May 8, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLV No. 17

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit Strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome six students from Marystown Central

High School in the District of Placentia West. These Level II and Level III

students are on their way to representing Newfoundland and Labrador at the Youth

Links Summit in Kingston, Ontario. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ms

Vivian Rose. Welcome to the House of Assembly and good luck with your trip.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the

District of Terra Nova; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo &

LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Gander; and the hon. the Member

for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to another former

colleague and friend who recently passed away.

Patricia Cowan, Pat as she was known to everyone, was an educator, a

colleague and a friend of many of us here in the House of Assembly. She was a

past President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association - in

fact, the first woman to hold that position - a former MHA and Cabinet Minister,

and is well known to many in this Province. Pat also ensured that the voices of

women throughout the Province were heard in the various roles she held,

especially as a Cabinet Minister.

While many will remember Pat as a colorful politician who worked tirelessly

for the people she represented, she will always be remembered by her students as

a person who gave her life to shaping their education. Whether it was at the

Cabinet table, serving on committees representing children's interests or in

the halls of Confederation Building, Pat was a constant advocate for the young

people of our Province. She was a constant lobbyist for the improvement of our

education system and strived to develop programs that would provide new

opportunities for our students.

Today we mourn her passing, but we know that her life helped shape the lives

of many in this Province. It was a pleasure to have known Pat and to have had

her friendship. On behalf of our caucus, and I am sure this entire House of

Assembly, I want to extend our thoughts and prayers to her son, Alex, and her

family during this difficult time. Pat will certainly be missed.

Thank you.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, with the concurrence of my colleagues, I

realize it is a members' statement, I would like to, on behalf of my

colleagues on this side of the House, join with the hon. member and the Official

Opposition, I am sure all of us, in acknowledging the tremendous contribution

that Ms Cowan made to public life in this Province. I knew her as President of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. I knew her as a

colleagues in the House of Assembly. I knew her as a minister. She certainly

made a tremendous contribution to the public good of Newfoundland and Labrador

and it is sad when a person of her age, I believe sixty-two years old, is struck

down by the ravage disease of cancer which many of us, in our own lives, have

had to deal with. So, it is a tremendous loss to the Province.

On behalf of our colleagues on this side of the House, we want to acknowledge

and pay tribute to her and the efforts that she has made to improve the public

good of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think I can say without fear of

contradiction, Mr. Speaker, that this place is a better place because she was

here.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to join in recognizing the passing of Patricia Cowan. She

had a very successful career as leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'

Association and also an important political career in this House as a member of

government and member of Cabinet. We would like to join with other members in

recognizing her contribution and asking that condolences be sent to her family

on behalf of us all.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak of the tremendous effort shown by the Glovertown

Volunteer Fire Department. On Thursday, May 4, a forest fire broke out in

Glovertown. The fire was mistakenly started by a town's resident who was

burning brush. The fire quickly got out of hand. Within minutes the fire had

engulfed a large area, and had begun moving towards a number of houses.

The local fire department was dispatched and quickly began fighting the

blaze. They were soon joined by the Gambo and Eastport Volunteer Fire

Departments, as well as the staff from Terra Nova National Park, the Department

of Forestry and the RCMP. Shortly after noon, two water bombers and a helicopter

were dispatched from Gander.

The fire reached the property line of two houses and within 100 metres of any

others. Mr. Speaker, if it hadn't been for the speed of the local fire

department and the combined efforts of all those involved, this could have been

a devastating result.

About three or four hours after the fire had begun, it had been brought under

control and no personal property had been lost.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members join with me today to commend all

those who were involved in this event last Thursday, more specifically the fire

departments. Each and every one of us should be appreciative of the work that

the firefighters do in our communities. They certainly deserve our thanks and

praise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a fantastic group of community volunteers. I

am speaking of Chief Glen Hann of the Burgeo Fire Department and their Burnettes.

I had the pleasure of attending their annual ball on Saturday evening and,

along with the Town Mayor, Mr. George Reid, paid tribute to the fire department.

It has been difficult these past few years to keep a full contingent because

many members have to leave town for employment purposes, but those who stay

behind do an admirable job.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make special mention of fireman Calvin Hare, who

received the Fireman of the Year Award. Despite being stricken with cancer and

undergoing extensive treatment for several months, Calvin continued his full

slate of duties with his brigade, and I am pleased to say he is making a steady

recovery.

Mr. Speaker, Volunteer Fire Departments are an essential

part in keeping our

communities safe, and I ask all Members of this House of Assembly to acknowledge

our support for them. Hats off to the Burgeo Fire Department, and may they have

another successful year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize one of Gander's

strongest citizens: Grade 8 student, Mr. Kyle Murray. Kyle is the son of Kathy

and David Murray of Gander who, upon Kyle's birth on March 2, 1992, were

informed that their son had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. The parents

were told that there was a very good likelihood that he might never walk or talk

as a result of his condition, of the complications that were present at birth.

Mr. and Mrs. Murray persevered and worked constantly with Kyle to develop his

strengths. Today, Mr. Speaker, Kyle is an active member in his family's church

and this past January joined the Special Olympics and will be competing in the

shot put, standing long jump, 100m dash and the 400m dash. Kyle most recently

competed in the Knights of Columbus Free Throw Championship, placing second in

his age group, and was the only competitor with special needs.

Kyle is involved with the Boys and Girls Club of Gander, and takes

part in

all activities and fundraisers for the club.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of his hon. House to join me in congratulating

Kyle Murray for his achievements thus far, and wish him well in this summer's

Special Olympics in Mount Pearl.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Exploits Valley High

Grade 12 student Ryan Dean, who recently won the Grand Falls-Windsor Rotary Club

Adventure in Citizenship Speak Off. Seven high school students from the Central

and South Coast regions took

part in this year's event at the Mount Peyton

Hotel.

Mr. Speaker, eighteen-year-old Ryan Dean's winning topic was health care.

For his efforts, he wins a trip to Ottawa for a week-long Adventure in

Citizenship. The Rotary Adventure in Citizenship program, now in its fifty-sixth

consecutive year, was instituted by the Rotary Club of Ottawa in 1951. This

spring, 220 of Canada's outstanding senior high school students will spend

four days in the National Capital in a program designed in developing and being

potential leaders in their communities and in Canadian society.

Ryan Dean and other participants will take

part in presentations at the

National Library Archives of Canada, visit the Canadian Museum of Civilization,

tour the House of Commons and meet with MPs. The group will also engage in group

discussions, meet with Canadian and foreign diplomats, and tour the RCMP

Tactical Training Centre, all of which will be an exciting experience, I am

sure.

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

congratulating Ryan Dean.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members about an

important national campaign, Emergency Preparedness Week, which runs from May

7-13. This week is dedicated to raising awareness among Canadians of the

importance of planning for potential emergencies.

Here in Newfoundland and Labrador our extreme weather is the cause of many of

our emergencies. Our most recent example was the flooding along the Northeast

Coast. Some thirty communities were impacted, with damages estimated in the

millions of dollars. In the community of Middle Arm, more than 200 millimeters

of rain fell, causing severe damage to homes and infrastructure. Then there are

the devastating flooding events that occurred in the Stephenville area last

September and in the Town of Badger in February of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, in our ongoing efforts to prepare for emergencies, this

government is committing substantial resources. As announced in the recent

Budget, $4.7 million will be invested to ensure the Province is prepared to

respond to and manage public health emergencies, including pandemic influenza,

should the need arise. This investment includes funding for three additional

staff and new vehicles in my department's Fire and Emergency Services

Division.

Mr. Speaker, this government takes emergency preparedness and response very

seriously. This is clearly demonstrated by these investments.

I note the recent appointment of a deputy minister for emergency planning.

The deputy minister is tasked with developing a comprehensive approach to

emergency preparedness within the provincial government, as well as making

recommendations on legislative changes, financial and organizational

requirements for more effective emergency preparedness.

While federal, provincial and municipal governments work to ensure they are

prepared when disaster strikes, emergency preparedness begins with the

individual. We must all be prepared. That means keeping an emergency supply kit

in our homes and cars, making a family emergency

plan so that all family members know the proper response, and learning about

past emergency events so that we can be ready if they happen again.

I encourage municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that their

emergency plans are up to date. For those municipalities that do not yet have

emergency plans, I strongly encourage them to start developing plans

immediately.

I also encourage everyone to visit the Emergency Preparedness Week Web site

to learn how to be better prepared in the event of a disaster. The address is www.emergencypreparednessweek.ca.

Knowing the risk you face is the first step to being prepared. It is up to

each of us to learn about and prepare for potential emergencies. Prepare now.

Learn how.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

There is no doubt about it, that emergency preparedness is very important,

and the week from May 7-13 highlights the importance of this again. As the

minister said in his statement, over the last number of years we have

experienced many of these, flood damages and storms in our area, in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think about the one, Gabriel, in St. John's.

Then, of course, there was Stephenville and, as the minister already indicated,

Badger, and then also on the Northeast Avalon.

It is good, in a sense, to see that government is putting more money into

emergency preparedness so that when these things happen we can seriously respond

to them.

I also want to say to the minister, probably many of the larger

municipalities do have their emergency plans in place. I think of September 11,

when the planes were stranded because of the destruction of the World Trade

Centre. The St. John's emergency preparedness plan, and that of the Northeast

Avalon, kicked in, and it was really, really great. I would think that many of

the larger municipalities do have it, but what we do find lacking is that many

of the smaller communities do not have their emergency plan in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. LANGDON: Probably the minister might consider helping the smaller

municipalities, financially or technically, to have plans in place so that when

emergencies do occur then they are prepared for it.

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

MR. R. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This, indeed, is a very serious issue and one that the minister and his

department need to pay attention to, there is no question about that,

particularly with the weather patterns and storms that we have seen in the past

that create havoc for our communities; and, by all measures, Mr. Speaker, they

are predicted to become more common in the future.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to not only have a plan, but that plan

has to be communicated to all residents of the communities. I know, in January,

1982, we were hit with a very serious situation where we had wind chills that

exceeded 130 below. We had lost all power throughout the community -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. R. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. R. COLLINS: We have to get over this one of those days.

Mr. Speaker, there are serious situations that do develop.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity, if I could, to

impress upon the minister the need for a 911 service throughout this Province,

and not just in the major centres. I hope that is something that the minister

will concentrate on over the next year or so.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the great accomplishments of our

artists. I had the pleasure of attending the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts

Council Awards show on Saturday night. I am pleased to report that the 2005 Arts

Achievement Award went to Paul Pope, who has been a dynamic force in the film

industry in Newfoundland and Labrador for well over twenty years. Most recently,

he produced Above and Beyond , a mini-series set in Gander during the

Second World War.

Beni Malone received The Arts in Education Award. Mr. Malone has almost

single-handedly introduced and developed professional clown theatre and circus

skills in physical education classes, particularly in Innu communities along the

Labrador Coast.

This year's Patron of the Arts went to Dave Hopley. As an artist and

through his small business, The Living Planet, Mr. Hopley sponsors a large

variety of arts organizations and has hosted many visiting artists.

Michael Coyne and Ken Livingstone were jointly inducted into the Hall of

Honour for their vision and role in the development of the acclaimed Fine Arts

Program at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College.

Musician, Duanne Andrews, was named Emerging Artist. Mr. Andrew's

self-titled CD - a blend of jazz and folk music - won best instrumental in the

2006 East Coast Music Awards.

Finally, writer Lisa Moore won the Artist of the Year award. Her most recent

novel, Alligator, was short listed for the prestigious 2005 Giller Prize.

During her acceptance speech, Ms Moore spoke for many artists when she said,

if it were not for the support of the Arts Council, she would have had to stop

writing.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council is the key vehicle by which we

support the creative process. Under Creative Newfoundland and Labrador: The

Blueprint for Developing and Investing in Culture , our first cultural

provincial plan, we will double the budget of the Arts Council within three

years, bringing its total budget to $1.8 million.

As a government, we recognize by creating conditions to nurture the growth of

our artists, we are fostering the creative vitality of this Province. By

increasing our support to professional artists, we are not only keeping our

talented artists here but we are providing more opportunities for the next Lisa

Moore or Paul Pope.

I invite all members to join with me in congratulating the recipients of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. We, too, want to

join the minister in congratulating all the recipients of these awards.

Mr. Speaker, I guess if there is one thing in Newfoundland and Labrador that

we are all proud of is our artists. I am sure many of us over the years have

gone to different Christmas concerts and seen our youth perform different arts

and, as the years went by, to grow and foster into artists who are known, not

just across Newfoundland and Labrador, but right across the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we take great pride in our artists, and all members on this side

of the House join the minister and his government in congratulating the

recipients of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Awards.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Arts Council Award on Saturday night showed once again that high

standards of artistic achievement are alive and well in Newfoundland and

Labrador. In fact, we basically had a cultural revolution or cultural

renaissance in the last twenty-five years, and support by the Arts Council

certainly helped that.

People like Paul Pope, Beni Malone, and Lisa Moore, Artists of the Year this

year, obviously have shown the talent that they have and their commitment to

artistic development in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am especially pleased to

see that Michael Coyne and Ken Livingstone were recognized for their fantastic

work in getting the Grenfell College Fine Arts degree up and running and

providing a terrific educational service, not only to Newfoundland and Labrador,

which was done for the last twenty-five years, but also in providing

opportunities for international artists and students who like to learn.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave for a moment, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. HARRIS: So, we are very pleased with that and we are certainly

pleased to see government increase its support for the Arts Council. We do have

a ways to go in per capita funding, Mr. Speaker. Some provinces are way ahead,

but we certainly recognize that the Province's commitment within three years

of $1.8 million funding for the Arts Council is a step forward. Other provinces

have support in the range of $7 to $9 per capita, and we look forward to the day

when artists get that kind of support on a par with other provinces.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier campaigned on a slogan: no more resource giveaways.

We have heard that from the Premier and those opposite for hundreds of times in

the past two-and-a-half years, yet, yesterday we read in the Independent

newspaper, one published here in St. John's, that the Premier is not ruling

out buying fish quotas from Fishery Products International.

I ask the Premier if he sees the irony in his statements, that we are not

going to have anymore resource giveaways because we are going to be buying those

resources back from those who would otherwise rob it and take it elsewhere?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I find the irony in the statement coming from the hon.

member opposite, when, in fact, he knows very well that by buying a quota we

saved the community in the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, how he can disagree with that policy, at the time,

when we were doing it, when we were stepping up for Bellevue, for the member's

district and saving the community of Arnold's Cove, we saved, I believe, over

300 jobs by taking that particular action. Our intention is to make sure that

these quotas are held in Newfoundland and Labrador. We cannot take it for

granted that the federal government will take them back and, basically, pass

them over to us. We cannot allow a situation to happen where FPI takes those

quotas and sells them off to somebody else outside the Province and then

somebody else has control over them. So, we are prepared to entertain all

options. We very flexible on this. We are very open-minded and we are going to

try and find the best solution that we can.

I would ask the hon. gentleman opposite, if we are going to talk about

giveaways, read the Lower Churchill announcement this morning and see if that is

a giveaway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, I happen to believe that you and this government has

more control over those fish quotas than you would lead people to believe

because you just do not want to act.

I ask the Premier: What quotas are you considering buying and where will

these quotas be processed?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier has already indicated and I have

indicated from time to time publicly, that if quota is available for purchase

anywhere in waters adjacent to this Province, or anywhere really in Atlantic

Canada, then we would entertain the possibility of negotiating a purchase of

those quotas. We have not purchased any quotas since we purchased the quota for

Arnold's Cove from National Sea, but we are certainly open to that prospect

and where that such quota, if and when it happens to be purchased, where it

would be processed, that is certainly a far out situation at this moment and one

that is impossible to answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to both the Premier and to the Minister of

Fisheries, I ask them if they see anything morally or fundamentally wrong with

buying quotas from FPI after the rape and the pillage they have caused in this

Province in the past two-and-a-half years?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier states everyday that only the federal government can

control fish quotas and they are saying it again here today. I ask the Premier:

What talks have you or your Deputy Premier had with Minister Hearn, the federal

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, about forcing FPI to leave quotas in towns

like Fortune and Harbour Breton, towns in which these quotas were processed for

the past forty or fifty years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we do not see anything morally wrong with

purchasing a quota from FPI or Murphy's Seafoods or Torngat Co-op or Tom

Rideout or Loyola Hearn or whoever, if the quota is available. I mean we have

purchased quota from National Sea to repatriate it to Newfoundland to create

jobs or sustain jobs in rural Newfoundland, in Arnold's Cove. Was there

anything morally wrong with that, Mr. Speaker?

National Sea was a company that closed down a whole bunch of plants in

Newfoundland over the last number of years, probably just as many as FPI have

historically. So, the question in that sense bears no basis. Now, Mr. Speaker,

where we go from here, if quota becomes available we will have to see and we

will make decisions as we go. Yes, we have had discussions with the Minister of

that those quotas have to say in Newfoundland and Labrador as of right. I mean,

we cannot determine what the answer to that will be but I can tell you that the

minister has said publicly and has indicated to us in meetings that he is very

sympathetic towards that approach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Deputy Premier, you are probably the only one in this Province,

you and the Premier, who sees nothing morally wrong about buying fish quotas

from FPI. You just admitted that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - you have not had a discussion with the minister about forcing

FPI to leave its quota in Harbour Breton or leave its quota in Fortune, so why

are you in such a rush to go out and purchase quota from FPI when you have not

received that response yet?

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from the Deputy Premier in recent months

about the hardball approach that he has towards FPI -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the leader to continue with his question.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Transportation and Works can call me a hypocrite all he

likes, and maybe you can rule, after, if that is parliamentary or not, but, Mr.

Speaker, we have heard a lot from the Deputy Premier in recent months about his

hardball approach to FPI. Not only has he said that FPI will be charged for

illegally exporting fish from this Province, but he has also said he is prepared

to amend the FPI Act to force that company to cross-subsidize its ailing

groundfish sector. To date, what has happened? Absolutely nothing. That is what

they have done about FPI to this date.

On Saturday, the Deputy Premier said that his government has no intention of

allowing FPI to walk away from towns, and the responsibility to towns, like

Harbour Breton and Fortune. Can the Deputy Minister, today, enlighten us as to

what he proposes to force FPI to do for these towns?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition tries to suck

and blow at the same time. Well, it cannot happen, Mr. Speaker. It just cannot

happen. You are either in favour of us repatriating quota from a national sea to

sustain a community in rural Newfoundland, in Arnold's Cove, or you are not.

You are either -

MS THISTLE: That's crude.

MR. RIDEOUT: What is crude? What is wrong with the hon. member, Mr.

Speaker? Was she weaned on a pickle this afternoon or what?

MS THISTLE: Your choice of language is crude.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, it is all right for the Opposition to get up and say

what they like, Mr. Speaker, but, for us to reply, there is something wrong with

it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we have made it abundantly clear that we are

not prepared to allow FPI - without consequences - to walk away from Fortune and

walk away from Harbour Breton.

We have put options in front of FPI in terms of those communities, and we

expect them to respond to it. If they do not respond in a way that we are

satisfied, then we will keep at it, Mr. Speaker.

Will we win at the end of the day? I do not know, but I know this, Mr.

Speaker: We are not going to give up without trying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: No, you are not prepared to let them walk away. You

are prepared to pay them money to keep the quotas in those towns, I say to the

minister. You should be ashamed to say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on another issue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all members for their co-operation.

For Question Period, the time allocated is limited.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, many harvesters in this Province have already landed their crab

quotas and now would like to start harvesting shrimp. The problem that they are

running into is that they cannot find a processor, or most of them cannot find a

processor, who wants to purchase that shrimp.

Can the minister tell these harvesters if they should simply tie up their

boats or take off their shrimp gear and turn to other fisheries, like the turbot

fishery, or what can they do? Can you enlighten those individuals what they

should be doing when they are sitting at home today wondering if they should go

on the water after shrimp?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that people out there are

shaking their head at the Leader of the Opposition and this particular

Opposition. I hear from harvesters every day in this Province, and not one of

them have asked me that kind of question.

I have said, and this government has said, from day one, we cannot force

processors to buy and process; we cannot force harvesters to fish. It is just

impossible for us to do that. What we committed to, and what we did, was to put

a legislative framework in place which set a price before those fisheries

opened.

Now, that price cannot be determined by this Legislature, or this minister,

or this government. So, the framework is there, the price is there. If it is not

economical to fish, then harvesters are quite in a good position to make their

own decisions. If processors cannot process at that price, they are in a

position to make those decisions. Those decisions are not and should not be the

prerogative of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Premier and the Minister of

Natural Resources announced that Newfoundland and Labrador would take the lead

on any potential lower Churchill project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I ask the Premier: Is government planning to fund this

project and, if so, where will this funding come from?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if he could repeat his question?

MR. PARSONS: Perhaps if the hon. members opposite could be quite, the

Premier would indeed hear the question.

I ask the Premier: Is government planning to fund this development and, if

so, where will the funding come from?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of the announcement today was to indicate that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are

going to do this project themselves. It is a first for the Province. We have

never been in a position to do it before. We never had the fiscal capacity to do

it before. There was never a will by a government, I don't think, to do it

before, and it is something that we are very proud of, so I can understand the

exuberance of the Members of the House of Assembly today because this is an

historic moment.

As a matter of fact, I did make a call to the Leader of the Liberal Party

this morning to inform him of this particular occasion, and invited him to be

there. He was unable to do so.

Having said that, we are well away from the actual financing arrangements. As

you do know, the federal government has indicated that they would be providing a

guarantee in this particular matter. We are leaving our options open on this. We

may look at inviting some equity partners. We have had some great proposals as a

result of the Expressions of Interest that were put out there. We had some

twenty-five-odd proposals that came into us. We are entertaining some of those,

but the big message here is that we are masters of our own destiny, that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are in control of this project for the benefit

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In his press release, the Premier stated that the Province will take the lead

in developing this project. I ask the Premier: If the Province is taking the

lead, does this mean government is not willing to enter into a joint venture

with any other companies, provinces, or the federal government in developing the

project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No, I think it was clearly indicated at the press

conference this morning that, you know, any people who have an interest in being

involved in the project, whether they happen to be customers, whether they

happen to be financiers, whether they happen to be contractors, they could all

be involved, or any of them could be involved, at any point in time.

By taking the lead we are in full control of the project, unlike the

circumstance with the last government; that project, basically, was going to be

controlled by Quebec. It would have been marketed, it would have been financed,

the transmission would have been done by Quebec. The control of the project, the

project management, would have been done by Quebec. As well, if there had been

an overrun on the project, the last Lower Churchill project that was proposed by

the Grimes government, in fact, we could have lost the project; because, if

there had been an overrun, we would not have been in a position to be able to

finance it.

This is a completely different situation. We now are basically inviting

people who want to bring their expertise, but the biggest thing is that we are

in charge of it. We are in the driver's seat here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, rather than just pass the project over to an

Ontario, Quebec consortium, or any other consortium, and say, well, that is

fine, take our project, take our river, take our power, do with it what you

want, and give us a small cheque at the end of the day, we will be saying what

the cheque is going to be. We will be determining what the profits are going to

be, and that is going to go into the Treasury of the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been much discussion about whether the federal government would

participate in the project because of the benefits it might contribute to the

Kyoto Protocol. We know that the Harper government is not committed to

environmentally-friendly projects.

I ask the Premier, and you made reference to the federal government being

prepared to guarantee the project: Has the federal government officially offered

to participate in the project and, if by way of a guarantee, have there been

discussions about how much of a guarantee or the full amount?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I think it is an unfair comment, Mr. Speaker, to say

that the Harper government, the federal government, is not prepared to engage in

any environmentally-friendly projects. There is nothing further from the truth,

so that is an unfortunate statement.

With regard to this government's practice of writing leaders of federal

parties and asking for their positions, that has worked very well for this

Province. We did the same thing during the last election - we wrote the leaders

of all parties - and, as a result of that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - we already had the announcement on the Gander weather

forecasting, which was a huge announcement for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: In the letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister, he

replied: We support the proposal in principle and believe that it is important

to Newfoundland and Labrador to have a greater control of its energy. As well, a

very important statement was made by him when he was in St. John's on December

6, and that was to CBC. He said: I talked to Premier Williams a number of times

on this. I have always been clear. I think he is looking for the federal

government to play some kind of role in the way of a loan guarantee. I said: We

are certainly prepared to do that. That is pretty straight and unequivocal, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past several years, one of the most significant problems in

developing the Lower Churchill has been securing a long-term buyer for the

power. Without a twenty-five year power purchase agreement in place, the banks

would not consider giving this Province a loan.

I ask the Premier: Has the Province secured a long-term customer for the

power? If not, have you indeed had discussions with financial institutions to

determine if they will agree to provide the funding up front?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the least of our worries on this project

is to find someone to buy that power. There is absolutely no doubt about it,

there is a huge demand for power, not only in our country but also in the United

States. Ontario is crying out for power. They are looking at going back to

nuclear; that is a controversial issue. They are looking to buy power from

Manitoba. Quebec has announced a new energy plan. They are going to need more

power in ten years time. Having a long-term contract, we can find it right here

in Canada, or otherwise, if we have to, we can look to the US. We would prefer

that this be a Canadian project and that is where we would be looking.

An interesting piece of information, just for members of the House of

Assembly: Quebec buys power from us for one-quarter of one cent. The power that

they were able to sell on the export market, on the stock market, which is the

cream, which is what we want to make sure we secure, they are selling for twelve

point four cents. They are basically making fifty times profit on what we sell

that power to them for. They buy it for a quarter of one cent and they sell it

for twelve and a half cents. We want to get that return on our Lower Churchill

power. That is what we are doing

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it is quite obvious then that we don't have a long-term customer

for the power at this time.

Mr. Speaker, Quebec recently announced a significant energy plan for their

province that would increase their energy capacity. The Premier confirmed this

morning that government is still working with Hydro-Qu bec

Trans nergie

to determine whether power could be shipped through Qu bec

with their transmission capacity.

I ask the Premier: Would this be the only role Hydro-Qu bec

would serve in this project? Have you received a guarantee, in light of Qu bec's

new energy plan, that transmission capacity would be available. and what are the

implications if the capacity is not available?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of this announcement

today, I spoke last night with the Prime Minister to indicate to him that this

was proceeding and exactly what we were doing. I spoke to the Premier of

Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, to indicate that we were proceeding on a go-alone

basis but that we would certainly be prepared to entertain the Province of

Ontario as a customer. I spoke to the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, and

talked to him about what our plans were. We discussed briefly his energy

proposals, which were released just last Friday. He indicated to us that they

had gone ahead with their energy plans on the basis that - they assumed that we

were probably going to do the Lower Churchill project on our own.

With regard to the transmission of power and how the power is going to be

wielded, we took a unique approach and a smart approach, quite frankly. We made

an application to Trans-Energy so that we would be able to wield that power

through Quebec. If, in fact, we do not sell any power to Quebec, well then we

would have the right under the FERC rules, basically, to transmit and to

transport power through Quebec. That is a right which is there. They are allowed

to wield into the States, therefore we should be allowed to wield through

Quebec, and we do not expect to have a contrary ruling on that.

In answer to your question; if we do not sell power to Quebec we would still

use their facilities. If there is a need for upgraded facilities, they would be

upgraded and we would pay a tariff for doing that; no different than anybody who

uses the poles in the city to provide cable services or anything else. I have

been there before, I know what it is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Premier says the Province will take the lead on this project, there

has been very little mention of whether or not a transmission line would run to

the Province.

I ask the Premier: Is government evaluating this option to encourage industry

to locate in the Province and lower electricity rates paid by consumers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, that is something we are

seriously considering. We are looking at a feed, and we are not calling it an

in-feed because it can be a feed in and it can be a feed out. Where you have to

look to the future, we are looking out even to 2041. There may be a situation

where we have surplus power as a result of the projects. We could have extra

power on the Island through wind, through gas, for example. If we convert gas to

wire there could be excess power. In fact, if there is a feed in, it is also a

feed out that we could use to supply power to other provinces or to the

Northeastern United States. As well, a very, very important component of this is

power in Labrador, and that is why our minister, who is not back -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - the Minister of Natural Resources has not returned

yet. He was in Labrador this morning, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, with MHA John

Hickey to assure the people of Labrador that we are looking out for their

interests. We want to make sure that there is a block of power available in

Labrador for development in Labrador. As well, when Labrador's needs are

filled, then we will also look at making power available to the Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there was mention this morning in the press conference, by the

Premier, that there would of course be an Impact and Benefits Agreement with the

Innu. There was no mention of the Metis. I wonder if the Premier could comment

on whether or not he anticipates there will indeed be an Impact and Benefits

Agreement with the Metis in Labrador in respect to this project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, right now, I guess, it is a question of

who is in the line up first. We are now dealing with the Innu people. I had

spoken to Ben Michel last night and indicated to Ben that we are prepared to sit

down, whenever he wants, to start to negotiate the land agreement, which he is

prepared to do. Mr. Montague was at the news conference this morning. I

understand that he had a conversation with Minister Byrne. So, as well, there

has been a conversation taking place with the Metis as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question is for the Minister of Justice.

Last year government fired the Board of Directors of the College of the North

Atlantic, including the President, for no apparent cause. As a matter of fact,

the former President has now launched a wrongful dismissal suit against the

government. At the time, the former Education Minister stated that an RCMP

investigation would be launched and expanded into allegations that the former

President accepted monetary gifts. On Friday, the RCMP stated that no such

investigation had taken place and that an investigation was not warranted. Could

the minister advise whether an investigation ever was or was not initiated, as

the minister had said earlier?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the matter is

referred to the RCMP for an investigation. It is also my understanding that the

notice to which the hon. member gave reference was an indication that the RCMP

were reviewing the matter and were considering whether or not an investigation

would follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Minister, a couple of weeks ago the Liberal caucus was in Stephenville and

met with the flood victims Concerned Citizens Committee. We have since been in

contact with them several times and they are telling us that they are having

trouble getting a copy of a report which had been related to the flood.

I ask the minister: Will he commit now to seeing that these flood victims

have complete access to a government report related to the flood?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, since September 27 I have been in Stephenville, I think, seven

times, as has the Premier been in a number of times and the Minister of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment. As recently as the Sunday before last, I had a

meeting with twenty-four of the individuals who were looking for a report. That

report, that has been referred to, is an environmental study done for the Town

of Stephenville, actually. It has not been done for the government. We have gone

way beyond with respect to the compensation that we are offering those people in

Stephenville; in particular, the people outside the flood. If we had not gone

and gotten an extra $8 million to relocate 103 families within the boundaries of

the flood control area, Mr. Speaker, those individuals outside the flood control

area, those twenty-three families, would not have any assistance at all because

they do not fall under the federal program.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention as well that

government is demanding that 100 per cent of this group of concerned citizens,

who live outside of the arbitrarily drawn line, would have to move from their

present location before government would be prepared to build new homes for them

elsewhere and compensate for their move. I ask the minister if that is, indeed,

the case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First, Mr. Speaker, it is not an arbitrarily drawn line. It is a line that

was done by the engineering firm for the Town of Stephenville based on surveying

practices in the field and measuring the high water mark, where the water rose.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to those twenty-three families outside the flood

control area, those families had damage because of the failure of the

infrastructure, the pipes in the ground. What we have offered to those

individuals is that we would be prepared to consider relocating those families

also if the cost to repair equalled or was greater than the cost to relocate,

but everyone would have to move, Mr. Speaker. We are not prepared to put

$400,000 or $500,000 worth of pipe in the ground for four or five families.

Mr. Speaker, again, I can only say that we have gone way beyond any other

program that we had in the past in Newfoundland and Labrador for flooding, or

any disasters when it comes to the financial package. The Mayor of Stephenville

was on this morning, on an open line show, and he made the comment that we have

provided everything that they have asked for from the town's perspective, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, concerning the announcement this morning

about the Lower Churchill. I have to say that the announcement of going it alone

is certainly compatible with our vision for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - that we enunciated during the campaign to stop the

privatization of Hydro in the 1990s and wanted it to be an engine of economic

growth and development for the Province.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, given the Lower Churchill Development Act,

which provides for a 49 per cent interest in the development of the Lower

appendices: Can the Premier indicate what role this legislation might play in

this development, and is this something that we have to contend with as a

Province in order to develop the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a good question.

In the quote that I mentioned before from Prime Minister Harper, when he was

here on December 6 and he made reference to the fact that they were prepared to

do the guarantee. He also went on to say that we obviously have had only

preliminary discussions on how it would be structured, but the truth is that

there has been legislation in place, both federally and provincially, for over

thirty years now setting up a joint corporation, allowing for the federal

government to get involved in this. His statement here is interesting as well,

actually: I think we owe it to Newfoundland and Labrador, because of what

happened with the Upper Churchill, to help. So, obviously, the federal

government are very clearly on side.

In answer to your question, the corporation was incorporated in December of

1978. Right now, it is a shell corporation. It is not active; it holds its

annual meeting. It is 51 per cent controlled by the provincial government, 49

per cent by the federal government. It has an option to exercise, to use the

water rights; so, it is an option that corporation can exercise if the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wanted that corporation to be the

vehicle. So, if the Prime Minister saw that corporation as a possible vehicle to

provide a guarantee, and it could be useful to us, we would use it, but it would

not create any equity ownership - unless there was some proposal whereby they

wanted to fund part of it directly, we may consider it. It is a shell company

that was to be used as a vehicle to help funding.

I understand over the years, and I am not clear on this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking members to keep their comments to sixty seconds.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second question has to do with the cost of power produced. The

Hydro-Quebec announcement last Friday said they would produce power for about

eight to ten cents per kilowatt hour when they get into production.

Are these the kind of numbers that this government is looking at - because

that is obviously higher than the domestic rate right now here in Newfoundland

and Labrador, and certainly higher than any industrial rate - or do we have any

estimate of what the cost of power might be with the stand-alone Newfoundland

development of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it would be early in the development, in

the project, to pin down exactly what that rate is, but I can certainly give the

hon. member opposite the assurance that it would be significantly less than the

number that has been presented by Hydro-Quebec.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing.

Mr. Speaker, the Residential Energy Efficient Program has been in limbo now

for a number of months. A message had been posted on Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation's Web site saying that the program had been slightly

delayed for over two months, and today we hear through the media that the

program is cancelled.

I ask the minister responsible for the Housing Corporation if he has been

informed that this is indeed the case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We did receive a call from the federal government - Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing did - saying that their program would be cancelled. This is regrettable.

The program that the Province had put forward was to partner with the federal

program, so it is certainly regrettable that the federal program is cancelled.

The provincial program, however, Mr. Speaker, we intend to continue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

During Question Period today there was a comment made by the hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works, which the Speaker heard, referring to the

Opposition Leader as a hypocrite. The member will know that word is deemed to be

unparliamentary and, in the context in which it was spoken, I ask the minister

if he would stand and withdraw that comment?

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the comment.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Justice has been making some statements about a conversation

which he had with myself. I am pleased to see that he has confirmed that it was,

indeed, himself who made the call to me and not, as the Premier said, that I had

approached the minister, and this is not the first time that he has discussed

departmental business and personnel with me. I appreciate the fact that the

minister must, of course, support the Premier's version. Otherwise, he might

be Fabian Manning II.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Instead of cherry-picking from the conversation, would the

Minister of Justice like to come out and tell the public and the media which

judge it was he called me about, to chat about, and the details of the

conversation?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order. I mean, a point

of order has something to do with -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, maybe the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair

might be right, but that remains to be seen. That was not what was raised here.

What was raised here by the hon. Opposition House Leader is a point of order.

A point of order, as Your Honour well knows, and as all members know, has to

do with an alleged breach of the rules of the House. There is no breach of the

rules of this House, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever, so therefore there is no

point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice and

Attorney General, speaking to the point of order.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I phoned the hon. Member for Burgeo &

LaPoile, who was not home at the time I called. He called me in Corner Brook the

following day and I discussed with him the new models of court administration

that had been put out by the Canadian Judicial Council, and I discussed with him

the fact that judges were aggressively advancing one of the new models of

administration set out in that report.

I talked to the hon. member about when he was Minister of Justice and how he

dealt with correspondence and communications from the Chief Justice of the Trial

Division of the Supreme Court on these issues.

That was the purpose of our conversation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, speaking to the point

of order.

MR. PARSONS: A new point of order, and clarification of what the minister

said.

I absolutely refute his comment that he just made. He did not call me to talk

about the court structure from the federal court. The issue of the federal court

came up because I raised it with him, and asked about the three federal family

courts that were intended to be coming to this Province, because I had intended

to apply for a federal court position on the bench.

The minister called me to discuss a specific judge, and had some very

specific questions about that individual. I am not prepared to release the

details of the conversation, but if he wants to start telling stories and

cherry-picking he should get into the full details because I do not intend to be

maligned by him or anyone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will know that a point of order is a question raised by a member who

believes the rules or customary proceedings of the House have been incorrectly

applied or overlooked during the proceedings. Members may rise on points of

order to bring to the attention of the Chair any beach of the relevance or

repetition rules, unparliamentary remarks, or lack of quorum.

It has been ruled on many occasions that matters which arise outside the

House cannot be raised in the House on points of order - the proceedings of the

House would not be affected by it - nor can they be raised as points of

privilege. Therefore, the Chair rules there is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Support

Orders, Bill 27.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a

bill,

An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, Bill 28.

I give notice as well, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister

of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And

Compensation Act, Bill 22

I further give notice, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that

tomorrow, Tuesday, the House not rise at 5:30 or at 10:00 o'clock tomorrow

evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 63, Subsection 3, that the Private

Member's Motion which is an Opposition motion for this coming Wednesday, on

Private Members' Day, is to be put forth at this time by the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to read into the record the following Private Member's Motion

that will be debated on Wednesday of this week and brought forward by the

Opposition.

WHEREAS this Province as an energy producer has benefitted because of

increased offshore oil revenue;

WHEREAS the people of this Province are forced to pay some of the highest

fuel prices in North America and are suffering because of these high fuel

prices;

WHEREAS many people on fixed incomes are unable to afford to heat their

homes;

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is applying for another increase in

electricity rates;

WHEREAS the trucking industry in this Province is suffering because of high

fuel prices;

WHEREAS the Province's tourism industry is being negatively impacted by

high fuel prices;

WHEREAS concerns are being raised about the inadequacies of public

transportation in this Province;

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

government to develop and implement a plan to deal with the impact of high fuel

prices and high energy taxes in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand again today on a petition concerning the Wild Cove dump in the Corner

Brook area. I have a petition today from the residents of the towns of Irishtown

and Summerside and some from the Town of McIvers.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a very serious issue for the north shore of

the Bay of Islands especially in light of the comments of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs who stood up in this House and said I didn't know what I was

talking about with gulls over on the north shore. The Minister of Municipal

Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Conservation have been invited to

meet with all the town councils on the north shore and, to date, there has been

no response given. If both ministers want to go over and tell the seven mayors

and the mayor from the council of Massey Drive and the residents from Mount

Moriah that there are no dead gulls on the road, that there is no dumping on the

sides of the roads going up to the dump site - I would say to all the members

opposite, they should go out and meet with their residents. This is a very

serious issue, a very serious issue. There was a commitment made to have this

dump site closed down. There was a commitment made that there would be a

regional disposal site, and I gave the minister full courtesy when I met with

you - I gave him the same details that you told me, the same details that I told

them, exactly what I told them, that if the minister got a regional disposal

site area, he should come out and explain the concept to the mayors. This is

what I am saying. So, if you want to stand up and say that -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Yes, you did.

MR. J. BYRNE: What are they saying now?

MR. JOYCE: They are still waiting for a date. And the Minister of

Environment, they are still waiting for a date. If there is a concept of a

regional disposal site, come out and explain it to them. Explain to them why the

plan of a regional disposal site is not going to go ahead; explain it to them.

The other concern that they have - just say the minister is correct, just say

he is correct. What are you going to do with the traffic concern with the slow

trucks going up the side of the road? That is a major traffic concern with the

heavy trucks going in and out. That is a major traffic concern for the area. So,

it is just not if you can clean up the dump site and get rid of the gulls, get

rid of the garbage on the side of the road, there are other issues.

I gave both ministers the opportunity to stand up, and I was fair to

everybody here, but for the minister to say that I do not know what I am talking

about, that there are no dead gulls over there, it is absolutely false,

minister. I just cannot stand and be representing seven communities on the north

shore, a community on the south shore, Massey Drive - the Member for Humber

East, I am sure, has heard it. I am not sure if he believes everything he hears

sometimes, by the way he puts on, but, anyway, I have to say, I am asking: Will

you please go out and meet these residents, set a date so we can meet with these

residents and get this matter resolved one way or the other? They deserve the

meeting. They deserve the information being put forth. Mr. Speaker, I ask the

ministers, that as soon as possible, if they would make arrangements for this

meeting so that we can get this ball rolling?

Thank you very much.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure at this time to rise and present a petition on

behalf of the residents and the students of Rose Blanche, Harbour Le Cou and

Diamond Cove, in the District of Burgeo & La Poile, which I represent.

This petition, Mr. Speaker, concerns the possible closure of St. Michael's

Elementary School in the community of Rose Blanche. It is about thirty-two years

of age and the Western School Board have given notice that it may have to close

this school, but it has not given any particular reason at this point, whether

it be for declining enrollments or whether it be because of the physical stature

of the building, whether it needs repairs and so on. They are basically

proposing, I guess for the sake of economies of scale, of integrating the

elementary school kids in Rose Blanche and busing them up the road about

seventeen, eighteen kilometres to Grandy's River. This, of course, is very

disconcerting to the parents and to the students, given their ages. They are

only Kindergarten to Grade 6. In fact, this move was tried earlier with the

older students in the community and it has not been working out particularly

well for a number of reasons, the travel conditions and the road conditions and

so on in the wintertime.

So, I give praise to the school board, at this point, in saying that they

have not made a decision without consulting. They at least have looked at it and

said it is a possibility. We are going to have a meeting on May 18 to consider

where we go from here and make a motion accordingly. Of course, I will be in

attendance at that meeting, along with the parents, and we look forward to

meeting with Dr. Elliott and representatives of the school board so that the

parents of those areas can make their case known and they do - this is not an

irrational group of parents, of course. These people are very well thought out

in their arguments and they will present these arguments to the school board. We

feel confident that once the meeting is over, any consideration of closing St.

Michael's Elementary School will only be an afterthought and nothing more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in the District of

Grand Bank, particularly those associated with the fish plant in Fortune and the

fact that the plant has closed now. They are hopeful, of course, that something

else will transpire there and there will be employment opportunities for them.

But, of course, what they are hearing is that any interest right now being

expressed by an outside party, now that FPI has decided that it is no longer

interested in Fortune or the people who work there, they are hoping now that any

other interested party would be able to take that plant and run with it and

employ the same numbers of people who have been employed there traditionally.

Of course, what we are hearing from one interested party, in particular the

Cooke Aquaculture Group, is that in order for them to even make things happen at

Fortune - and I have to say, I was surprised when I heard that Cooke Aquaculture

is looking at other sites in the Province and not necessarily committed to

Fortune, that did raise some concerns by me. When I saw that, I thought it would

be an opportune time for the government to ensure that there was a quota of fish

provided for Cooke Aquaculture if that would be what it would take to entice

that particular company to Fortune so that things could start happening there in

under two years. What Cooke Aquaculture has been saying is that if, in fact,

they go into Fortune, it will be about two years before we will see any

significant activity there that will see employment for the people who

traditionally work there.

Mr. Speaker, actually, we had people from nine communities working at the

fish plant in Fortune. So it is not just Fortune that is being impacted by the

uncaring attitude and position taken by FPI, you have several other communities.

When you take people out of a community like Lord's Cove and look at people

who traditionally worked at the fish plant or even fished for the product that

was supplied to an FPI plant and now there is nothing for them, that has a

serious economic impact and social impact on those small communities.

What the petition is calling on is for government to acknowledge and respect

the importance of the fishing industry to the area and to take whatever action

necessary to ensure that the quotas traditionally processed by Fishery Products

International for this area remain within the region for the benefit of the

people and their communities. Hundreds and hundreds of people on the Burin

Peninsula have signed this petition, and not just those who worked at the plant.

Mr. Speaker, I say again, if you have

an act of the Legislature, the FPI Act,

that in fact gives the government some authority over that particular company,

then it also has some control over the assets of that company. Therefore, since

quotas are assets, then why would it not make sense for this government to act,

using the authority it has, to ensure that those quotas remain in the areas in

which they were traditionally processed? That is all we are asking this

government to do. With an acknowledgment that the federal Minister of Fisheries

has said that fish are a common resource owned by the people, not owned by a

company, so why then working together, cannot the provincial government and the

federal government ensure that the quota remain in Fortune to be harvested and

processed by the people in Fortune?

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to petition this government on behalf of the people of Buchans

and Central Newfoundland surrounding area. Here we are late into the spring and

still no word from this provincial government as to any commitment to upgrading

the road on the Buchans Highway.

The Minister of Transportation and Works said in this House, himself, that he

has never been over the Buchans Highway. If he wants to go, I can personally

drive him over the Buchans Highway. It is actually 100 kilometres off the

Trans-Canada from Badger. It is the lifeline for everybody living in Millertown,

Buchans Junction and Buchans. I am sure the former Transportation and Works

Minister knows, because he did squeak out $300,000 last year to repair the edges

of the pavement, but there is nothing from the new minister this year. I was in

a meeting on Saturday with the Badger Town Council and they support my quest to

petition government to upgrade the Buchans Highway.

We have recently learned that the new mine, Aur Resources, their first plan

was to move the shipment of ore through the country on the Abitibi roads to St.

George's. We have now learned that the ore now will be transported directly

over the Buchans Highway and on to the Trans-Canada Highway going west to St.

George's. That is going to take its toll again on the Buchans Highway, as well

as the Trans-Canada Highway.

Bearing all of these facts in mind, I do not understand; there is absolutely

no rationale. The Transportation and Works Minister is looking like he is not up

to the job. He is looking like he is not up to the job. The facts have been laid

on the table. I have given them myself, and people from the community and all of

the surrounding area have said the same things as I am saying. If you are trying

to generate a new economy in Central Newfoundland, and indeed our Province, it

only makes sense - it only makes sense - for this government to upgrade the

Buchans Highway. There is no good reason why they would not do it. They have the

money to do it.

I am hearing now that there is going to be a conference of Premiers coming to

Newfoundland and Labrador this summer and they are going to use over $1 million

to transport Premiers and their entourage, officials, from St. John's to

Corner Brook, to take in dual activities in two cities in our Province, and

still there is no money allotted for the upgrades to the Buchans Highway. Now,

that is a decision that this government needs to take. Where are their

priorities? This government sees no priorities in upgrading the Buchans Highway;

yet, it is going to generate millions and millions and millions of dollars for

the public purse.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have more time tomorrow, I am sure.

Thank you.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition presented to me by the residents of my

District of Carbonear Harbour-Grace, and this particular petition states that

we, the undersigned residents:

WHEREAS conditions on Route 70 passing through Victoria and Salmon Cove is in

bad need of repair; and

WHEREAS the traffic travelling over this road includes school buses,

commercial trucks, ambulances and patients going to hospitals through private

means; and

WHEREAS this route is part of the Conception Bay North Highway and it has

deteriorated over the past number of years;

WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon all Members of the

House of Assembly to see that this

section of road is brought up to proper

standards;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this particular road is deteriorating on a rapid basis. Again,

this past weekend, I was in that part of my district and there were more ruts

than the week before. With the number of crab trucks, trucks transporting crab

out of the area from the fish plants in the neighbouring district, the hammering

that the road is getting is just not good enough for what is happening to us

right now.

The kids going to school in the mornings, the parents are now afraid to take

them on the school buses because of the treacherous conditions that the roads

are in. There are ruts there, in some instances, seven and eight inches deep on

that particular road.

The pitting of the asphalt, the asphalt is coming loose that was put in there

last fall as a temporary measure. That particular pitting is causing further

damage, causing damage to vehicles that are travelling over it, not just from my

district but from the adjoining districts.

Mr. Speaker, this

section of road, I think the importance of it is, it is

Route 70; it is part of the Conception Bay North Highway that connects Victoria

to Salmon Cove, but it also takes on down through the neighbouring District of

Trinity-Bay de Verde. People are travelling that every day to commute back and

forth to work. With the crab plant open now in Old Perlican - I am trying to

remember where the other fish plant was down there - the two fish plants down in

that particular section, there are well over 100 workers from my district

travelling down there on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I get calls every day regarding the condition of this particular

highway. I ask the government once again that they would take the time to even

send somebody down there to have a look at it and see what kind of repairs could

be done, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. Surely, with the tourism

season, the trucking season, the number of people who are travelling there just

for work, Mr. Speaker, they have a right to drive over decent road conditions.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask this hon. House to listen to the undersigned

residents and to take some action in doing something about this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 9, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Buildings

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8,

An Act To Amend The

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Buildings

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

in December of 1981, and after twenty years it was felt that we needed a

Government undertook a consultation process to seek public input on the

report and its recommendations. Some of the board's recommendations will be

incorporated into the Act and the associate regulations, and will help improve

Some of the changes to the Act are ensuring that the voluntary upgrades to

individuals other than building owners to appeal in inspector's order;

improving accountability by requiring the director's decision to be given in

writing and having time limits for the hearing of appeals; increasing fines for

non-compliance to further discourage people from ignoring the law.

Changes to the regulations will include: ensuring that primary employees'

entrances are accessible in addition to a main public entrance of a building if

they are different; increasing the number of disabled parking spaces and

accessible public telephones; increasing the number of spaces in public areas

for wheelchair use and increasing the number of barrier free public washrooms.

There are, however, a number of recommendations that we feel could have a

significant impact on some of the sectors of the economy, and for that reason we

are going to have some specific discussions with the business community, the

construction industry and representatives of persons with disabilities. We

anticipate to bring those in in the fall.

These are positive steps we are taking. In fact, we have some of the

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate on the bill. Thank you very much.

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments, I guess, Minister, regarding this Act.

Just looking at Clause 11 of the bill, I am just wondering about the number

of persons with disabilities who would be appointed to this board. While you

mentioned it was important for discussions with industry, the construction

industry and other people with buildings to have some input to what would happen

between now and September, I also feel it is very, very important for persons

with disabilities to have a strong role in managing this particular act and

making sure that their voices are heard on most of the things that would happen,

or all of the things that would happen, for the purpose of this act.

It is interesting to note right now, Mr. Speaker, there is a strike going on

in this Province in the elevator industry, and it is having a dramatic impact

we know, there are new buildings being built here and old building being

refurbished. I noticed in the paper last week that there was one particular home

in the city that had to put in a two-person lift in their building just so they

could transport peoples with disabilities from one floor to the other.

This Bill 8 is indeed a very important act. There has to be some sort of

mechanism that would address disputes like this, because it would certainly add

more teeth and give this act a greater impact in times of crisis like this.

Because it is a crisis, I say to the minister, when we end up with a particular

issue like this where people are being inconvenienced with that sort of thing.

It is interesting to note as well, Minister, that this bill would have an

impact on buildings that were created before December 24, 1981, when people are

in the process of making changes, because the buildings are over twenty-five

years old, I guess, is the simplest way of saying it. You know, there are many

buildings here in the city right now, where there is a housing boom and

apartments being built and renovated and so on, that the doorways and so on do

not have any particular measurements that would blend into this act.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, this is a step in the right direction

of adjusting some of the things, and I think it is a starting point. After

twenty years, Minister, you have taken this on and looked at it, but I do not

think it is an ending point either. I think that, as we assess the various needs

of our growing elderly population, we need to keep building on this particular

act, making sure that those persons with disabilities in this Province are being

looked after.

Clause 8 would change the act so that fees payable by an owner of a building

can now be paid by his or her agent. I understand there were some problems in

the past, where somebody was out of the area or out of the Province, where the

fees could not be paid, and that the particular agent of that person was not in

a situation or was not allowed to pay those because of the wording of the

previous act.

I think that is pretty well all I have to say on this for right now, Mr.

Speaker. I have a question that I would like to ask, and it is regarding current

members of the tribunal. Will they have the time that they have already served

deducted from the new term to be implemented? I think it is two years, I

believe, that the implementation period is. If so, this may be - well let's

call a spade a spade- a less controversial means of government to get some

people appointed to a board that offers paid positions. Bearing in mind,

Minister, as I said earlier in my

preamble, I would like to see major emphasis

on enough positions on that particular board that they would be occupied by

persons with disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate at second reading?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words at second reading to the amendments to

Advisory Board which made a whole series of recommendations when it filed its

report in 2004. This is not the first set of amendments to the Buildings

Mr. Speaker. The amendments last year, in fact, weakened the legislation by

removing the prohibition from occupying a building that had not been inspected

and been seen to comply. The current legislation now gives the right to occupy a

building if the plans have been approved, whether or not the building has been

inspected.

The issue identified in the debate over that amendment, Mr. Speaker, was

whether or not the department had enough inspectors, whether they were actually

going out and able to inspect buildings prior to them being occupied to ensure

that there was compliance with this act.

We do know, Mr. Speaker, that in some municipalities an occupancy permit is

required for buildings and for compliance with the National Building Code,

whether it be residential or commercial, and the requirements of the

buildings that the act was subject to, that, in fact, the inspectors will have

approved those things before the occupancy took place.

The issue raised then, Mr. Speaker, and I still raise today, and maybe the

minister can address this when she replies at second reading, is: Are there

enough inspectors to do the job? We had a situation that we described last year

in Labrador, of the inspectors having their travel budget cut. They could not

travel to Labrador West to approve a building - buildings waiting for

inspection. The minister, instead of hiring more inspectors at that time,

changed the act to say that inspection was not required before occupancy could

take place. That was the easy way out, but also a way that did not ensure that

the act was complied with.

What I want to know from the minister now is - what I said at the time was

that, if this act passes, the people may never be back to those buildings; the

inspectors may never be sent to inspect those buildings and ensure that they

comply with the act.

I do not see anything in these amendments here today that changes that. In

fact, the legislation here provides for - a new provision providing for an

opportunity for people to appeal decisions of the director, which is probably

fair enough. I do not see anything wrong with people having a right of appeal if

they do not like the rulings made by the director. I am sure there are a number

of provisions in this legislation that actually are in the matter of

housekeeping, dealing with the definition of persons with disabilities as

opposed to disabled, and a number of provisions that ensure that it does not

apply to private homes, foster homes, boarding homes, lodging houses, bed and

breakfast accommodations, with more than ten boarders.

I have a little problem with the number, Mr. Speaker. Ten is a lot. To have a

foster home with ten people, to have a group home with ten people, seems to me

disabilities. I am not sure I like the notion that someone could have a group

home for ten people, or a boarding house, or bed and breakfast accommodations. I

suppose ten boarders, guests or lodgers, you could, I suppose, at a bed and

breakfast, have four or five couples. That would really only mean four or five

places of accommodation. Maybe for bed and breakfasts it is okay, but for a

boarding house it seems to me to be pretty big if it has ten boarders in a

boarding house, or certainly a foster home with ten guests. It seems to me we

are getting into the area of a commercial establishment that ought to comply

with the act.

There are some good provisions here: the application to existing buildings.

Major changes are being made. Where buildings conformed in 1981 and are

undergoing renovations, this alteration to improve the availability and

changes are being made that stop it from conforming with the requirements, then

that person ought to come forward and do it.

I would like to see something a little stronger even. If you are making

alterations to a building existing prior to 1981, it really only says you have

to comply with the act if you are attempting to improve the availability and

Mr. Speaker, merely to say, well, if you are attempting to provide access to

people with disabilities, you have to do so in conformity to the act.

What if you are undergoing a major renovation that has nothing to do with

trying to make the building compatible but you have a 1981 building that has

been around, obviously, before and did not comply with the act when it was

built, but you are going to spend $5 million upgrading the building and you are

this at a cursory level is that you do not have to comply with the act unless

you are actually going to start making it accessible. If you start making it

accessible, or try to, then you have to conform to the act, but if you do not

bother with that, if you take a building.... I am not using this as an example

of a building that is not accessible, because this one is probably fairly

accessible, but you take the Royal Trust Building down there on Water Street,

built prior to 1981, may or may not have complied with the act at the time. When

Fortis bought it, they underwent a major renovation, a major renovation, to a

building in downtown St. John's, probably spent $5 million or $10 million on

it, but, unless they were actually making it more accessible, they would not

have to comply with the act.

I want to know why the minister is limiting the application to old buildings

to ones who are actually trying to improve it. Why doesn't the legislation say

that we now have a circumstance where a building existing in December of 1981,

if it is undergoing a major renovation - and define that somehow, find a way of

defining what a major renovation is - that a major renovation should require

that the building come under the act and see that the changes that are made are

going to not only improve the building and improve its capital value or improve

its marketability for tenants but also make it accessible to persons with

disabilities? That would be a progressive step. What we are seeing here is a

minimal amount of acknowledgment that the act must be complied with if you

actually try to improve the building as opposed to the purposes of

provisions are okay, but a fundamental attempt here to say that only buildings

where the owner of the building is trying to make the building more accessible,

only then do they have to comply with the act. If you do not bother, if you are

undergoing major renovations to an existing building but you do not bother to

even try to make it more accessible, you are off the hook. That is that way I

read it, that you are off the hook totally unless you actually make an attempt

to make it more accessible. So, you are rewarding the people who ignore the

requirements of the act, and you are saying to the people who try to make their

building more accessible: Well, you have to do it to the letter of the law.

Now, I do not have a problem with them doing it to the letter of the law, but

I do have a problem with an owner of a building undertaking a major renovation,

potentially rebuilding the building, but still gets away with not having to

accessible.

I ask the minister - maybe we can have more debate about this during the

Committee stage of legislation. It seems to me that this is a wrong-headed type

of approach, just as the approach last time was wrong-headed when the minister,

through legislation passed in this House in 2004, when the minister brought in

legislation that said that you no longer have to have an occupancy permit, you

no longer have to require to meet the conditions of the act to get an occupancy

permit; all you have to do is submit plans that show that if you build it this

way we comply.

That, to me, was creating a major loophole. Instead of increasing the

inspection capability, instead of increasing the ability of government to

actually ensure that the building is complied, what you did was say: Okay, you

go ahead; take it over and occupy it. When we get around to inspecting it, we

will.

That was in the same year that they took away the travel budget of the

inspectors, so I do not know if they ever got around to inspecting any of the

buildings that were required to be inspected in order to be occupied prior to

the amendments made last time.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, in principle, some of the measures here are

improving the act, but that particular improvement is wrong - that one that

leaves a loophole for existing buildings - but also the procedure that is now in

building without meeting the requirements and we may or may not get around to

inspecting them later.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will end my contribution at second reading

and hopefully have a few more words to say when we get to the Committee stage in

looking at the clauses of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I follow along the lines of my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, in talking

about while we are addressing and making a building accessible to persons with

disabilities - and I know that all governments have tried to make as many

buildings as accessible as possible - you have to wonder sometimes if, indeed,

we have gone far enough.

I will just relay a few examples of how I do not feel we have gone far enough

and I think that the government should try to push a little harder on this. I

agree with a lot of things in the act, but like my colleague just said, the fact

of the matter is that any building that is not accessible today to persons with

disabilities will never become accessible under the current piece of legislation

unless they undergo renovations. I think it says right in the act: Unless the

building is to undergo some new renovations - and you have to spend a certain

amount of money on that building - then that building remains unaccessible to

persons with disabilities.

Besides that, Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of incidents here in the City

of St. John's that causes me concern, and that is because of an ongoing strike

among elevator repairmen and inspectors. That has been going on now for over a

year. As a result, there are at least two facilities here in this city that are

not accessible to a person - or at least a large part of both of those buildings

are not accessible to persons with disabilities. The first one relates to the

new seniors facility that exists. I think it is Portugal Cove Road, just behind

the Irving station off Elizabeth Avenue. That building was opened just recently,

I think in the past year. It is a two or three story building. Yet, persons with

disabilities cannot gain access to the second floor of that building because the

elevator is there but it has not been inspected. As a result, that company, or

the individuals who own that company, are unable to use those elevators to get

the residents to the second floor because it has not been inspected.

The other one is a brand new hotel up on Higgins Line or Bells Turn up right

here. It is called the Big Six or the Super Eight or something like that. I

think, Mr. Speaker, there are eight stories in that building and they have a

very similar problem, that the eight floors are not accessible to individuals

and persons with disabilities because of an elevator problem. The same problem

exists, in that the elevator has not been inspected by a qualified inspector and

as a result, under law, that elevator is not to be used. Not only by persons

with disabilities but by anybody. I think right now that government has just

been hands off approach in a labour dispute. Maybe there are some conversations

ongoing but there has to be a mechanism put in place whereby that cannot

continue to happen.

There are other incidents, I say, Mr. Speaker, where we have not been

vigilant and we have not pushed the envelope on this file far enough when we are

talking about access to people or persons with disabilities, and I will give you

a couple of examples.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the only residence at the Campus of

Memorial University here in St. John's, on the Parkway in St. John's - the

only residence that is accessible to an individual who is physically disabled,

using a wheelchair - there is only one residence that he can avail of. I do not

think that is right, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that Memorial University,

the institution of higher learning here in the Province, is not accessible.

The one that really bothers me, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know if any of you

have really noticed it, but I had the opportunity a little while ago to visit

the Department of Health with a constituent of mine, a young gentleman, a very

bright, articulate, intelligent individual who was involved in a car accident

just after his graduation - it might have been the same night - back some years

ago, from my district. As a result, he is confined to a wheelchair. It was

Health, the predecessor to the one who is there now. What we found on entering

the Department of Health, the young man pointed out to me that we came to the

doors of the Department of Health on the first floor of Confederation Building,

that was accessible and the building is accessible, but the unfortunate thing is

- we all know, there are a couple of big wooden doors right there at the

entrance to enter that department. There was no way that individual could

access, get through those doors because it did not have one of those push bars

or push buttons that would open the doors to the lobby of the Department of

Health.

I think when you see that you realize very quickly that we have not been

doing enough to make buildings accessible. I do not think that any of us have

pushed this issue far enough. I think that we should be doing far more. While I

am not criticizing the government, because we did what we could at the time as

well, I think that we all should stand back or sit back and take a very serious

look at trying, at least, especially when we are running surplus budgets, that

the least we could do is try and make government buildings and educational

institutions accessible; at least with the buildings that we own ourselves or

the people of the Province own, at least we should make those buildings as

accessible as possible to people with disabilities. I also think that we are

somewhat lax in allowing buildings to open with elevators that are installed but

not inspected because of labour disputes and that these buildings, to this day,

remain unaccessible to persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, with those few words I will sit down.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now she will close debate at

second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members on the other side for

their comments. One of the questions that the hon. member raised was the

appointment to the board. It is now a fixed two-year term. There will be persons

with disabilities on the board. They are eligible for reappointments to the

board.

We deal with a number of advocacy groups who work with persons with

disabilities, so we do have that experience there. I would like to assure the

hon. member that the board is now up for renewal and we will be, in the very

near future, appointing new appointees on the board, or even maybe some of the

people who are presenting serving could be reappointed.

One of the issues brought up was about the amendment that we made last year

to the legislation, and that was the occupancy permit before final inspection. I

want to assure the hon. member that there are inspections done on the buildings,

and the final inspection is indeed done. The only thing that this provision

allowed was the opening of the building before the final inspection, but that

final inspection does take place.

Also, the member brought up about the fees paid by the building owner. That

is just a more flexible way for the building owners to deal with the government.

I did listen to all of their comments, and I take them very seriously. We are

going to be doing further consultations in the fall and we will be having

specific discussions with the construction industry and the business community,

and persons with disabilities.

On that note, I would like to say that we have some of the strongest and best

legislation in the country and we will continue to improve on that legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 8,

An Act To Amend

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8 has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill 8)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 11, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill

10)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The

Securities Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities

Act." (Bill 10)

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

joined other jurisdictions in Canada to sign on to a passport system of security

regulations, and this is eliminating the duplication and the red tape in

security regulations.

In total, we have had thirty-four approved harmonized rules with about 3,500

technical requirements and, as a result, there may be some differences with

requirements in existing legislation or the regulations.

The amendment ensures that if there is a harmonization rule which has been

approved by the minister, and that conflicts with existing legislation or

regulation, the harmonization rule applies. This amendment will create less

confusion for the people who are working in the industry, like the regulators

and the investors, because they will know now which rule applies.

Most of the provinces, with the exception of Ontario, have signed on to the

passport system because it does focus on harmonization across the country. Right

now, you have to do an application in every jurisdiction, so this will cut out

the duplication with this specific amendment.

We are committed to the passport system, and Canada is the only country in

the world that does not have a single national regulator, but we felt right now

that this is the way to go, that the passport security system is the way to go,

because it is focused on harmonization.

The act was amended in 2001 to ensure that our rules kept pace with the rest

of the country, Mr. Speaker, on a timely basis, and this government is certainly

committed to moving with the passport system.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to listen to the debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that we support, generally, the approach being taken with

respect to securities in Canada. There is a very good reason why this is one of

the only countries that does not have a single harmonized system, because we

have a Constitution that says this is provincial power. So what we have, really,

is some of kind of co-operation on the national level to ensure that the

investment climate in Canada is reasonable and, at the same time, protects

investors or protects people who are being asked to invest money in companies or

ventures in various provinces, and the idea is that we do not have to duplicate

effort across the country.

I have a small problem, Mr. Speaker, with this piece of legislation here. It

is a small problem, but I guess it is an important issue. What we are actually

doing here is giving the Superintendent of Insurance, or the superintendent

under the Securities Act, the power to actually pass a regulation that conflicts

with

an act, and I think that is a pretty extraordinary thing to do

constitutionally. You know, we have legislation in this House that governs

things, and the regulations come under the legislation, and the regulations

normally have to be in conformity with the act; otherwise, someone goes off to

court and makes an argument that the regulations are beyond the power of the

act, that the Cabinet, or whoever passes the regulation, has not complied with

the act and they have overstated their authority. That is a normal way that the

regulations can be challenged. It is also a normal way to ensure that our

democracy works and that there is a supremacy of Parliament in making sure

legislation is satisfactory.

We are saying here that we have what the minister called a passport system,

some kind of fancy word. It has nothing to do with passports, of course. It has

to do with passing regulations without conforming, so we will have a national

conformity without having to go through each Legislature to do it, so it is an

easy way to have harmonized regulations.

I do not really, in principle, have a problem with having an easy method of

assuring that there is national conformity, but I have a problem with a

regulation that is passed under this legislation staying in force regardless of

whether the Legislature meets and considers it. I would say that, in principle,

we should not pass legislation like this. We could pass legislation that says

that, if there is conflict between the act, the regulation applies subject to

the Legislature approving the legislation in the next sitting of the House. If

we are going to have regulations that may be in conflict with existing

legislation of this Legislature, whether they are in conformity to other

province's legislation or not, seems to me to be certainly important from a

policy perspective, but from a constitution and legal perspective it is this

Legislature that should make legislation.

In my view, you cannot say that the superintendent involved - I think it is

the Superintendent of Insurance, but the superintendent responsible for The

Securities Act - that person can pass, himself or herself, that the

superintendent makes a rule, in fulfillment of an agreement with other provinces

and territories, that, if there is a conflict between the act and the rule, that

the rule applies. Well, I have a problem with that from a Supremacy of

Parliament point of view, and I think that we should look at amending this bill

to ensure that any rules so made should have the approval, if they are in

conflict with the act of the Legislature, or found to be in conflict with

an act

of this Legislature, that they ought to be ratified by the Legislature at its

next sitting. That seems to me to be a very salutary amendment that should be

brought forward, so that the rule of law is respected, that the supremacy of

Parliament is respected, and that we don't have public servants, like the

superintendent, able to override legislation by agreeing to a rule that is in

conflict with existing legislation. That seems to me to be a safeguard that we

should have in this legislation, rather than delegating that authority to a

public servant who is now going to be, if this legislation passes, able to agree

to rules that actually are in conflict with existing legislation of our

Legislature, and I think that is wrong.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond to Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

I think the whole explanatory note is a bit fuzzy for viewers out there today

who might be watching this debate on television. I don't really know what the

purpose is of bringing this piece of legislation to our House of Assembly.

As the minister has already indicated, under the Securities and Investment

Act in Canada there is no single regulator what the provinces cannot go to for

the rules of how to operate within Canada and within their provinces. It is a

quasi setup for securities in all of Canada. The provinces have a certain

limitation of what they can do with regard to investments in their particular

province. When there is an issue that would go override under national

jurisdiction, then there has always been a conflict as to who is correct in what

decisions would be made in that particular field.

I think we are losing site of the real issue here, and the real issue here is

to protect an investment or an investor consumer in our Province, making sure

that there are safeguards in place that every piece of security that is bought

and sold in our Province follows the regulations designated by the laws under

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. When there is a crossover of an

institution that sells or buys security outside our Province and offers the same

thing within our Province, making sure that the consumer is protected I think is

the bottom line that we should be looking at here.

I think what is unusual about this, too, is that the minister has not sited

any particular example that would give rise to why this legislation needs to be

brought forward to this House at this time. Was it the case of an investment

that was sold in this Province and that consumers might have lost money, or was

it the case of a company that applied for a permit to sell in this Province and

did not meet the guidelines that were issued with the permit by the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador? What caused the minister, today, to bring in this

piece of legislation? Was there a conflict that could not be settled here in our

Province on a certain piece of investment? Was there an example of someone

selling an investment to a group of people? Was there a class action suit

launched where a number of consumers had lost money? Was there a situation where

not all the guidelines were followed when a permit was issued to a certain party

to sell a particular investment instrument here in our Province?

The fact that Canada still does not have a single regulator of investment

securities in our country calls into question that now whenever there is a

conflict between a particular province or jurisdiction, that the harmonized

rule, you will be allowing some official sitting behind a desk to say: I have

looked at both sides of the argument. I have looked at the provincial side, I

have looked at the national side, and this is the end result of what I will make

a decision on.

The minister has said that we operate on a passport system. Well, that is not

entirely true. A passport system would give the indication that a passport is

used and this is all about a passport. There is no such thing as a passport in

this. It is passing regulations without a single set of regulations, that is

what it is all about. There are thirty-four approved harmonized rules, but what

about the rules that are not harmonized? What about the rules that this

Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador makes on its own but gets

into a jam whenever a particular investment firm does not comply with the rules

as set out? What this piece of legislation will do today, if it is passed, is

give an official somewhere the right or the final say in saying that the

harmonized rule applies.

I think what is missing from this particular piece of legislation is the

assurance that the consumer in this Province is protected. This particular piece

of legislation gives the superintendent of investments extraordinary power. It

gives the superintendent of investments the last word. In other words, no matter

what the situation is, the Province does not have the final word. The Province

is now reneging on that power and passing it on to the superintendent of

investments and allowing that person to have the final say whenever a conflict

or depute arises. This legislation here is relegating someone else to make a

final decision. It seems like an unusual piece of legislation. I would like for

the minister to stand in her place and give us some indication as to, was there

an example or several examples in the past that would bring the Province to this

point today? What assurance can she give consumers out there who might be

concerned about investment practices in this Province?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Government Services speaks now she

will close debate on second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their comments.

We are, indeed, giving the superintendent authority to pass a rule that may

conflict with the act, but it has to be approved by the minister and it has to

be approved by all of the ministers in Canada. So there is a substantial review.

I would like to say that once we have all the harmonization rules agreed on

across the country, that we, indeed, will be redrafting this act. So, I would

like to thank the hon. members for their comments.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 10,

An Act To

Amend The Securities Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this

bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill 10)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 5, second reading of a bill,

An Act Respecting The Delivery Of Health

And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health Authorities.

(Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, entitled,

An Act

Respecting The Delivery Of Health And Community Services And The Establishment

Of Regional Health Authorities, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Delivery Of

Health And Community Services And The Establishment Of Regional Health

Authorities." (Bill 11)

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

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

I am pleased to be speaking to this bill today, and as outlined in the

Explanatory Note: "The bill would provide for the delivery of health and

community services in the province through regional health authorities whose

powers and duties are set out in the bill."

Mr. Speaker, the plan to integrate health services administration at the

regional level and to begin building a sustainable and seamless health and

community system was highlighted in Budget 2004. In fiscal year 2004-2005,

transitional teams were established to ensure a smooth and seamless change in

governance from the existing regional board structure to new regional integrated

health authorities, and on April 1, 2005, government passed orders pursuant to

the Hospitals Act.

Mr. Speaker, it was recognized that the existing legislation, regarding the

new authorities, would require amendment or replacement at that time. The

existing Hospitals Act was proclaimed in 1971 and, as a result of the

reorganization into four regional integrated health boards, it is now determined

that the regulations and the act need to be reintroduced as opposed to

overhauling it. It was just as well to introduce new legislation as it was to

try and overhaul the existing legislation and the existing regulations.

So, that is what is set out here with Bill 11, and I am pleased to say that

consultations were held. Mr. Speaker, the bill was reviewed by the four regional

health authorities, the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association.

Consultations were also held with publicly funded, as well as privately owned,

nursing home boards in the Eastern region. All parties consulted and were

supportive of the draft legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words with regard to Bill 11. For those who do not know,

basically what Bill 11 does is it allows the government to move forward, which

they did two years ago, with health authorities in the Province. In essence, Mr.

Speaker, what that meant was the closure of health boards all across

Newfoundland and Labrador. I think if you go back to a couple of years ago, you

will realize that, at that time, there were probably ten or eleven health boards

operating in various regions of Newfoundland and Labrador, very specifically

focused on the task at hand, which was delivering health care services in those

respective areas.

What we have today, Mr. Speaker, are health authorities, which are four of

them that have been established, one here in the Eastern Avalon region, one in

the Central Newfoundland region, the Western Newfoundland region and the

Northern Peninsula and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, in amalgamating these ten, eleven

or so boards in the Province into four particular authorities, of course there

was an amalgamation, not only of services but an amalgamation of debt as well.

At the end of the day, what we realized was that many of these new authorities

that have been now tasked by the government to go out and deliver health care

throughout our region, was going to do so with debt that rose above $120 million

annually, Mr. Speaker - in that particular year, I should say. That was a

substantial amount of debt, which still is on the books. Still on the books, Mr.

Speaker, for these boards. They have not been written off by the government. In

fact, the complete opposite has happened. Not only have these new boards, new

authorities been tasked with the mandate of delivering health care services, but

they have also been tasked with the mandate of reducing the service to the point

that it is within the budgeted amount that the government provides to them on an

annual basis. What that a