November 19, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 31

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a long time

resident, volunteer and friend of Wabush and all of Labrador, Mr. Joe Roberts,

who recently passed away.

Born in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Mr. Roberts moved his family to

Labrador in 1965. Since that time he has become involved in many aspects of this

community. He was involved with the Boy Scouts Movement for eleven years. In

1973 he assisted in the formation of the Labrador West Royal Canadian Sea Cadet

Corp and, as a civilian instructor, he served with this organization for over

fourteen years. Joe was also a driving force behind the establishment of the

local arena. He was actively involved in fundraising which made this arena

possible.

As well as his tremendous contribution to the youth of the area, he was also

involved with many other activities. In 1967 he became a member of the Volunteer

Fire Department and for the next twenty years he dedicated his time and energy

to this organization. He also held an executive position with the Newfoundland

and Labrador Fire Chiefs Association. In 1981, Joe was a founding member of the

Wabush Ground Search and Rescue which later evolved into the Canadian Rangers.

In terms of municipal politics, Joe Roberts served as a member of the Wabush

Town Council and also as Western Vice President of the Combined Councils of

Labrador. Joe was also involved in many other community activities including;

the Labrador 400, the local Carnival, the Curling funspiel, the Recreation

Centre, education committees, and many other initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador is a better place because of the dedication and

commitment shown by Joe Roberts, and he will be missed by many. I ask all

Members in the House of Assembly to join me in sending condolences to the

Roberts family. Rest peaceful Joe, you have earned your rest.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday night past I had the pleasure of attending Grenfell Handicrafts

launch of its new line of Grenfell coats at the Grenfell historic properties in

St. Anthony. Grenfell Handicrafts has been producing garments and giftware for

over 100 years with great success. However, the Board felt it was time to add an

updated look to the line of coats already being produced. With much respect for

the past history of the coats, and always keeping mindful of the fact that

Grenfell Handicrafts produce coats for people like Pope John Paul II, Grenfell

Handicrafts is taking another step forward.

Award winning designer, Karen Pottle of Exploit Designs, was hired to design

a new line of coats. Most of Karen's inspiration came from an exhibit of

Grenfell mats that was at the Newfoundland and Labrador Art Gallery. The

curator, Paula Laferty, an expert on Grenfell hooked mats, met with Karen and

discussed the uniqueness of the designs.

It was with this in mind that Karen took what Grenfell had as exclusivity,

and turned it into products that only could be made by Grenfell, thus making it

a brand name with elements that are only owned by Grenfell.

Some of these elements of exclusivity are a designed button that has the look

of a wooden base with a husky dog into the shank of the button. The button was

found in a private collection of Paula Laferty. The button was reproduced by a

local carver, Sheldon Richards, in moose antler. By the way, Sheldon Richards is

of St. Carols. The carved button was then sent to Montreal to a Montreal button

maker to reproduce for the Legacy line of coats. These will only be produced for

the new Grenfell coats. All coats will carry a metal based id tag on the outer

pockets indicating the Grenfell Legacy name.

Mr. Speaker, there are three styles of coats that were launched on Friday

night past. The Grenfell Legacy Jacket, The Expedition jacket, The Lady Anne

jacket. Some of the people who attended the conference on Friday and Saturday in

Plum Point would have had the opportunity to see one of them.

Mr. Speaker, they are on display at Grenfell Handicrafts facility in St.

Anthony. On November 29 they will begin production at Mediwear on Change

Islands, and within six months they will begin production in the St. Anthony

area. There are plans for Grenfell Handicrafts to take

part in the Annual

Christmas Craft Fair in St. John's from November 21 to November 24 at the St.

John's Convention Centre, and I am sure they will be met with great approval

and great success.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Board of Grenfell

Historical Society and Grenfell Handicrafts, Gary Newell, President, Jill

Hillyard, Dr. Fitzgerald, Michele Hodder, Sam Elliott, Randy Cull, Wayne Noel,

Steve Knudsen, and Cathy Cabot-Letto the Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody will join me in congratulating the board for a

remarkable job. It is just another example of some of the great things that

people on the Northern Peninsula are doing in carrying on a tradition of over

100 years.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate

local author and Telegram columnist Ed Smith, whose latest book from

Flanker Press, From The Ashes of My Dreams, has attained Canadian Best

Seller status meaning it has 10,000 copies sold.

The book, which chronicles Mr. Smith's experiences dealing with

quadriplegia from a broken neck suffered in a car accident in 1998, is a funny,

inspiring publication and something that everyone should read in order to

comprehend the challenges that are faced by persons who have disabilities, and

their families.

Mr. Speaker, I was very fortunate as the past Chairman and CEO of the

Canadian Paraplegic Association to see Mr. Smith receive the Adrian Battcock

Award last week at a fundraising dinner for the CPA here in St. John's. This

award recognizes an individual with a physical disability who has displayed, on

a continuous basis, the qualities of integrity, perseverance, leadership and

outstanding achievement. I am also pleased to point out that my colleague, the

Member for Burin-Placentia West, is a former winner of this award.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to thank members on both sides of the

House who participated in that dinner that night, and who have shown their

appreciation to people with disabilities. On behalf of the Canadian Paraplegic

Association, I thank the members on both sides of the House who showed up that

night.

Mr. Smith's accomplishments are a reminder to all of us that persons with

disabilities can do remarkable things. On behalf of all members of this House, I

congratulate Mr. Smith for the success of his book and his receiving the Adrian

Battcock Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today to be associated with the comments

made by the Member for Torngat Mountains concerning a resident of Labrador West,

Mr. Joe Roberts. I would like to add to what the Member for Torngat Mountains

said by saying that Mr. Roberts was indeed well respected and a role model in

our community, a community that is much richer in the life that we have today as

a result of Joe's efforts in volunteering in almost every aspect of our

community.

I am sure that the Premier and many members of his Cabinet have fond memories

of their meetings with Joe, because I do not think there was ever an occasion

when a Cabinet minister came to Labrador West that Joe did not see to it that he

had them here for at least some period of time. I am sure that he was well

respected by them as well.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to acknowledge the statement by the

Member for Torngat Mountains and offer our condolences as well to Joe's

family.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to pay tribute to the late Mr. Ambrose Chubbs of St.

Lewis, who has recently been awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award for his work

in the area of Community Development. This award recognizes an individual whose

work has made a lasting contribution to the economic development of a community

or whose work over an extended period of time has consistently empowered people

to foster economic growth at the community level.

Mr. Chubbs was nominated for the award by the Town Council of St. Lewis for

his accomplishments and his inspiration to the community as a whole. During his

lifetime, Mr. Chubbs was a devoted community volunteer, serving on numerous

organizations and committees, including the Town Council of St. Lewis, the East

Shore Development Association, the Southeastern Aurora Development Corporation,

and at the time of his death he was the mayor of the community of St. Lewis.

Mr. Chubbs also played an active role in attracting new investment and

economic activity to the area. He was a pioneer in the development of the

Labrador Snowmobile Winter Trails Initiative and was also instrumental in making

the economic case to have St. Lewis connected to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join myself in

expressing condolences to Mr. Chubbs' wife Lillian, his sons Brad and Byron,

and his daughter Benita. Mr. Chubbs' work and individual efforts have made

tremendous contributions to this Province, and especially to Labrador.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide hon. members with an update on this Province's

position related to the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

Let me reiterate at the beginning that Newfoundland and Labrador has always

supported and will continue to support measures that will address climate

change. Climate change is a serious global problem and this Province must do its

part to address the issue. We remain committed to working with all provinces and

territories, the federal government, business, industry, and the general public

in developing a truly Canadian approach to climate change initiatives.

On October 28 of this year, this Province's Energy and Environment

Ministers attended a joint ministers' meeting in Halifax to discuss a national

approach to addressing climate change. While I was pleased that all provinces

and territories were able to come together with one voice on key principles in

formulating a national plan, I was very disappointed with the federal government's

dismissive attitude and their unilateral declaration that the Kyoto Protocol

will be ratified by the end of the year, regardless of any issues, concerns or

proposals put forward by the provinces and territories.

Mr. Speaker, the draft federal plan on climate change is not a realistic

approach to address the concerns of Canadians. I, along with several other

premiers, have asked the Prime Minister to convene a First Ministers' Meeting

to discuss Canada's approach to the Kyoto Protocol and to ensure that a

realistic climate change plan, a plan that will ensure that all Canadians have

an opportunity for input, is developed. The Prime Minister has stated this

meeting will not take place before ratification.

There are too many uncertainties and unknowns associated with the draft

federal plan on climate change for this Province to support the ratification of

the Kyoto Protocol at this time. We have concern with the process. We have

concern with respect to the possible outcomes. We have concern with respect to

impacts on the Province. We are concerned with the impact on our investment

climate, our offshore petroleum industry and our continued economic growth. I am

calling on the federal government to reconsider the principles of the Kyoto

Protocol, specifically the three principles advocated by the provinces and

territories but not supported at the federal level.

The draft federal plan is incomplete and requires additional work,

refinement, negotiation and consultation. This work cannot be completed in a

matter of weeks. To base a ratification decision on a vague and incomplete plan

is, in our view, and irresponsible action.

I am committed, Mr. Speaker, to do what is right for a clean and safe

environment. However, I will not support a federal protocol that could be

detrimental to Newfoundland and Labrador. If this is the case we will look at

all our options, working in the best interest of the people of the Province. I

remain committed to ensuring a responsible and sensible balance between economic

development and a meaningful plan that can address climate change in a realistic

manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the record, our caucus also supports a reduction in greenhouse gas

emissions, if it can be done in a strategic manner that does not negatively

impact our economy. What I am at a loss to understand today is, which side of

his mouth the Premier is speaking out of. I got this, I guess, maybe half an

hour ago. The draft federal plan is incomplete - this is what he said just

seconds ago - the draft federal plan is incomplete and requires additional work,

refinement, negotiation and consultation. This work cannot be completed in a

matter of weeks. To base a ratification decision on a vague and incomplete plan

is an irresponsible action. Well, what kind of a responsible action is it, Mr.

Speaker, to have the Lower Churchill agreement signed within days in this

Province? What is this Premier going to do? He is going to give away our cheap,

our renewable energy, rather than create jobs in this Province. He is going to

give away our -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: We are debating a Ministerial Statement which has to do with

the subject matter of Kyoto and nothing to do with any other agreement. What is

foremost though, Beauchesne quotes: Ministerial Statements are supposed

to be brief, non-debatable, and the answers are supposed to be the same. So, Mr.

Speaker, on two accounts: the hon. gentleman is debating a Ministerial

Statement, which he is not supposed to do; and secondly, commenting on something

that is not relevant to the Ministerial Statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have just seen the Government House Leader

rise and demonstrate again the parliamentary fantasyland he is living in. The

fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the Lower Churchill agreement, the

Kyoto agreement and the impact it will have on oil and gas, on green credits, on

the Lower Churchill and Upper Churchill agreement, is directly associated with

the Ministerial Statement that the Premier just made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear, and

the Government House Leader would do well to read on. The reason he didn't is

because he would have swallowed himself whole in the process.

Beauchesne is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that ministers and premiers, while

giving a Ministerial Statement, either the Leader of the Opposition or any

critic thereafter is given half the time to respond directly to the Ministerial

Statement. In this instance, that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition

would do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: A last question, Mr. Speaker: I wonder would the Government

House Leader be so kind, since he has just chewed up the Leader of the

Opposition's time for responding, to give leave, to let the Leader of the

Opposition continue his argument based upon that Premier's statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order: Again I want to remind hon. members that Ministerial

Statements are not debatable, however in this House there has been some latitude

in the past. I guess the response that any individual or critic will give, it is

not up to the Chair to decide. If it is not parliamentary or if it does not

follow the rules of our own Standing Orders, then certainly I would rule it out

of order. At this point the hon. member has not made any statement that would be

considered (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The words of the Premier, "To base a ratification decision on a vague

and incomplete plan, is an irresponsible action."

I would suggest to this hon. House that it is an irresponsible action to

proceed with the Lower Churchill in face of this Kyoto Protocol. In all fairness

to the Premier, his agreement was announced on August 1, but the Protocol was

announced in September. He proceeded in the face of that and he is giving away

our cheap, renewable electricity -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: - and the alternatives are burning fossil fuels or even

tires - what has been suggested in this Province is what is going to burn. See

how that cleans up the environment, Premier.

The Premier speaks of a dismissive attitude and their unilateral declaration

on ratification. Welcome to the real world. Now you know how we feel in this

particular House. Now you know how we felt during the Voisey's Bay debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: There are too many uncertainties and unknowns associated

with the draft federal plan to support the ratification. We have concern with

the process, we have concern with respect to the outcomes, we have concern with

the impacts on the Province, we have concern with the impact on our investment

climate. That is why we are speaking on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador on Voisey's Bay and on the Lower Churchill.

Thank you for using my words!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Kyoto Protocol was ten years in the making and was adopted by Canada,

with the leadership of Canada, in 1997, five years ago, and in 1998 discussions

started with the Province. We have not heard boo from the Premier until about

six months or so ago when Premier Klein started speaking about it.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, over 75 per cent of Canadians support

equal or exceeding the Kyoto proposals on the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Less than 20 per cent have their heads in the Alberta tar sands, along with

Premier Klein, and it seems that our Premier is one of them. It is time for this

Premier to get with the program, to recognize there are economic advantages for

this Province in adopting the Kyoto plans, making sure there is fairness for all

provinces, and starting to use this plan to create jobs and new technologies in

this Province, instead of importing in five years, which we will be doing,

wind-generating power technology from Alberta or Quebec, instead of doing it

ourselves here in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: That is a solution that we should have, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House this afternoon to inform members that I, along with

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Gerry Reid, and the Minister of

Health and Community Services and Minister Responsible for the Strategic Social

Plan, Gerald Smith, attended the first ever Northern Peninsula Employment and

Economic Summit held last Friday and Saturday in Plum Point.

The Summit brought together representatives from two Regional Economic

Development Boards, the Cormack-Grenfell Strategic Social Plan committee,

municipalities, District 2 and 3 School Boards, Grenfell Regional Health

Services, Western Regional Health Care Board, the private sector, and other

community stakeholders. It was a tremendous two days in which we had the

opportunity to learn more from the area residents about their concerns and their

view of the economic challenges being faced by the Northern Peninsula.

I was impressed with the leadership, vision and commitment shown by all

participants, and I was especially pleased with the positive focus and the can-do'

attitude that prevailed the entire two days. The Summit Chairs, Colleen Kennedy

and Cyril Taylor, and their committee are to be congratulated for their

foresight in organizing this event.

The Northern Peninsula was one of the hardest hit regions of the Province as

a result of the closure of the groundfishery. Government is very much aware and

sensitive to the circumstances of communities on the Northern Peninsula and has

been working very hard to address those circumstances with the communities

themselves, primarily through the two Regional Economic Development Boards in

the area. The two REDBs have developed long-term Strategic Economic Development

Plans for their areas with the input of all key stakeholders on the Northern

Peninsula: individual communities, rural development associations, local

business associations and many others. Government has invested over $40 million

to date to support the implementation of these Strategic Economic Development

Plans and the priorities contained there, as identified by the communities

themselves.

A recurrent theme throughout the entire Summit was that of the residents and

communities coming together to solve their own problems. The solution of the

economic and employment woes of that region have to come from within the people

themselves, and they have to be presented with a unified voice in pursuit of a

common vision in the future. Government is prepared to work with area residents

to implement the solutions that they recommend.

The focus of the Summit was indeed positive, the tone was positive and the

feeling in the room for the two days was very upbeat. Residents of the Northern

Peninsula are a proud and determined people, and it is clear that they will not

let the challenges they face overcome them. I look forward to working with the

people of the Northern Peninsula as we collectively move forward to address

their concerns.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I,

too, attended the conference on Friday and Saturday, Mr. Speaker, along with my

colleague from St. Barbe, Mr. Wally Young, my colleague from St. John's East,

John Ottenheimer, and Mr. Jack Byrne, our colleague, the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right, that it was a very upbeat and

forward thinking two days. The people who attended the conference did want to

try and look beyond the problems and the challenges that they have been facing

there for the past number of years. They wanted to get beyond the fact that it

is the area with the highest unemployment rate in the Province and the area with

the highest out-migration rate in the Province. But they also, Mr. Speaker,

wanted to get a message through to politicians and the bureaucracy alike, that

the situation on the Northern Peninsula is very critical, and the reason that

they came together for the approximately two-day period just this past weekend

was just because of that; because it is critical. It is the first time that

these people have really gotten together in about fifteen years in this kind of

venue. That just tells you how desperate they are getting there, that they

finally put down the swords they have been rattling between themselves for so

long and decided that they needed to work together in order to be able to face

some of these challenges and to overcome them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while the minister may have gotten the optimistic message

that came out of it, the hopeful message that was there, the forward looking

message that was there, but I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he also got the message

from the people on the Northern Peninsula that they are sick and tired of their

resources being taken for somebody else. They are sick and tired of seeing their

people going out of this Province. They are sick and tired of having to listen

to the radio, and listening to me and listening to everybody else, say that they

have the highest out-migration rate and the highest unemployment rate in the

Province. They are sick of being paupers in the midst of plenty, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: - and that is what the biggest message was in that

conference, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, are very pleased to see that this has taken place. I assume it took

place with strong representation and support for community development

principles on the Northern Peninsula.

It is kind of ironic, Mr. Speaker, that this peninsula has been represented

by cabinet ministers in the Liberal government opposite for the last thirteen

years. In fact, represented in Ottawa by Brian Tobin and now have a cabinet

minister in the federal cabinet from that district and yet, they still have to

go to this effort to try and put forth their ideas and their notions of what

needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, now that this has taken place, now that the people are coming

together, it is very clear that what the people of the Northern Peninsula need

are real and substantial responses from this government and not to be taken for

granted as they have been in the past.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to update members of the House

today about our economic performance in a sector that affects practically every

part of our Province, everyone of our constituencies, and that is the tourism

sector.

Tourism has grown steadily over the past decade or so, with especially marked

and sustained growth over the last five years. The spending associated with

these visitors last year reached almost $300 million. This is for the visitors

from out-of-province, an increase of 22 per cent since 1998.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: When you add, Mr. Speaker, the tourism expenditures for the

visitors with that of the resident expenditures they total $620 million per

year.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say today that almost all tourism indicators

point to another very successful year in 2002. In fact, our tourism operators in

the Province are indicating an extremely successful season.

Inquires for tourism information have increased 35 per cent over 2001. Non-

resident automobile visits are up by 15 per cent this year. This is, in turn,

driving visitation rates up at a number of facilities and sites in all of our

regions.

To the end of September, Marine Atlantic traffic was up by 13 per cent over

this time last year.

Mr. Speaker, in July and August of this year, accommodations in the Province

increased by 7 per cent. In fact, the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau

considers this showing to be the best showing for July and August performance

since the John Cabot 500 th Anniversary Celebrations in 1997.

A few other indicators of note, visits to the seven Visitor Information

Centres are up by 16 per cent. Our provincial parks have seen an increase of 17

per cent and, Mr. Speaker, the visits to our ten provincial historic sites are

up by 45 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: This year, Mr. Speaker, the cruise sector has experienced a 4

per cent increase in total passengers and an increase of 30 per cent in ports of

call.

While most of our key provincial tourism indicators look positive, air

passenger movements are down by 7 per cent. However, Mr. Speaker, Deer Lake is

the exception to this trend. It was the only major airport in Atlantic Canada to

register an increase in activity during 2002. Over 114,000 passengers went

through the Deer Lake airport during the first nine months of this year. That is

an increase of 7 per cent over 2001.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Positive performance of our tourism sector is due to a number

of factors. We are seeing a return on our investment in the industry through

such initiative such as the Juno Awards, Access North 2002, Targa Newfoundland

and Labrador, and the television and film successes such as Random Passage ,

The Shipping News , and Rare Birds .

This year, we hosted a media FAM tour for the Travel Journalists Guild. We

also hosted writers from the Boston Globe , New York Times , Canadian

Press , Backpacker magazine , and Fly Fish America , to name just

a few. With our industry partners, we have hosted over ninety travel writers in

this year so far.

The Canadian Tourism Commission estimates that for every dollar invested in

tourism marketing, there is an estimated $10 return in new tax revenue to the

provincial economy. In the 2002 provincial budget, the department's tourism

marketing budget was increased by $1 million. When you include the Atlantic

Canada Tourism Partnership and additional funding through CEDA, this bings our

total available marketing budget for the 2003 program to just over $6 million.

Our 2003 marketing plan will continue to focus on markets in Ontario, the

Maritimes and the Northeast U.S. because they have been identified as offering

the best potential. Our people in the Strategic Product Development Division

will also be working on the product development challenges, such as market

readiness, demand-driven development, and improved infrastructure and services.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the growth in our tourism industry has been

the result of hard work by many people in my department and the partnerships

created within the industry. All of these efforts, combined with our core

destination marketing and innovative advertising campaigns, have helped us reach

a point where our presence is felt on the world's stage. Our unique tourism

product, along with the dedication of those who work in the industry, makes us

well-positioned for continued growth in this sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement here

today. I say that we, on this side of the House as well, are aware of some of

the good things that are happening in tourism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I see it firsthand myself in the district that I

represent, in Bonavista South, when I look and see the number of visitors to

places like Bonavista, Port Union, Catalina, King's Cove, and I know from my

neighbouring colleague here down in Trinity.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are still falling short of some of the things that

might be able to be put forward in order to increase on this because, yes,

tourism is an anchor that will certainly help rural communities in this

Province. When I look at the length of the season where we maintain

infrastructure that the provincial government is responsible for - and I am

thinking about our provincial parks, for example. The Argentia ferry service was

put in place, from my understanding, to primarily promote the tourism industry.

It is shameful that we closed down our provincial parks weeks before this ferry

service alone even ends. It seems like we have given up on the shoulder season

when a lot of people still like to travel.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we should do more advertising. Yes, we have only reached

the tip of what this department can put forward and support in this Province,

but when I hear of $127,000 spent in a business publication over in Europe to

support tourism, I am wondering if we are even promoting the industry in the way

that we should. When I see the condition of our roads in this Province, when I

see the condition of the roads on the Northern Peninsula, when I see the

condition of the roads on the Bonavista Peninsula, I am wondering how some of

those tourists - the message that they take back when they leave this Province

to talk about their visit here. I have heard it firsthand myself, the deplorable

condition that the roads are in leading to some of those major tourism

attractions.

When I look at signage in this Province as well, only the other day - there

is a program on radio, I think it might be every Tuesday or every Thursday

morning in the summertime, where they talk to tourists visiting the Province.

Three of the things that you consistently hear -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - is the lack of signage, the bad road conditions, and

government facilities (inaudible) and those people being unable to accept them.

Those are some of the things we might be able to improve on.

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

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

It is encouraging to hear the minister state that tourism is on the increase,

but I want to say to the minister that tourism in Labrador needs a lot more than

lip service.

When you take out three-page ads in national magazines with not one mention

of the Labrador portion of the Province in it, the FAM tour operators tour that

you spoke about, not one person travelled to Labrador to advertise what Labrador

has to offer.

When we talk about the winter snow trails for snowmobiling, which is on the

increase, it is something that needs to be completed that this government has

not paid enough attention to over the last number of years.

I say, Mr. Speaker, when we talk to tourists who travel the Trans-Labrador

Highway, they talk about no washroom facilities for 600 kilometres of road and

no pull-off sites so they can look around and see the area. There is absolutely

no means of communication whatsoever in the event where something could happen.

The damage to their vehicles that they incur; these are all detriments to

increasing tourism, I say to the minister, and it is something that this

government has to pay attention to. It is going to take a big commitment from

government to improve it, despite all of the hard work that people in Labrador

are doing to promote tourism in our area.

The minister is also aware of quite a mess, I would say to her, on the

Quebec-Labrador border when it comes to outfitters -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: The minister is also aware of a big mess on the

Quebec-Labrador border, around Schefferville, between the outfitters who hunt

there. That is a detriment to promoting tourism in this Province, I say to the

minister. It is something that her government and her department has been aware

of for many, many months and have yet to take any corrective action.

Yes, it is encouraging to see tourism increasing, but I say to the minister,

while much has been done, there is an awful lot that remains to be done in

Labrador to make an improved situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as a result of

questions, four matters were confirmed: One, that there is no redress on the

Upper Churchill, that the Premier and his government have quit on us and have

quit on this issue. Two, the Premier failed to use Quebec shortage of power in

the next ten years as a lever to renegotiate the Upper Churchill. Three, the

Chairman of their own Royal Commission, Vic Young, has said that such an action

would be a sad day for this Province; and four, the Premier already has another

multi-million ad campaign planned on the back of Newfoundland and Labrador to

launch this giveaway.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. According to media reports last

night and this morning, the term of this agreement, the agreement on the Lower

Churchill, will be forty-five years from the completion of the project which

means that it would expire in the year 2055 at the earliest. Would the Premier

please confirm that the term of this contract is, in fact, forty-five years or

more and takes us fourteen years beyond the expiration of the Upper Churchill

agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me confirm one thing for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, the

Leader of the Opposition, Members of the House of Assembly and every single

person in Newfoundland and Labrador, for those who want to find reasons not to

proceed with Gull Island and Lower Churchill, trying to have the Government of

Quebec agree at that bargaining table to reopen the Upper Churchill contract

will mean that it will never be done until after 2041. So, if you want a reason

not to proceed and not to even have a discussion about the possibility of

developing the Lower Churchill for another thirty-nine years, then that is the

position that has to be taken.

What this government has done, Mr. Speaker, is found a way to go ahead with

developing the Lower Churchill while leaving all of our options open, including

any that might be found for us through the Royal Commission, to challenge the

Upper Churchill contract in any other venue, any other avenue, any other

recourse at any time. But, if it is to be done as a precondition, every time

that has been put to the Government of Quebec the answer has been absolutely no.

For one reason, because the former, former, former, former Premier of

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Peckford, who is back making statements about it,

went to court, challenged it and lost. Every time since then, that the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has gone and said: let's reopen it.

They said: your government challenged, your government went to court, the court

reaffirmed the validity of the contract and we will not be opening the contract

for any purposes of saying, because we want to do a new deal, we will do a new

deal on its own merits if it makes sense.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the number one reason. If anyone wants to use it,

and I say it quite clearly so people understand, that there would not even be a

discussion. We would let the water run to the sea for another thirty-nine years

with no benefit to anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, under any set of

circumstances, with that particular point of view. If that is the view of the

Opposition, which I believe it is, supported by one of their great heroes, Mr.

Peckford, then, by all means, we have a circumstance where for thirty-nine years

nobody should even talk about any development on the Lower Churchill or any

circumstance if that is to be a precondition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the term of a contract, if we are fortune

enough to get one that works for Newfoundland and Labrador, will be long enough

to pay for the debt of building it, to pay for the operations of it, and to make

it profitable for Newfoundland and Labrador from the very first year of

operation. Otherwise, we will not do the deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: If I might summarize, the answer is: Yes, it is a

forty-five year deal.

Not only have we quit on changing the worst deal possibly in the history of

North America, we have now in fact extended it another fourteen years.

Mr. Speaker, my four-year-old granddaughter, Abby, will be sixty years of age

when that expires. My great-great-grandchildren might see the light of day,

providing there isn't another Liberal government between now and then that is

going to give the rest of the shop away.

Mr. Speaker, I also heard this morning that the Liberal caucus was quoted as

saying that the Province of Quebec - our great benefactors, the Province of

Quebec - are generously providing the financing for the project, and I assume

out of the goodness of their hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why can't the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador do this project ourselves, with a guarantee from the Government of

companies? One company, Bombardier, got this amount of money on a federal

guarantee, and Nortel, a company that is nearly gone, also got a guarantee. Why

don't we do it ourselves and not rely on Quebec?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is taking his cue from the

former Conservative Premier, Mr. Peckford, who raised these issues in Open Line

land earlier today. Nice to see it is repeated in here, because - and it is

worth noting, Mr. Speaker, the last time when I was mentioning Mr. Peckford, he

is a bit sensitive about it because he is a real idol of his - he said: At least

Peckford was a fighter. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador remember how

much of a fighter he was when he said, upon resigning: I no longer have the

intestinal fortitude to do what needs to done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is how much of a fighter he was for Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker, when it came to his own people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again, even before - a typical tactic that

we are well aware of now with the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition,

they are against development. Everybody understands it. They are still against

Voisey's Bay even though 70 per cent of the people are for Voisey's Bay. The

people are working, commitments are being met, progress is being made, we are

moving on. The Opposition is still against it, probably still trying to find

ways to frustrate it in certain ways.

Here, Mr. Speaker, with respect to financing, they will put out the hope

dream that is in the Blue Book to be released some time about the tunnel from

Labrador to the Island, that is obviously the number one priority for the Leader

of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, he assumes that project, $2 billion, just for

electricity hookup, many more billions if it is going to be vehicular traffic,

things for Newfoundland and Labrador, they are not interested.

Mr. Speaker, you can lead out, lend out and put out the proposition that the

something, to wait for someone else to step in. What we are doing is this: We

are arranging financing so that there is the least possible risk, and hopefully

none at all, to Newfoundland and Labrador, to our credit worthiness, to the

position of this Province, so that we can have a tremendous asset generating

cash for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with no risk.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: I would put to the Leader of the Opposition, if that

turns out to be the deal, because he suggests he knows nothing about it, will he

support it? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker, because no matter what it is, he will be

against it from day one -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - just like he is today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I won't be remembered as a quitter, though, Premier, and

you will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: It is interesting to hear that the Premier has said: No

risk. We will hold you to that one, Premier. We will file that one away.

AN HON. MEMBER: A minute ago (inaudible). Now you are saying (inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: I am referring to myself.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line on all of this is that we are going to the

Province of Quebec and we are financing this project with our own money, the $56

billion that they have stolen from us in the last thirty years!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Over seventy years they will take $56 billion. They are

going to use our money to finance our project, so they can take it from us at

the end of the day. That is what you are doing. Shame on you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Imagine, being bought with your own money. I just cannot

fathom it.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Premier, one of the perceived benefits of this

project is that it will be 100 per cent owned by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Would the Premier please tell the people of our Province whether there

are any circumstances whatsoever whereby we could lose the ownership or control

or any part of this project and those assets to the Province of Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again the Leader of the Opposition is being consistently inconsistent, just

to remind him. He does not like talking about his idol, Brian Peckford, because

now in the run of a couple of minutes he described him as a great fighter and

then he turned around and said: I will not be a quitter like he was. So he

described him as a fighter and a quitter in two or three minutes. I guess he is

an idol but he does not care if he was a fighter or a quitter. He was a fighter

one time, a quitter another time, but we will see how it goes.

Mr. Speaker, the question asked is a serious question, and all the details we

have indicated. If we are fortunate enough to do a deal that benefits

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we will gladly present it and send all the

information to every single soul. We know that the Opposition is already going

to hire a battery of experts from all over the world to tear it apart and find

loopholes. We are still waiting for the loopholes. I expect we will hear them in

the next couple of days with respect to Voisey's Bay. They are all around

somewhere. I guess they are going to be exposed very soon. Maybe he would like

to start talking about those today as well.

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that unless you have your own money, because let's

compare something to anything where you go and borrow for it, if you borrow for

anything and if you do not pay your loan back, you are in default. There is

nobody, ever, in the world, under any circumstances - Hydro-Quebec, any bank,

any lender, the Leader of the Opposition would not do it himself. If I borrowed

some money from him and made a commitment to pay it back -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and did not pay it back, whatever security I put up, I

am sure, at some point, he would exercise on the security. There is going to be

a loan. There is going to be a security. All the details will be available to

the people of the Province in due time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A simple question. My question for the Premier is, quite simply: What about

if there is a significant overrun on the cost of that project? If the Government

of Newfoundland does not come up with the money to cover the cost of that

overrun, what happens? Do we lose control and ownership of the project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated, we will gladly provide every single detail to everybody

in the Province if there is a deal. Now the difference, Mr. Speaker, between the

government that I lead and the Opposition, led by that leader, is they hope,

just like they did with Voisey's Bay, that there will no deal. They are now

trying to set a mood and a tone in the Province to have people frightened to

death to even talk about it, because this might happen and that might happen and

this should have happened and that should have been considered. All of those

things can lead to another thirty years just like the last thirty years where

the water runs to the sea and nobody benefits. That is the kind of debate, Mr.

Speaker, that has left the Lower Churchill at Gull Island undeveloped since

1972, and we are trying to find a way to make it happen for the benefit of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - with no risk to Newfoundland and Labrador, but only

benefits for all of us to share into sooner rather than later, rather than

waiting another thirty or forty or fifty years before we even talk about it

again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we are being bought with our own money

and now it appears that one of the basic principles of this agreement, 100 per

cent ownership, we may not have it under certain circumstances. A basic tenet of

the agreement is gone.

This Premier is being less than honest with the people of this Province. More

proof that he cannot be trusted.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier advise if the project -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I was halfway through it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier advise if the project, which he said

presumably was 100 per cent owned by the Province, which is now not 100 per cent

owned by the Province, is to be 100 per cent managed by the Province through the

construction and operation of the entire project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I can assure the Leader of the Opposition is this: that we have

committed ourselves and will continue to commit ourselves to finding a way to

make sure that we develop the project for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, that it will be 100 per cent owned by Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition will spend all of his time trying to

set the tone, trying to do the scaremongering, the fearmongering, as he has done

before, a consistent pattern, Mr. Speaker. This is identical to the Voisey's

Bay debate, the scaremongering before you start: they are going to give it away,

it is going to be lost, we will not be able to control it, we cannot do it, we

are incompetent - all of those kinds of things.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Obviously, we have the confidence; we have the ability to

do it. I hope we can find a way to do it in the next little while rather than

succumb to the same kind of attitude that has been over there that has left

these things undeveloped for the last thirty years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: So, Mr. Speaker, we do not own it and we do not control it.

No wonder -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: That is what he said. You had better start looking at this

deal, gang!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: No wonder the Premier of Quebec, Premier Landry, has said

that this is a blessing from heaven for Quebec, that Quebec will have a

resplendent future. Those are his words, and he said it. We looked after

Manitoba and Ontario and Voisey's and now we will take care of Quebec. Good

for you, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I now direct this supplementary to the

Minister of Justice, as it relates to financing, and he will ultimately be held

accountable for this documentation and its contents and its liabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to please advise the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that if a dispute arises over financing with respect

to this resource and what should be our project, which courts will decide those

disputes: Quebec, or the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the Premier earlier, if we are

fortunate enough to get a deal with Quebec on the Lower Churchill, that question

will certainly be answered. I don't think -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is going to ask

questions, I would think he would have respect enough to listen for the answer

as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, similar to the Voisey's Bay debate that we

had here, any questions that he has are very legitimate questions and deserve to

be answered. Similar to Voisey's Bay, when he indicated and held people

personally accountable and said there were holes that you could drive trucks

through - which, by the way, I have not seen any holes yet, and I issued an

invitation to that last week - when the deal is made public, any and all

questions that he has, as the Premier has already indicated, will be debated

fully in this House and everyone will have a free vote on any concerns he has.

Let me assure you that, whatever is there, he can rest comfortable that we will

be protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again. Does the

Minister of Justice and the Attorney General for the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador know whether these disputes will be decided in the Province of

Quebec or in our own courts, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me give some comfort to the Leader of the Opposition. I understand he is

getting a bit agitated and has some discomfort today.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this: This government will make every single piece

of information available to everybody in the Province. This government, in the

meantime - just because there are some questions today from a group that wants

nothing to do with this and is trying to poison the whole atmosphere and the

mood in the Province even before we start the debate - is not going to be

dragged into answering questions in isolation without the full information.

Mr. Speaker, we will provide all of the information, every single scrap, and

then answer every single question in full context. We are not going to be

dragged into a game by the Opposition, of talking about a single item in

isolation that they will then run around for weeks saying: Oh, look at this! Isn't

this awful! Isn't this terrible!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Oh, look at this! Isn't this bad!

That will not happen, Mr. Speaker. We are more responsible than that. We are

not like the Opposition, who already have their minds made up that they do not

want this to happen any more than they wanted Voisey's Bay to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That was the other side of the mouth we just saw. What he said half an hour

ago was: I was very disappointed with the federal government's dismissive

attitude and their unilateral declaration that the Protocol will be ratified

before (inaudible) provinces.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: One standard for the federal government and another

standard for you. Is that what you are saying here today, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are on the hook for forty-five years. We

may not own it, we may not control it, and, if there is a dispute over money,

Quebec is going to decide who the winner is.

I take no comfort in that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my next supplementary is for the hon. Minister

of Mines and Energy, because only he can answer this question.

The minister has stated, and I quote, that: If we do a Lower Churchill

project, the people of the Province need to know one thing, that from the first

day we sell one megawatt hour from that project we will be getting the full

market value of the power as though we were selling it in any other market

available in North America.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister please confirm that he stands by that

statement made on August 11, 2002?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The operation of the escalator clause that will operate against a floor price

that we will start to sell our power for will indeed reflect market value as if

we were selling it generally into the markets that would be available to us:

Quebec, Ontario, Northeastern U.S., down as far as the New York market. That

would be the reasonable extension of how we would reasonably be expected to go

with our power, directly or indirectly.

So, yes, the answer is I stand by the statement because it is our intention

to ensure that we get full value as though we were going directly to the market

ourselves in another fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have said before, that my granddaughter, Abby, will be sixty

years of age when the Lower Churchill contract expires, and she will probably

have grandchildren herself, at that particular point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, imagine, a Premier who was not elected by the

people is negotiating a contract that will impact my great-great-grandchildren.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

quickly.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier says he is going to have a free

vote in this Legislature, why doesn't he have the ultimate free vote? Why

doesn't he go to the people and why doesn't he call an election immediately?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Legitimize yourself, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand now fully, too, that the Leader of the Opposition is a believer,

like his idol, Mr. Peckford, of calling elections of convenience. Get an arm

band, do something, never mind if it is any good for Newfoundland and Labrador,

never mind if it is appropriate or not, just try to make sure you get elected.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you this, this government, the government I lead, will get

elected because we have done the right things for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Because, Mr. Speaker, it will be crystal clear that the

only interest we have is in serving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and

doing something that is better for the people. Mr. Speaker, it is not that

important to us who runs the government, which individuals are here, as long as

they are doing the right job, as long as they are doing the right things for the

people of the Province, as long as they are trying to do something for your

grandchildren and my grandchildren, instead of being obsessed about maybe being

the Premier for a day or two, or a week or two, or a month or two, or a year or

two. That is not of interest to us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Premier. The Premier has said repeatedly today

that we are stuck with a contract until the year 2041 on the Upper Churchill. Is

the Premier not aware, I am sure he is, that there has been, since the decision

of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1984, substantial changes to the Constitution

of Canada which give us more control, more power, more authority over the export

of electricity, over taxation on electricity, and control over the Upper

Churchill contract? Why is this government insisting on saying that we are stuck

until 2041 instead of doing something about the Upper Churchill deal now, either

directly by government power or by a renegotiation with the Government of

Quebec? Why is this government insisting that there is nothing that we can do

about the Upper Churchill until the year 2041?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question. Again, so that we can make sure that the Leader of

the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and everybody

else understands the answer, I have never, ever said that. The government has

never, ever said that. I did not say that. I have never said it, and the fact of

the matter is this. Every single option that is open to the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, with respect to challenging the Upper Churchill

contract, was open last year, is open today, will be open tomorrow, will be open

after we sign a Gull Island contract. Every single one.

I do know of the opinions of Lawyer Hearn and others. I do know of the

opinions of the retired Chief Justice LaForest about these particular

implications under 92(a). We have studied them in complete detail. There are

things that have been suggested for challenge before. The Royal Commission is

looking at it in detail. Mr. Young is very interested in it, as is the whole

Commission, as are every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

What I did say today, for greater clarity, is this: that if Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians want to be led to believe falsely, like they have been led to

believe falsely before, that the sun will shine and have nots will be no more,

that you can put a demand on Quebec and say: we will only develop the Lower

Churchill if you will now immediately reopen and change the Upper Churchill

contract, then there will not be a development of the Lower Churchill. That is

what I said: There will not be a development of the Lower Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: I did not say there would never be a change in the Upper

Churchill contract, and we are free to pursue options with respect to that at

any point in time from now on into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

Section 32 of the Auditor General Act, I

hereby table the report of the auditor appointed to audit the Office of the

Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition. The petition reads:

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

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

Labrador;

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been completely

ungraded since it was paved approximately twenty-six years ago; and

WHEREAS this

section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that

vehicles are sometimes damaged, including school buses serving schools in the

area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very

difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to upgrade and pave the approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy

Cove to Bonavista, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is another in a series of petitions that I continually rise

on and bring forward, and talk to the minister about the need for road work, and

the need to upgrade and repave certain sections of the road network in my

District of Bonavista South. This particular

section of road which I refer to

today, and which the petition refers to, is a

section of road that the minister

knows full well. In fact, I have had him down over it at least twice, and I have

had the former minister, and the former minister before that, down over this

section of road.

The whole

section of road only consists of approximately six kilometres to

begin with. Back five years ago we made an attempt to upgrade and repave this

section of roadway leading from Birchy Cove to Bonavista. A total of six

kilometres of road, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. It is five years now of

attempting to complete this

section of road. Every year there has been part of

the work carried out. There has been ditching one year and a promise to do two

kilometers this past year, only for the minister's department to change their

minds and go down and do 700 metres of that

section of roadway between Birchy

Cove and Bonavista. Six kilometres in total in the beginning, and we are still

looking to get six kilometres of that particular road done after five years,

making five attempts to go down and do that particular

section of road.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen schools closed in places like Upper Amherst Cove,

Newmans Cove, Lower Amherst Cove. We see school students now being bused from

all those communities down to Bonavista. The least we can do is provide a

descent road for these buses, and seniors, and for people to go to work everyday

or access government offices or health care facilities in Bonavista. The least

we can do is provide them with a descent road to drive over in order to access

either their place of work or their school, or in some places the only health

institution in the area.

Mr. Speaker, this

section of roadway has deteriorated to such an extent that

you do not know if you are driving on the shoulder or in the middle of the road,

because the sides of the road -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this

section of road has deteriorated to the

point that a lot of it is now a gravel road. So the plea from the people in the

Birchy Cove, Bonavista, Upper and Middle Amherst Cove, up to King's Cove, that

whole area, is to ask the minister to get serious about this

section of roadway;

go down there, complete it, and allow the people in the area a descent road to

drive over and bring it up to 2002 standards.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Minister of Labour and the Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women to pay close attention to this particular petition that I

present on behalf of my constituents. The petition reads:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador amended the Workplace

Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Act under

section 65.1(1) to

reinstate benefits to a surviving spouse whose benefits terminated on or after

April 17, 1985 due to his or her remarriage; and

WHEREAS this amendment under 65.1(2) states that no interest should be paid

on compensation which would have been paid from April 17, 1985 to December 31,

1992;

THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to amend this flawed, discriminatory piece of legislation that denies the rights

of individuals to collect retroactive benefits with interest they are entitled

to receive.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this particular piece of legislation mostly

impacts women. These are individuals who - as a result of having their spouses

killed in an industrial accident - were disentitled to continue to receive

Workers' Compensation benefits after they remarry. In the early 1990s, it was

recognized that was in contradiction and contravention of the Charter of Rights

and, as such, their benefits were reinstated. They were reinstated as a result

of a challenge through the appeal process of the Compensation Commission. It was

reinstated as a result of the challenge to the court. They won that, and

benefits, in fact, were reinstated. The irony is that benefits which were

reinstated and were paid back to January of 1993 did, in fact, pay not only the

benefits, but the interest that was due those individuals on the amount of money

that they were receiving.

Mr. Speaker, when this particular amendment was made, I believe the House did

not intentionally discriminate against these women, but I think it missed a

significant point. This was money that was owed to individuals and withheld. In

fact, it would suggest that this money was withheld from them and should have

been paid because it was their right to have it under the Freedom of Rights in

this country. Unlike other debts government may have and they decided to, at

some later date, reimburse people the money that might have been owed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to conclude?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in concluding, I want to suggest that the minister consider this

particular request, different than other requests, because this was money that

was owed, and deemed to be owed, as a part of the Charter and these individual

rights. I would ask that special consideration be given and that the interest be

also paid to those individuals, in addition to the retroactive payment, but also

they should receive the due interest.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time and consideration.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, a couple of things before we get into the Orders

of the Day. The hon. the Member for Quidi Vidi submitted a resolution yesterday

and asked if the House were prepared to approve that legislation immediately -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of things, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi yesterday submitted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. LUSH: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi yesterday submitted a

resolution and asked whether or not the House would be prepared to approve the

legislation immediately, and I said I wanted to see it. I just tell the

Opposition House Leader that I have taken a look at it and we are prepared to

give it approval. He might want a little more time. We could do it a little

later in the afternoon.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be general agreement on both

sides of the House with respect to the resolution that the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi has submitted to the Table and to private members yesterday for

our perusal. If there is unanimity, then let's do it now is my view. Let's

move ahead. Let the will of the House express itself immediately if there is

unanimity, and I believe there is. So, if the Government House Leader and

members opposite are prepared to do that, we certainly are as well.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the Government House Leader, I reiterate what was said by the

Opposition House Leader, and there is a reason why perhaps we should do it

earlier rather than later. There is a debate going on, as we speak, in the House

of Commons about this issue and I think it would be timely if we could consider

this now and perhaps have one speaker from each party here speak to it for five

minutes or less, and then we could notify the people in Ottawa that this

resolution has been passed. I think it would be timely to do it now, or if you

want to pass it without debate I am satisfied to do that as well.

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since we are all agreed, there is no need to debate. We will just put the

vote and approve the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution, as presented by the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the resolution, nay'.

On motion, resolution carried.

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

MR. HARRIS: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, could the record show that the

resolution was passed unanimously by this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

Resolution carried unanimously.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of the following bills and,

rather than do them one at a time, I will just name for Your Honour the bills

that we want read a first time. They are as follows: Motion 4, (Bill 22); Motion

6, (Bill 30); Motion 7, (Bill 24); Motion 8, (Bill 26); Motion 10, (Bill 23);

and Motion 11, (Bill 29).

I move first readings of these bills, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act,"

carried. (Bill 22)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act

Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders," carried. (Bill 30)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Service to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Cancer Treatment And Research Foundation Act,

The Health And Community Services Act, The Hospitals Act, The Medical Care

Insurance Act, 1999 And The Vital Statistics Act," carried. (Bill 24)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act

To Amend The Teachers' Association Act," carried. (Bill 26)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment to introduce

a bill, "An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support

To The People Of The Province," carried. (Bill 23)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 3,"

carried. (Bill 29)

On motion, Bills 22, 30, 24, 26, 23 and 29 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 7, Bill 15, the resumption of adjourned debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a few additional comments

on this particular bill here. I know everybody, I am sure, in the House is

interested in promoting safer driving and reducing accidents on our highways

because I know there are not too many families and people who have not, in some

way, been affected by accidents, either of a minor or a serious nature.

It makes me wonder, when you look at this bill and it says it is now illegal,

basically, to have a cellular phone held in your hand, or speaking on the phone,

when you are driving; I guess the use of them. Holding them in your hand

probably might not be an offence, or maybe it is. Hand-held phones now are

illegal.

What happens if you are holding a tape recorder or you are holding one of

those two-way radios, CBs we used to have in cards years ago, or if you are

eating an ice cream, or you have a dog in your lap as you are driving down the

road? All these types of things, I might add and I say to the minister, can be

an equally, if not greater, danger.

AN HON. MEMBER: If it is going to save one life (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, and I support it if we think it is going to

prevent it, but is there legislation there? I asked the minister a few questions

yesterday. I asked him: Isn't there legislation there right now, under the

Highway Traffic Act, for imprudent or careless driving, that the officer can

determine that to be imprudent driving, or careless driving, and issue a ticket

for that purpose right now? I understand it is there.

I asked the minister, knowing this was coming, have they looked at police

reports of accidents, and tried to get some indication of the contributing

factor to accidents? If there is, I would like to see him table it here and put

it forth.

I have asked him if he could put forth his research on this subject so we can

see it. I know several members on his side who spoke were passed around - I

think I saw several sheets being passed around for speaking. We haven't seen

any of the basic research or any information put forth by this minister to us to

show whether that is positive.

What about taxi drivers who need communication in doing their job? We know

courier services use cellphones a fair amount.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are not banning (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, we are not. I will say to the minister, I am not saying

we did. If she had listened to my comments yesterday, she would know I didn't

say that. That is exempt, that is not included here. I made that reference. I am

saying, these people use communications in their jobs. Courier people with

messages and various things especially use them, and cellphones a great degree

too. It is part of their job. All of those things add to your working day.

Sometimes you receive a call, you pull in on the side of a busy street to make a

call, and that might be more dangerous, pulling in in heavy traffic and

obstructing, than probably proceeding in some cases.

So, it is an area that is not black and white, it is not cut and dried.

There is nobody in this Province against improving safety out there, nobody

whosoever, but it is not an all encompassing safety measure by this minister. It

is a very, very inclusive, a very small little tip of the iceberg to look at

overall safety on our highways. Safety on our highways can be enhanced by

ticketing people who are going half the speed limit on faster highways, or

people who are going twice the speed limit, or people moving back and forth

across the line for various reasons, whether it is looking at a book or a

newspaper or smoking a cigarette. Lots of times accidents have occurred because

someone dropped a cigarette and went to retrieve it; all of these types of

items. So, should it be illegal to have a cigarette in your hand while you are

driving?

MR. NOEL: It is in Germany.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister says it is in Germany, but not in this

Province.

I am asking the minister: Has he looked at all aspects of safe driving? If he

has, when he gets up to speak on the closing of this bill in second reading - I

am sure in committee there will be lots of other questions we have to ask the

minister on specific areas. I hope many of these will get addressed when he

closes debate in second reading, some time today or tomorrow or the next day -

well, not tomorrow, Private Members' Day - whenever he gets a chance to finish

debate on this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, he hasn't convinced me, even though I think it would enhance

safety and I think, in all probability, I will support this bill, but he hasn't

convinced me and given me reasons why, from research and evidence, and he hasn't

answered the bigger question, the bigger part of overall safety on our highways.

One of my colleagues, I think, made reference to it. The Works, Services and

Transportation Minister: Wouldn't you think it would improve safety on our

highways if we had work crews coming to work earlier in the year, in a climate

like Newfoundland and Labrador, getting maybe a two-shift system or whatever,

getting the highways sanded and salted earlier? Wouldn't that enhance safety

more than the cellphone? There are some of the fundamental issues. Because we

have a law on the books doesn't mean it is going to improve safety, Mr.

Speaker.

The police forces have to have the resources to enforce that. They have to

have the resources to do that. They have to have the resources to carry out

their job. Today there is a very big strain on resources. Are there adequate

people to do policing and protection for people? There seem to be increased

numbers of break-ins, in some neighbourhoods in particular, as we have seen in

the media lately. We have had CBS saying that we need high representation, and

efforts were made in those areas.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I am not sure what he is

saying across the way, but he did have an opportunity to speak on the bill. I

certainly hope, in the next stage of this bill, Mr. Speaker, that he will get up

and talk about the issues of safety pertaining to his department, on our

highways. The condition of roads is one of the biggest factors. The proper

sanding and salting and clearing of roads is one of the biggest factors in

safety, and I would rate that ahead of cellphones or any other single thing in

the Province. It is in the power of that minister to see that safety is carried

out on our highways. That is a big factor.

Conditions of roads, potholes in roads. Roads eating away on the side, lack

of pavement, ignoring infrastructure where we have gone from $14 million to

(inaudible) to $20 million a year when we used to be spending $45 million and

$50 million. We have left things so long. We used it for all other interests,

and infrastructure suffers. That contributes to unsafe highways, Mr. Speaker,

and they are more telling than many of the particular instances we are debating

here.

Maybe we should be debating here in this House improved highway maintenance

because in a climate like Newfoundland and Labrador it can be treacherous. I

heard the minister on the radio - granted, sure, we cannot expect a truck to be

in every place all at the one time, no doubt about it, but we do know that there

has been a cutback in the number of vehicles in numerous areas. The equipment

does not get up and running enough because of manpower resources. They are

working on equipment that they cannot put on roads because they do not have the

manpower to get it ready and working. That is happening. I think we should be

focusing on areas within our direct control; areas where we can make an

improvement in and a better service for the people on our highways. These are

important things.

Last year it would have been advisable - and I think it might be done this

year. It would have been advisable last year when a busload of fifteen, sixteen

and seventeen-year-olds came into a hockey game in the Goulds and came in on the

Witless Bay Line, and it was not getting plowed. They drove in and it got so

deep - they shoveled all day long until nighttime. Later that night, hours and

hours and hours later - not plowed and no sign up saying: road closed. If they

are not going to plow it - and I think it is getting resolved this year. I spoke

with officials, I might say, to the minister in the department. This is the type

of thing that affects safety. There should be a notice. If you are not going to

plow it or you are not going to maintain it, you shut it down and if you are

going to keep it open, you maintain it properly. These are some of the things

that are very important to people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try to keep (inaudible) line opened up.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. If you put a highway there and you paved it

and it is a thoroughfare for businesses, for trucks driving across there, there

are people going to work - a person going to work from Witless Bay and have to

drive to Whitbourne to go to work across the Witless Bay Line. Trucks use it,

stores, fish businesses, and you name it. Transport trucks and deliveries

frequent that particular area. It is an important artery for access to and from

my district. It is the only access to my district, basically, from that end

without going through the City of St. John's. Could the minister tell me how

we can get from that end -

MR. BARRETT: Take the bypass road. Come in the arterial road and go to

the Gould's bypass. You should visit your district.

MR. SULLIVAN: You come off that bypass road, I say to the minister, and

you go into the City of St. John's. From the end of that bypass road right

into Middle Pond to Bay Bulls is the City of St. John's; plow that and they

are responsible. You cannot get to Bay Bulls without going through the City of

St. John's and going on their roads. If you can do it, tell me.

If Witless Bay Line is closed you have to go St. Mary's Bay, Trepassey and

drive for four hours and come back to Bay Bulls. That is not correct, the

minister does not know what he is talking about. He does not know it. I will

give him an opportunity to stand up and tell me how he can do it. Tell me where

the road is that can get me to Bay Bulls without going through the City of St.

John's. I will sit down and give you time if you want to stand up and tell me.

You cannot do it. It cannot be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Goulds bypass.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is saying the Goulds bypass. Does he know where the

Goulds bypass is, I wonder? He does not even know where it is, probably. You

come off the Goulds bypass and you go into the City of St. John's. You drive

for several kilometres into the City of St. John's until you get to the town

limits of the City of St. John's. Bay Bulls-Big Pond is within the town

limits. I am saying that the City of St. John's roads, if they are not

maintained, we cannot get access to my district without going through the City

of St. John's; we cannot. If you want to use the Witless Bay Line, it is

closed. They were given orders not to go in and do it on weekends. In other

words, if someone is driving a transport truck and is working for a living, do

not go on a road in this Province. Do not use it on a weekend. Stop and call

ahead and say: Is this road open? Barricade it if you are not going to use it.

Barricade it and do not put people at risk.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, by leave, for a few closing comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few minutes to talk about this new progressive

legislation, this Bill 15. It is a very short bill. It does not encompass a lot.

It does not read a lot of pages but it is a very important bill in this

Province. Important, I think, in the respect that only just in the last two

weeks I have heard of two very serious accidents in this Province that occurred

while a driver was on a cellphone. I think this is very timely and I am very

glad it is being brought to the House now, that we are being the first in the

country to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: In listening to the Member for Ferryland, who just finished

speaking, it was really interesting -

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to be first in some financial reports.

MS KELLY: The Member for Ferryland says he would like to be first in some

financial reports. Well, that just goes to show what he thinks of public safety,

I think, because this is a really important issue that really is not frivolous.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to withdraw that

remark, making indications that I am not in favour of public safety. That is

wrong. I have been on the record here in this House and she should stop making

impugning motives and making direct attacks on this particular matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the minister.

MS KELLY: No, there is obviously no point of order.

But, in listening to his remarks, which I did do when he was speaking, he

seemed to be talking about a lot of other issues besides cellphones. A lot of

the issues were important, I acknowledge. He was talking about issues of public

safety, when snowplows should be operating and then he got into break-ins in

neighbourhoods and that, but I would like to say that I would like to speak

specifically to this bill.

This is an important bill that I think all of us should be very concerned

about getting through this House in an expedient manner. This has been an area

of concern, actually, since the inception of cellphones back in the early 1990s.

I think when they first came, they had very limited usage and they were not used

as much in cars. Now that they have become a part of our every day life we have

to realize that there are some problems with them that do need addressing.

When you see the result of a poll that was done by the minister's

department, talking to the public and consulting the public about this, and when

you realize that 95 per cent of Newfoundlanders agree that we ought to do

something about hand-held cellphones in cars, I think it is time for us to act.

They are a very serious diversion. I think that when you read comments like was

in The Telegram - I believe it was last spring. I remember reading it

there - where it said: When people drive a momentary lapse of concentration can

have devastating consequences. You only have to talk to any health care

professional - be it a doctor, a nurse, or anyone else who works in a hospital -

to realize that they see the very serious consequences of what happens when

hand-held cellphones are used in cars inappropriately.

I think the Canadian Medical Association were one of the first associations

in Canada to go on record to ask governments in this country to ban the use of

cellphones in cars. I think also the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

Senior Citizens in recent years have brought it before their membership and they

have agreed that this is a very dangerous practice and that something ought to

be done about it, and this government is doing something about it.

I think that most individuals do not have a problem with cellphones being in

a car. The problem they have is the inappropriate usage. I know I have heard of

many instances where cellphones have been very, very useful instruments when

they are used appropriately, especially in the case of emergencies; especially

in an instance where you might be stranded on a highway; in the case of an

emergency situation with your vehicle; or an emergency situation that you have

witnessed, where someone has gone off the road and there has been a serious

injury. Oftentimes, having that cellphone before the 1990s, it might have taken

hours before you could have gotten to a phone to call for emergency care. Now

with the use of a cellphone you can often have help there in the matter of

minutes. It has saved countless lives, but the use of a hand-held cellphone has

also caused the end of many lives. I think it is time that this was addressed,

and that is the whole purpose of this proposed legislation. I think the benefits

of cellphones in emergency situations have been very clearly documented, but I

think we also know, as I have said, that they have caused some very serious

problems also.

Also, we should point out that government is not doing this for the sake of

penalizing people. I think government expects compliance, especially when 95 per

cent of the people of this Province have said that we ought to be concerned

about the use of hand-held cellphones. We know that penalties are not what is

important here; compliance is what is important here.

I think you will see that in this Province, as we have seen with the use of

seatbelts - because of the recognition and the intelligence of the general

public, we will see that people will be curtailing their use and will not be

using hand-held cellphones. We will probably have a very high compliance rate as

we have had with seatbelts in this country. This Province has had one of the

highest rates of compliance, after the introduction of seat belt legislation, of

any province in this country and, as a matter of fact, has one of the highest

rates of compliance in the world. We hope that this will be true also of this

new cellphone legislation.

In closing, I want to commend the Minister of Government Services and Lands

for bringing forward this very progressive bill that I am very proud to stand

and support.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am delighted to stand today and offer a few comments on this

particular bill, Bill 15,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,

an act to try

to address some of the safety issues that come about when there is unwise use of

cellphones while people are driving. In doing so, I acknowledge that I have had

discussions with the minister on various occasions on this particular topic. I

also acknowledge that I have talked with members of the medical community in

particular. The minister just mentioned the Canadian Medical Association. I have

had some of their reports that have been forwarded to me, and also, of course,

the American Medical Association. They, too, have addressed this issue in some

of their literature.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the influence of cellphones on driver

situation awareness. In that connection, I want to share with members one piece

of research done in England by Andrew Parkes in the transport research

laboratory in England. He did a fairly extensive study on the use of cellphones

and the influence that they have on driver performance. He did find that there

were significant changes in driver performance, particularly at the beginning

stages of a telephone conversation. Apparently the research shows that there is

a greater liability for accidents in the first two minutes of the conversation.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that there is a lot of research that

shows that there is not a great deal of difference between hand-held cellphones

and those cellphones that are hands-free. In fact, I have a hands-free cellphone

in my vehicle. I had it there for some time, and certainly I use it from time to

time. I try to use it as wisely as I can. In fact, this very morning I was

driving out over the Outer Ring Road and I was going to make a telephone call

and I said: No, I do not need to do that.

Partly, this is because of the debate we are having here. It is called

awareness. Be more publicly aware that if you do not need to make that telephone

conversation at a particular point in time then maybe you should not. Maybe we

should not. Although I do have a hands-free set in my vehicle, this morning I

said: No, I do not need to be doing this right now. I should be concentrating on

the driving task at hand. Partly, that is because we all have become a little

more aware, a little more sensitive and using a little more common sense, you

might say, in our driver performance.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the study by Andrew Parkes. I have a lot

of research that I have been able to do on this particular topic and would be

quite willing to share it with members of the House. I did mention that the most

dangerous

part is indeed the conversation itself. It is not the equipment; it is

the conversation that distracts the driver. That has been well researched and

has been attested to by any number of writers and researchers who have looked at

this particular topic.

Mr. Speaker, a survey in the United States revealed that the vast majority -

84 per cent - of cellphone users believe that using a phone is a distraction and

increases the likelihood of an accident. That research was done in 1999, and

there has been a lot more research since that. However, the same respondents who

responded to that particular survey also reported that 61 per cent of them used

their cellphones while driving around and 30 per cent of them acknowledged they

use the cellphone rather frequently. So, Mr. Speaker, even though they

acknowledged that cellphone use - 84 per cent of them thought it was a

distraction, yet 61 per cent of them use their cellphone sometimes and 30 per

cent of them use it quite often.

Mr. Speaker, this is why we have to try to address the issue of safety. I

acknowledge that the research shows in Italy, the country of Italy, only

hands-free phones are allowed under the laws of Italy. We also acknowledge that

there are laws in countries like Portugal, Denmark, Hungary and Spain,

addressing the issue of the use of cellphones while driving. Outside of Europe,

a hand-held prohibition exists in Israel, in Malaysia, and in some states of the

United States.

We might be the first in Canada to go in this direction but we are certainly

not the first in the world. There are many more jurisdictions, other countries

which have adopted laws similar to the laws we are adopting today. In fact, in

some countries there are laws against using cellphones period, for any kind of

use, whether they are hand-held or hands-free.

Mr. Speaker, also there is research that shows the difficulty centres around

what we call the situation awareness. When people are driving while using their

phone, they are not paying attention to the traffic behind them in some cases.

Research will show that. The drivers have difficulty maintaining a clear picture

of the traffic situation around them while they are talking on the phone.

Although the conversation is distracting, the research will show that in some

cases it can lead to very serious situations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with members as well, in the time allocated to

me, some of the poll results that I have here. It is a document called:

In-Vehicle Technologies: Experience & Research. I will share with the House

some of the research. This research was done in the U.S. and I will just pose a

certain number of questions. I tell members the number of respondents and what

the responses were. For example, to the question: Is it safe to talk on a

cellphone while driving? The survey they did in this particular study had 1,069

respondents. It is interesting that to the question: Is it safe to use a

cellphone while driving? Twenty-two percent of the respondents said that it was

safe, but 75 per cent said it was not safe. So, of the people participating in

the survey - 1,069 people - 75 per cent of these people said: No, it is not safe

to use a cellphone while you are driving.

The second question in the survey said: Which of the following is your

biggest safety concern associated with cellphone use while driving? In other

words, what is your big concern? It is interesting that there were 988 people

who responded to that particular question. Twenty-eight per cent said their

greatest concern was the actual process of dialing the number; 2 per cent said

it was actually answering the phone itself; 36 per cent said that they had

difficulty holding a conversation; and 34 per cent said that the use of a

cellphone caused them trouble when they began to write down notes while talking

and holding a conversation while they were driving.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that there is whole range of difficulty that

people experience. Some people thought the biggest problem was the actual

dialing process. Some people thought it was answering the phone itself. Others

thought the conversation was the difficulty. Then, other related tasks like

trying to find a number in your notebook, trying to write down information that

is given to you on the phone, while at the same time trying to be aware of the

traffic all around you and also being aware of the traffic that is behind you as

well. Therefore, you have safety risks that are brought on by the use of the

cellphone.

It is interesting that, on another question: Under what conditions would you

feel it is safe to use a cellphone? Sixty-four per cent said it is never safe;

29 per cent said, when driving under light traffic conditions like on open road,

but 7 per cent thought it was safe any time at all.

Mr. Speaker, the great majority of people in this survey did indicate that

they would be supportive of this kind of legislation that is brought forward

here by the minister in this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to draw attention to the question that was asked

in the same survey: Have you ever witnessed or experienced a close call or crash

resulting from a driver using a cellular phone or from your personal use with a

cellphone?

It is interesting that 16 per cent of the people in this survey of 540 people

said they had witnessed an actual crash that resulted from the use of a

cellphone; 64 per cent said that they had witnessed a close call. So we do know

from the research that there is a concern. The driving public has concerns with

the use of cellphones.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to, as well, address an issue of public education,

because the survey also says that the great majority of people believe that if

we had a better educational program that people would be more aware of the

safety issues. Many people use a cellphone and they are not aware of the risks

they take with themselves and those who might be in the car with them.

Mr. Speaker, the research, then, is clear. It shows that most people will

support the initiatives that the minister brought forward in this amendment to

the Highway Traffic Act. The minister's bill is grounded in actions taken in

other countries. It is also supported by the Canadian Medical Association, and

it brought in research by the US Medical Association, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister, however, that it is very

important that he have a very good public relations program on this particular

matter. This is something where we would support. We do not need the minister to

put out a big ad where his picture takes up half the space, like the Premier

did, but we do need for the public to know the research. As my colleagues have

said, I wish the minister would share with us, as well, some of the research

that he has referenced on several occasions with a percentage of the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador, but he has not shared that research with the House as

my research had to be obtained through other sources.

I would have liked the minister, when he was tabling his bill, to have sent

around to all members the questions that were asked in the surveys that he

refers to and what the results were, as you can get from other sources. You can

read the question, you can see how it was categorized and you can see the

responses that were made to it. We should not have to rely on the research done

elsewhere. If the minister has the research, then he should be willing to

circulate it to all members. As a matter of fact, he should be willing to

circulate it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and share with them the

research that he has done when he was doing the background work to this

particular piece of legislation.

So, I say to the minister, the general public of Newfoundland and Labrador

will probably support this particular piece of legislation. We, on this side,

will give it support as well because it is an issue of safety. Someone said

earlier: If we can save one life, then this is worth it. Also, the public needs

to know how others feel about using cellphones. Again I repeat that, although

this particular piece of legislation is only dealing with the hand-held, we are

still letting the hands-free use of cellphones continue. The research does not

show much difference between hand-held use of cellphones and hands-free.

Although, I agree with the minister this is a first step in the process, but the

minister, I know, is well aware of the other side of the research, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to note here that it will take a little while for

the public, I do believe, to get used to this particular change. So, we need to

have some lead time.

Also, I do have concerns about losing four demerit points on your driver's

licence initially. I think that is a bit rough at the beginning. I think there

should be a graduated loss of points, that the first case where you have a

ticket, you might lose two points on your driver's licence and then gradually

you could lose more points if you have repeated offences. I do understand that

the decision is up to the court. I do not think the decision on the demerit

points though is left for the judge to decide. That is automatic. If you have a

conviction, then you will lose four demerit points. I think that if there was a

gradual lost of points then it might be just as effective to the enforcement of

this particular piece of legislation.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I generally support this piece

of legislation, saying to the minister that it is grounded on good research.

However, I would like for him to share the research that he has, that was done

in Newfoundland and Labrador, and also to remind him again that this particular

piece of legislation should not result in immediate enforcement until we have

had time to make the general public of Newfoundland and Labrador adequately

aware, and that might take a little time. It might take several months. We have

to have time for people to know that they should not be using their cellphones

while they are driving, and also to let people know that, not only is the

hand-held phone a cause of driver safety issues, but even hands-free can cause

difficulties as well. The difficulties is not necessarily in the technology, the

difficulty is in the holding of the conversation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak in support of Bill 15,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act. Mr. Speaker, as others have said, both on this side of the House and on the

opposite side of the House, this is a very specific and a very focused piece of

legislation, which has one intent only, which is to increase the safety of the

people on our highways by prohibiting the use of hand-held cellular phones by

people while they are driving. It seems a little bit unusual in a sense, that

with a bill with that simple an intent, that it would take this length of time

to have the kind of debate that we have on legislation in this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to many of the speakers who have spoken here

over the last two days, yesterday and today, and in essence the majority that I

have heard, in fact all that I have heard, have supported this legislation. I am

pleased to heard that people have supported the legislation, know what it is

intended to do, and say that it is a good thing to do. Mr. Speaker, there has

been a lot of time that has been taken in referring to a whole host of other

issues, which I certainly do not intend to go into today.

I think all of us today who have used cellphones recognize that they are a

very much a convenience for us. They are certainly a mode of communication that

we appreciate, and we know that they enhance our convenience and in many cases

are safety, but when they are put in our hands at the time when one is driving,

then it certainly doesn't enhance safety. In fact, the statistics show that it

is quite the opposite of that. I have to say that, even as recently as today,

Mr. Speaker, when I was traveling, just a couple of hours before I came into the

House this morning, I had the unfortunate experience of having a car pull out of

a stop sign directly in front of me, and the person wasn't even looking at me.

They did have a hand-held cellular phone and they were carrying on a vigorous

conversation. Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of things that happen with this,

and that is why, I think, four out of five Canadians suggest that this is the

right thing to do, that they would prefer not to have people distracted and

engaged in conversations of whatever nature on a telephone, using their hands

when they are supposed to be behind the wheel of a car and driving safely.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, our Highway Safety Act can pick up and note driving

that is unsafe and give our police force the ability to deal with that in many

other circumstances. That is quite legitimate and I support that as well. Mr.

Speaker, in this case, with the rate of expansion of cellular phone use and

knowing, particularly, that more and more people and more and more young people

are using these telephones as a primary source of communication, I think it is

very important that we set a standard now for how they should be applied when it

comes to driving.

Mr. Speaker, everyone who has spoken has had an experience with hand-held

cellular phones, whether it is their own experience or someone who they have

observed using them or someone close to them. I believe, as the Minister of

Fisheries has indicated, if this action that we are taking to put a piece of

legislation in place will result in us saving one life, if it will result in one

less injury, if it will result in one less accident, for the sake of just

keeping the phone call until you pull over to the side, making that phone call

at that time, or shutting it off while you are actually driving a car, then I

think that it is quite worth doing.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up a lot of time here this afternoon.

I know that there is tremendous support for this piece of legislation. I have

had many, many of my constituents and other people in the Province who have

enquired about it since it was introduced in the fall, and people want us to

move on with this, they think it is the right thing to do. I believe, likewise,

it is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to stand and support

it today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I want to rise today to make a few points on this. I won't

prolong the debate much further. I would say to the minister, I agree this is an

important and a serious matter. Many people in this House have already given

their points in the debate that has gone on in this House today and yesterday,

Mr. Speaker, and there are some serious concerns. We all, obviously, are going

to support this bill, but at the same time I think it is important to know from

the minister - I hope that when the minister closes the debate today that he

will answer some of the questions that were raised by my colleagues on both

sides of the House, some of the concerns with the research that has been done.

This is new ground for all of us, and this will be the first province in Canada.

It is, I understand, in one state of the United States now, minister. Is that

right? There were reports that there were twenty states in the United States

that have already done this, but I understand there is one and that is New York

State.

For all of us who have used cellphones since they have come into play -

because it is still fairly new when we talk about cellphones. I know myself,

from my own experience - and that is where we can gain the most knowledge, I

guess, from our own experience with cellphone use over the years - for myself,

and for many members in this House, we travel quite a bit on the highways. I am

certainly as guilty as anybody else of using a cellphone, a hand-held cellphone.

There is no use in denying that. We have experienced it travelling on the

highway, but there is a difference in travelling on the highway and in-town and

in-city use. There is a lot of knowledge to be learned about the differences

when we are travelling at speeds of 100 kilometres an hour or eighty kilometres

an hour on the highway as opposed to driving around the city, like the minister

mentioned today, with people going through stop signs and red lights.

We have seen it all, and nobody in this House likes to hear of one single

accident. I think one of the ministers today talked about two accidents she

knows of. I think it was the Member for Gander who talked about two accidents

she knows of, where they involved cellphones. We can all stand here today - and

it is quite simple. If this legislation and this law can help save one life then

it is worthwhile. At the same time when we say that, when we all say support it,

we also have to make sure we investigate it and the research is done properly so

that we do the right job if it is, and which it is, new ground for all of us. We

are talking about cellphone use.

Of course cellphones, to us, have made a great convenience. I know the way I

travel around my district and around the Province, and being on the road so

much, certainly the convenience of cellphones and how we use them has been

important to use in our daily lives. I am sure that it is important to people in

business and so on. I do not think there is any argument about the convenience

and use of cellphones, but also the people who have experienced the use of

cellphones on highways and in our cities can give some very valuable knowledge,

I say to the minister.

I am sure you have heard from your own colleagues, their own experiences with

cellphones and so on. I have said to my colleague from The Straits & White

Bay North: one of the hardest, most difficult things when using a cellphone,

especially on the highways, is dialing the number. You have all experienced

that. The 1-709 and then the other digits, that is a pretty tough thing to do.

Then we talked about - and I think the minister already mentioned this - the

distraction of actually getting into a heavy conversation with somebody on the

cellphone. It is all a distraction.

I think the Member for Gander also noted that we stick to cellphones, but we

are talking about distractions when we are driving. I always said, although we

agree with this, that education in driving, period, is what needs to be improved

in this Province, and not just in this Province but all across our country;

education in driving in general, not just on cellphones but how we handle

ourselves.

How many people in this House were drinking a coffee or eating a sandwich

while driving? You talk about conversations, conversations in the car with the

people who are in with you, not on a cellphone. I am sure people who have

children have experienced what it is like to drive with two and three children

in a car. All of these things are distractions and they all will be there. You

cannot out rule and make the perfect situation because, as we know, when you get

into a vehicle of any kind, of course, and there are distractions, there is

always the possibility for increased accidents. That is what I think we are

getting down to today, in this piece of legislation, what this is going to do to

make it a little bit safer for people to drive our highways. That is what this

bill is all about, and we have all agreed that if this distraction, this added

distraction of using a hand-held cellphone - if this can help us improve on

safety on our highways, then everybody is for it. Nobody has the monopoly on

safety in this Province. We all feel that we want to be safer on our highways,

especially when we see so many accidents.

I disagree with the Member for Gander. She talked about how we are straying

off and talking about other incidents, but the whole idea of safety on our

highways should be addressed. Cellphone use, yes.

Also, the Minister of Transportation got a little bit upset when we mentioned

about the road conditions. That is certainly a distraction. That is certainly a

safety hazard, especially in this Province, when you think about those variables

in this particular Province of the weather conditions we have, as we see where

weather conditions can change so fast. You add to that the fact of the road

conditions we have throughout the Province - for example, the La Scie highway or

Little Bay highway, those kind of conditions where we have potholes and you are

weaving in and out throughout potholes and so on. Those are all factors. When

you add to that the distraction of the cellphone, I guess, at the end of the

day, everything is dangerous when you are on the highway. That is something we

have to think about.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to mention to the minister the enforcement. That

is something that has been brought up and it is a good point. I hope the

minister is going to answer some of those questions when he stands to close

debate. We all wonder about that. We all say: Yes, let's bring in the law. We

will do that in this House, and it becomes law. That is step one. Now the

enforcement. I think it was the Member for Kilbride who mentioned, whatever law

we add on top of the laws we have today, that is an extra workload for the

departments, the RNC and the RCMP in this Province. It is an extra workload; it

is something added to that. I know there are strains now within our own police

departments in the Province and this is something added to it. Hopefully they

can handle that.

Another question that was brought up, Mr.