November 28, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 39

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

I would like to address the point of order raised by the hon. the Government

House Leader on November 21 regarding Oral Questions. I have already ruled that

a question must concern the current portfolio of a minister, that the government

may determine which minister will answer a question, and that questions and

answers should be brief.

Today I would like to begin by reminding all hon. members of the purpose of

the Oral Question Period, which is - "that part of the parliamentary day

where the government is held accountable for its administrative policies and the

conduct of its Ministers, both individually and collectively." I refer hon.

members to Marleau and Montpetit , page 416.

The guidelines which govern the form and content of Oral Questions are based

on convention, usage and tradition. For example, in the House of Commons with

301 MPs, there are strict, short, time limits on questions and answers. Not all

but some of our small legislatures have adopted this practice. Nevertheless,

since the purpose of the proceeding is to permit the maximum number of members

to illicit information from the ministry, members should be succinct in their

questioning, as should ministers in their responses. If a question is too broad,

the answer will similarly be broad. If a minister is too robust in giving his or

her answer, it will provoke a drawn out supplementary.

Members should remember, as well, that supplementaries should flow from the

answer and should not be preceded by a

preamble. The original question is really

the

preamble. Subsequent questions should be other than those already asked.

In the House of Commons, several speakers have made useful rulings on the

subject of Oral Questions.

In 1986, Speaker Bosely, drawing on a rule of Speaker Jerome, laid out the

following principles which would apply equally to our Oral Question Period:

`Time is scarce and should, therefore, be used as profitably as possible by

as many as possible.'

`The primary purpose of the Oral Question Period is the seeking of

information from the government and calling government to account for its

actions.'

`Members should be given the greatest possible freedom in putting of

questions that is consistent with the other principles that I have just

outlined, or our practices should seek, in the words of Mr. Speaker Jerome,

"To reduce to an absolute minimum the negative disqualifications that may

limit or restrict a member's right to ask a question."

Our own Standing Order 26(1) states that questions must be of urgent public

importance and that if a question requires a lengthy answer, a minister may

require it to be placed on the Order Paper. As well, questions should not

contain argument or opinion, nor should a minister, in answering a question,

engage in debate.

Of course, hon. members know that a minister, in his or her discretion, may

decline to answer a question, Standing Order 26(5).

I, therefore, ask all hon. members to bear in mind these comments and make

their questions and answers as brief and as crisp as possible, avoiding debate

both in posing and in answering. In that way, the proceeding, the Oral Question

Period, will better serve the purpose for which it is intended.

As well, on Monday, November 26, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Rural Development raised a point of privilege concerning some comments made by

the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the public media and in the House. It

is the hon. the minister's opinion that these statements are misquotations of

comments of the Auditor General in one of her annual reports.

In respect of comments made in the media, it has been ruled on a number of

occasions that statements made outside the House cannot be the basis of a

question of privilege, and I refer hon. members to Beauchesne's, 6 th

Edition , 31(3).

As for the comments made in the House, to allege that a member has misled the

House is a matter of order rather than of privilege and is not unparliamentary.

I refer hon. members to Maingot , Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,

Second Edition , page 241. The minister noted that he was not suggesting a

deliberate misquotation, and this is important as it would be unparliamentary to

suggest that a member has deliberately misled the House.

The Chair, therefore, finds that what has occurred is really a difference of

opinion between two hon. members, and a prima facie case of breach of privilege

has not been established.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Bay Roberts Heritage Society recently

received the Merit Award from the Museum Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador in recognition of excellence in preserving heritage in this Province.

The Merit Award is the highest recognition provided by the Museum Association

of Newfoundland and Labrador and is only given if very strict requirements are

met.

The society was honoured for its work in producing "The Road to

Yesterday Museum" in the restored former Western Union Cable Building on

Water Street in Bay Roberts.

Preserving and interpreting our past is a very important task which enhances

communities and our whole Province. This is certainly the case with the work of

the Bay Roberts Heritage Society. I would invite members of this House and the

general public to visit the site. It is still open at this time of year, from

1:30 p.m to 4:30 p.m, Wednesday to Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members to join with me in congratulating the Bay Roberts

Heritage Society on receiving this award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of our Province are proud to have had the opportunity to help out

in a very direct way in the hours and days following the tragic terrorist

attacks in the United States on September11.

In communities across Newfoundland and Labrador, our citizens opened up their

hearts, their homes and their wallets, to assist those who were stranded by the

closure of North America's airspace. One of those communities that opened up

its heart was the Holy Heart of Mary High School community in St. John's,

which hosted some 550 stranded passengers, some for as long as four days.

I cannot begin to say how proud I am of the parents, the teachers, the school

support staff and the many members of the community who volunteered their time,

their energy and their goodwill to make the stranded passengers feel welcome and

cared for during those difficult days. I am especially proud, Mr. Speaker, of

the efforts of the 250 students who pitched in to help our accidental visitors

feel at home. It became crystal clear during those days that the long tradition

of selfless charity that has been part of the Newfoundland and Labrador psyche

for generations is very much alive and well among our young people. Their acts

of kindness, Mr. Speaker, have left a lasting impression on all those who stayed

here, and all their families and neighbors in their home cities and countries

who have learned through them about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I truly congratulate Holy Heart, its students, their principal,

Mr. Robert Pittman, the faculty, staff, parents, the community at large, and the

members of the Avalon East School Board, for a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, recently this Province held its first Rural EXPO where five

Community Economic Development Awards were presented. The winners were: Wilf

Sutton and Tom Sutton, co-nominees, of Trepassey, for the Outstanding Individual

Achievement Award; Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs

(NLOWE) for the Excellence in Fostering Entrepreneurship Award; the Nordic

Economic Development Corporation has won the Excellence in Partnership Award;

Michelle Snow of Clarke's Beach has won the Excellence in Youth Leadership

Award; the Random North Development Association has captured the Innovation in

Education Award.

The five winners were selected from more that eighty nominations received for

the five awards which were reviewed by an eight-member awards committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of the House to join with me in congratulating

these award winners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like for all members of the House to join with me today in

congratulating Ms Bertha Hewitt of Saint Luke's Homes, who is celebrating her

100 th birthday today. Ms Hewitt is formerly of Fogo Island. She

remains active, is in good health, and enjoys many church and social activities

and events at Saint Luke's Homes. Her kind and hospitable nature are

demonstrated by her life-long volunteer contributions and the devotion of family

and friends. Her guiding philosophy is: Life is what you make of it.

Her family and many friends, the staff of Saint Luke's Homes, and hopefully

all Members of the House of Assembly today, will join with me in wishing Ms

Bertha Hewitt a very happy 100 th birthday.

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, recently in Winnipeg at the National Annual

General Meeting of the Victorian Order of Nurses, a Newfoundlander received a

very important award from that organization.

Ms Lorraine Humber has been awarded the VON Canada Award of Distinction. This

national award is given to only one individual each year for outstanding service

to the VON and in recognition of contribution to furthering the goals of VON

Canada.

Lorraine has been with the VON for over twenty years and has been with the

Lark Harbour clinic in the Bay of Islands since it opened in 1986. The VON

Clinic serves Lark Harbour and the York Harbour area, providing medical

assistance to all residents in the area.

Lorraine is well known in the Outer Bay of Islands for her dedication and

commitment to the area. She is on call twenty-four hours a day, and most of her

time is spent volunteering. She serves on the town council and is a volunteer

for her church and various local charities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in

congratulating Ms Lorraine Humber on receiving this award for the work that she

has done for the Outer Bay of Islands area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past weekend in Labrador West, I had the privilege of attending the

ninth annual Toys for Joys fund-raising event, an event which raises money to

buy Christmas gifts for children in Labrador West who otherwise may not have

any.

This event is sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 47, and a large

number of local musicians who volunteer their talents for the night. The people

who attend this event make a contribution at the door of any amount they choose.

The money then is turned over to the Knights of Columbus who do a great job in

identifying the children in our communities who are in need.

Mr. Speaker, people were continuously coming and going Saturday night with

more than 700 people visiting the legion, some to stay for awhile and listen to

the entertainment and others just to drop by with a donation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say the generosity of the people of Labrador West

was demonstrated once again; $10,800 was raised, enough to make sure there will

not be one child in Labrador West this Christmas morning without a reason to be

excited.

I would like to thank the members of the Legion, Branch 47, the Knights of

Columbus, and all others who took part to make this night a tremendous success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to inform hon. members that I, along with the hon. Ralph Goodale,

Minister of Natural Resources Canada, have received the Canada-Newfoundland

Offshore Petroleum Board's Decision Report on the White Rose Development Plan

Application filed by Husky Oil in January of this year.

The C-NOPB's decision is based upon the information contained in the

Development Application, the report of the Public Review Commissioner and

consultations with both governments. The Decision Report deals with the White

Rose Canada-Newfoundland Benefits Plan, the Development Plan, and includes

responses to the Commissioner's recommendations, as well as other matters for

which C-NOPB approval is required.

Government will review the document and within the next thirty days

determine, on behalf of the people of the Province, whether to accept or reject

the Development Application. I will inform the people of the Province of

government's decision on or before December 27 and, subject to approval, will

make the C-NOPB's Decision Report public at that time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed a very important issue, perhaps one of the most important

public policy issues facing the people of the Province today. Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of the members on this side of the House, and indeed all residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador, we look forward to thirty days' time when the C-NOPB's

Decision Report and government's decision will be handed down.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward as well to what the government has to say with

respect to the Public Review Commissioner's recommendations, and specifically

Recommendation 4.1 which states, "The Commissioner recommends that the

Board not approve the Canada-Newfoundland Benefits Plan, Volume I of the White

Rose Development Application..."; and recommendation 4.2, "The

Commissioner recommends that the Board invite the Proponent to rewrite its

Benefits Plan to correct the deficiencies identified...".

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member

opposite.

In conclusion, it will be interesting to note what government's decision is

and what the C-NOPB report has to say with respect to those recommendations as

outlined by the Public Review Commissioner. In thirty days' time, I believe

the minister indicated that December 27 will be the date for the announcement, I

would submit this will be a very important and critical day for all the people

of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is going to be a real test of the backbone and power of the C-NOPB as to

whether or not they are prepared to leave, as the Public Review Commissioner has

said, the Benefits Plan for White Rose in so general and qualified a way as to

effectively leave the complete discretion on benefit matters with the proponent

and the contractors. This is going to be important, to see whether the C-NOPB is

prepared to stand up for benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, and whether

this government is prepared to do the same thing.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has claimed to have an open, accessible and

transparent government, yet the new Freedom of Information Act, the proposed

Bill 49, in fact makes it more difficult for the public to secure information

due to procedural roadblocks.

Could the Premier explain to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why the

former act had a thirty-day response period, yet the new act, the proposed bill,

requires reasonable efforts only in a thirty-day period, provides for an

extension of a further thirty-day period under certain circumstances and, in

fact, provides for circumstances where it can be in excess of ninety days? Could

the Premier please explain why the differences?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is raising these very important

questions with respect to this very important piece of legislation. The Minister

of Justice will answer all the details about all of the particular clauses in

this bill in the debate in questions in Question Period, if that is what the

Opposition wants to do as we go through the debate on this very important piece

of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition is

desperately trying to suggest that this government has not been the most open

that this Province has ever seen, because the record shows it differently. We

have already established, in nine months, since February 13 when this

Administration was sworn in, that no government in history has ever been as open

and accountable to the people of the Province as this particular government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We will continue to build on that. That whole concept is

being adopted and accepted in Newfoundland and Labrador today, and the people

will be more convinced than ever, when they have seen the full debate of this

bill and its full contents, all of it, not just one piece that the Leader of the

Opposition might like to take out and misrepresent like he did last week, Mr.

Speaker. Last week, the record clearly shows that he misrepresented the views

and concerns of the Auditor General, and he can try to misrepresent the openness

of this government if he wants, but it is going to fail the test because the

people already know that we are established as the most open and accountable

government that this Province has ever seen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am reluctant to stand here in Question Period on a point

of order, but the Premier has been in this House as a member since 1989. He

knows that he cannot stand up and accuse another member in this House of

purposely misrepresenting a fact. He knows that, Mr. Speaker. I ask him to stand

and apologize. He knows he cannot do that!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair just made a ruling which says that the minister noted that he was

not suggesting a deliberate misquotation. To misrepresent is not a point of

order. To say that someone mislead the House, or to misrepresent a particular

view, is not a point of order unless it is said that the member deliberately did

that.

There is no point of order.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has chosen not to deal with my question as to the

reason for the extended time periods in the new legislation. I will ask the hon.

the Premier why the Citizens' Representative, who has been appointed to

intervene in this new legislation, has no authority whatsoever to implement his

recommendations?

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, there is going to be a full and complete debate of every

single clause in this bill in this Legislature and, because it is critically

important, I expect that every single member of the Opposition would like to

speak to this bill. We will answer every single question.

The Opposition knows, the people of the Province know, that the fundamental

contents of this bill are here because they reflect fifty of the fifty-two

recommendations made by a committee that went all over the Province and around

the country to examine what the current state of affairs and the currently

modern accepted standards are for freedom of information.

The one that he just raised is one that is adopted exactly as the committee

recommended. It is not that the government altered the recommendation. This was

a public process, Mr. Speaker, that was done in the Province. The committee

heard from everybody: media representatives, politicians, others that had an

interest in freedom of information. The committee heard from them and the

committee recommended that what is in the act with respect to the question just

asked by the Leader of the Opposition is the best possible resolution today. I

would expect the question if, in fact, the committee had recommended something

else and we were bringing in something different in the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We are bringing in with respect to that question and that

issue exactly what the committee has recommended, Mr. Speaker.

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, this government continues to deflect

responsibilities to school boards, to health boards, and now to committees that

draft legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: In this House we have a right to ask questions and we have

a right to get answers from this government. Could the Premier explain why his

Liberal counterparts in B.C. have put some teeth in this legislation and have

given the Citizens' Representative authority to implement his orders?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is exactly the kind of work that the committee did through all of last

spring and summer. It was announced here, last year in December, that there

would be a full review of freedom of information legislation in the country. Mr.

Speaker, the committee, not the government - and he might now suggest that we

should not have committees. I am sure that last week and maybe later today, if

we hear the inconsistent approach of last week, Mr. Speaker, later today I am

sure we will hear from the Opposition that there should be a committee set up to

look at something or other. All of a sudden we had a committee look at it and

now he says, you are deflecting responsibility to the committees.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. We believe in exploring the issue

completely and totally, and the record has already shown in Newfoundland and

Labrador that this is the most open government. That cannot be denied, Mr.

Speaker. Every single report -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will briefly conclude with maybe this

example of a point of what we are witnessing here today. The last time we were

in Legislature, the Opposition was suggesting that in the Churchill Falls

contracts, with guaranteed winter availability and with the recall, there was

something hidden in there that was bad for Newfoundland and Labrador because we

had not disclosed the contracts.

Mr. Speaker, this government gave the contracts and guess what? It was proven

to be very good for Newfoundland and Labrador and we have not heard a question

about it since.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: It is typical of the approach of the Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, to try to suggest there is something wrong when there is no substance

at all to the allegation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier continues to refuse to answer questions. It is ironic that the

very committee that he speaks of, a request for information was asked on the

deliberations of that committee and the government refused to provide that

information.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier agree that the extended time periods,

prohibited fees, and the lack of authority by the Citizens' Representative, in

fact constitute a denial of information, rather than access to information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as we debate this particular bill in full debate, the Leader of the

Opposition can spend a full hour, if he chooses, discussing his concerns about

the bill at second reading, and every single member can have twenty minutes, Mr.

Speaker, to talk about this particular important piece of legislation. At the

end of the debate - and again, I have invited them, if they have particular

concerns about one or two of the clauses that are in the bill, by all means move

some amendments at the committee stage. We will consider them as we always do,

as the government, because we are committed, and the public record already shows

that, Mr. Speaker, by the release of reports on water quality, the release of

reports on home support and the release of the report on Freedom of Information.

The very day, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Justice received the report

of the committee, rather than us keeping it for two or three months, we gave it

to the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, those recommendations, except for

two, which have been altered slightly, are in this legislation. We are very

proud of it and we will gladly debate it fully during this session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Deputy Premier.

Last week I raised the issue of the possible sale price Friede Goldman are

asking for Marystown shipyard. We all know -

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains, if you would

like me to ask a question to you I will finish with him first and then I will

deal with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we all know that Friede Goldman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we all know that Friede Goldman are under

Chapter 11 proceedings of the Bankruptcy Act in the United States. We also know

that under those proceedings they have only a certain amount of time. There is a

sunset clause on when they will not be protected anymore. My understanding is

that will happen within the next couple or three weeks.

The question I would like to ask the Deputy Premier is this: With respect to

Friede Goldman, can you confirm that the asking price of Friede Goldman

Newfoundland and Labrador, of $15 million, is in fact a hurdle that government

is trying to get over in terms of selling the yard to another potential buyer as

it positions itself to take advantage of fabrication work on the White Rose

project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I will try to answer the question as briefly as I can because

the hon. gentleman might threatened somebody else here.

Let me just say to him that there are negotiations ongoing for the purchase

of the assets of Friede Goldman by a particular company. There are some hurdles

to overcome, obviously. Otherwise, we would have had signed a deal by now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier this question. In view of the fact

that

Chapter 11 proceedings and the sunset clause where Friede Goldman will not

be under a protection, so to speak, government and the Deputy Premier have made

a commitment that the assets will not leave Marystown. I ask the Deputy Premier:

Does that mean that, in the evident that a liquidator is appointed, and in the

event that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador may become an unsecured

creditor, does that mean that you, as a government, are prepared to move in and

seize that asset because Friede Goldman International has not lived up to its

obligations and promises they made to the people of the Province and in

particular to the people of the Burin Peninsula?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman, that is a very sensible question.

It is a good question, and the answer has been given to it many times. We, as a

government, will not allow the assets to leave Marystown. We have said they

belong to the people. They will stay in Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TULK: Don't take any advice from him. You are better at it than he

is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I say to the hon. gentleman, that the assets - and I pledge to

the people of Marystown today and to him - of Friede Goldman will be used for

the people of Marystown and they will stay there, and I hope the hon. gentleman

will support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: A final supplementary.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker. Is the Deputy Premier saying that if a

liquidator is appointed, Friede Goldman then has to liquidate its assets which

include Marystown? They have already liquidated some in France. Is he saying

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will do what this Opposition

has suggested, and that is to move in and seize the assets of Marystown to

ensure that the economy in the region and that shipyard goes ahead and works? Is

that what the Deputy Premier is saying?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman, that I

understand that is what the Opposition is saying today. Today! Last week, I

understand, or a short time ago, the Leader of the Opposition was down in

Marystown talking about the good old days when the Tories were in power. Yes,

the good old days, Mr. Speaker, when we spent $181 million of taxpayers' money

of government trying to run a shipyard. I say to the hon. gentleman, governments

are not very good at running anything, let alone a shipyard, let alone a

business, and that includes his government that sunk $181 million in the

Marystown Shipyard.

We understand what his position is today. Ours has been consistent ever since

last May, when I rose in this House the first time the hon. gentleman asked the

question, and said clearly: We will leave no stone unturned in Marystown, and we

will ensure that the assets that are in Marystown remain in Marystown for the

people of Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week The Telegram reported, through the Freedom of

Information Act, that the town of Victoria in the District of Carbonear-Harbour

Grace received a $97,000 cheque, supposedly, to buy a new loader. Now, the mayor

has categorically stated, and I quote: The money wasn't for anything in

particular. He was told, and I quote again: All of that money they gave us was

to spend on whatever we wish. A $97,000 cheque and he was told he could that.

My question is to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I would like to ask

the member: At any time or on any occasion did you tell either a councillor or

the mayor that they could, indeed, spend that money on anything that they

wished?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to that: Last week, I produced proof to the media that a letter

was sent to the council in Victoria, specifically saying the amounts that were

to be spent for the loader and the amounts that were to be spent for the pager.

It was in The Telegram. I would like to say, too, Mr. Speaker, in

response to the Leader of the Opposition, who criticized me personally, in a

sense, saying, you had no plan, you had no way to retrieve it, you just sent it

out, this is just another example of how you deal with people - I want to say to

him, if didn't know: As the minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, we do have audits and, at the end of the day, all the councils are

audited and all the monies accounted for. If not, we will take appropriate

action. So, the particular town of Victoria had their orders, they knew exactly

what to do, and time will show that is exactly what they are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I know all about the letter that the minister wrote, Mr. Speaker. I do not

understand it, but the mayor categorically, on three different occasions, said

that he was told - and I believe the mayor and the councillors - that he was

told he could spend it any way he wished.

I would like to ask the minister: Is it normal practice of the department to

send out a $97,000 cheque without knowing what the cost of the item was? Is that

normal, minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we knew, in consultation with the town of Victoria, that the

loader would cost approximately $140,000 to $150,000. What we did was cost

share, exactly what we have done with your town on a number of things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: In many instances, Mr. Speaker, this minister, with

different people on the opposite side, has done things for you just as have been

done for the town of Victoria. In some instances it has not only been cost

shared, it has been 100 per cent. How I treat people on this side is how I treat

people on that side; and the day I do not is the day I do not want to be the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is funny the minister said he cost shared, but he does not know what his

share was.That does not make a lot of sense.

It was in November that the mayor made this statement, that he was told he

could spend it any way he wished. Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us today

exactly where that cheque is, how much is spent, and what it is spent on? Was it

indeed spent for the loader, I will ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the particular

cheque for the amount for the loader is still in trust and, when the loader is

purchased, that particular amount will go towards that particular machine, and

the council will borrow the rest to pay for the machine in question.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy, concerning Wabush Mines.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, the minister said he had spoken with the company and

department officials, who have assured him that there is no high-grade happening

at Wabush Mines. I note there is no mention of consulting with the workers. He

also referred to an interview he did six months ago about this issue.

I ask the minister: How current and in-depth was the information he is basing

his decision on, that there is no high-grading taking place at Wabush Mines?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the question, how current is my information, my information, Mr.

Speaker, is as current as today, completely up-to-date, not a day's lag

involved in it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would add to what I reported

to the hon. member in the House the other day in terms of, why have I not spoken

with the people who work in the mines, on four separate occasions, Mr. Speaker,

and counting, we have offered a meeting to the representatives of the union in

Labrador. We are still waiting for a positive response so we can sit down with

the union and discuss any and all concerns that they would wish to bring

forward, with respect to the issue of high-grading, or perception of

high-grading, or any other issue that they have, with respect to the operation

of Wabush Mines where they work and in which they have an interest, and in which

all the people of the Province have an interest in terms of the economic

viability of that operation and of that region. We stand ready and we stand

waiting to meet with the union representatives. We have had four meetings that

have not materialized. We will make a fifth attempt, we will make a sixth

attempt if we have to, to try and have the meeting. Really, the onus is on the

union to come in-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his

answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: -as we have offered to allow them to do, to have a full and

frank discussion about anything they want to talk about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: The problem is in Labrador. You should be the one

going to Labrador instead of the people of Labrador coming out here to see you,

number one.

Number two, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the minister, that it is not

a meeting that the people in Wabush need, it is action.

Will the minister commit to conducting a full-scale investigation, with

employee and the union participation, into the mining activities and the plans,

with a total analysis of the tailings that are going to waste, occurring at

Wabush Mines?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the hon. member read too much into my answer. I did not say, I did not

suggest, I did not, in any way, imply that we were prepared to meet with the

union leadership only in St. John's. I am prepared to go to Labrador City at a

moment's notice providing I can get out of the House. I will have the meeting

with the union anywhere they want to have the meeting. The issue is getting them

to come in the door, sit at the table, and have the discussion that they allege

they want to have.

So, yes, I will go to Labrador West, but I will meet with them in St. John's.

I will meet with them halfway in between. I will meet with them anywhere they

want to have a meeting. The issue is not where to have the meeting, the issue is

getting them to the table to have a meeting so that we can talk about what they

allege is an issue, but, in fact, about which they have been very reluctant to

come in and have a substantive discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, under

section 66 of the Water Resources Act, police officers are

considered investigators of the Department of Environment. We believe that is a

good thing. However, they are given extraordinary rights under this act to

search without a warrant. They are given the right to search plans, to search

books, to search records, to search substances, to search whatever they so

choose without a warrant. They can do all of this, Mr. Speaker, without a

warrant from the courts and that is sweeping power.

I ask the minister: Why are police, under this act, given the power to search

without a warrant, powers that they do not have under normal investigation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The short answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is, no, they do

not, not under the Environmental Protection Act. The act provides that they will

have to obtain a warrant.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is not correct, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. They have to obtain a

warrant after they have gone in for a search without a warrant. There is a

difference. They have the right to search without a warrant.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister agree that giving police the power to conduct

a warrant-less search is an invasion of a person's level of privacy and

protection, which is guaranteed under

section 8 of the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms of Canada?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thought he was talking about the Environmental Protection Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: No, I apologize.

I am not absolutely certain, but I would have to double check before I really

answer the question on what the member is saying. I am not certain if what he is

saying is accurate.

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

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the same applies under the Environmental

Protection Act, but is the minister telling us he is not certain of his own

legislation?

Mr. Speaker, when police conduct a warrant-less search they are able to make

an arrest for anything they find even if it is unrelated to the act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. He ought not to be quoting from an

act. I ask him to get to his question.

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

Doesn't the minister agree that this is a contravention of the level of

privacy and protection that is guaranteed under the Charter of Freedoms and

Rights of Canada, to allow a police officer to go in and, without even relating

to the environment act, they can make an arrest for anything they find?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, I am not absolutely certain of what the hon. member has said,

under what circumstances it is being done, but if it is true we will certainly

amend the act. It has not yet had second reading here in the Legislature. There

are varying opinions as to what the law may say. I am sure that the hon. member

opposite is quite aware of that. They have a couple of lawyers sitting over

there.

We will review what he has said, take it under advisement, and if it is

necessary to make that change we will.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Labour.

Minister, the Workplace, Health Safety and Compensation Commission has just

sent out a letter to businesses that are grouped into personal and home

household services, which includes barber shops, increasing their workers'

compensation by 397 per cent over a five-year period, going from 63 cents

minister to $3.13. There has never been a claim by a barber shop, so why is

their rate going up so much?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the Member for Conception Bay South asked that question. I believe

it was in the media a couple of mornings ago. What I would like to say to the

member opposite: Barber shops are grouped in a category with beauty parlors,

laundromats and dry cleaners. That is the same grouping that Stats Canada would

use, or any other jurisdiction in Canada that rates workers' compensation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I have to get to that.

What I am telling you is: We all know that the Workers' Compensation

Commission just went through a financial crunch, Mr. Speaker, and I think if the

Workers' Compensation, which is an insurance program for every worker in this

Province - I would like to educate the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, who is over

there glaring. It would be better that he would listen. Worker's compensation

is for all workers in this Province and, Mr. Speaker, the contributions are paid

by the employers themselves. I would like to tell the member opposite that the

proposed assessment rate is going up over the next five years, but also -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS THISTLE: - all employers out there who are being assessed with an

increase have an opportunity to also decrease those rates over the next five

years. If he would like to take this up another day, because I know-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to finish her answer.

MS THISTLE: - we do not have enough time, I would be glad to expand on

that.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period today the hon. Member for

Baie Verte directed a question to the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour

Grace. My understanding of our Standing Orders is that a question cannot be

addressed to a private member. I think we have allowed a question to be directed

to a parliamentary assistant. The hon. member is a parliamentary assistant but

he is the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development, the hon. the Deputy Premier.

A question, Mr. Speaker, asked to a private member or a parliamentary

assistant ought to be related to that department and in no instance when the

minister is here present. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the question was

out of order in that it was directed to a private member, and I ask your hon. to

rule on that important point.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, the member is a

parliamentary assistant. He has stood in this Legislature in the past and

answered questions. That is to say now, if the Member for Baie Verte had a

question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and that minister

was not here or the parliamentary assistant was not here, does that mean that

the Premier or government cannot direct another parliamentary assistant to

answer? I assume that when a member is in his district or anybody else's he is

acting in a capacity, simultaneously, I suppose, as parliamentary assistant, as

a minister would do.

Mr. Speaker, our contention is, the member in his capacity as a parliamentary

assistant to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has answered questions

on behalf of the government, in the past, in this Legislature. In fact, May 24,

last year, he answered questions from me in this Legislature. Our point, Mr.

Speaker, is simply this, that as a parliamentary assistant to government that

you do represent government on a variety of matters and that you can stand and

answer a question on any matter. Government has the right to direct who may

answer a question, but he is a parliamentary assistant and not just a private

member any more, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is wrong. He is completely

wrong. The truth of the matter is that parliamentary secretaries are assigned in

this House to ministers.

Yes, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, who is also parliamentary

secretary to myself, answered a question last spring, I say to him, about the

Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, but he answered it when the

minister was absent. That is his role. His role is to answer the question when

the minister is absent.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is obviously the minister to whom you

direct questions about municipal affairs when he is in the House, and he was

today in the House.

No, Mr. Speaker, it was applied by the Member for Baie Verte to draw

attention to what he thought was a TV news story for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the same rules apply to parliamentary assistants that

apply to ministers. Members cannot direct questions to a minister for a

portfolio for which he is not responsible. Therefore, parliamentary assistants

would be treated in the same manner. If a minister is in the House, a

parliamentary assistant cannot be expected to respond to a question.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling one Order-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the year

2002-2003.

Further pursuant to

section 28(4) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling two Special Warrants, for tabling for the fiscal year 2001-2002.

Petitions

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

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

I have a petition again today to present on behalf of the residents of Shea

Heights, and indeed the entire Province, for the need for wheelchair accessible

housing units.

We, the residents of Shea Heights, wish to petition the hon. House of

Assembly to address the need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea

Height area. We are asking the government to consider the fact that people with

disabilities, and their families, need to be able to utilize the support of

family and friends within the community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced

to live in units outside the community, it compromises the help and support

families so vitally need.

We are asking that serious consideration be given to the construction of

wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area so that families with

physical disabilities may avail of the essential support networks of their own

community.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious petition not only for the Shea Heights

area or the city, but the entire Province. It is from the residents of Shea

Heights, and I support the residents of Shea Heights in this petition.

The community of Shea Heights is a very close-knit community, where you can

go into the community and ask anybody if they know where another person lives

and they can tell you the color of their house, the street they live on, and the

name of their children. It is a very close community, Mr. Speaker. It is a very

close neighborhood. We should not force people from a neighborhood as close as

that to uproot and move to another neighborhood, away from their family, away

from their friends, away from the support network that they rely on, simply

because there are no wheelchair accessible units in that community.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious situation, it is a serious issue, and I am

asking a serious plea to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the

minister responsible for housing, to take very serious consideration to this

issue and to put some wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights

area so that the families who are in that area can stay together.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of

people in the District of Cape St. Francis, and I will read the prayer of the

petition:

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

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

Labrador;

WHEREAS the population on the Northeast Avalon in the Towns of Pouch Cove,

Bauline, Flatrock, Torbay, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove is growing rapidly;

and

WHEREAS the traffic on Torbay Road has increased to significant and dangerous

levels, approximately 12,000 vehicles per day, and is growing daily; and

WHEREAS the Torbay bypass route has been decided and land acquisition has

taken place; and

WHEREAS the Torbay bypass was a significant part of the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation roads agenda and will alleviate the concerns of

residents on the Northeast Avalon regarding traffic flow; and

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to make the Torbay bypass a part of their new road construction plan, and put

funding in place to start the construction of the Torbay bypass as soon as

possible;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have signed this petition and I certainly do support the

petition. This petition really speaks for itself. It affects thousands of people

on the Northeast Avalon, in particular in the mornings where traffic flow is

horrendous. We have school buses in all the communities coming from Pouch Cove,

Flatrock, Bauline, Torbay, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, some coming into St.

John's, some going to Holy Trinity in Torbay, and some going to the two

schools in Pouch Cove. The traffic flow is horrendous, especially on certain

intersections: the Bauline Line intersection with Torbay Road, the Indian Meal

Line intersection with Torbay Road, the Middle Cove Road intersection, the Pine

Line intersection, and various other road intersections where it can take as

long as five to six or seven minutes to get out into the traffic.

The thing about this, Mr. Speaker - and the people in the area know and the

town councils know - the route for this Torbay bypass was located and surveyed

many, many years ago. The land acquisition has been done. Most of the property

has been bought up. The problem with this, of course, is that this

Administration has put it on the back burner. The former minister, the former

Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

put the Torbay bypass on the back burner some years ago. We have had discussions

with all the ministers since - I have - the present minister, the previous two

ministers, and they know themselves the traffic flow. As a matter of fact, one

of the ministers lived in the district and he knows full well the concerns and

the dangerous traffic flow on the Torbay Road now.

There was a misconception out there that the Torbay bypass was a part of the

Roads for Rail Agreement and it was never so, but the people in the area deserve

the Torbay bypass now. As a matter of fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, just to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) his presentation.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I want to say that I fully support this

petition; and, by the way, I expect there are going to be many, many more

forthcoming. These few that I have presented today were only from one community,

basically, and there are more coming, so I expect I will be up very often on

this issue, and hopefully the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

will give it some serious consideration.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Order 25, the adjourned debate on Bill 39,

An Act To Amend The

Judgement Enforcement Act.

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

adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise just for a few moments to make a few very brief comments on the

Judgement Enforcement Act. In fact, when the House adjourned on Monday this was

the piece of legislation that was being debated at that particular time. I noted

at that time, Mr. Speaker, that it was interesting in response to the comments

that were made by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that at the same

time there was the Annual Report of the Office of the High Sheriff, and that

report spoke in a very important way, I thought, to what was taking place at the

Office of the High Sheriff, and how the issue of judgements and the registry of

judgements of electronic means was now being completed as a result of a project

that was undertaken by the Office of the High Sheriff.

I agree with the minister's comments, Mr. Speaker, that what this Bill 39

does,

An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act, is essentially the

recognition of facilitating the registration of judgements by electronic means

at the Office of the High Sheriff. From that point of view, obviously, we really

have no difficulty with this legislation. It is legislation that we on this side

of the House, Mr. Speaker, would by and large support, and really what it

represents.

It represents, Mr. Speaker, the good work that is being done by the Office of

the High Sheriff and their employees in allowing the registration of such

judgements by electronic means; keeping in mind, in accordance with the

amendment, that individuals may still use the traditional mode and traditional

means for registration purposes.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty with this bill and we will

be supporting this through to passage here in the Legislature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on this bill,

An Act To Amend The

Judgement Enforcement Act. We are not opposed to the bill in principle, but I

would like to say that I know there has been a tremendous amount of work done on

this particular aspect of judicial work in the last number of years. The

Judgement Enforcement Act has been amended and we were doing an awful lot of

things to upgrade and update the operations of the Sheriff's Office, much of

the work having commenced during the time of the late Leslie Thoms and continued

by his successors.

I will say, although this is important work, the effect of this particular

bill needs to be said: it is to really make it a lot easier for people who have

judgements to file them and get them enforced. This is primarily, of course,

people who have judgements against people who did not pay them debts, the bill

collectors, the people who are trying to go after those who have been unable to

pay their debts or make their installment payments. It is making it a lot easier

so they can quickly get their judgments enforced and seize assets.

While I have no objection to the legal process that allows that, there are

other aspects of the legal system that really need attention; not necessarily

the legal system but the system that is related to the operations of commerce

that have not received near the amount of attention that this kind of activity

has.

We have down in the basement of this building, Mr. Speaker, a Registry of

Deeds and Securities. The situation there is such that people are having great

difficulty in closing real estate transactions because the searchers are saying

they cannot find out adequately whether or not the deeds that have been filed

are up-to-date, whether there are liens on properties. They cannot certify

appropriate security clearance and title clearance or lien clearance at the

Registry of Deeds in this building because the system is backlogged and

bottlenecked and all backed up.

While it is very good to see that the Sheriff's Office has gotten a fair

bit of attention in terms of modernizing and up-to-date and electronic, now if

somebody has a loan and you do not pay your loan and the bill collectors or the

collection agency is after you, now they do not even have to go down to the

Sheriff's Office to file something; they can file it electronically. That is

all very nice, and I suppose they will get after their creditors faster and

seize their assets, and that may be; we have to have an efficient justice system

so that people who are entitled to enforce their judgements have a way of doing

it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very great problem that we have today in the Registry

of Deeds where we have not caught up. There is a new computer system that has

been installed, an electronic system; there is not much access to it outside of

the building. In fact, there has been talk of having access. We do have a

property security system, a personal property security system, that has been

modernized, but the main system for people buying and selling and transacting

houses and land in this Province is very much not up-to-date and has not been

brought into effect with the modern times. The computer system is inadequate

there is no access (inaudible) registry is not on line. We have our sister

Province, Nova Scotia, where you can go in on a Web site, on an Internet

address, and find out the registration particulars of a company in Nova Scotia

in five minutes. In this Province we have not done that. We are lagging very

much behind on the electronic development of services to the general public,

that the general public has a lot more interest and stake in than making it

possible to electronically enforce a judgement by a collection agency or by a

judgement creditor to pursue on it, pursue a debt, and the other aspects of

commerce, of land transactions, of the buying and selling of houses which the

general public has a great deal of interest in. We are lagging very much far

behind in terms of modernizing our procedures, having it efficient,

electronically available, and having access by the general public to those

systems.

In supporting this bill I wanted to take the opportunity to say that there

are other things that are equally or more important than making it efficient for

judgement creditors to collect debts, while recognizing, of course, that having

an efficient justice system is an important part of the fair administration of

justice. But we should not go way, way ahead in terms of convenience for one

segment of society - that being people who are collecting debts or bills - at

the same time leaving those who are trying to conduct the business of buying and

selling houses back in the days where you had to go and spend an hour or more

searching through days and days of deeds that have yet to be put on the system

in order to be able to satisfy the transaction that the property is free from a

lien, or free from another sale, and can actually be approved for closing.

Those are my remarks on that, Mr. Speaker. I realize it is not specifically

in this minister's jurisdiction, but it is another part of modernizing and

making more accessible the important services of government.

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

the hon. the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the supportive comments of the Member for St. John's East on

this piece of legislation. It is indeed further advanced in terms of the

technologies that we are introducing into the system. The comments of the Member

for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, albeit not related to this particular piece of

legislation and not particularly relevant to the Judgement Enforcement Act -

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he appreciates the supportive

comments of the Member for St. John's East and suggested that I did not

support the legislation, that I talked about something else entirely. The

minister should recall that I said I supported the legislation and I think we

should go ahead and do it. I said that we should not rush ahead and fulfill one

issue that might be important and ignore the fact that there are many more

transactions, many more areas of business, on which this government has left the

consumers and people down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is really no point of order. The hon. member is, I guess, clarifying

his statements.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the relevant comments of the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi as they relate to this piece of legislation,

the Judgement Enforcement Act. This department is not responsible for the

Registry of Deeds, as he alluded to with the bulk of his comments. I can advise

him, however, that I am aware that the Minister of Government Services and Lands

does deal with the Registry of Deeds, was contacted by several members of the

Law Society - who are frequent users of the Registry of Deeds - concerning a

matter of backlogs. According to the information I have, that has been dealt

with by the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

There have been major advances in the personal property, security laws of

this Province. This is just one more step in bringing our property system and

our registration system in line with the modern age and the new technologies. I

realize and appreciate that both members opposite are supportive of this

particular piece of legislation and I am sure if there is any detail they need,

we will get to that when we get to committee stage.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgment Enforcement Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently, by leave. (Bill 39)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 26, second reading of Bill 33,

An Act

Respecting The Protection Of Endangered Species.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of

Endangered Species. (Bill 33)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a real pleasure today, Mr. Speaker, to rise and

give second reading to this bill.

There comes an opportunity, when you are serving in a portfolio, to bring in

a piece of legislation that will have an impact on the future of the Province.

This one here, I think, Mr. Speaker, we can all be justly proud of, in this

administration, and we look forward to the support of members opposite for this

piece of legislation. There is a time when we see that bringing forward this

legislation, to protect endangered species, will help us in the future to

promote the Province. It will help the residents of our Province to help take

care of our endangered species. It will provide a way for them to do that. It

will allow for a scientific plan to be put into place to be approved by science

people that will help protect endangered species, Mr. Speaker.

It is a very good piece of legislation. We did public consultations

throughout the Province on this legislation. They were well received by

individuals all over the Province, with good support. I want to thank an

official in our department, Mr. Joe Brazil, our director, who is dealing with

the endangered species legislation. Mr. Brazil did a tremendous job of putting

this legislation forward and developing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: He is one of our very dedicated civil servants and did a

tremendous job in ensuring that we had a consensus, Mr. Speaker, within the

departments. He was here in the last couple of days, but he is back working

again today on the West Coast. I want to say that he has done a great job in

helping put forward and developing the bill for us, as a group in government and

our department and the different departments, to consider. Again, this will

certainly be a piece of legislation that we can be very proud of.

When you look at what the Minister of Environment is bringing forward now,

new environmental protection legislation, this legislation is showing that we

are very much pro-conservation, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, that we are

putting in place the right legislation, the right protections, to help protect

for the future. So this legislation will go a long way.

We are the sixth province to do this now, Mr. Speaker. This is modeled on

other provinces across Canada. We look forward to it working very well. We are

looking forward to working with the scientific community in the Province, Mr.

Speaker, to protect endangered species and also to see, as we do protect

endangered species, such as the pine martin and others, that they will come off

the listing in the future because of the good work we will do with our

departments, with people in the Province, with conservation groups, who want to

participate in helping protect, Mr. Speaker. This is a piece of legislation

which will help us do that, and we ask that the second reading be provided.

Thank you very much.

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 rise today to say a few words on Bill 33,

An Act Respecting The Protection

Of Endangered Species. I understand from the minister that there was a fair

amount of consultation before this piece of legislation was written. I suppose,

if we lived in the real world, we would not need legislation in order to protect

endangered species. If we lived in the real world, or if we lived in the ideal

world, education should take the place of this piece of legislation. Sometimes I

feel that is where we fall short, I say to the minister, that we do not go and

deal with the situation and deal with our problems at the right time and at the

opportune time.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that maybe we should beef up our

involvement in going to schools. Maybe we should beef up our activity in going

and talking to people at the right age in order to bring forward our concerns,

and maybe we would not need a piece of legislation in order to deal with

endangered species.

Mr. Speaker, I have read this piece of legislation and there are a couple of

items in the legislation that cause me some concern, and I will go through them,

I say to the minister. Hopefully he will tabulate them, and when he gets up to

close debate on Bill 33, he might be able to address some of those concerns that

have been expressed to me and concerns that I have myself in reading Bill 33.

Under

section 4, it says, "This Act does not apply to (

a) fish, other

than freshwater fish and fish which run up from the sea into inland water; or

(

b) bacteria and viruses." Mr. Speaker, how often have we heard in this

Legislature of the need to protection our cod stocks? How often have we heard in

this Legislature of the need to protect our salmon stocks? How often have we

heard of the need in order to control the harp seal herd as it pertains to some

of our endangered species?

Mr. Speaker, there are 200 commercial salmon licences holders in this

Province today who had decided that they were going to keep their salmon

licences. They were told, when there was a moratorium introduced back in 1992,

that the moratorium, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology,

was going to be implemented for a five-year period. They had every right to

believe that after that five-year period, in 1997, they would be allowed to go

back and activate their commercial salmon licences.

So we hear all kinds of reports, I say to the minister, where people have

been doing studies of salmon returning to the rivers. We have heard all kinds of

reports, I say to the people opposite, about the lack of salmon, the salmon

leaving the river and coming back to the river of birth to spawn. We all wonder

what is happening. We wonder why we cannot have a commercial salmon fishery

anymore.

The minister says there are 121 commercial salmon fishermen out there now who

are holding on to those licences, who have decided that they want to fish salmon

commercially again - because it is a chance to put bread and butter on the table

and be a support to their family - who have been waiting and telling us what the

problem is, here in this Legislature. We have been taking it to your federal

cousins up in Ottawa, I say to the people on the opposite side, in order to deal

with the problem that we are having with the harp seal population as it relates

to salmon returning to the rivers. We are not dealing with that.

We can write all the legislation we want, but unless we put teeth in the

legislation, and until we deal with the things we know are causing the problem,

then how meaningful will it be, Mr. Speaker?

We talk about waiting for the cod stocks to return. No matter who you talk

to, everybody has their own reasons and their own understanding of why the cod

stocks are not replenishing themselves and returning to our shores.

Mr. Speaker, some of the problems are easily identified. Some of the problems

are known. Until we deal with the problems that we know cause that to happen,

then how can we expect to deal with the problems that we are not aware of. How

can we expect to deal with the problems and allow our own Newfoundland fishermen

to go out and be able to fish again, and to commercially fish salmon? Mr.

Speaker, I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation that that is

one disappointment there.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also talks in

section 6 about how a species is

determined to be at risk.

Section 6(4) says, "The minimum qualifications to

be a member of the SSAC shall be prescribed in regulations made under subsection

44(1)." Mr. Speaker, if you look at 44(1), there are absolutely no

qualifications brought forward whatsoever, no qualifications set to tell you

what the qualifications of the board members should be. Mr. Speaker, that is

certainly inconsistent.

Section 9(1) on page 7 of the legislation, I say to the minister, it says,

"Where in the opinion of the minister a designation must be made to prevent

further harm to a species that faces imminent extirpation or extinction, or to

its habitat, the minister may make an emergency designation of the species under

paragraph 7(c)." The minister doesn't talk about how long that emergency

designation should last. There is no time frame on it whatsoever. Is it going to

last in perpetuity? How long is the emergency situation to last?

We read on down, Mr. Speaker, to

section 10. It says, "The minister may,

with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council remove the designation

of a species where it is recommended by the SSAC, or by COSEWIC - which is the

federal committee- "in its assessment of the status of the species, by

deleting the name of the species from the appendix in the regulations made under

subsection 44(2)."

I say to the minister, if he is to look through his legislation, he will see

there is no such thing as subsection 44(2) in the piece of legislation. So, it

is very difficult to read a piece of legislation where it refers to sections and

subsections and they are not even included in the legislation. It is certainly

frustrating, in order to be able to look at some of those things, and not to be

able to come away from it feeling any comfort that it is clearly spelled out in

the legislation, when the whole

section and subsection is not even written in

the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we will move on to

Part III, What Happens After a Species is

Designated. 13(1). "The minister shall release a management plan for a

species to the public within 3 years from the time that the species is

designated as vulnerable under paragraph 7(a)."

Now, I submit to people on the other side, that if there was a species in

trouble, if there was a species that was determined to be vulnerable, Mr.

Speaker, that needed to be protected, I do not know why it would take three

years. Why would it take the minister three years in order to designate the

species as being vulnerable?

AN HON. MEMBER: It would be gone.

MR. FITZGERALD: It would be gone, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture. He is right. It would be gone by then, so why would you need a

three-year time frame after it is made known to the minister that a species is

vulnerable and a species is at risk? Why would it take three years, Mr. Speaker,

in order to designate the species and bring forward some concerns of how to deal

with it at that time?

Mr. Speaker, the minister says in 13(4), "The minister may make

regulations under subsection 44(2) to provide for the protection of a species

designated as vulnerable." I say to the minister again, there is no such

clause as 44(2) in this piece of legislation. Where is 44(2)? It is certainly

not there, I say to the minister.

Section 15(4), "The minister may make an order under

section 28 to

protect the habitat of a species designated as extirpated. Again, there is no

time period set. There is no time period when the minister should make that

designation, I say to people opposite.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in

section 16(2) it reads, "A person shall not

capture, possess, buy, sell or trade a specimen of a species designated as

threatened, endangered or extirpated or part of it or anything derived from

it." I say to the minister opposite: How about the taxidermists out there?

This is something I can relate to because it happened right in my hometown, it

happened right in my own community, where we had a taxidermist who had specimens

of birds and animals that he had acquired through legal means and then found

himself having to give them up and have a conservation officer come and say: You

are not allowed to have that particular species, you are not allowed to have

that in your possession. So, how can you bring in a blanket piece of legislation

and say that you are not allowed to have a species in your possession that has

been designated to be endangered or threatened, if that particular person - and

I think if a taxidermist or I think if a person who collects birds and animals -

have already had those articles in their possession prior to this piece of

legislation? Madam Speaker, there are certainly quite a number of

inconsistencies in this particular piece of legislation.

The minister talks about conservation officers, and using conservation

officers in order to carry out this piece of legislation. I do not know if the

minister can inform the House, when he stands, if there were any conservation

officers who were laid off when the move was made to take the wildlife office

from St. John's and move it to the West Coast. I do not know if the minister

can inform the House if there were any conservation officers who decided to

leave their job and not take up residence in other places, Madam Speaker.

Maybe the minister, when he stands, can also inform the House of the duties

of conservation officers, because the conservation officers I have talked to

tell me that they are stressed beyond the limit of being able to carry out rules

and regulations. In fact, for the most part now, conservation officers are also

forestry wardens. They are the people who you find on the river one day. They

are the people who you find in looking at forestry cut-overs and forestry

operations another day, and the next day you find the conservation officers

sitting in an office, probably in Bonavista, one or two days a week, writing out

permits for domestic cutters. I ask the minister: Is that a wise use of the

knowledge and the ability of conservation officers? There is something wrong.

There is something wrong, I say to the minister, when we use conservation

officers, skilled, trained people, and say to them, you now have to go to an

office and spend two or three days a week in that particular office in order to

write out permits to allow somebody to go and access a domestic cutting area to

cut firewood. Is that a wise use of our people? Is that a wise use of the

talents that those conservation officers have? I suggest not.

I can go to the post office and pick up a rabbit licence. I can go to a drug

store or a convenience store and pick up a salmon licence. Then why do I have to

go and appear before a conservation officer in order to get a domestic licence

to cut firewood? Just think about it. Does it make sense?

Only a couple of days ago, I had a call from somebody down in my district who

said: Boy, we want you to talk to the minister because it looks like we are

going to lose a service. I said: What service might that be? They said: Well, it

looks like we may not be getting a conservation officer to come to Bonavista to

issue cutting permits anymore. I had a conversation with the Minister of Forest

Resources and chatted to him about it and I understand that conservation

officers, part of their jurisdiction is under the Minister of Forest Resources

and Agrifoods, and another part of it comes under the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation.

I suggested to him then: Look, we do not need a conservation officer to go

and issue permits to cut firewood. That can be done by a clerk, if you want.

Furthermore, it can be done by the town clerk in a municipality. Why do we need

a conservation officer, who has gone and done training, when we have all kinds

of problems that people make us aware of, of the reason why we need this piece

of legislation, and we use those skilled people to sit at a desk and write out a

permit. I think anybody at all can pretty well do that, not to belittle the need

or the requirements, but the rules and regulations are clearly stressed. The

maps are given. If I go to get a cutting permit, the map is clearly identified.

We are not using our people to the best advantage, I say to the minister.

I go on to

Part IV,

section 22.(1)(

c) of this piece of legislation, where it

says that conservation officers should "perform other duties that may be

assigned to it in regulations made under subsection 44(2)."

I say to the minister: Where is 44(2) in this piece of legislation? Because

if you have it, there is a page missing from my piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I hope I do, I say to the minister. This is the reason

why I ask the question, because I would think that when a piece of legislation

is tabled here in this House that it would be complete. I would think that it

would be put forward with the complete piece of legislation, instead of us

having to get up here and ask for pages that are missing, or ask for subsections

of any piece of legislation when the minister nods his head, laughs and says:

You will find out. That is not the way it should be, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I will just continue on with

Part V: How The Habitat Of A

Designated Species Is Protected. He goes on to say, in

Part V,

section 28.(1),

"When a species is designated as vulnerable, threatened....the minister

may, by order, set aside for the period set out in the order." There is no

time factor here. The minister talks about three years in another part of the

legislation, where he has three years to make a decision on how to protect a

certain species, but here he is talking about when there is a designation made

that he should set aside for a period set out in the order and there is no time

frame. There is no time frame set out in that particular order.

Then we go on. This is an interesting one, conservation management

agreements,

section 29 of this particular act.

Section 29.(1) says, "The

minister may enter into a conservation management agreement with a landowner

within an area set aside as recovery habitat or critical habitat."

Mr. Speaker, I am not so certain what the minister has in mind here. When I

hear the minister speaking of landowners, the first thing that comes to my mind

when you are going to protect the habitat, and if there is a landowner, you

think of farmers. You think that the minister might be having some idea that he

would have to step in and control what happens on farms. In looking through this

piece of legislation, I came across a letter written by Dr. Robert Bailey, who

has been a wildlife biologist for thirty years. I am just going to read a couple

of sections from this letter because he makes some good points. Like the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who represents the District of Terra

Nova, we certainly have many farmers within our area, we know the value of

farmers, and we both know the value of farm land.

Dr. Robert Bailey, a thirty-year wildlife biologist, says - he is talking

about legislation, and he is talking about a similar piece of legislation that

we are debating here today, this Bill 33. He makes a good point. He says:

Creating an oppressive regime through strong legislation that would extend

concentrated powers over rural landowners would be a big mistake for saving

endangered species and promoting environmental conservation. It hasn't worked

in the United States and it will not work here. Conservation progress and

lessons from years of experience working with private landowners and the farming

community would go down the drain, making endangered wildlife the losers of all.

That is what we are trying to protect here, but this biologist is saying that

if we go and interfere with landowners or we put the heavy hand on landowners,

the things that would suffer would be the wildlife, the very things that we are

trying to protect here.

It says: This legislation would turn farmers, who are only 3 per cent of our

population, but own 90 per cent of the land, into a new class of disenfranchised

serfs of the urban-environmentalist elite. He goes on to say: Over time, many of

us started to realize that the farmer was not an enemy of nature that had to be

controlled through law, but a partner with whom we could work to our mutual

benefit.

I say to the minister, this is an interesting phase. He says: Protecting

endangered wildlife isn't about legislation; it is about people and fostering

the will through incentives and dialogue to create something of value. Few urban

environmentalists have crossed this bridge to speak to the people on the other

side.

That is what I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker: I know he has gone out and

he has had consultation. I know he has talked to people, and he indicated

earlier that those were some of the rules and recommendations that he brought

forward. I know that we should protect wildlife, and if there is an endangered

species we should step up and make sure it is protected. I do not think anybody

here would argue against that.

You hear the minister talking about the pine marten. It was interesting the

day I heard him talking about the pine marten, because I, too, agree that the

pine martens and anything else out there that is an endangered species should be

protected, but I say to the minister, the Martins that I would like to see

protected are the Les Martins and the Scott Martins down in Elliston. I say to

the minister, the Martins that I would like to see protected are Alex Martins

and the Dulcie Martins in Little Catalina.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, the Martins that I would like to

see protected are the two-legged Martins who inhabit rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is where we are falling short here, and that is where this

government is failing the mark.

Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation. There should be some changes, but I

say to the people opposite that the real endangered species in this Province is

not wildlife as we know it; it is people: people who are going to Port aux

Basque to get on the boat; people who you see lined up at the airport every day

to go to other parts of this country; people like my daughters and your sons who

have left this Province through no choice of their own in order to have to go to

work somewhere else. That is the species that I would like to see protected in

this Province. That is the kind of legislation and the governance that I would

like to see this government bring in to protect.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

We, too, support the endangered species legislation as it has been nearly

four years since government released the public consultation paper, an

Endangered Species Act, for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think we owe it to our children and to our grandchildren to make sure we

are responsible enough that the wildlife and the plant life that we have in this

Province is protected for many generations to come.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada has identified

twenty-three species and populations that are at risk in Newfoundland and

Labrador and in coastal regions of the Atlantic. Some of these include the

Newfoundland population of the American pine marten, which was listed as

threatened in 1986 and upgraded as endangered in April of 1996. This was again

confirmed in May of 2000.

The perigon falcon was first listed as threatened in April of 1999, and

confirmed again in May of 2000. In fact, last spring there was a decrease in

Labrador's perigon falcon population. Ten years ago, 80 per cent of the

falcons' nesting sites in Labrador were occupied. Last summer, only 30 per

cent of the nests had birds. While this decrease was attributed to a cold

spring, it illustrates the need for this Province to continue monitoring species

and take action where needed to ensure the threatened species are protected.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, there have been several species in our Province

that have become extinct, such as the great awk, believed to have become extinct

in 1844, and the Labrador duck, believed to have become extinct around 1875.

Other species have been given special concern, meaning its characteristics make

it sensitive to human activities or natural events, like the polar bear and the

eastern population of the harlequin duck.

There is no doubt that this Province must do more to protect endangered

species, as well as those animals and plants that have been identified as

threatened or extirpated. Over the past several years a coalition of environment

groups, such as the Canadian Nature Federation, the Sierra Club and the

Protected Areas Association have compiled and released a report card on the

implementation of the National Accord for the Protection of a Species at Risk.

The National Accord for the Protection of a Species at Risk was reached five

years ago. Since then, Madam Speaker, the yearly report cards have been released

grading the federal, provincial and territorial governments on their performance

since signing this agreement. Since this legislation has been tabled in our

Legislature within the last week, this year's report card was based on the

existing legislation, and this year's report card for Newfoundland and

Labrador gave this Province a failing grade of F.

The new legislation addresses some of the concerns of the old legislation;

however, there are some points that must be raised. An important part of any

legislation, Madam Speaker, is the protection of habitat for animals and plants.

This year's report card on the implementation of the National Accord for the

Protection of Species at Risk gave Nova Scotia the highest grade; in part,

because of that province's commitment and reliance on sound science to

determine what species are listed.

In Nova Scotia's legislation, Madam Speaker, this commitment is set out in

that the Species at Risk Working Group, appointed by the minister, must have

members who are recognized scientific experts in their field. They must be

experts on the status and population, in the biology of plants, animals, other

organisms and their habitats, or in the conservation biology, ecology and

geography of plants, animals and other organisms. In setting minimum

qualifications for the members of the Species Status Advisory Committee, the

minister in our Province must ensure that members have similar qualifications.

While our legislation states that decisions should be based on the best

scientific knowledge available, the Nova Scotia legislation includes a clause

that clearly states: The precautionary principle that a lack of full scientific

certainty must not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or

minimize the threat of a species at risk.

This, Madam Speaker, ensures that in the absence of scientific information,

species at risk will not be further affected by activities that are threatening

while information is being gathered.

The Nova Scotia legislation also states that a commitment to a national

co-operative approach for the conservation of species at risk, as agreed in the

National Accord for the protection of these species, provide people of that

province with the opportunity for meaningful participation in relation to

conservation.

In adding to protecting endangered species, an important function of this

legislation is its intent to designate species as vulnerable, threatened,

endangered or extinct. This should assist in tracking the populations of species

in this Province so that we are also aware of those species that are in great

abundance, that may be affecting the population of other species. One that comes

to mind, Madam Speaker, is the coyote, which has been reported to be increasing

in numbers in the last few years. I do not hear too much about that, Madam

Speaker, in the St. John's area or in this House, but I can tell you that if

you travel throughout rural Newfoundland you will find much conversation taking

place about coyotes and their numbers in the recent years.

I think it is incumbent, Madam Speaker, and I call on the minister to do a

survey on the coyote populations in this Province, their rate of growth, their

effect on other species; because, Madam Speaker, the coyote is an animal that

has the ability to go either up the food chain or down the food chain, and they

do not have any natural predators in this Province so their ability to grow and

become overpopulated and become a real problem is a real possibility that may

occur within a few short years because of their ability to breed uninhibited by

any natural predator.

I say to the minister that it is time for this Province to undertake a study

to find out what effect the coyote population is having on the Province at the

present time, and try and look into the future at their rates of growth to find

out what their numbers estimated would be in a few short years from now. I

believe, Madam Speaker, that number will be alarming.

There is also a need, Madam Speaker, for conservation officers and, as was

mentioned by the previous speaker, these officers are overworked at the present

time. Their responsibilities cover a wide gamut of things. The number,

particularly in the Labrador portion of our Province, the number of conservation

officers that are there at the present time for the area that they have to

cover, the thousands of square kilometres they are responsible for, it is not

possible, Madam Speaker, and I say to the minister, it is not possible for them

to adequately do the job that they have been assigned to do. There has to be an

increase in the number of officers out in the field who can fulfill their

responsibilities and their duties according to the laws and regulations that

they operate under.

This, Madam Speaker, is a very important piece of legislation; there is no

question about that. Our priority and responsibility to future generations are

governed by pieces of legislation like this, and I think that everybody in this

Province is starting to take more seriously the job that they have in order to

ensure that their children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the beauty of

this Province as generations before them have.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I would just like to say that we support this

piece of legislation. We look forward to the implementation. It is something

that was lacking in the Province prior to this, and hopefully it will make a

difference.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to add a few remarks to the comments of my colleague from Labrador

West on the endangered species legislation before the House. I want to underline

that it is a very important piece of legislation because we have in this

Province seen the extinction of a number of species that were native to this

Province, including the Labrador wolf which was extinguished by hunting in this

century and, of course, the great awk which everyone knows about, which became

extinct in the last century.

We have to know as well that this Province, up until this year, depends on

whatever grades might be given by the Canadian Nature Foundation, has been given

the grade of F on two successive years for not bringing forth legislation to

protect endangered species. Now, at least we have legislation but there are some

serious flaws in it. I wanted to take a few minutes of the time of the House to

talk about those flaws.

The principle flaw is the fact that it is the minister and

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, in other words the Cabinet, who decides whether

or not a species is fitted into any one of the categories that are provided for

under the act, whether they are going to be designated as vulnerable,

threatened, endangered, extirpated or extinct.

Now, we have a scientific panel and we know who one of them are, the national

panel called the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. That

body is a scientific body. The minister has provision for establishment of a

Species Status Advisory Committee under the legislation. There is no provision

in the legislation as to what the qualifications of these people are, whether

they are to be scientific or otherwise just a general government appointee of

people who they would like to appoint to a committee.

The Nova Scotia legislation, our sister province, spells out in the

legislation that these people are to be scientifically qualified. Our

legislation does not. The real problem after that, Madam Speaker, is that when

these committees decide that a particular species is to be placed in the

category of threatened or endangered, that is not the end of the matter. The

minister, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - the Cabinet - the Cabinet

can say: No, no we have received this advice. It has been designated by the

scientists as threatened but we, in our wisdom, do not think it is threatened.

It should be in the category of vulnerable instead of threatened, or it should

not be considered endangered, only threatened, because certain provisions of the

act kick in when the species is designated as threatened and some whether it is

endangered.

The weakness of this legislation is that it is legislation that has a

political designation of a species into one category or the other and not a

scientific designation. That is wrong, Madam Speaker. If the government wishes

to make political decisions by saying: Well, we recognize that the species may

be endangered or may be threatened but we do not propose to do anything about

it, let them admit that, instead of trying to get around it by saying: Well, the

scientific people are saying that it is threatened but we do not think that is

proper; we think it is really only in another category.

This should not be a political decision, Madam Speaker. It should be one that

is based on scientific facts and scientific information that is available to

these panels that have the expertise to determine whether or not these

particular endangered species should be considered to be either endangered or

extirpated, which really means that they no longer exist in the wild in this

particular Province.

There is also another significant weakness, because this should not be a

political designation. There is no expertise in the Cabinet, I say to you, Madam

Speaker, and to the minister, there is no expertise in the Cabinet to determine

whether or not a species should be considered threatened, endangered, extirpated

or extinct. That is something that should be left to the scientists who are able

to evaluate the scientific information.

The other weakness is that there is no mandatory protection for vulnerable

species. In fact, the provision that makes it an offence to harass, disturb,

injure, or kill an individual of a species designated as threatened, endangered

or extirpated, it is an offence to do that. It is an offence to capture,

possess, buy, sell or trade a species designated as threatened, endangered or

extirpated.

There is no provision preventing people from doing any of those things with

vulnerable species. I want the minister to explain why a species designated as

vulnerable, for which management plans can be put forward, is not protected from

being disturbed, harassed, injured, killed, sold, captured, bought, sold or

traded. That is something that I thing the minister has an obligation to explain

to this House before we are being asked to pass it at a second reading.

Another serious weakness for those species that are designated as threatened

or endangered, is the length of time which the minister is given to come up with

a management plan, who has up to two years to do that. There is a very important

exception here. It is an exception that says that he does not have to release a

recovery plan for a threatened or endangered species if the minister determines

that the recovery of a species is not feasible, in which case he shall release a

statement to that effect within the same time period.

Madam Speaker, that seems to me to be another serious weakness in this

legislation: that in this legislation a species can be designated as threatened,

designated as endangered, and the minister is expected to establish a recovery

team and release a recovery plan unless the minister - not the recovery team,

not the scientists, not the people who are advising the minister, but the

minister himself - decides that it is not feasible. What does that mean? Does

that mean it is going to cost too much? Does it mean it is going to cost more

than the minister wants to spend? Does it mean something or does it not? Are we,

in effect, saying that we are going to allow the extermination or the extinction

of species because of a simple ministerial discretion saying: Well, I don't

think it is feasible to recover this species so we are going to let it go.

We have a responsibility. I say to the Member for Bonavista South that the

two-legged Martins have a responsibility to the four-legged martens, and we,

collectively, have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to protect

the species in this Province and on this planet from extinction. That

responsibility is part of our commitment as citizens of the world and citizens

of this Province.

I say to anybody who wants to think that this is not important because people

are more important than the extinction of animals, that may be. If it is a moral

choice between the extinction of an animal or the extinction of a human

population, there is a clear choice to be made, but I do not think that kind of

a demagoguery and suggestion that somehow or other we are dealing with an

unimportant issue because other issues in the Province, dealing with the

important socio-economic problems that we have in rural Newfoundland that have

not been properly dealt with, I do not think that is an excuse to say that we

can pay no attention to our obligations, to our moral obligations to ourselves

and to the generations to come to protect the species that we have been given

the obligation, the stewardship, to look after, because we have the ability to

make them extinct.

That is all I have to say, Madam Speaker, but I think that these are

important points and I hope the minister will address them here in this debate

at second reading.

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

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to take a few minutes to respond to some of the

issues that were raised in the discussion and in the debate. There are a number

of comments that were made and I just want to take a few minutes to just go over

some of the thoughts that were outlined.

In reference to the Leader of the NDP and the fact that it would be a

political decision, basically this legislation is the same as in five other

provinces. The only other province is Nova Scotia, that allows for an automatic

listing when it comes to an endangered species. Basically, we are doing what the

other provinces are doing. Nova Scotia is the only example of it being automatic

without having the Cabinet have the final say. The Cabinet will have the final

say in this, but they will be responding to scientific evidence that will be

presented in an organized fashion. If they disagree with that evidence, they

will have to make that public.

We believe that this process will work quite well. We believe the process

will see, when the appropriate work is done by the scientists who will be

appointed to the committee, we believe that when this work is done we will see

this occur, that we will see the proper listings occur, when needed, all based

on scientific evidence, not based on politics or a political agenda, and the

requirements will be for the minister of the day to bring forward the

information that the scientists put together, to bring it forward, and there

will be requirements of the government of the day, and Cabinet, to deal with the

issue. We do not see that as a major issue. We see that as just being part of

the process and we believe that it will work quite well.

With reference to the Member for Labrador West, who was talking about the

coyote situation in the Province, Madam Speaker, our officials now are bringing

a recommendation forward on the coyote issue and we expect to have something

announced on that issue in the next period of time. There has been some research

work going with Memorial University on this issue, with the science division and

our people in Wildlife Division, and we are expecting to have some direction to

take on that issue in very short order.

I have to point out to the critic for the PC Opposition, the Member for

Bonavista South, he was having trouble finding

Section 44(2). He had better get

some more people over there to do some more looking, I suppose, or analyzing,

because three times he referenced the fact that 44(2) does not exist. If you

look in the act, I seem to be able to find it. Now, we are going to have to

maybe get some new advice over there or something for whoever does the homework

for the Opposition critic, because it is clearly right here, 44(2), and it

describes the different contents: (a), (b), (c), (d), (

e) and (f). Also, it

described the rationale for why we are bringing forward the act and the section.

I will send a copy over to the hon. member, if he wants to see it. It is no

problem, because it is there. It is there in the

section that I have, so we will

certainly send it over. Maybe he does not have the appropriate section, but

again I will respond to his comments on the issue.

He referenced the fact that marine fish will not be covered, and that is

because it is a federal responsibility and the federal legislation will be

covering it. That is clearly understood by the people involved in this

provincially with the science people involved, and federally with the science

people involved, so the COSEWIC designations, the COSEWIC committee, the federal

committee, will deal with marine fish under the act as it is under the

Constitution. So, that is clearly understood by most people and I want to make

sure that the member clearly understands that.

When it comes to conservation officers, I have to say to the Member for

Bonavista South that conservation officers do a lot of work in this Province. As

a matter of fact, I am not sure what he was advocating. Maybe he is advocating

that we go back to the way it was, that if you were the forestry officer out

there, that you would go by the officer for wildlife, two trucks going down the

road, and if one only saw an offence under one act, you were not allow to do

something with it because you were only covering one act when it came to

enforcement, Madam Speaker. What we did a number of years ago is, we allowed for

conservation officers to enforce different acts. They were the changes that were

made and they are working pretty effectively in our outdoors. They are working

quite well. Conservation officers perform an extremely important role for us in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador, all over the Province. We do have a large piece

of geography to cover, but our enforcement officers have done a tremendous job.

They are very good at what they do, they are very well trained at what they do,

and we are going to be asking them now to also help us with this endangered

species legislation, in the enforcement of that legislation.

As the member was indicating, to say that they just sit in an office and do

work in an office, they do a lot more than that, Madam Speaker, I have to say.

They are very valuable in our Province for the protection -

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

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, just a point of clarification. This member

never did stand here and say that the officers were not doing this or were not

doing something else. What I said was, and I made it quite clear, I asked if it

was a wise use of the resources that we had in order to have conservation

officers issuing permits when they could use their skills and their expertise

doing what they were trained to do. That is what this member said.

The other part of it, Madam Speaker, is that there is no 44(2), I say, in the

piece of legislation that I have here. If the member wants to share his piece of

legislation with me, then I will gladly do it.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that we believe this legislation is going

to work very well and we look forward to seeing it implemented, to seeing it

passed through this hon. House of Assembly. We look forward to the scientific

advice that we are going to get now in the process, and we look forward to this

being very much a piece of legislation that will promote conservation in the

Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Endangered

Species," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill 33)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 15, Madam Speaker, second reading of Bill 35.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Facilitate Electronic

Commerce By Removing Barriers To The Use Of Electronic Communication."

(Bill 35)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to urge all members to support

this particular bill, Madam Speaker. The Electronic Commerce Act would establish

basic rules for the use of electronic communications and give electronic

signatures and contracts the same legal status as their paper counterpart.

I believe, Madam Speaker, the need for such a bill is illustrated by a story

in today's The Telegram which indicates that in 2000, seventy-seven per

cent of households who regularly use the Internet from home where concerned

about the security of financial transactions, while more than 70 per cent had

concerns about privacy issues such as being put on multiple marketing mailing

lists, et cetera.

Madam Speaker, I think all hon. members appreciate the fact that electronic

commerce is a growing segment of economic activity in our Province as well as

throughout the country and the world, and we have to do everything we can -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I apologize for interrupting the minister; there was

certainly no intent to do that.

Madam Speaker, we have been here since the House opened, for several days

now, and I want to say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

your continued interruptions and barbs across the House to members is starting

to interrupt even your own members.

I would suggest that if you want to speak on a piece of legislation, fair

enough, we all speak on a piece of legislation, but your behavior is consistent.

It is day over day, hour over hour. The usual banter, thrust and throw across

the House, that goes with it, but there comes a time when the line has been

crossed. Let the rest of us have the opportunity to listen to the minister and

respond.

The usual banter between members is fair enough, but when it is so over the

top with facetious comments that are made, shouted across the House, it is time

to put a stop to it and let's get on to the business of government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. NOEL: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, electronic commerce is becoming

a far more important part of economic activities for our people and we have to

do everything we can to facilitate their participation in this sort of business.

We have to do it for consumers, Madam Speaker, and for businesses who are trying

to get into this area of commerce.

Electronic commerce is very important for our particular society because we

are a relatively small community and we are relatively isolated, so electronic

commerce makes the whole world our market. Unfortunately, it also makes the

whole world our competitor, so we have to do everything that we can to ensure

that our people are as well prepared as possible to participate in these

activities.

I think we have done a very good job so far. Our Province has been at the

forefront of the IT industry. I think we are one of the most connected and one

of the most wired provinces in the country and, as a matter of fact, anywhere in

the world. We have some great entrepreneurs who are developing business in this

area and a lot of our people are using electronic commerce and the Internet and

the Web to do their business as well as other activities. I think we are off to

a great start in this regard, and we have to now do what is necessary to enable

our people to move ahead as rapidly as possible and to ensure that they are able

to participate with as much security and privacy as they can.

We have realized, as I just indicated in the piece that I quoted from The

Telegram , that a lot of our people have fears in this regard, and the whole

country realizes that. As a result of that, we are trying to harmonize the

participation in electronic commerce throughout the country, between the various

provinces and indeed with other countries. That is what this particular act

endeavors to do. Specifically consumers and businesses want some assurance that

there will be well defined rules to govern such transactions and governments

have legislation in place throughout the country to deal with this.

Electronic commerce has been a harmonization initiative across the country.

Every province and territory has either introduced or enacted electronic

commerce legislation. Electronic commerce legislation is very similar amongst

all provinces and territories. This is important due to the potential for

intergovernmental transactions. All of the jurisdictions have legislation

related to electronic commerce based on the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act

drafted by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The goal of this conference, in

developing the model legislation, was to ensure harmonization of the laws

provincially.

This new legislation will spur the electronic commerce industry by promoting

greater clarity between online buyers and sellers. By passing this law,

government is encouraging companies to conduct business over the Internet, which

is part of the broad transition to an Internet-based economy and should provide

significant time and cost savings. The legislation will provide comfort for

consumers and provide a legal standard for online transactions.

Madam Speaker, I do not anticipate much opposition to this particular bill. I

encourage all members to consider it carefully and to indicate their support.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have a few notes on Bill 35. Bill 35 would provide a legal framework to

facilitate commerce and communication by electronic means. It introduced into

legislation via definition under

section 2(

c) an electric signature as

"...electronic information that a person has created or adopted in order to

sign a document..."

Section 11 of the bill stipulates that a requirement under a law is satisfied

by an electronic signature and sets forth the requirements of an electronic

signature to be reliable.

Furthermore through

section 6 of the bill, "Information shall not be

denied legal effect or enforceability by reason only that it is

electronic." There are, however, documents and information that are exempt

for this bill and a process via regulation where other information can, by

regulation, be deemed not to fall under this act.

Of concern, however, is that information is stored and protected from

alteration. Documents can be easily manipulated in electronic form