minister today read her statement in the

House rather than rushing off to a press conference to announce it ever before

it was mentioned in this House.

Minister, I would to like to say as well that we are also very, very pleased

to welcome these two gentlemen to the House today. We are very, very pleased to

see new endeavors started in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

hopefully this will create employment which is much needed in our Province. I

can only ask you that if there are some special arrangements which have been

made with this company, if there is anything in taxes and that sort of thing,

over a period of time you will table such documents in the House.

Again, I thank you for a copy of your statement. This is, to me, at least a

little bit of good news.

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

MR. HARRIS: We certainly join in welcoming the investment interests from

the Taiwanese company and the two gentlemen to the House today. If $7.39 million

represents a minority interest, then we can be very pleased that the full amount

of capital will be used for investment in this Province.

I have a little concern of the name of the company, Newfoundland and Labrador

Development Corporation, however. It is perhaps confusion with our former Crown

corporation and a former corporation called NALCO which operated in the early

sixties. I am a little concerned with the confusion this might create in the

minds of the public and other investors as well. I certainly hope that this

company is able to find worthy investments for their capital and create jobs and

economy activity in this Province.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the government is introducing in the Legislature

today a bill which amends the Electrical Power Control Act and the Public

Utilities Act. I would like to take this opportunity to place these amendments

in context for hon members - more particularly in the context of the changes in

our electrical industry over the last few years.

There has been an electrical industry in Newfoundland and Labrador for about

100 years. By the earlier 1960s, power was still in short supply and many

communities still had no service at all. Government, as a matter of public

policy, became a major industry participant in the 1960s with the development of

the Bay d'Espoir generating plant and the provincial transmission grid. For

the next thirty years, into the early nineties, we continued to have sufficient

supplies of power for both our residential and commercial

uses and for industrial developments through an ongoing program of plant

construction by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. During that time, decisions on

what plants to build were made by Hydro and the elected government of the day.

In 1994, government investigated the possibility of privatizing Newfoundland

Labrador Hydro. Our neighboring province, Nova Scotia, had just done so the

previous year; but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador clearly indicated

they are more interest in continuing to own and operate our own utility more so

than the residents of Nova Scotia were. The government of that day heard the

voice of the people, and Hydro continues to be owned by the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Likewise, this government also listens to the people. This government has no

intention whatsoever of privatizing Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: In fact, the amendments contained in this bill are designed

to restore Hydro to what government believes, and what it understands the people

to believe, a Crown corporation should really be. Over time, amendments to the

various pieces of legislation which govern the electrical industry have

gradually moved Hydro in the direction of commercialization, with a concentrated

focus on the corporation itself and its bottom line for profit, to the point

where government, by law today, can no longer use the efforts of the corporation

in the best interests of the general public. Through these amendments that are

contained in this bill, government will restore its ability to have Hydro carry

out projects which are in the best interests of all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow the Cabinet to exempt specific projects

from the need for approval by the Pubic Utilities Board, as is required today.

At present, this approval process is not able to adequately consider and give

weight to the special function the people demand of their public utility. The

Electrical Power Control Act and the Public Utilities Act, as currently written,

require Hydro to undertake only those projects that best serve the bottom line

profit objective of the corporation and no other public interest is able to be

considered. This bill, which recognizes the special role of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro and its unique ability to act in the best overall interest of the

Province, is in keeping with the approaches employed by almost all other

Canadian jurisdictions which still own their own electric utilities.

Mr. Speaker, in short, the current legislation, as it stands today, was

developed to accommodate the potential privatization of Hydro. This government

has no such intention and is therefore providing in this bill for the proper

functioning of a publicly-owned utility which the people of this Province fully

support.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is an interesting phrase on the top of page 2 of this statement and it

states briefly, Likewise, this government also listens to the people.

I remind members opposite that if it were not for the constant pounding on

the issue of the privatization of Hydro by the Tory Opposition of the day, where

would we be on that issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This government only listened to the Opposition and to

the majority of the people of the Province at that time and then the government

of the day changed its mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask another question, Mr. Speaker. When government

says that this government listens to the people - it was only after the pounding

on the issue of the bulk export of water by the majority of the people of this

Province and this Opposition, it was only then that this government listened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am nervous because yesterday, what did

this government do? I will tell you what it did. It removed the requirement for

concurrent processing of ore from the rich ovoid and the less rich underground.

It removed the requirement that all the nickel concentrate be processed in this

Province, and on this very important matter it removed the requirement that a

debate be held in this Legislature before the finalizing of a final agreement

with Inco. Therefore, I continue to be nervous; and it is only when we see the

legislation will we be in a position to fully debate this proposed legislation

coming before the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I should remind the Official Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps I should remind the Official Opposition that the

first opposition to the privatization of Hydro came from this part of the House

and this hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome the announcement by the minister that this government has

no future intention to privatize Hydro, and I also -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I also agree, and many of my speeches in this House on the

privatization have had to do with the need for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

to in fact be an instrument of public policy in this Province, and in fact an

engine of economic growth such as Hydro-Quebec has been for the people of

Quebec, for the engineering community of Quebec, to build the expertise and

develop the ability to conduct other economic activity. So, I support that

wholeheartedly.

This does not mean that the public policy purposes, whatever ones they choose

to visit on Hydro, will all be supported by me and by my Party, but the thrust

of this approach and the thrust of this legislation is totally in keeping with

the approach taken by the New Democratic Party.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 17, the NEOS group, a consortium of three different companies,

made an offer to purchase the shares of FPI. At that time, they also informed

government of their position and wanted to know what government's concerns

would be. The Premier and myself clearly informed them that we, as a government,

were not interested in the shareholders of either one of the companies, that our

main concern was the best interest of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and in particular the best interest of the

people in the communities where the present FPI plants exist. We informed them

that was our position, and unless we were convinced otherwise, the 15 per cent

would remain on the legislative books.

Clearly there has been a lot of public debate over that over the last number

of weeks. The companies have gone out there and tried to convince the people in

those communities that their takeover of FPI would be in their best interest. As

a result of that, there has been a lot of communities and a lot of people out

there concerned about the position and what would happen at the end of the day.

Just a couple of days ago we met again with the NEOS group - they wanted to

inform government of their position - and we clearly said that the people of the

Province have not been convinced that to remove the 15 per cent would be in the

best interest of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result,

yesterday, the NEOS group have withdrawn their offer and they now will not

proceed to ask government, or to try to convince the people out there, that they

will be moving any further or convince government to take their 15 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the people of this Province that the 15

per cent will remain as is, on the books, until government otherwise at some

point in time in the future would be convinced to make a change. That change

will only be made when we are convinced that it is totally in the best interest

of the future of the fishery and the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly welcome the news on this side of the House. This debate has

finally reached some conclusion. There has been a lot of fear and uncertainty

out there in the fishing communities. We went forward and met with the

proponents - we met with FPI, we met with NEOS, we met with the FFAW - but most

importantly of all we went out and met with some of the people who were directly

affected.

Down in my district, I suppose, is probably an area other than the Burin

Peninsula that would be most affected. That is where the fears were the greatest

and they had some real concerns. Just a few days ago, we put out a news release

which clearly stated our position and what we would like to see met in order to

have the 15 per cent share cap removed. We stand by that commitment, whether it

is NEOS coming to look for the 15 per cent cap to be removed or whether it is

FPI. We have come a long way in the industry. We have gone through some very

uncertain times. Now that there is some regularity and some degree of comfort, I

suppose, for the people to take

part in this industry, I do not think now is the

time to lift the 15 per cent cap. If we ever do, we should make sure that the

communities affected are protected.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am obviously very pleased that government has adopted the position on the

15 per cent that was taken by our party and by me as early as November 10 or

November 11. It has certainly shown, contrary to some people's opinion, that

the 15 per cent rule has a very important place. What it has done here is

allowed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to speak, particularly from the

communities - and the 8,000 petitioners who signed

petitions that I have here today - of FPI, to point out that the takeover bid in

this case of the NEOS group was not going to be in their interest and that, in

fact, to keep that place will provide them with some security over their future

in the event that another proposal comes forward that would involve a takeover

of FPI.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My

questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Minister, you have

been quoted as saying that the Voisey's Bay project will not qualify for the

ten year tax break granted to mining companies under

an act which we all know as

An Act To Amend The Mining And Mineral Rights Tax Act. Do you intend, Mr.

Minister, to bring an amendment to this House prior to the Christmas adjournment

dealing with this very important issue?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I'm really glad that the Official Opposition is asking a question on

behalf of the New Democratic Party with respect to taxation and royalties and so

on, because the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi asked that question three

years ago, if not four. The answer was clear,that there would not be a tax

holiday. Whether or not the law will change or whether or not there will be a

special contract arrangement with Inco, if we ever have an arrangement with

them, will be determined at the time. It ha s always been

known. They understand that. That question was asked and raised in the House two

weeks ago and answered, asked last week and answered.

Will there be a bill presented before Christmas on that issue? No, Mr.

Speaker, but I can guarantee you one thing. This government, on this side, will

not vote against a motion like the opposition parties, both of them, did

yesterday that called for a long-term mining operation in line with the

environmental assessment report, open pit mining and underground mining, full

processing in the Province to finished nickel. Yesterday, both parties opposite

voted against trying to attain those objectives in a contract with Inco.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why do it that way? Why

leave it to an agreement? The simplest thing, the easiest thing, the clearest

way to deal with this issue, is simply enter into an amendment. I can assure the

minister it will receive full support from every single member on this side of

the House. Why do you opt for uncertainty, Mr. Minister? Why do you not choose

the simplest way, the safest way for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and

amend that particular piece of legislation in this Chamber, the House of

Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, sometimes I understand the questions but I am sure that they do not

listen to our answers.

The question, if I understood the first question properly - because again,

words are somewhat important - was: Is the government going to bring a bill to

this House before Christmas? I answered: No, that if we decide to do it, it will

be sometime later if we ever get an arrangement, and we might never do it

because we might do it in a special arrangement.

The supplementary question is: Why has the government chosen to do that? Why

has the government chosen to have a special arrangement? I said no such thing. I

said the issue, like all the other issues with respect to Inco and Voisey's

Bay, is not decided. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing. We have a little

better consistent idea than the Opposition does.

In the morning yesterday and in the night before the Member for Baie Verte

was saying a pre- condition for the Opposition with Inco was that there should

not only be a nickel processing facility but that he was going to reopen the

call on behalf of the Official Opposition that there be no deal unless there was

a copper smelter in Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader then presented a

motion, there was no mention of a copper smelter because they do not know what

their position really is. At least we will be consistent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A

supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the minister is all over the place. I will remind the minister this is

a serious issue dealing with the taxation of mining operations in this Province.

Yesterday, I believe, the Premier indicated we may have a deal today, tomorrow,

it may take weeks, it may take months. We could easily be on recess. We could

have a deal after the adjournment of this Legislature prior to Christmas, or

immediately after Christmas. Why do we run the risk of uncertainty, I say to the

minister? Why are you takin g

chances? You are rolling the dice on this issue. Why, Mr. Minister, don't you

enact the proper legislation and get this matter dealt with?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I guess, there really is no question, because again I have tried, in

my own usual calm way, to answer the question. The question is: Would we before

Christmas - I understand ,and someone can correct me if I am wrong; this being

December 9, we are talking about fifteen or sixteen days, a couple of weeks -

bring a bill to this Legislature to change the taxation and royalty regime with

respect to mining projects in the Province, all of them? Because remember this,

and it is an important point to make, that when we change the law it is a law of

general application for every single mineral and mining prospect in the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, it may be - I am sure I challenge the Opposition to think about

this because they might come to a different conclusion. It may be that if they

were the government, by some fluke of circumstance, if they were ever to become

the government, that they might want to have a slightly different arrangement

with a very rich and large project like Voisey's Bay as opposed to a small but

still important and profitable project like Nugget Pond.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Are we going to

change the law and have general application rules that apply to everybody? We

are considering it. If we do change the law, it has to happen here; it will

absolutely happen here. Will it happen before Christmas? No, Mr. Speaker. Will

it happen some time? I don't know yet.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, and it has to do with the Voisey's Bay

project. It has been reported in the news that the royalty regime has been

determined by government with respect to this project. Will the Premier tell the

people of this Province what royalty regime will apply to the people's ore

deposit in Voisey's Bay, Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member opposite that it has

not even been determined that we have a project, and there has been no

determination as to a royalty regime because you cannot have an agreement on

royalty unless you have an agreement on the project. As I have said many times,

unless and until there is absolute certainty on all of the components of any

arrangement but more importantly the question of processing concentrate to a

finished nickel plate or product in this Province, there is not going to be a

deal, let alone a royalty regime.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Voisey's Bay Nickel reports to the Environmental Assessment Panel

indicated that the revenues to the provincial Treasury over the life of the

project would be about $417 million compared to the $4.9 billion that the

federal Treasury would receive, partly a consequence of the equalization payment

scheme.

Can the Premier advise this House what progress has been made in achieving a

change in those equalization formulas as they would affect royalty regimes, as

they will affect the revenues of this Province for a project like Voisey's

Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: The member

opposite knows that the equalization formula is a ten province and national

government formula. I would be quite happy if I could convince the other

provinces of Canada and the national government to bring about a different

equalization regime as it applies to Voisey's Bay, or as it applies to a lot

of other matters for development; but, if the hon. member wants to undertake to

take up a discussion with the NDP Government of British Columbia, the NDP

Government of Saskatchewan, and the NDP Government of

Manitoba, if he can bring those three governments into line for a new

equalization regime, I will certainly work on getting the concurrence of the

Atlantic Canadian Provinces; I think we can get that. Then our big stumbling

block will remain the PC Governments of Alberta, Ontario, and elsewhere in this

country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We already have received the unanimous consent of the federal NDP at

convention in September, to that proposition. I have already raised the matter

with the new Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Gary Doer. I would be happy to work

further with the government to try and resolve this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker,

would the Premier indicate whether or not he feels that a situation where we

have, losing dollar for dollar in equalization payments any benefits - or most

of the benefits - of the Voisey's Bay regime, whether that is acceptable to

his government and whether he thinks that it should be acceptable to the Liberal

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for this country to

take a look at the equalization formula and see if we can change that formula. I

think you only need to look at what happens in the European Union where, for

example, Ireland was able to secure a ten-year commitment to a steady level of

equalization and to use that ten years to build the infrastructure of that

country.

Whereas we have in Canada a formula where you have, basically, for

every extra dollar earned, seventy-five or eighty cents clawed back. It is a

problem, but it is not a matter that can be changed by the actions of one

government or, for that matter, the federal government. It requires the

agreement of all of the Provinces of Canada.

I can honestly tell the member opposite that governments of every political

stripe, based on their region - including NDP governments - have said no to

changes because we have currently in the country an attitude that is based on:

What's in it for me? How do I act in a manner that promotes my own best

interest as a Province? versus a time in this country when there was more of a

mood to share the risk, share the rewards, and share the opportunities.

I would be very honest in saying that I doubt that Mike Harris in Ontario, or

Ralph Klein in Alberta, or, for that matter, the Government of British Columbia

- because I put it directly to the Government of British Columbia, which is an

NDP government - are willing to make that kind of change right now.

Mr. Speaker, I will make one other comment and I would conclude with this:

The Leader of the NDP said that the federal NDP is committed to a change, but

the federal NDP said they were opposed to the Prime Minister's position on the

constitution; but yet Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan, of course, supports the Prime

Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Works, Services and Transportation on a very serious and urgent matter. The

community of Harbour Deep, which I know very well - I was lucky enough to serve

as their member for some years, as equal with the member, and I still keep very

close relationships with those people - they have called me today, and they have

written letters, and asked me to bring this situation forward to the House of

Assembly, to place it here on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago there was a near tragedy, I say to the Premier in

all seriousness. There was a near tragedy in this Province just off Harbour

Deep, when the ferry service there, the Lady Rosella Regina B , had some

mechanical problems and went in a spinning motion into White Bay under very

rough conditions. That caused a forty-five gallon drum of gas to tip over. There

was gas floating around the deck.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: There was also a near fire inside the cabin where some

thirty people were at the time. We know how near a tragedy that was. That is how

they describe it, as a near tragedy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I ask leave to finish the description, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the people were terrified. As we speak today,

the people of Harbour Deep right now have that boat chained onto the wharf, and

they are holding it there today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the people of Harbour Deep are terrified of the

situation they face there today. I am asking the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I will ask the minister, since I was cut off by the Premier

and so on to describe the situation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I will ask the minister: Will you immediately provide

alternate air service to the community of Harbour Deep?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I realize also the urgency of having the ferry

service re-established in Harbour Deep. In fact, before I came to the House this

evening, I instructed my officials to make sure that ferry service is running

this evening. She may be chained on out there, but action has to be taken. There

are people in that community who need services. That service, as far as I am

concerned, will be running this evening. There is nothing to stop that ferry

from running. She had sea trials yesterday. She was down for one-and-a-half

hours yesterday itself.

The issue that the hon. member is talking about happened on December 3. It

was hung up for three-quarters-of-an-hour off Harbour Deep. The Coast Guard was

notified. It was done as a precautionary measure. She proceeded into Harbour

Deep, one-and-a-half miles offshore. We had problems with it at that time. Like

I said, the Coast Guard was notified. Every action was taken; but, other than

that, yesterday she had mechanical breakdown. It was fixed. She was ready to go

as of yesterday evening. The people in the community chained the ferry to the

wharf but I have instructed my officials to have that ferry released this

evening so that all the people in Harbour Deep will be able to take use of that

service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker,

some fifty people are now stranded in Harbour Deep. Some twelve students who

cannot get to their exams are stranded in Harbour Deep. There are people who had

to be flown out this morning - a man with Hydro who was sick and they had to

airlift out. The people of Harbour Deep are refusing to board that boat, when

even the captain said he wouldn't have his own children on the boat. That is

how bad it is.

This service goes to somewhere around the first week of January. My next

question is, and the demand the people of Harbour Deep are looking for, is: When

the service resumes this spring, will they have a safe boat to travel on?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, back in the fall of 1998 we had officials meet

with the stakeholders in the community of Harbour Deep before the extension was

made for the ferry service there. In July of this year we had Mr. Walter

Pumphrey, our director of Marine Services in Central Newfoundland, go to Harbour

Deep and meet with the stakeholders. In October, two months ago, we had the same

gentleman back in Harbour Deep to meet with the residents concerning the ferry

services. No problem.

Out of seven months running on that service we had five-and-one-half days of

downtime. We have sixteen services around this Province. If any member in this

House was in my position today and could guarantee the people of this Province

that there would not be any mechanical failure if they were minister, then you

can take my place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Reverend Roberta Woodman wrote me a letter yesterday and faxed it to my

office. I cannot read the whole letter, obviously. Please do something now

before it is too late. That is how she described the situation.

The minister and every person in this Province knows about the mechanical

failures. People of Harbour Deep would like to know, after years of complaints -

and some three years ago, there was a similar situation, with the Reverend on

board at the time. It has being going on for a long time. Why has it taken so

long to take this into check?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I

just outlined three meetings since the fall of 1998 with the stakeholders in the

area. There were no complaints. None. In the last seven months, there were

five-and-one-half days of downtime. Yes, the people called me at that time and I

put other measures in place to make sure they were accommodated. I put a

helicopter service in place. The same thing will apply in a couple of weeks'

time when the ferry comes off. I will put an air service in place for the people

of Harbour Deep f or this winter. In case of an emergency

now, I will put a helicopter service in place for the people of Harbour Deep.

Those people have been consulted. If the captain on that vessel wants to go

talking to people in the community, telling them things that they are not

willing to share with me, that they are not willing to share with the owner,

that he is not willing to share with the Coast Guard, then I cannot help that.

My response to that is this. If the same captain said that he is not telling

me or my officials -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[There was a technical malfunction.]

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible)

like I said from the outset, Mr. Speaker, I realize the urgency of a ferry

service in Harbour Deep and anywhere else in this Province. I have made sure,

over the past year, that on three occasions my officials were in that community

to check with those people. I made sure that in the last two days the officials

were in there and looked after it. I'm going to make sure today or tomorrow

that the vessel is going to be released so that the people in Harbour Deep can

avail of that service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

[There was a technical malfunction.]

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, the member opposite - and I

would invite him to respond to it; I think it is important - has made an

allegation that a captain of a ferry service has alleged that the ferry service

is not safe enough to put his own children on the boat. The captain has a legal

responsibility, enforceable under the Criminal Code, for the safety of a

passenger vessel. If any captain made such a comment, a substantive comment,

that captain would be subject to legal prosecution. I want to ask the member, in

the interest of the reputation of the captain, to clarify whether or not he has

heard such a comment from the captain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

[There was a technical malfunction.]

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

There are dozens of people all over this Province who are having to face extreme

hardship in getting dialysis. Some have to relocate their families, leaving

these families and friends behind in many of the cases. Others drive for hours

to get to a hospital and they are even wiped out from the travel alone.

A forty-nine year-old gentleman who I visited at the Health Sciences Centre

hostel drives for three and one-half hours to get to St. John's every Sunday

evening and returns home on Friday. This man, who is in the gallery today I

might add, had to exhaust all of his life savings. He had to spend the money he

saved for funeral expenses and he had to resort to social assistance. While

staying at this hostel they even give this man vouchers for his meals but they

will not even give him cash to buy food t hat the doctor

recommends he needs for his diet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask

the minister: Why won't your department provide this life saving dialysis

services to more locations in our Province?

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

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

We on this side of the House, and on behalf of government, do recognize that

there is an increased demand in the Province for dialysis service. As a matter

of fact, I understand that the demand for dialysis service is increasing at the

rate of about 9 per cent a year. That, obviously, is putting pressure on the

number of services we have established. The hon. member will recall, however,

that within the last two years we did establish a new service in the Grand

Falls, Central Newfoundland, hospital. We do know, we are aware, that there are

representations coming forward, ongoing, from other centres for the

establishment of dialysis services.

That issue, by this government, is under review and we will respond as soon

as possible, and within the context of the appropriateness, giving high

consideration to the high level of service that dialysis is. When we put a

service in place we want to be sure that it is not only machinery that is

available but that there is the technical and medical expertise to go along with

that so that it can be operated properly, at all points, at all times, in the

interest of the best possible level of health care that we can deliver to the

people who have to use that service, unfortunately.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister admits there is an increasing number needing this service and

that would certainly justify - and the Minister of Health and Community Services

is always saying she is looking for reasons, and giving them here why she cannot

do something. I asked her to look for reasons why she should do something.

I have received calls and letters from people in Baie Verte, Bonavista,

Carbonear, all over this Province. Under the Central East Health Care

Institutions Board jurisdiction alone -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister stated in this House on March 26, she would consider dialysis if

numbers warrant. I want to ask her this. Under the Central East Health Care

Institutions Board there are thirty-seven people requiring dialysis, twenty-one

require haemodialysis, and there are sixteen on home dialysis. I ask the

minister if he would tell us what numbers would they consider sufficient to

warrant such service.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The numbers of people requiring the service of dialysis is tied somewhat to

the type of dialysis service that is being requested. There are three or four

different types; there is the haemodialysis, there is the peritoneal, there is

the home dialysis. There are at least three different levels of services

available for dialysis patients depending upon their need and depending upon

their level of illness or requirements. The number of people required to provide

a specific type of service is not a constant figure. It varies with the type of

service that is required.

At the end of the day, we will provide additional dialysis service in the

Province as soon as we are satisfied that there is a requirement and that we can

meet that need with the appropriate level of medical and professional backup

services to ensure that there is a safe delivery of that service, bearing in

mind always, as I said earlier, the best interest, health care-wise, of the

people that need it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is burying her head in the sand while medical advances are

passing her by. The Health Care Corporation two weeks ago said: It is very

common for dialysis services and clinics to be located in non-acute care

hospitals and in non-hospital settings. This has been the case in our Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, and supplementaries should require no

preamble.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of this statement, that this has not been the case in our Province

but can be seen in most parts of Canada and the United States, in light of that

fact: Why, Minister, has this Province not provided reasonable access to these

services as other parts of this country are doing?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the hon. member will have to acknowledge - I am sure he will

acknowledge - that in the past two or three years this government has improved

the level and the availability of dialysis service in the Province

substantially. That having been said, we also acknowledge, as he has put

forward, that dialysis services can be provided in the community outside of

tertiary care units. That particular issue is very much under consideration at

the moment and our response will be as timely as we can possibly make it and at

the highest possible level of service that we can appropriately deliver.

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

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

Education.

Minister, I recently found out that the public forums to be held by the

educational panel you pointed to review curriculum and personal matters related

to the delivery of school programs is by invitation only. Is that what you

intended, minister, when you wrote the terms of reference for this panel?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have two very credible individuals leading the

process, Dr. Ron Sparkes and Dr. Len Williams. What I have asked them to do is

make sure they consult, in as much as it is possible, with all of the

stakeholders in the Province with respect to the delivery of education in this

Province. How they choose to do that is entirely up to them, Mr. Speaker.

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

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I

would take it then from your response, minister, that these public forums are by

invitation only. Would these public forums as well be open to, let's say, the

press?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the two gentlemen who are leading this process

know full well what they are doing. Again, I have left the process to them.

Clearly, I can understand where they are coming from if they are doing it by

invitation only. When you consider the number of stakeholders in this Province

there is no way that everyone could be invited in, but I would expect what they

are doing is trying to ensure that there is representation from every

stakeholder group in this Province.

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

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, if there is anything in the last week that I

have learned, it is that words are important. I will not tell you where I got

that from, but words are important. I ask the minister: If forums are by

invitation only and not open to the general public, not open to the press, by

what measure can you say that they are public forums?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: You had better be

careful there. I won't vote for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the two individuals leading this process are doing

a very commendable job. They have carried out extensive consultations throughout

this Province with a number of stakeholders, trying to ensure that everyone who

wants to be heard will be heard either through the consultation process - where

they have had the meetings - or either through the focus groups, or they have a

website, or they have accepted written briefs as well as oral presentations. I

leave it to these very credible individuals to decide how the process should be

carried out.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the House of Assembly, and the petition

reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador;

WHEREAS the areas of the Province administered by the Peninsula Health Care

Corporation do not have dialysis services available, and the people in our area

who require regular dialysis services must often relocate permanently to St.

John's and incur the financial and emotional costs of being uprooted to get

the health care they need in order to live; and

WHEREAS it is our understanding that the working dialysis units are being

sent out of this Province to other countries when the local need is great; and

WHEREAS it is a principle of Canada's medicare system that people should

have reasonable access to basic health care services without suffering

discrimination on the basis of where they live;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to approve the stationing of a dialysis unit in the area serviced by the

Peninsula Health Care Corporation and also provide staff, training and resources

to ensure the regular operation of this dialysis unit;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is another in a series of petitions that I have been

standing here presenting on behalf of the people who reside in the Peninsula

Health Care Corporation boundaries, asking and pleading to government that they

would look at stationing a dialysis unit somewhere within the region of the

Peninsula Health Care Corporation so they would not have to uproot and move to

St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, there is a gentleman here in the gallery today who has spent

four-and-a- half years traveling from Bonavista Bay, three-and-a-half hours

away, I say to the Premier, take his clothes on a Sunday afternoon or a Monday

morning, take his food, load it aboard his pickup truck, and have to travel to

St. John's to live in a hostel. That has been this man's life for

four-and-a-half years now.

He is not coming to St. John's to go to work. He is not coming to St. John's

on vacation. He is coming to St. John's in order to continue to live. He is

not asking that we place a dialysis unit in Bonavista and one in Clarenville and

one in Burin. His plea is that it be located somewhere in the area serviced by

the Peninsula Health Care Corporation where he can get aboard of his vehicle and

travel in order to get health care, and travel back to his home on a daily

basis.

This gentleman has found himself having to spend all of his life savings. He

has found himself having to take money that he has put aside to look after his

funeral expenses in order to be able to live today. He finds himself now on

social services; a man who was out and worked all his life and contributed to

society. All he is asking is to give some degree of living back to him so that

he might get up in the morning, go and get his dialysis treatment, and return to

his home in Open Hall, Bonavista Bay.

I don't think that is too much to expect when we hear the government

opposite get up and talk about how well we are doing, that we can cut back now

on income taxes being deducted from people in this Province. While people

embrace that, and it might be popular, there is still a greater demand and a

greater need that needs to be looked after.

Mr. Speaker, another gentleman right from my home district had to bar up his

house, move to St. John's, rent an apartment, buy second-hand furniture, in

order to access this same dialysis treatment.

It is my understanding that there are new dialysis units that have been

placed in the Health Sciences Complex, and the dialysis machines that were

already in existence there were taken and shipped out of the Province and out of

the country altogether.

Mr. Speaker, the need is great, the need is now, and I think the plea is for

government to react and to place a dialysis unit somewhere in the health care

peninsula boundaries.

The critic for health stood and asked questions today in the House, and put

forward numbers. He is asking if there is a magic number that must be reached

before a dialysis unit is placed somewhere in the Peninsula Health Care

Corporation region. I am not so sure that we should be looking at numbers. We

should be looking at need and, if the need is there, we should respond to that

particular need.

This particular individual - and I have to refer back to the gentleman who

was here today - has found himself having medical problems other than dialysis.

He has visited me and I have arranged meetings with the Department of Human

Resources and Employment to put forward a plea where he might be given funding

instead of food vouchers. Right now he gets food vouchers for him and his wife

to eat in the cafeteria at the Health Sciences Complex. I don't have to tell

you what type of food is being served i n cafeterias in

this city. His plea is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: His plea is, Mr. Speaker, if I could just have a minute

to clue up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, maybe we should be looking at giving him

funding rather than food vouchers so he might be able to go out and buy a meal

that his doctor has told him he needs in order to maintain his health, rather

than eating the food that is served in the cafeteria. Not even that has been

acknowledged.

Mr. Speaker, my plea is to ask government to look at this need and respond to

it now. The need is great, and it should be done immediately.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am pleased and proud today to stand and continue the support the Member for

Bonavista South as he brings forward, on the floor of this House many times, the

similar situation I face in my district, another rural district in this

Province.

The gentleman has to drive some three-and-a-half hours from Bonavista South

to be able to have this service. Every single day in this House we could come in

with a list of people with similar situations, and some of them with even worse

situations. The bottom line is that every single person in this Province,

because of our geography and because of the distance from major health centers

and so on, should be able to access this particular service that nobody wants to

be on. If anybody knows somebody in those similar circumstances, you will know

what I am talking about.

I have sat with people in my district - Mr. Ron Dempsey and his wife, from

Fleur de Lys - who described the situation as they had to travel some

three-and-a-half hours. You could see the frustration and the pain on their

faces as they described the financial stress and the emotional stress related to

this.

In another situation in my district, a man in La Scie, some four hours drive

from the center, who has actually moved out of his home and moved into a cabin

at Badger Lake so he would not have to drive so far to avail of these services.

That is how ridiculous it has gotten. I talked to his daughter just a few days

ago, and it is getting worse.

That is the point behind all of this. It is not getting any better. There are

more cases every single day, and if anybody knows somebody who avails of this

service, they know what I am talking about, as I said before. To sit down and

watch somebody who has worked all his life, as the member said, and who is at an

age now, of the people I know, anywhere from forty-five to fifty-five to sixty

years old. They worked hard all their lives and now to even have to face this -

to go through this is bad enough but, as the member said, at least to have a bit

of dignity.

Another thing I would like to mention, and I brought up here before when the

Premier was in the House on this particular petition last year, that even if it

was not immediately that we were going to have these dialysis machines all over

the Province, then at least for the interim, for the short term, that the

government seriously consider some kind of financial compensation to help these

people with their expenses: the drive, the expenses of accommodations that they

have to put up with, and all of those things. The government could show some

compassion by at least offering some compensation for these people who find

themselves in this particular situation.

It is a real shame when you sit down with these people and hear the stories.

It should not happen in this Province, not in this day and age, when people see

money spent on other things, and we could go on with a long list of that but we

do not need to. We should stick with the issue of a dialysis machine and how it

affects the lives of the people who need to use it. It is a real shame when we

cannot at least compensate them to care of some of the economic stress. I hope,

in the long term, that we will be able to put some of these machines in more

strategic locations so that in the longer term, I guess, we would take care of

some of the emotional stress caused by this situation.

I fully support my colleague from Bonavista South. I am going to continue to

present these petitions, and I am sure he will get up to continue to support me,

and likewise, until we get the message across. I believe and I am hopeful that

the government is listening to this, that they are listening, indeed listening.

I hope that in the not-too-distant future, as we hit the new millennium, that we

are going to see a change of heart by the government to at least address this in

the first term, which is financial compensation, but hopefully in the long term

so that we have more of these machines throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to say a few words in response to the petition that the hon.

Member for Bonavista South has presented today, because it is really a

continuation of the issue that was raised by the health critic during Question

Period with respect to the expansion of dialysis services in the Province. I

wanted to say just a couple of things. Certainly, there is nobody on either side

of the House who would argue with the tremendous stress and the enormous

difficulties that it causes a person's individual life,

and by extension their family, when they have to avail of dialysis services.

One of my probably two or three best friends that I have ever had and ever

will have, has recently been on dialysis for the past two years. Fortunately,

they were able to get a kidney transplant last year and it is working very well.

That is probably the best hope for somebody who has to be permanently on a

dialysis machine. I understand from a personal level and certainly from being in

the department previously what it means to be attached to the service of a

dialysis machine.

We have expanded over the past two or three years some of our dialysis

services both in the hospitals that currently have them, such as the Western

Memorial Regional hospital and the Health Science Centre. We have also gone into

Grand Falls. I want to say, by way of some level of assurance to the people who

were responsible for signing this petition, that the issue of expansion of

dialysis services is very, very high on the list of considerations for this

government of things to do soon. I cannot add more to it than that, because the

issue has to be dealt with carefully. We have to be certain, as I said earlier,

that when we put dialysis service in a community, whether it is a hospital based

service at a high level tertiary care hospital, or whether it is a service that

can be provided depending on the requirement of the patient outside of a

hospital, we have to be certain that the first consideration has always got to

be the health and the well-being of the person who is using that service; becau se

dialysis is not a service that can be provided unless we have the appropriate

level of supports in place - medical supports, nurses and sometimes a backup of

doctors - to ensure that they can respond to a patient's needs quickly if

required.

Let me say to all of the people in the Province who are asking for an

expansion of dialysis services, it is very much a topical item with us, as in

government, at this point in time. We are looking very seriously, very closely

at the issue. While I cannot say more than that, I can say that there may be

some other announcements, certainly between now and budget time.

That is not a commitment; it is simply an indication that we are looking very

seriously at it and we are trying to analyze where and to what extent we can

improve the expansion and extension of dialysis services for the well-being and

for the better health care provision of all of the people in the Province who

unfortunately need that service.

We support the petition to the extent that it asks for the maximum level of

service available to the closest possible point of a person's home. I

appreciate the indication that was given by the hon. member when he presented

his petition. He said the individual to whom he referred is not suggesting we

want a dialysis service in every community, because he obviously knows that

would not be realistic, practical, or even needed. Within a reasonable

operational distance from a person's home, this service,

I believe, should be provided to the maximum extent possible. This government is

very much, as I said earlier, dealing with that issue as we speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to speak to the petition as

raised by -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I was just going to add my support.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. minister wishes to speak to the petition, she would have to have

leave of the House in order to do that.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for by leave by this hon. House.

I, too, have been hearing my colleagues across the way raising this petition

over the past few days and weeks regarding dialysis service. I can say that I

would have first-hand knowledge of the necessity and urgency of which you speak,

having gone through the crusade with the late Brian Quigley from Grand

Fall-Windsor.

As my colleague the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs already

said, there is a great urgency right across the Province now, particularly due

to an aging population. We are facing a situation where we have an increase

since last year, of 9 per cent more people looking for that service. It is more

than just actually finding a place in a hospital and putting in machines,

because it takes a professional team to operate that service once it is there.

We in Grand Falls-Windsor did have a commitment from the south and central

health foundation to assist in the fundraising for the equipment. Actually, we

wondered when we installed that equipment if we would have enough patients to

keep it running. What we are finding now, since the equipment has been

installed, is that there is actually a lineup of people wanting to use that

service. It is in full use all the time. We have a list of other people wanting

to get on. What we have found too is that people are moving to Grand

Fall-Windsor so they could be close to that service.

The Member for Baie Verte indicated a couple from La Scie who had moved

around Badger and set up in a cabin so they could be close to the actual

services in Grand Falls-Windsor. I want to say to the Member for Baie Verte

today that I had occasion to assist your constituents on a couple of occasions

on other matters, and I know who you are referring to. I am aware of their

situation.

I have to speak from a government's point of view. The matter you are

raising today and the matter you have been raising is of great concern to this

government. It is one of the high priorities when we are looking at health care

needs in this Province. What I am saying is that you do have support, I'm

sure, from all sides of the House for the dialysis service for other parts of

this Province. We will be taking this matter into close consideration in the

upcoming months and days leading into the new budget.

As the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs said, w cannot make any

comments at this time, or any promises. We do consider the need and we will

certainly look at it with great priority.

Thank you.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask leave of the House to revert to

Notices of Motion? There was a little activity on the floor of the House when

you called that and I missed it. With the indulgence of the House, I ask for

leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

Notices of Motion.

MR. MATTHEWS: I give notice

that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill titled,

An Act To Amend

The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mt. Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's

Act And The St. John's Assessment Act.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: We will resume Petitions.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition signed by some 8,000 Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians whose prayer has been answered. The prayer of the petition says:

We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of

Assembly and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately announce

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will maintain the current

legislative restrictions with respect to the ownership of Fishery Products

International.

Mr. Speaker, this is only a part of the petition, because there are some

3,000 or 4,000 other signatures on this petition, mostly from the FPI

communities, but also some additional petitioners from the area of Valleyfield.

Since the announcement was made on November 5 of the proposed NEOS takeover,

there has been much consultation and discussion about the consequences of such a

takeover and about the 15 per cent rule.

These petitioners are the people whose communities, lives and futures depend

on a very stable fishing enterprise. They say a number of important things in

this petition which it is important - despite the fact that government has

announced its intentions on this particular proposal - to underline. They say

that a debt free Fishery Products International was created with public funding

and as an instrument of public policy. That is a very important point, number

one, that it was a debt free company that was set up, unlike the companies that

went bankrupt or were about to go bankrupt because they were so dependent on

debt. FPI, as a publicly traded company, was dependent upon the equity of the

ownership of the shareholders, which allowed it to be able to ride the

vicissitudes of the market, the ups and downs of the market and prices, and

also, in fact, to ride out the worst thing that has happened in the Newfoundland

fishery in 500 years, the moratorium which was announced in 1992. That was the

strength of the company that was not dependent on debt. The petitioners whose

lives and future are dependent on the fishery underscore this as the first most

important point.

Secondly, approximately 3,000 processing plant workers and 300 deep sea fish

harvesters were employed by FPI, and more than 3,000 inshore fish harvesters

sell their catch to the company. So the size and the extent of FPI is very

important. They also say that the proposed takeover of FPI would result in an

undue concentration of ownership in the fishery.

Problem number one was the undue concentration. Problem number two is that

the concentration of ownership, control and power in the fishery would be

adverse to the interest of all the people of the fishing society and not in the

public interest.

There is a very important difference between the widely held shareholdings of

a publicly traded company where people who own the shares may be mutual fund

managers, may be Members of this House without even knowing it, have an RSP

which has some ownership in some shares of FPI. The only interest of these

shareholders is three things: Should they buy more FPI shares, should they sell

the ones they have, or should they hold on to them? They are not interested in

whether it is fish or whether it is television sets or whatever that FPI

produces. What they are interested in is the value of the shares and that is a

very different point of view than the proposed takeover by people in this

particular NEOS group.

With a 40 per cent ownership by the Nova Scotia interest of the Risley group,

with a 20 per cent ownership by the Icelandic group, and a 40 per cent by the

Barry group, they would bring to that, in addition to ownership, their own

interests as shareholders: a Nova Scotia interest, an Icelandic interest, and an

interest of another company who had their own agenda about FPI's assets. In

fact, they would very likely have been required to sell off, within a year, $90

million worth of those assets. We woul d have seen FPI that

has been built up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, for a minute.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to stand very briefly and

pass a few comments on this petition. Even though it is a little late coming the

member did the right thing by standing up and taking the wishes of his 8,000 or

6,000 people who saw fit to circulate a petition and bring it to the floor of

the House of Assembly.

There is one thing we have to remember, and I suppose it is why people have

embraced Fishery Products International. I remember very well when we had the

restructuring of the fishery back in the early 1980s. It was a situation where

what was happening within the fishing industry of this Province was almost

cruel. There is no way it could continue to exist and be productive in today's

business world. It was a situation where the Province of Newfoundland and

dollars into the restructuring of the fishing industry. While the directors of

Fishery Products International might say that the debt to the Province and to

the federal government has been repaid, they are telling you the truth there

when they say that the debt was repaid. It was a debt that was identified by the

repaid. I can tell you that there are still millions of dollars of taxpayers

money in Fishery Products International

that will never be repaid. It was put there during restructuring. It was not

identified as a debt to be repaid to government, but it was your dollars and my

dollars and the taxpayers' dollars of this Province that saw this

restructuring take place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was your government.

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure it was

a government that I am part of the same party today. It was a good move to make.

While the 15 per cent cap is there and we are saying that it should not be

lifted at this time, we, as a party over here, have said we are not totally

against lifting the 15 per cent cap if there are some commitments left. Other

people have said that the 15 per cent cap must be removed. Why shouldn't we

remove it? There is no such restriction on Voisey's Bay and other companies

that are operating in the fr ee marketplace in this

Province.

I say to people opposite and to people in this House that the fishing

industry cannot be compared to some of those other industries. It is an industry

that we do not control ourselves. The destiny of the fishing industry is being

controlled in Ottawa. While we control processing, we have nothing to do

whatsoever with harvesting, setting the total allowable catch, setting the dates

of seasons for the different species to be harvested, and that is why it is so

different.

The fear people had about this takeover is that 60 per cent ownership would

exist outside the Province. The fears were there. They were not willing to grasp

onto the proposal that was put forward. They were scared because they have come

a long way. They have moved from being down here, Mr. Speaker, not allowed to go

to work at what they normally did, to a point just a little bit higher. They are

moving. A lot of people today are back into the industry. While they are not

working full-time, they are being able to secure enough employment to look after

their families, and that is very important.

I think the government did the right thing. In fact, they probably should

done it a little bit sooner, but I do not blame them for wanting to find out and

to listen to all the proponents and to listen to the concerns of the people

before they made the decision. It was a situation that couldn't continue to go

on much longer. There were a lot of fears out there, a lot of fears in my

communities: Bonavista, Port Union, Catalina, Elliston. A lot of fears that

maybe all the things and how far they have c ome may now

suddenly be unraveled again. Somebody might say: You should be jumping with joy,

there was $20 million worth of construction announced for your district. If it

had been under a different situation we would have been dancing in the streets

in Bonavista and Port Union, because we need the employment, we need the

economic generator down there. The only way it is going to come is through the

fishery. That is the only way you are going to see economic activity in the

communities and towns like Bonavista, Port Union and Catalina.

We can talk about tourism till the cows come home, we can talk about other

manufacturing entities that we would like to identify in the Province, but rural

Newfoundland and Labrador will only survive on the fishery. You will see nothing

else go to most of those communities to employ those numbers of people as the

fishery has done. While the numbers are not nearly as high as they used to be,

and while we see sales in excess of $900 million this year in export value, Mr.

Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - at least we are moving, and we are moving in the right

direction. Hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later and we can see many

of our people get back into this industry again and provide for their families,

rather than have to take the ferry and go to the other side of the pond.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am both pleased and proud today to stand and present a petition of hundreds

of people from the Baie Verte Peninsula. The prayer of the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session convened, the petition

of the undersigned residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula, Newfoundland;

Whereas eleven communities are accessed by Route 414 known as the La Scie

highway; and

Whereas the highway is in deplorable condition, large potholes, ruts and very

bad road bed conditions; and

Whereas this road is used by trucks from the La Scie plant, tourists and

school children commuting by bus, to name a few;

Therefore the undersigned do hereby ask the government to place the La Scie

highway, Route 414, on the roads program and undertake the upgrading and paving

of the said highway.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and present this petition. It was put

together over the last several weeks by the people in the area who got support

from the entire Peninsula, some twenty-one communities. I'm also pleased to

say that the MP for the area, Mr. Gerry Byrne, is in support also of the people

of the area on this particular piece of highway because he knows that area. I

see that the Member for Bay of Islands is nodding his head because he knows the

area too, and he knows the La Scie highway. The minister

himself was down there sometime back in February, I understand, so he also knows

it. Officials in that department indeed have said that it is one of the worst

paved roads in the Province. There is no doubt about it. I do not know the exact

age, but it somewhere around thirty years old, close to twenty-five -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which road is it?

MR. SHELLEY: The La Scie highway. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people have

complained about it for a long time. This is over half of the Peninsula. The

Baie Verte highway has been done under the Roads for Rail program, and I want to

make this point clear. I believed then and I believe now that that particular

road, being a major trunk road that it is for over eleven of the twenty-one

communities on the Peninsula, should have been done when the Baie Verte highway,

route 410, was done under the Roads for Rail Agreement.

We can go back through the history and talk about who was the MP at the time

- of course, our current Premier - and who was the MHA and so on, but we do not

need to do that. We have to look forward, not backward. All we know right now is

that the road is one of the worst in the Province. We have the La Scie highway

which the minister was down -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm

going to correct the minister for his own sake. He drove down the Baie Verte

highway which has just be done under the Roads for Rail when he was minister as

a matter of fact, but the La Scie highway which turns off, which served eleven

communities -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: The minister did not understand the geography of the Baie

Verte Peninsula, but he does now.

Route 414, I say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, the Baie Verte highway, but not the La Scie highway. We

have to make that clear, and make sure we make that point clear today. Route

414, commonly known as the La Scie highway, serves over the half of the

Peninsula, over fifty kilometers. This is a major trunk road. It should have

been done when the Roads for Rail program was done. It was missed. We are not

going to get into reasons of why and who was there and so on. We have to look

forward.

The fact today is that La Scie and that area, and the eleven communities down

that highway, has some very prosperous increasing activity, economic-wise. The

La Scie plant picked up this year in its capacity and the word is, Mr. Speaker,

and we hope it is true, that it will increase again next year. We also have an

increase in tourism and development. In Fleur de Lys and in La Scie are some of

the ones that are going to be some of the most critical sites for the

development of tourism on the Baie Verte Peninsula. There is no bigger a turnoff

- to turn the tourists off, I mean, not the turnoff on the La Scie road - than

to go over a bad highway. A lot of times these tourists turn around and go back.

The La Scie highway is bad. I am glad the minister is in his seat, and he has

driven down there in February, I do believe. That particular road, which is a

major trunk road, certainly is in bad condition. The local MP there has

supported it. I know people from all eleven communities on the highway, but

besides that, from all over the Peninsula, realize that. Besides the fish trucks

and so on going to the plant in La Scie, and the tourists, we also have an

increased number of children on the roads because of educational reform.

I would like to add to that that we have Nugget Pond that comes off that

particular highway, which is one of the lowest cost-effective gold producers in

Canada right now. There is trucking and so on going on because of that. There

are all kinds of reasons that this road is certainly behind when it comes to

being done. We have had to really look forward and not backward, as I said

before. I think this should be on a priority.

I understand there are talks ongoing now - the minister can confirm this -

for maybe a new national transportation initiative, something similar to the

Roads for Rail. It is not quite the same, but there was a transportation

initiative that is ongoing in discussions right now. Mr. Speaker, certainly I'm

sure the minister would agree that the La Scie highway would have to be a

priority under that national roads program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: We really hope, on behalf of the people in this area, the

entire Peninsula, that we will see that road done in the very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and give a few words of support to the petition

put forward by my colleague from Baie Verte. It is a concern not only in the

Baie Verte area - that is the one we are dealing with today - but indeed

throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the road

conditions that we have. This petition is signed by people, as the member put

forward, from twenty-one communities on the Baie Verte Peninsula. It is not an

isolated concern but it indeed involves twenty-one communities.

As the member put forward, it is an area of the Province which has seen a

great increase in the different parts of the fishing industry. Indeed, from a

mining perspective, the Baie Verte Peninsula has been known far and wide for

many, many years as having a great mining industry in that area which creates a

lot of traffic to and fro as, I guess, with any part of Newfoundland and

Labrador at the present time. We heard earlier today in a Ministerial Statement

about the growth in the tourism industry, the amount of traffic and the amount

of motorists we have on our highways due to our evolving tourism industry. There

is no doubt about it; the Baie Verte Peninsula is reaping the rewards of a merge

in the tourism industry also.

We had a couple of agreements that were signed back a few years ago known as

the Regional Trunk Roads Agreement and the Roads for Rail Agreement. As the

member stated, we are in the process now of hopefully signing another agreement

that sees some major infrastructure, road infrastructure, highway

infrastructure, put in place throughout the Province, and indeed have improved

the safety of the people who are on the highway. I guess if there is anything

that is uppermost in all of our minds, as members of the House, and indeed as

members of the general population of the Province, safety if the number one

concern that we all have.

It is great to see that this issue is coming forward today. A few months ago

we heard the minister, and indeed the Premier, say that this year in particular

was one of the greatest and the largest road construction projects that was

ongoing in the Province since Confederation - due to the fact that a fair bit,

about 90 per cent, of the funds that were being utilized were brought to us

under the Regional Trunk Roads Agreement and the Roads for Rail Agreement that

were signed, I would like to say, when the national government was of a

Progressive Conservative stripe. Mr. John Crosbie, who was the minister at the

time, made sure that these great agreements were put in place that see, as I

said earlier, some great road infrastructure put in place throughout the

Province.

I am very pleased to see that MP for the area, Mr. Byrne, is supporting the

petition that is put forward by the MHA. It is a concern not only, as I said,

for those people in that area but indeed throughout all the area; because we

have to be conscious of the fact that we have to put safety first, and in order

to put safety first on our highways we have to improve the highways. Therefore,

that is why I am pleased to stand today and support the petition put forward by

the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

20, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 35)

I believe the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi adjourned debate. I hope he

only has half a minute left.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I do want to say a few words today on the Forestry Act and talk about -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: I was going to do some first readings, and my colleagues here

were talking to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You have to do that; that is something you have to learn real

fast.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to do first reading on Motions 5 through 9,

inclusive, so that we can distribute those bills as soon as they are printed.

These would be: Bill 47, Bill 46, Bill 49, Bill 48 and Bill 51, so that the hon.

gentlemen opposite can have some material to read - up all night.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Judicature Act, carried. (Bill 47)

On motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill,

An Act To Amend The Medical Act, carried. (Bill 46)

On motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce a

bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, carried. (Bill 49)

On motion, Bill 49 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to

introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act,

carried. (Bill 48)

On motion, Bill 48 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to introduce a bill, An

Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities

Act", carried. (Bill 51)

On motion, Bill 51 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Order 20.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to say a few words about Bill 30 now before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Sorry, it is not Bill 30; it is Bill 35.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Government House Leader, who so graciously asked for

leave from the hon. member and the House to interrupt my speech, now accuses me

of losing my place because he so rudely interrupted me with my consent. I must

say that graciousness works both ways. I am sure the next time the hon.

Government House Leader is looking for the same kind of consideration, I am sure

we would be happy to give him the same kind of courtesy and consideration that

he unfailingly gives me. I understand there may be an opportunity tomorrow

morning for the same kind of courtesy.

I am pleased to say a few words about Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Forestry

Act, because it is about one of our more important industries, and one that has

played a significant role in the development of the interior of Newfoundland

starting back to the turn of this century and prior to that, at least in the

sawmill industry in the Corner Brook area of the Province and also in the area

of Gambo, with important sawmill activities.

The large and huge development in this Province in the forest industry has

come with the introduction of the pulp and paper industries, first with the AND

Company in 1909 and then with what has now become Corner Brook Pulp and Paper in

Corner Brook. These important industries play a terrific role in employing

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the forest industry, in the paper mills

themselves, and in their communities.

One feature of the development of our paper mills in this Province has been

very unfortunate, and that feature, aside from some of the working conditions

over the years that have had to be fought against, is that their development of

the communities in which they operated - particularly the Grand Falls-Windsor,

Badger, Central Newfoundland and the Corner Brook area, and other areas of their

timber limits by the Bowaters interest and others that followed them - were very

much a single product industry.

We have taken the forest and regarded the forest as only being fiber and fit

for the making and the manufacture of pulp and paper. What that has resulted in

- it may have resulted in good profits for the shareholders and owners of these

mills and some employment along the way, but what it failed to do, and what

these companies fail to do, was provide an integrated approach in the

development of the forest resources and to diversify into other products.

We have not had the kind of diversity that should have come from the kind of

resource that we have had at our disposal in the forest industry. It is a

diversity that would have spread itself throughout rural Newfoundland - in

particular in the areas such as Green Bay, White Bay - where we have such huge,

vast forest resources and a great deal of need for jobs and employment. We have

instead ended up, in many respects, with a seasonal industry in the logging

camps, supporting a year-round industry in Corner Brook, Stephenville and Grand

Falls-Windsor.

We have to re-examine how all of this came about and what the consequences

are for the current industry. We do see a renewed interest in diversification,

in new product development, in entrepreneurship, in education and knowledge

about marketplace and how they can be serviced from places even with the

transportation problems that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have to re-examine our polices and try and find ways of ensuring that the

forest resources of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are used to maximize

the employment and economic opportunities while maintaining a sustainable forest

industry and a sustainable forest itself with proper policies for reforestation,

silviculture, and sufficient government support for these policies and programs;

as well as expecting the companies, particularly those companies which have

benefitted so handsomely from the forest resource to themselves, to put back

into the forest renewed resource in the form of replanting trees, in the form of

silviculture policies that renew the forest without destroying the biodiversity

that exists in nature and without detracting from other aspects of our

wilderness, our streams, our ponds, our lakes, our wildlife, our bird life, even

our insect life, to the extent that it does not destroy the forest.

What we have seen happening, however, is a policy that has been followed all

over North America, up until recently, that of clear-cutting. Clear-cutting is a

method enforced by this government on people, even against their wishes, when

they know that selective cutting will itself provide for a more proper use of

the forest itself, provide a more sustainable approach to forest harvesting, and

represent a form of respect for nature that is not found in forest policies that

emphasize clear cutting and a monoculture replacement through the silviculture

policies.

We have to examine these policies, examine them and the destructive

tendencies of that policy, because they do have to change. When a logger, a wood

lot owner, or a wood harvester knows that he or she, with their enterprise, can

go into a forest lot and pick the trees that are ready for harvesting, or that

ought to be harvested because they are over mature, selectivity take those out,

use them to their maximum value and let other trees grow to their full

potential, and do that on a continuous and ongoing basis in a management area,

that should be an acceptable approach and policy.

It is ridiculous, it is ludicrous, for this government to tell that person

that he must go in and cut down every single tree; that he must go in and kill

that forest, cut down every tree, flatten it to the ground, regardless of the

consequences. Because that is the policy of this government. That ought not to

be the policy of this government.

I hear laughter on the other side. No, there are not great forests in my

District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. There are houses, though, that are made from

lumber. That lumber comes, and should come, more from the forests of this

Province than it does from being imported from the Province of Quebec, I say to

the Member for Lake Melville. As to the policies of our forests, our urban areas

are affected by our rural areas, our whole society exists in an interdependent

fashion. It is just as legitimate, I say to the Member for Lake Melville, the

Minister of Government Services and Lands, it is just as important for people in

urban parts of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand the interdependence of

the forest and how it works with nature as it is for people in rural

Newfoundland, and perhaps more important.

I have no hesitation in learning about this area and speaking about it from

the basis of knowledge that I learned from the people who I talk to in the

forest industry: loggers, sawmill operators, people who work in the pulp and

paper mills, people who work in the sawmills, who I talk to, who tell me about

their concerns, about their industry. I am quite happy to repeat them in this

House of Assembly in the hopes that we can improve the forest policy.

I saw an

article in the paper the other day where sawmill operators

themselves are seeking improvement to management policies, sawmill operators in

the area of Deer Lake and Cormack, in the District of the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. They are meeting with the minister, expressing

their concern that they are trying to run integrated forest operations and

having difficulty with the policies of this department and of this minister.

We have to change. We have to recognize. I am going to quote from one of the

owners of Welco Ventures Limited in Cormack who says he: can't find any place

where you take saw logs to make newsprint. It is not allowed in other areas, and

it is a lack of clear policy on forest utilization. He says: the rest of the

world has policies that dictate that you shall take saw logs so the paper

companies do not have much choice. Here we do not have that.

There are some historic reasons for that, and there are probably legal

reasons for it as well. Perhaps we ought to find some creative solutions, some

amendments to our laws and our policies, that ensure that when a tree is

harvested, if it is suitable for a saw log, that a saw log is made from it and

that the balance goes into the pulp and paper industry, so we do not see

products that could have a value-added to our economy be used for a single

purpose that has less value. You would think that over t he

last seventy-five years of forest management, forest policies and the pulp and

paper companies' operations in this Province that by now someone would have

realized and have put a stop to the practice of using saw logs to make pulp and

paper.

Surely, the end result of value-added in the forest industry through lumber,

through lumber products, can provide a higher quality of life in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador through the forest industry. We see this government in

a sense allowing the companies to single-mindedly pursue a policy of producing

pulp and paper, and pulp and paper alone, and turning over our forests, our

policies, our regulations to allow that to happen. We want to see some changes.

In addition to seeing clear cutting and the negative effects on the

environment, we also see a policy of supporting by this government, and by the

destructive techniques that they undertake, without really any environmental

assessment of their consequences and effects. We allowed that to happen without

the Department of Environment even having any say. This resulted not only in the

loss of jobs in the forest industry, but also in practices that were destructive

to our environment. This has to be re-examined and the expansion of the use of

harvesting equipment has to be curtailed because we do not want to see our

forests effectively mined. We should not be mining our forests.

It is a renewable resource and we have to do everything we can to ensure that

not only the forest itself is renewed, but also the whole ecosystem, of which

the forest is a part. That involves the forests themselves, the wildlife, the

rivers, streams, lakes and ponds that surround these forests and depend on

proper watershed management for an adequate and clean and clear water in these

lakes and streams and ponds so that fish and other habitats of these lakes and

streams can live, and that they can be enjoyed by the population of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

It is not good enough to say that we do not allow cutting within a hundred

meters of a lake if the rest of the watershed around that lake is bereft of

trees because of a clear cutting policy, so that the only thing you have is a

rim of a hundred yards around a lake with a watershed effectively destroyed.

Because a clear cut cannot retain the water and moisture that it has to do in

order to have a proper stream flow.

We have to examine these policies. We have to do what is being done in other

parts of this country, and in other countries, and look at other means of

sustainable harvesting. We see some of the Aboriginal groups in this country

look at the relationship between the forests and mankind in a way very

different, with a great deal of respect for the environment and nature, such as

we sometimes have left behind in this Province.

We want to see a healthy forest industry but we also have to have healthy

forests. We have to have a healthy ecosystem in order to sustain that industry.

We cannot kill the goose that lays the golden egg, nor can we treat the forests

as if it was a resource that we can take out and, sixty or seventy years later,

have another go at it. There has to be a method whereby we can, on a sustainable

basis, on an ongoing basis perhaps, take out those trees that are ready to be

harvested and try to find ways to do that in a economical way, and use the

technology for that instead of getting bigger and better machines to take out

the forests that are there.

We have seen that happen in the fishing industry. A response to changes in

the size of the fish stocks meant the response was to get bigger boats, to go

farther offshore, to have higher capacity, to make more efficient fish killers

out of our boats, our equipment and our technology. That was the response and it

led to disaster. For the last seven or eight years there have been similar

warnings about our forest industry from the watchdogs of the environment, from

others concerned about forest policy, that we are in danger of having our

forests respond and be decimated in the same way that our fishery has.

It is a very important area of our Province, a very important policy area,

and I hope that this government will undertake a significant review of its

forest management policies with a view to ensuring that integrated sawmills -

such as those in the Cormack and Deer Lake areas who recently met with the

minister - have the opportunity to know that there are clear policies in effect

that are going to ensure some stability in the sawmilling industry and provide

raw material for not only the kind of lumber that is used in building, the kind

of raw lumber that we use from time to time, but also that we have finished

products, that we are doing the kind of value-added work that can make the

forest industry a very significant player in our economy, or more significant

player in our economy, and provide more opportunities for rural communities, for

young people in this Province, and for our educated workforce.

It does take raw material on a sustained basis but it also takes an educated

workforce, knowledgeable in forestry practices, knowledgeable about markets,

knowledgeable about entrepreneurial skills and ability, to raise funding to

undertake new enterprises and new developments, and it takes an enlightened

policy of government to try and make it all happen.

I am speaking in support of the amendments to the Forestry Act which will

provide for more authority for forestry officers to conduct their activity. I

support that, but we also have to re-examine our policies and policy directions

and expect more from this government in terms of managing our forest resources.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKE