November 23, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 37

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to inform my hon. colleagues of the continued good news

involving our fishing industry. I think we will all agree that the fishing

industry contributes significantly to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador

and, without a doubt, remains the economic cornerstone of our rural communities.

We have broken many records in the fishery over the past five years, and this

year is no exception in the positive things that are taking place in our fishing

industry, which has become private sector driven. In 1999 we expect our

production value to exceed $900 million, which will be an all-time high. We have

already broken last year's record for the landed value of our fish and are now

approaching the $500 million mark. This is up from approximately $384 million

last year, which was also a new landed value record.

Today we harvest over forty species of fish from which we derive

approximately 160 fish products exported to countries such as Japan, the United

States, the European Union and China. The sale of these fish products generates

new wealth for Canada and, more importantly, new wealth for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Our fishery, which has received no government financing for either primary

harvesting or processing since 1996, is indeed a major employer in this

Province. In 1999 our fishery will directly employ 27,000 people in the

harvesting and processing sectors, and another 7,000 people indirectly. That is

a total of 34,000 jobs created this year by our revitalized fishing industry.

The average monthly employment in fish processing from January to October this

year is up 28 per cent over the same period last year. In fact, July employment

levels in fish processing of 15,600 were the highest July employment levels

recorded since 1990.

The direct and indirect impacts of our revitalized fishery benefit a number

of businesses throughout the Province, and indeed the impacts are felt

throughout every sector of our economy. Boat builders, suppliers of netting,

equipment and engines, and the trucking industry all benefit substantially from

fish harvesting.

To give my hon. colleagues two examples, there are approximately thirty

boatyards throughout the Province, and in 1998-1999 these yards either built or

repaired over 850 vessels, employing over 500 people. The impact of the fishery

on the trucking industry is substantial. Trucking companies collect landed

product and transport goods and materials to and from processing plants. There

are over 270 sites in the Province where fish is landed. This year, employment

in raw product transport is expected to total 900 people.

As well, final processed products are trucked to ports for shipment to final

markets, and in the crab fishery alone, the equivalent of 1,800 tractor trailer

loads of processed fish products are expected to be shipped out of the Province

this year.

The evidence of the fishery's important link to other sectors in our

Province is quite clear. The continued growth of the fishing industry translates

into continued economic growth throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The

fishery has always been and will always be the main contributor to the economic

expansion in our Province and the foundation for a prosperous future for the

people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement prior to the

opening of the House. I say to the minister there is a lot of good news

happening in the fishery today. The last ministerial statement he made certainly

sums up, because I still think, as the minister does, that the fishing industry

has and always be the lifeblood of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I say to the minister that maybe we should look at some of the things that

are happening on the federal side, by your federal cousins, and make sure that

we as a province and as a government would put forward some of our own science

and make sure we have a check on the federal government. Because for the most

part, the good news that is happening here is because of the abundance of crab

and shrimp in the ocean. If we are not forever cognizant of the fears that are

there, and the signs that are put forward as to what might happen to this

resource, then we could find ourselves right back where we were prior to 1992. I

say to the minister we should be very cautious, and while we applaud the good

things that are happening we should be ever mindful and learn a great lesson

from where we have come from since 1992.

When you look at people calling and expressing the fears of what is happening

to our crab resources, where now we are going and assigning an allotment of crab

outside the 200-mile limit. The great fear is there, that maybe this same crab

might be the crab that we catch inshore in the following year or in the same

year. There are a lot of fears out there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister we should be forever cognizant of

the telltale signs that might point us right back from where we came.

Congratulations, keep up the good work, I say to the minister, and let us

make sure we do not repeat past mistakes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are all, in this House, very proud of our fishing industry and the work

that our fishermen, fish harvesters, fish plant workers, and people in the

industry have done in this Province, and I do not hesitate to join in supporting

that.

This government has provided, as he said, no financial support since 1996.

The Fisheries Loan Board has been gutted and there has been no help to fishermen

with financing to maintain their independence from operators.

Mr. Speaker, he has not talked about the most important issue facing the

fishery in this Province today, and that is the proposed takeover by NEOS. He

has not talked about the level of concentration and near monopoly this would

represent. He has not talked about the financing of this particular enterprise.

He has not talked about the stability of the company that might result if this

was taken over and put into private hands. He has ignored the most important and

significant public policy issue in the fishery today when he talked about what

they are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: He should be talking about that and providing a basis on

which the people of this Province can evaluate that proposal and come to a

proper decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the minister, I want to welcome

to the gallery today, on behalf of all members, Mayor Mesher of the Town of St.

Anthony.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take this opportunity today to provide further details concerning the

development of a cranberry industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. The long-term

goal of this development strategy is to have independent operators develop and

expand viable operations and to be the catalyst in the creation of a cranberry

industry in the Province.

In North America, the industry has shown steady growth since 1994 when its

value was estimated at $1.1 billion. In the United States alone, cranberry

production increased by 20 per cent between 1996 and 1998 to meet the steady

increase in demand. In Canada, planted acreage increased from 3,865 acres in

1995 to 5,631 acres in 1998. Newfoundland and Labrador has 1.3 million hectare

of peatlands, of which 500,000 hectares are potentially suited for cranberry

production.

Mr. Speaker, the Agrifoods Division of our department has taken the lead to

develop the cranberry industry in the Province for several reasons. First, there

is a native cranberry that grows here, but no commercial operations exist.

Research trials are underway to determine if there are sufficient heat units to

mature the commercial varieties. Secondly, we have unique peatland

characteristics and growing conditions, and therefore research has been

undertaken to determine the best site development and production methods.

Thirdly, the department has trained staff and commercial operators in site

preparation and plant production methods.

Four pilot sites are currently being developed across the Province: Deadman's

Bay, Frenchman's Cove, Route 490 Stephenville and Terra Nova. Initial

development on these sites started in August of 1998 and will be finished this

spring and summer. The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods initially

developed the sites and the leases will be transferred over to private owners by

the end of the 1999. Response by the private sector has been excellent to this

initiative.

Mr. Speaker, to date more than $1.2 million has been expended in the

cranberry initiative with funding from existing cost-shared agreements. In

addition, the federal government, Friday past, recently announced $780,000 under

the Canada-Newfoundland Agreement for Economic Development Component for this

initiative to further develop the industry. I would like to go on record as

thanking the federal government, particularly the hon. George Baker, for

supporting this initiative. It is important that I also take the time to commend

the work done by our officials in our department.

More than $380,000 has already been spent on labour to date. These costs

include seasonal employment for greenhouse workers, mechanics, equipment

operators, surveyors, agricultural technicians, and students.

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that each five acre site will create ninety-six

weeks of employment for maintenance and harvesting. As well, each site is

expected to expand by an additional five acres annually, requiring in excess of

100 weeks of employment to develop and plant. In addition to the on-farm labour

component, a significant labour contribution will be made to the local economy

with the requirements for land surveyors, equipment fabricators, and heavy

equipment operators.

The annual long-term employment from a five acre cranberry site creates

employment for approximately sixteen people. We expect that, over the next three

to four years, 300 to 400 people in this industry will be employed.

There is also potential for a secondary processing industry within the

Province to produce juices and an assortment of cranberry products once the

industry has expanded to a viable size. I would like to close by stating that we

look forward to the development and future growth of this new industry in the

agricultural sector. We believe, in the next five to ten years, that

Newfoundland and Labrador, from the outside experts that we have had come in to

look at it, believe we can become the capital in Atlantic Canada for cranberry

production, and we look forward to obtaining that goal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for forwarding a copy of the Ministerial

Statement.

Mr. Speaker, cranberries are a very important part of our agricultural

industry in Newfoundland now. A lot of locals take advantage of cranberries,

particularly in areas like Bell Island. I believe there are a lot of cranberries

on Bell Island.

I believe what the minister said, that cranberries can be very valuable to

our economy in Newfoundland and Labrador today, but we can't stop there. We

must have more than just four pilot projects, because we must know the weather

conditions all across Newfoundland. It is important that this industry will grow

from one end of the Island to the other, even though some of these four are

spread out across the Island.

I believe that this is only the beginning of one industry that could lead

into other industries. I believe that secondary processing is going to be

probably just as important as the growing of the cranberries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I believe, because of our large peatland land

base in Newfoundland and Labrador, that it certainly would be an advantage to a

lot of farmers if they could diversify and move into areas particularly close to

their own farmlands.

I believe in this project and I commend the minister for bringing forward

this statement today. I also wonder, if possible, probably if we do get into

secondary processing, if it might be a good idea if we could mix the seal oil

with the cranberry juices and get a further benefit from this resource.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly is great when we hear that we are taking advantage of things in

our Province that nature provides. It is even better when we hear of things that

we are taking advantage of that will lead to employment opportunities.

It is good to hear, in the Ministerial Statement, that it will be turned over

once further development takes place, because small business is critical in this

Province. It is critical throughout the country. Indeed, it is the backbone of

employment opportunities in the country. It is great to hear that, and it is

good to have the supports in place that will support people who take the

initiative to create small business employment opportunities.

It is also important to develop, as far as we can, into secondary processing,

because in the long run more jobs are created in the secondary processing of any

type of endeavor than there is in the primary, growing itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to apologize for the late delivery of this Ministerial

Statement, but this information was faxed to my office just moments ago and I

think it is important to share it with the people of the Province and the House.

Mr. Speaker, in recent days there has been much media attention focused on

the issue of trihalomethanes in the community water supplies in our Province.

Health Canada officials and medical officers of health for this Province have

provided information to the public on this issue. The reporting of this

information has caused some confusion for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of THMs is not an easily understood one. Research

continues into the health effects of these chlorination by-products and,

accordingly, new information continually becomes available. This government

works with Health Canada to ensure it is properly distributed and it is

important to know that research on this issue is no way final.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of continuing to

chlorinate our drinking water. We have been working with Health Canada on this

issue, and in fact just moments ago received a letter from an ADM with the

Environmental Health Branch of Health Canada and I will now read excerpts from

this letter. It says:

Re: THMs in Drinking Water.

As you are aware, the disinfection of water supplies is paramount to a

healthy Canadian population. The chlorination of drinking water has virtually

eliminated water-born diseases such as cholera and typhoid in the western world.

All levels of government have some responsibility in ensuring the safety

of Canada's drinking water. Provincial governments are responsible for setting

and enforcing standards to ensure adequate drinking water treatment and

municipalities who are responsible for supplying safe drinking water and

conforming to provincial standards. Health Canada provides health and safety

advice, sponsors research and cooperates with the provincial/territorial

authorities under the auspices of the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on

Drinking Water...

Further down, it says:

Trihalomethanes (THMs) are only one subgroup of the many disinfection

by-products formed during chlorination and are used as indicators of overall

chlorination disinfection by-product (CDBP) formation.

Since publication of the 1993 guideline, new epidemiologic studies have

been published which reported associations between THMs and cancer (e.g.,

bladder, colon) and adverse pregnancy outcomes (e.g., miscarriage, birth

defects, low birth weight). In response to these findings, Health Canada has

established a multi-stakeholder Chlorinated Disinfection By-Product Task Group

to comprehensively assess and update the health risks from THMs in drinking

water and develop recommendations for controlling those risks. This is being

done through a series of subgroups to evaluate evidence of health effects from

THMs, drinking water quality data and water treatment facility characteristics

and options for water treatment upgrades in communities across Canada. The

provinces and territories, including Newfoundland and Labrador, are involved in

both the Task Group and the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water.

Recommendations of the Task Group are expected to be submitted... for

consideration in 2001.

It also says:

Further, in order to provide advice to consumers, Health Canada

laboratories are currently testing a range of carbon filters and other treatment

methods to see if they are able to remove most CDBPs. The results will be made

public within a year. In the meantime, consumers wishing to reduce their

exposure to chlorination disinfection by-products can use a filter containing

activated carbon certified to the NSF Standard 53. Blending and boiling the

water will remove some THMs, but does not eliminate all of the disinfection

by-products...

Mr. Speaker, it does refer to other by-products. It says, Blending and

boiling the water will remove some THMs, but does not eliminate all of the

disinfection byproducts other than THMs, and may actually increase levels

of others.

Finally, it says:

In conclusion, Health Canada strongly supports the disinfection of

drinking water to reduce the risk of waterborne infectious diseases. Without

adequate disinfection, the proven health risks to Canadians from micro-organisms

would outweigh the possible health risks from THMs. The potential risks of

cancer and adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with drinking water containing

THMs are much lower [than] the risks of serious illness and death that could

result from drinking water that has not been properly disinfected. Meaning

chlorinated, Mr. Speaker. It is extremely important that water treatment

plants ensure that methods used to control chlorination by-products do not

compromise the effectiveness of water disinfection.

This letter is signed:

Yours sincerely, J. Z. Losos, M.D.

Assistant Deputy Minister

of Environmental Health, Health Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make something abundantly clear to the minister. There is

nobody on this side of the House who has ever implied or stated in any way that

it should not be chlorinated. I do not know why the minister is off on that

angle. That is not the issue, I say to the minister. The misunderstanding she

referred to, yes, has come from the minister and her department by the lack of

responsibility and leadership in not letting the people of the Province know for

the past three years what you know, minister; and your lack of responsibility in

knowing outdated information exists for the past year, and still fed the public

last week, with two officers here, information that was outdated for a year.

That by their own admission.

Minister, it is in keeping the reports from the public and the failure to

advise these people - in this letter by the Assistant Deputy Minister, he stated

that: Blending and boiling water will remove some THMs, but does not

eliminate all of the disinfection by-products and may actually increase levels

of others. Dr. Barry Thomas, senior Health Canada toxicologist, said: It may

be these very ones that it increases, are the ones that are causing cancer. I

have the quote from Dr. Thomas on that.

So, minister, you are trying to move and say that we do not to chlorinate. We

support fighting cholera and typhoid and everything else by using chlorination.

We support that, but we do not support the minister hiding behind the report, or

the failure to release it, to let people know up front what can harm their

health. They have a right to know, minister, and you have not told them!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister apologized for the late delivery of her statement. What she

should be apologizing for is her total failure to carry out her responsibilities

as Minister of Health in providing adequate public information about the state

of drinking water, and providing up-to-date advice to communities and

individuals about how to deal with the problem.

Instead of this government dealing with political damage control because of

their failure to release information under the Freedom of Information Act, the

minister and the government should have been concentrating on making sure the

public understood all of the issues involved, and not hiding behind a piece of

legislation that is designed to provide information to the public. Not hide it

from the public. The minister should be apologizing. I will go farther than

that. She should offer at least her resignation as a sign of good faith in terms

of the public policy issues that are at stake here. The public health is at

stake, and the minister's and the government's credibility in providing

adequate public information about the state of public health, and it should be

make available!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions are for the Premier today. On Sunday in the VOCM Conversation

with the Premier broadcast, the Premier indicated the proposed process to

develop the Voisey's Bay nickel concentrate that has been proposed by Inco. I

can quote: ...a hydro metallurgic technology which does yield, I now

understand, concentrate to a completely finished nickel project... So he

indicated that the proposal that was on the table was a hydro metallurgic

proposal from Inco.

Friday in the House the Minister of Mines and Energy could not commit to

that. Today at a press conference held by the Minister of Mines and Energy he

said that he did not know what Inco was proposing, if anything. He told the

press that he was going to Toronto to find out what process, if any, Inco was

proposing. He said that the new technology, the hydro metallurgic technology,

similar to that being tested in Goro, New Caledonia, or compared to the

traditional method of refining and smelting - he had no idea what Inco was

proposing.

I would like to ask the Premier today: Is what Inco was proposing for the

Voisey's Bay project the hydro metallurgic process that you indicated on

Sunday? Could you stand and answer that? Or is the minister right? Does he not

know what Inco is proposing and you do? Because if that is the case, I would

suggest that you talk to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of accuracy, I would like the

hon. member, who seems to have this information, or wants the House to believe

he has this information, to quote the exact quote from the minister he is

referring to. I would be very surprised if he can substantiate that

characterization of the minister's comments. Can you quote, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Premier did not answer the

question, so I will ask him again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If the Premier would like to refer to Friday morning's

Hansard when those questions were asked directly, the minister could not and

would not commit to that. In this morning's press conference, I say to the

Premier, the minister said that he was going to Toronto to find out what process

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) quote (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I do not have the quote in front of me. I am telling you

what came out of your own press conference.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, if you do not know that you have more trouble than

I thought you had. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question is this. Is what Inco has proposed to the

Province the hydro metallurgic process similar to what is now ongoing in Goro,

New Caledonia? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that when challenged the

Leader of the Opposition cannot produce a quote to substantiate his

characterization of the minister's comments. Because I doubt the minister

would have said anything of the sort which is being suggested by the Leader of

the Opposition. What I do believe the minister would have said, because that

reflects -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite are ready? I do

believe that what the Minister of Mines and Energy would have said - I was not

there at his press conference, but I do know the briefing that we have received

from the minister; that is, the members of the Cabinet, the members of the

government - is that Inco has proposed to put a proposal on the table and has

proposed a formal negotiation based on a concept that would see a mine and a

mine-mill developed in Labrador and the processing of that concentration, that

ore, to a finished nickel product within the Province.

That can be accomplished in one of several basic ways. One is a hydro met

process which is developed now for laterite deposits, primarily, in a number of

locations around the world, which is being pilot tested in some new projects,

including by Inco and by others. There is a billion dollar development, for

example, in Australia underway right now. The other way is a pyro metallurgical

process which is a traditional smelting-refining process. I am sure the Leader

of the Opposition has done his homework.

The purpose of the Minister of Mines and Energy having received information

last weekend from the company saying: We would like to put something on the

table that could comprise the basis of a formal negotiation, was to come back to

brief Cabinet on what has been said. Mr. Speaker, he is now on his way back to

Toronto to ask some questions about what the company's intentions are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I can conclude? We do not want to enter

into a formal negotiation unless the bottom line of the Province is going to be

met, and that is that the ore from the Labrador deposit be processed and

finished to a nickel product within this Province. If that cannot be guaranteed

or ascertained, there will not be a formal negotiation. On the other hand, if

that is the clear intention of Inco, then we would consider entering into a

formal negotiation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, you said yourself that what Inco has proposed is a

hydro metallurgic sort of process for this Province. You have also indicated

that that would involve 100 per cent processing of the ore. The process Inco is

testing in New Caledonia, which is similar, does not result in a finished

project. The ore is processed and then sent to Korea for further refining and

smelting. The question is: Is that what Inco is proposing? Is that the new type

of technology that they are proposing for this Province? While it may be fully

processed here, will any of the ore have to leave this Province for further

refinement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. The kind of process that we would be

interested in, and if this is confirmed that this is what is being talked about

being proposed -

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to pay close attention.

The issue is too serious to get into a semantics game. What we are doing here as

a province, and what we should be doing on both sides of the House, is carefully

assessing whether or not the basis of a formal negotiation is to develop both

the capability to build a mine, a mine-mill, and also the technology transfer,

the job transfer, the benefit transfer, to process a finished - finished -

nickel product in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can tell the Leader of the Opposition we would have no interest in

partially finishing a product, finishing it to an extent that it would go

somewhere else to be refined. We want to see a 100 per cent finished nickel

product in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the bottom line of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier failed to answer the question. I

understand what you want to see. What I am asking the Premier is that in terms

of the process that is in Goro, New Caledonia, if that is the process that Inco

is putting forth here, let me ask him this. The process that Inco has proposed

here involves the extraction of ore and the processing of it. The type of ore

that is in New Caledonia is different ore in terms of the density of the rock,

the density of the mineral, and may involve some variation of what is happening

in New Caledonia. Has Inco talked about processing or introducing any form of

new technology that would see that take place here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would offer to have a

briefing given to the Leader of the Opposition, or for that matter any Member of

the House who would like one, on the difference between hydromet and pyro

technology, and secondly, the difference between -

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: No you don't. Secondly, the difference between laterites

and sulfide deposits. A laterite and a sulfide deposit are quite different, one

being hard rock, and that is what we have in Labrador.

The Leader of the Opposition attempts to distort what was said by the

Minister of Mines and Energy on Friday. Let me quote exactly what he said, since

you made reference to him, from page 1,292 of Hansard. He said that the message

to Inco is: Please, do not waste anybody's time by coming forward with a

proposal that does not allow for the full processing of nickel concentrate in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

We understand that if a proposal comes forward, the proposal will allow

for the full processing of nickel concentrate in Newfoundland and Labrador, and

we hope we get the actual proposal soon.

Now that is what the Minister of Mines and Energy said, and to me, it is very

difficult to distort it, although the Leader of the Opposition has managed to do

just that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: I think because he doesn't want a successful

negotiation. I think he is worried that Newfoundland and Labrador may have

another great success on our hands!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear what the minister said.

From page 1,290: There is no point or purpose, as we see it, in speculating

if it might be like Australia, Goro, Sudbury, Manitoba or lots of things.

Which is fair enough, but Premier, when you talk about, exactly, the hydro

metallurgic process the obvious question is that the only other type of project

in the world that Inco is now involved with, with respect to the hydro

metallurgic process, is in Goro, New Caledonia. Correct? When you speculate,

publicly, that that is the type of process that they are going to bring forward,

obviously questions are going to be put forward to you to see what the process

is and what Inco has actually proposed. You seem to let on more publicly and

outside this Legislature than you will inside this Legislature!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: So the question is: At what stage are we at in the process?

Is the process being put forward and proposed by Inco similar to that that is in

New Caledonia? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would be very happy to arrange -

because I think it is needed - a briefing for the Leader of the Opposition. I

would even go further. I would even arrange to have the Leader of the

Opposition, if he would like, travel to some various refining capabilities

around the world, both hydromet and pyro, so that you have an understanding of

what we are talking about.

In the case of New Caledonia, you are talking about a laterite deposit. In

the case of Labrador, you are talking about a sulfide, hard rock deposit. So

while we are talking similar technology which is chemical leaching in autoclaves

under high pressure and electro-twinning to give you a finished nickel product,

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Newfoundland and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to get to his answer.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from what I said yesterday,

since the Leader of the Opposition made reference to that. Let me quote from

what I said yesterday outside the Province. I said: The absolute deal-breaker

condition is that the processing from the rich deposit be done in the Province

so Newfoundland and Labrador can benefit from the jobs and the investment. To

quote what I said, We're not interested in just having a hole in the

ground. The bottom line is that we're going to be refining product in the

province or there isn't going to be a development.

It could not be clearer, I assure the Leader of the Opposition.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Minister, on Friday, medical health officers for this Province stated that there

is absolutely no danger in drinking chlorinated tap water with high levels of

chlorination by-products as long as it has been boiled, chilled or blended to

release the toxins. Minister, you indicated in this House yesterday, as quoted

in Hansard on page 1346, ... that both of the physicians who spoke to the

issue on Friday were absolutely correct in their information.

One of these physicians admitted yesterday, and it was published today in The

Telegram , and again today on CBC Radio, that she was using outdated Health

Canada documents and did not call Health Canada before talking at Confederation

Building on Friday. Health Canada said this has been outdated for at least a

year.

I ask you, Minister: Will you admit today that this information was outdated?

Or will you stick to the statement you made in the House yesterday, that the

information provided on Friday by those physicians was, in your own words,

absolutely correct?

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

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

Yes, we have worked with Health Canada to try to identify the most current

up-to-date information. In fact, as early as this morning in a conversation with

Dr. Barry Thomas, he informed me that information is changing all the time.

Those -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: If I might have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much.

The medical officers who spoke the other day did use information not only

from the Health Canada Web site - which they have admitted is outdated by I

think about six months - but, in fact, we also did use information that was

given to the department, prepared for another province, about a treatment of

THMs.

If you would listen again, I think it is important that when Dr. Barry Thomas

talked about THMs, he talked about THMs - which is what I was asked about and

which I responded to - but there are also other organic by-products from

chlorination in the water which are not necessarily boiled off.

I think it is important to say - and I think I have clarified it today in the

letter that I read out from the Environmental Health Department of the federal

government - that the THMs, the volatile ones, will boil off, but there are

other components and by-products of chlorine which may not necessarily be

inactivated by that process.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

She is not going to pass off on that. I am quite familiar with the four

compound members of the halogen family, (inaudible) things and their THMs. I am

very familiar with them. I can name them, each one if you wanted, but I will not

waste time here today.

Your department took out advertisements, advising Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians that the simplest method of reducing chlorination by-products is by

putting water in a jug and letting it sit in the refrigerator overnight. The ad

also states that by-products -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: This ad states that by-products can be reduced by boiling

or aerating. Doctor Barry Thomas, Senior Canada Toxicologist, said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Doctor Thomas indicated, with the exception of chloroform,

removal of chemicals is only possible with a charcoal filter.

I say to the minister, the information you provided was wrong. You should

have known because it was outdated for a year. I ask the minister: Will she now

place an ad with all the media - the same challenge she took this past weekend -

to advise people that the only way to reduce risk now is by using a charcoal

filter?.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that even

the carbon filter has not been clearly proven to do the job. In fact, Dr. Thomas

says right now - and I read the letter. I know the member opposite doesn't

want to believe it because, if in doubt, let's fearmonger at all costs. I

think that is clearly the message here.

In an effort -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

In order to try to address the issue in a very responsible way, we have been

speaking with the federal department over the last couple of days. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, they have told us that the information is changing on a consistent

basis and new information is becoming available. Instead, I think it is

important to note - and I think we need to reiterate - that the chlorination

factor is still the most important method of disinfection, and the federal

government is advising that we continue to chlorinate because the risk of

chlorination is far less from that of drinking non-chlorinated water.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way - and I think it has been made very clear in

numerous interviews -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It has been made very clear, time and time again, that none of the results

are conclusive. I read it again today in a formal response from an official

which I presume would be non-partisan, giving out the information, that this is

inconclusive information.

The very best approach that can be suggested -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The very best approach that can be suggested is, if people are very

concerned, even though it is not thoroughly proven without any doubt, a carbon

filter would be the best approach to use. Other methods would only produce a

reduction in some of the THMs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is going to have to get a new word - fearmongering. I asked

simply: Will you put in an ad? I don't want a lecture on biology and

chemistry. I spent six years at university studying biology and chemistry,

Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked you a simple question. Minster, if you never

understood this matter before, your department certainly has not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact that new information is coming from

Health Canada, you must be assured now, today, if you were not before, that this

is a public health issue. I ask you: Will you, Minister, as the chief health

officer for this Province, demand that the report be released and that the

public not be kept from vital information that could be damaging their health?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am only too happy to get a new word when a new word would apply, but to

date fearmongering is the best word to use, because - and I will say again - the

issue here is about the safety of the drinking water, and I am not going to

stand in my place -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) vital information from the public. (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

As I said - and I think it is important to note, however many years of

university the member opposite might have had, I still think he has to admit and

acknowledge that he is not a scientist in this particular field. The scientists

that I have spoken with, and the scientists my officials have spoken with - and

I know he is not interested in hearing it, but I think the people of the

Province are.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is not the question.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member was given the opportunity to ask the question. I ask that he

extend the same courtesy to the minister.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much for that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: My question was twenty seconds; her answer is three

minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: She knows more than you. She has more information than

you. She is going to share it with you.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get on with her answer quickly.

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

I didn't appreciate the comment by the member from - wherever he is from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get to her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I didn't appreciate the comment about dumb

and dumber' when I am trying to answer a question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Fabian Manning said it, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that you

withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Environment. Minster, you

said that the report on the state of the Province's water supply was being

prepared for Cabinet and that was the reason you could not release it, even

after several requests under the Freedom of Information Act by various people,

including the media. Yet, you released it to communities. You cannot have it

both ways. The minister cannot have it both ways. It cannot be a secret Cabinet

document and have the information released to communities. I ask, why the double

standard? I ask the minister this: What is the real reason this report has not

been released to the public?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. What I said was that

the report was a working report that was done by one person in the department,

without consultation with other departments - the Department of Health, or the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. It was a working paper that one

person had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: The test results that you are talking about, we do the

testing results for the communities, and I can name some of them. For example,

Clarenville, and we do it for Gander. We do it for Harbour Breton and we do it

for Pasadena - all of that information - and as we do these particular testings,

these particular results are then forwarded back to the municipalities. They are

forwarded back once, twice, three or four times a year, or seasons, when it is

done for them. All of what you are talking about here, the results of testing

for the communities, is not in that report. All that is in that report is one

particular test that was done back in 1986, but all the information for 1993

through 1998 is all given to the communities. It is not in this report.

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

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

The Health Canada official has said that THMs are only part of the concern

that was reiterated again by the Minister of Health today, that there are many

by-products of chlorine in the water supply in various parts of the Province

that react differently to organic matter and are harmful to people's health.

I ask the minister this: What else is in the report, what else has been found

in the studies of water supplies throughout the Province, that we should be

aware of? Are there any other toxins in the water supplies, other than THMs,

that the people of this Province should be concerned about?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. When I was trying to

answer a question and waiting for an opportunity for the House to be quite, the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's looked over and shouted at me: Dumb and

dumber. I think, out of courtesy for me and the people who elected me, I ask

that you withdraw that comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not hear the comment, but I am sure if the hon. member made

such a statement he will withdraw it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Honourable members know that points of order and points of privilege ought to

be raised at the end of Question Period and not when Question Period is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of privilege, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

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

I would say in this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: The Speaker recognized her. Smarten up!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would say that over the last number of

months a lot of comments have been made in this House. Some were not necessarily

ones other people were proud of, but they have always been withdrawn because of

the gentlemanliness and whatever associated with those people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw those comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, it is not a point of privilege. It is not a point of order. If the

hon. member has said something that is unparliamentary, the Chair did not hear

him. I am sure, if the hon. member did, he will withdraw it.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question to the Minister of

Environment and Labour again. A Health Canada official has said that THMs are

not the only area that we should be concerned about, that there are many other

by-products of chlorine in our water supply that react differently to organic

matter and are harmful to people's health. I ask the minister: What else is in

the report, in the studies that were done on our provincial water supply, that

people should be concerned about? Are there any other toxins in our water supply

that the people of this Province should be made aware of?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, what I have said to the House every day that I

have gotten up is that all the reports that have been done for all of the

communities on the water testing will be - I have asked the municipalities to

give me permission to release it. As soon as I get it, it will be released to

the House.

I want to say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and to the House in

particular, that every person who lives in any one of these towns, that

information is available to them at the town office. Anybody who wants to go in

can peruse it. I would assume that many of the towns have done, for example,

like Gander did. They prepared pamphlets for their people in the community and

advised them of corrective measures that the council have been doing. So the

councils already have that information.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and

concern the Pre-Vocational Assessment Centre. In March 2000 the government will

close the pre-vocational and assessment centre on Topsail Road in St. John's.

Now this provides day programs for approximately thirty-seven mentally

challenged individuals. While it is true that this centre is not really a

pre-vocational centre it does provide a valuable day program for the

individuals. It gives them meaningful social stimulation, a daily routine, and

skills that help them in their lives. Will the government provide another day

program for the individuals to replace the program it is eliminating?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the closure of the Pre-Vocational Centre is a

recommendation that has evolved from a series of consultations that have taken

place here since 1996. This was first embodied in a report called the Goss

Gilroy report. Subsequently, when all of the stakeholders reviewed that report

they again recommended to this government that we proceed with the closure of

the Pre-Vocational Centre. Part of the recommendations that go with that report

- and I would have to say to you that there were some eight to ten stakeholders

involved in it, making these recommendations - also included that in closing the

Pre-Vocational Centre government would need to proceed with developing

individualized plans for each of the people who would be involved in this, and

that would be part of the whole process of phasing out the Pre-Vocational Centre.

That process has been initiated, that work is proceeding and all of the partners

involved are working towards that end.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize that there is a committee in place but what I am wondering is this.

Is it the mandate of this committee to include finding ways to establish another

formal day program? I have met with the parents and the care givers involved.

They are not really interested in individual programs. What they are interested

in is a formalized day program so that their children can be socially stimulated

the way they are now so they do not regress. Is it part of the mandate of the

committee to establish another formal day program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the whole thrust of the Goss Gilroy report and

the subsequent report, which was entitled A Meaningful Future With Choices ,

was to focus on the individual needs of people and to try and provide them with

the best array of services possible in this Avalon area. The process that the

committee is now going through is to look at the needs of each of the people who

are involved here, to look at the array of services that would best meet those

needs, and to put in place a plan for each individual.

As I indicated before, part of this process is to look at existing services

and programs, part of it is to look at what other programs and services will

need to be initiated. Where people can be supported towards employment, it would

certainly be the intention to try and provide people with those supports. Where

they have other needs, the intention will be through an individualized process

to work out the best plan for each person.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 6.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Human Rights Code, carried. (Bill 37)

On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Loan (Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund) Act, 1966, carried.

(Bill 38)

On motion, Bill 38 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 7,

An Act To Revise The Administration Of

Medical Care Insurance, (Bill 26).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26, second reading of the bill.

The debate was adjourned by the hon. Opposition House Leader.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!.

MR. SULLIVAN: I (inaudible). I have a comment on that now. The questions

I had asked, I said we could wrap up second reading if I had to get a question

to it. I researched it after the House myself and spoke with some people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I just could remind hon. members, we are debating the amendment to the

bill that was put forward by the hon. member.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the amendment was to refer it to the social services

committee. I have indicated that since that, I say to the minister, I did go

back and have a close look. Those sections that I asked questions on, which the

minister did not answer - and maybe the minister did not know. I know I wasn't

aware either. Maybe the minister was not either, because she did not answer.

They are already in the act as it is now. I know we have had time since

yesterday, but some of the questions I asked are still valid, in terms of who

pays for it. Whether it is a new one coming in now or whether it was there five

years, is a person responsible for an injury imposed upon another who goes to a

hospital and does he have to pay those full costs?

My

interpretation of what is here now is that they are responsible, and I am

not saying they should not be. If someone imposes costs on our system due to

recklessness, vandalism, to a personal attack, maybe there are responsibilities

they have to bear within the system for doing those actions there. I'm not

saying that there should not be. That comes down to the same basic thing I

asked. What about someone who inflicts something on themselves like lung cancer

by smoking and it is directly related? Would the government move in the same

manner now to collect from that individual to reimburse the system?

That has been mentioned in some systems in England, for example. The British

system is saying that people who self-inflict those things, why should they,

that bring untold costs in their health care system, step up to the plate before

people that have injuries and diseases and so on outside of their own control.

There is some fundamental things, as the demand for dollars in our health care

system becomes greater, that may have to be answered.

I made a reference yesterday when I talked about this. One of the reasons, I

guess, for the committee is to get information. We obtained some information

ourselves and our staff did some further research to see what is currently in

the act and what is not. I do not advocate that necessarily a (inaudible)

referring to committee does not mean we go out for public hearings or things of

that nature. It could be looked at by committee and scanned through and said:

That is fine, there is no need to have any further action.

When bills are introduced here, I think we need introductions that are fairly

detailed so the government side can be put forward. In the absence of that

yesterday, we only had some detail on a few little provisions here in a very

long act. When we are moving it, regardless of where we are shifting it, from

MCP under an umbrella of the department, there are certain fundamental things, I

think, that people need to understand on legislation, whether it is a movement

or ratification of what is there, if we deal with it today.

I might add that the questions I asked I still look forward to getting an

answer on, even though there are now in legislation. I was under the impression

yesterday that they were not yet in there. That is the only different. The

questions have the same validity. It is just that I guess we are a little wiser

today than we were yesterday. I have spoken at length on this so far, and I am

sure my colleagues are jumping up and down to ask a question. I think my

colleague from Bonavista South wants to comment, and I am sure other members

here also want to get a comment on this, so I am going to conclude my discussion

on this amendment now and yield to somebody else.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to add a few words to the debate on the amendment put forth to refer

this matter to a committee. I want to support the amendment for a couple of

reasons. Number one: We have developed in this House, at least in the rules,

during the time that I have been here, a committee system that is designed to

have a look at legislation that comes before the House, and this government has

chosen to ignore that legislation more than it has used it.

This was developed a few years ago, during the previous Administration, and

there were opportunities during that time when legislation, particularly

legislation involving public health, whether it be legislation such as MCP....

I remember a couple of tobacco bills going before the Legislation Review

Committees, hearings being held, amendments being made, debates taking place;

very useful debates where members from all sides of the House, even backbench

government members, were able to make a contribution in shaping legislation. The

system that this government has adopted is all top down. It is all top down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) top down.

MR. HARRIS: It is top down, Mr. Speaker. A piece of legislation comes

before the House, approved by the ministers, approved by the Cabinet, whether

they read it or not, comes before the House, and then the backbench over there

is expected to get up like trained seals and vote for it when the times comes.

We have a committee system in this House which is designed to allow for input

not only by members of this House but also public input into legislation where

necessary. We have seen situations, and we have talked recently about the

tobacco legislation. The minister is going to amend that - made a statement in

the House the other day, the Minister of Health, a very important role of

tobacco in young people.

There were two pieces of legislation brought before this House a few years

ago that were before Legislation Review Committees, aimed at the goal of

reducing tobacco smoking in the Province, particularly access to tobacco by

young people, and also smoking in public places - in clubs and other public

places - hospitals, public buildings and institutions. These were important

pieces of legislation because they affected the daily lives of people in this

Province, public health issues that were deserving of strong consideration, and

got them through the committee system which allowed all members here to

participate. I think we even had a group of young people who made

representations to the Committee as to how they thought, or what they thought

might often take place in terms of access to tobacco by young people.

We have here a committee system. We have a piece of legislation that ought to

be - it has been recommended to go to that Committee - that ought to be reviewed

by that Committee, studied in some detail, and when it comes back to the House,

it can come back with some recommendations for changes, if need be, before it

comes back with approval, after due deliberation and due consideration.

Instead, we have legislation that has come before this House that nobody has

even seen. In the case last week, we are all expected to vote on it immediately.

Now I supported that in principle because it was a particular bill about a

particular issue, but when we get complex legislation - I think it is fair to

say that this legislation, when you are dealing with technicalities of the

operation of the medicare plan, the medical insurance, there may well be

representations that need to be made from other outside bodies, whether it be

the insurance industry, the legal profession or others, in terms of the

operation of this legislation and the recovery of monies expended in the health

care system that might need to be made.

We may, for example, have representations from people who think that the

government is not moving fast enough and doing enough to recover the expenses

associated with medical treatment of people who are suffering from tobacco

related diseases.

We have this government who makes public statements every couple of years

about its intention to sue the tobacco companies. We have heard it twice now. We

heard it the last election - in the last provincial election I think we heard

about it - and we heard about it in the last federal election. Those were the

only two times I ever heard the government talk about suing the tobacco

companies. Maybe we should have another election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Maybe if we had another election, we might hear about it

again.

We are talking about substantial tax dollars being spent to treat people who

are suffering from diseases caused by tobacco smoke. We hear once every election

about the fact that the government intends to sue the tobacco companies to

recover the cost of treating people who are suffering from tobacco related

diseases.

In British Columbia today we have a court action going through the courts in

British Columbia as a result, number one, of legislation passed there with

respect to establishing the right to sue and ensuring, I think it is called The

Tobacco Damages And Health Care Cost Recovery Act which was passed in British

Columbia in 1998. It was in June of 1997 that the Premier announced that they

were going to sue the tobacco companies to recover costs.

The British Columbia government was talking about the same thing and guess

what? In 1998 they passed The Tobacco Damages And Health Care Costs Recovery Act

and they are now commencing with a Statement of Claim and they are trying to

recover over $500 million a year of public expenditure in British Columbia made

to treat people who are suffering from diseases caused by tobacco smoking.

What do we have in this Province? We have a government saying once again in

an election in February of 1999, after saying it in June of 1997, that they are

going to sue the tobacco companies. We do not see any legislation. We do not see

any legislation similar to that of British Columbia, called The Tobacco Damages

And Health Care Costs Recovery Act. We do not see that, Mr. Speaker. We do not

see any statement from the Minister of Justice as to how the Statement of Claim

is progressing, whether they will borrow the one from British Columbia or they

are trying to devise their own. We do not hear any statements from the minister

of damage control in public health, or is it health and community services, who

are so busy trying to do damage control about the lack of public health

information, the quality of public health information, and the inaccurate public

health information being disseminated by the department, that they cannot get

control over health care costs that are caused by tobacco smoke.

We have legislation now before the House tinkering with the Medicare

Commission Act and not dealing with the fundamental issues that cause, in part,

such great costs to the medical care system, to the taxpayers of this Province,

caused by the harmful effects of tobacco smoke which the tobacco companies

across this country have been visiting upon the people of this Province and

every other province and territory in the country as a result of their hazardous

products, as a result of their advertising, as a result of their targeting of

their products towards young people.

documents from the tobacco industry showing in some detail how they conducted

experiments and studies to try to figure out how to target their product to

young people, innocent young children who are eleven, twelve and thirteen old,

how to make their product more attractive, how to make their product more

attractive to children so they could work their poison on them, so they could

get them addicted as young people so they would buy their product. What is the

result of that? The result to that is a population addicted to tobacco smoke in

many respects. Too many young people are addicted to tobacco smoke, causing

long-term health effects, which is a tragedy enough in itself. It is a tragedy

in itself, causing long-term health effects, disease, lung cancer, heart

disease, numerous other diseases, emphysema, coming from tobacco smoke, and

other poisons going into the body from tobacco smoke, and eventually ending up

in our health care system being treated by our doctors in hospitals and by

medical professionals, and costing the taxpayers a fortune.

I do not know if proper estimates have been done in the Province. In the

Province of British Columbia, they have determined that it is costing their

health care system $500 million a year. I would hazard to say that if our

population in Newfoundland was 20 per cent of British Columbia's, then our

expenditure would be in the neighborhood of $100 million a year for tobacco

related problems. I see the Member for St. John's East quickly working that

out with his calculator, dividing 500 million by five and getting 100 million,

the same as I did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty per cent of the population?

MR. HARRIS: Twenty per cent of the population. I am not sure what the

population of British Columbia is. Is it three million? If it is three million,

we should divide it by six instead of five. We might be more like seventy-five

million. Whatever, $75 million, $100 million, $50 million is substantial

taxpayers' money being used because of the effects of smoking on health and

health care costs and expenditures.

These are the kinds of things that could be discussed in Committee. The

minister could be hauled before the Committee and demanded to explain why she

was not pursuing this aspect of the medical care insurance costs; why she was

only going after the car accidents and the insurance companies and not after the

tobacco companies. What progress was being made? These are the kinds of things

that we would like to see this Committee pursue, and that is why we support

sending this to the Committee.

I know the Opposition House Leader, the health care critic, would be

delighted to participate in this Committee, to get the minister before the

Committee and ask her why she has not been pursuing this as a major public

health issue in this Province - the poisoning of our population and particularly

our young people by the poisoning of tobacco. Never mind the drinking water.

That is bad enough. It is bad enough to have public health concerns about

drinking water and the lack of public information about that, but here we have

an actual poison being sold in candy stores around the Province, in convenience

stores. It is very convenient to be able to buy this particular poison. It is

very convenient to be able to buy this particular poison. You can buy it in any

convenience store, or in most drugstores around the Province you can buy

tobacco.

We have young people being addicted to tobacco -

AN HON. MEMBER: When did you quit?

MR. HARRIS: On September 16, 1986, I quit. That was the last time I had a

cigarette. I know the dangers of addiction. I know the dangers of the addiction

of tobacco. Fortunately for me, I was able to overcome my addiction. If I were

as lucky in overcoming all of my bad habits, I would be almost as good as the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

The point is this: Each and every day in this Province, we have young people

taking up smoking for the first time at the age of ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen

and fourteen, because the tobacco companies are very interested in getting new

adherence to the addiction of tobacco because it is good for their business. In

the long run, it is very dangerous to their health and well-being, and it is

also expensive to our health care system.

If this went before a committee, I would be very anxious to have the Minister

of Health and Community Services talk about this very important public health

issue that is very important to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador; this

very important issue if we can save $50 million or $75 million a year by

recovering it from the tobacco companies to pay the cost of the disease

inflicted upon people who will become addicted to their product because they are

out busy marketing them and trying to obtain customers for their addictive

substances.

It is time that our government either fish or cut bait on this issue and not

keep talking about it every now and then, and even getting credit for it. I

noticed in a magazine, a legal magazine published in November of 1999, called The

National, published by the Canadian Bar Association, giving some credit on

the other side - talking about BC. They say: On the other side of the country,

Newfoundland's Liberal government has a BC style suit in the works. In the

works. In what works? Where is it? Where is the Minister of Justice telling us

all about the legal suit that is in the works? Where is the Minister of Health

talking about how she is actively trying to recover the cost inflicted upon our

health care system by the tobacco industry, and not just talking about car

accidents as she is in this bill. We have to bring these issues to the forefront

of the agenda, not just stir around in the back rooms of Confederation Building

or the back rooms of the Justice Department. The public has to know that this

government takes those issues seriously and, in fact, is pursuing them.

These are just some of the reasons why this issue should be going before the

Committee of this House and not be merely the subject of a perfunctory debate

here and take the minister's word for it, that the wording has been done

properly, and take the minister's word for it that everything has been done

according to the

definitions and proper procedure.

We have here before us today - today in this House we have Bill 24,

An Act

To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. We have, in that,

twenty-nine sections correcting mistakes in legislation. Clause 29 says:

Subsection 45(2) of the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Act is

amended by deleting the number 6" and substituting the number 3".

That is an error in the law. Obviously somebody did not read this. Somebody

did not properly study this legislation before it went through.

We have an amendment here to the Tobacco Tax Act. The Tobacco Tax Act is

amended by repealing a particular

section and substituting another, obviously

fixing a correction that had to be made because there was improper wording used.

The Schools Act, the Teachers' Pensions Act is amended. The Teachers'

Pensions Act because a mistake was made in a reference to another piece of

legislation. The Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act is

amended. The Solemnization of Marriage Act is amended because mistakes were made

and had to be fixed up. The Social Services Appeal Board Act is repealed and

substituted particular sections. The Small Claims Act is proposed to be amended

to fix up an error or anomaly. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act; the

Public Service Commission Act; the Proceedings Against the Crown Act; the

Personal Property Security Act; the Family Law Act; the Medical Care Insurance

Act, the very one that we are debating now. The very one that we are debating

now has an amendment in Bill 24 before us, removing an error or anomaly in that

particular act.

The Mechanics' Lien Act; the Limitations Act; the Jury Act; the

Interpretation Act; the Insurance Contracts Act; the Housing Corporation Act;

the Gasoline Tax Act; the Denturists Act; the Conflict of Interest Act, 1995;

the Commissioners for Oaths Act; the Child, Youth and Family Services Act; the

Child Services Act; the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation

Newfoundland Act; the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. We are even

fixing up anomalies and errors in legislation that was designed to fix up

anomalies and errors. We have the Assessment Act and the Advance Health Care

Directives Act.

All of these acts went through this House, and errors and anomalies were

present in those acts, and nobody here picked them up. One of the reasons is

that they did not go to Committee. They did not go to Committee. You have the

Government House Leader busily trying to put legislation through this House. His

job is to get it all through the House, make sure nobody on his side talks, give

them no incentive to even read the legislation. I am sure, if they had an

incentive to read the legislation - if there was any incentive on the other side

in the back benches to read this legislation - then perhaps some of their

attention would be directed to the legislation itself and they might be able to

be helpful in picking out errors and anomalies before they get passed in this

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I think there is a compelling case, Mr. Speaker, just by

looking at bills.

I am sure, and I know, that Your Honour is a very thoughtful person and

Member of this House who realizes that when we have legislation here, brought

in, correcting twenty-nine errors in legislation that has gone through this

House, I know that - in fact, I believe Your Honour was a member of one of the

Legislation Review Committees that actually met a few years ago and studied

legislation and brought about improvements to legislation, and brought back

legislation to this House, having had the advantage of careful study by hon.

members and hearing representations from individuals and from organizations

concerned about the effect of the legislation, and brought back to this House

reports recommending certain changes to legislation which in fact were

implemented.

I know Your Honour knows the value of the Committees of this House, and I am

sure if it were in your power to refer this matter to Committee, that is indeed

what you would do. I would fully expect that Your Honour would see fit to refer

this legislation to Committee, because Your Honour knows the helpful work that

these committees have in fact done in the past when they were used. This

particular Administration, under this particular House Leader, has seen fit not

to allow hon. members on both sides of the House to participate in the work of

Legislation Review Committees by studying legislation in advance of being pushed

through this House.

I regret very much to have to say that we have gone backwards in time instead

of making progress under this particular Administration, and under this

particular Government House Leader. I would have expected, after his many years

in the very back of the back benches over there underneath the portraits, almost

pinned to the portraits in some cases, I would have expected that the Government

House Leader himself would be well aware of the need for some role of the

backbenchers on his side of the House to play in the formation of legislation

and make a contribution to legislation in this House.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the reasons - I could go on, but these are

some of the reasons - why I fully support the amendment and would very much like

to see this piece of legislation and many other pieces of legislation find their

way to the Committees of this House so they can be properly studied so that hon.

members on all sides of the House could play an important role in ensuring that

legislation is not only read but understood, is corrected, meets the needs of

the people of this Province, and also has an opportunity to seek out ways to

improve legislation that is brought before the House by bringing in timely and

meaningful amendments that could make legislation better.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say that I fully

support the amendment and I regret very much that this Government House Leader

has failed to adequately use the procedure to send legislation to Committee. I

know when he was in the back benches, underneath the portraits in back, he would

have like to have a stronger role in terms of legislation and sitting on

committees. I think he should remember those days when he was sitting back,

plastered to the back wall -

AN HON. MEMBER: Up in the gallery.

MR. HARRIS: Up in the gallery if the Administration of the day could have

gotten him there, up in the gallery. He should know that the people in the back

rows on his side of the House have just as much of an important role to play in

legislation as members on this side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a member

of the court and he should not be talking about the Chief Justice of the

Province and his administration in this House. He should apologize to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has already stated there is no point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I have a new 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 Government House Leader occupied a position

in this House, not very far from the portraits, and it was debatable whether he

was before them or behind the portraits on the back of the wall. It was under

the previous Administration. I have no idea who actually put them there but it

was under the previous Administration. I say that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to say a few words on Bill 26,

An Act To Revise The

Administration Of Medical Care Insurance. When you read through this act you

will find that there is a lot of unknowns here, a lot of answers that need to be

given. I sometimes take exception, I say to the Government House Leader, to the

amount of attention that is paid, on your side, in introducing legislation into

this House of Assembly.

Ministers on the government's side stand up and very nonchalantly take up a

piece of legislation, say four or five words, and try to make you believe that

there is nothing to this piece of legislation; it is all housekeeping or it is

all just a matter of procedure. Nobody stands up and gives a lot of information

about the piece of legislation that they are introducing.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen some very important pieces of legislation come

before this House in my brief time here. Ministers opposite will stand, and

within a minute or a minute-and-a-half they are sitting down again and then it

is the big rush. It is a big rush by the Government House Leader to try to limit

the amount of debate, limit the number of people who get up and speak, saying, I

don't know why you are wasting time; I don't know why you are beating your

gums about this piece of legislation or that piece of legislation.

I say to members on both sides of the House that there are some very

important pieces of legislation that come before this particular Chamber for

debate and there is not enough time and effort given by the ministers opposite

in explaining the legislation, explaining the changes of what existed in former

legislation, or why the piece of legislation needs to be changed in order to

accommodate a goal that has been set forward by government.

In this piece of legislation, for example, in

section 18.(3), The minister

shall impose a levy to be paid by every licensed motor vehicle insurer with

respect to each vehicle insured by that insurer....

There is nothing in this piece of legislation, and the minister said nothing

in her introduction to this piece of legislation, to talk about existing

legislation. It is my understanding that there is already -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, Bill 26,

section 18.(3), The

minister shall impose a levy to be paid by every licensed motor vehicle insurer

with respect to each vehicle insured by that insurer for the purpose of

recovering insured services incurred by insured persons as a result of personal

injury or disability where the injury or disability was caused by, or

contributed to by, or results from, motor vehicle accidents.

I say to members opposite that this is already in existence. I say to members

opposite that right now, in this Province, every insured vehicle is charged

$12.56 as an insurance levy, as a health services levy, I think it is called.

There are something like 435,000 vehicles registered in this Province - 435,000

vehicles - at a levy of $12.56 for each vehicle. So I say to the minister that

there is an excess of $5 million already being collected from insurers in this

Province. That is collected, I say to the minister, from

Section B of your

insurance premium, that you pay to your insurer.

Section B is not a compulsory

part of your vehicle insurance. While vehicle insurance is compulsory in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the only insurance that you are required

and that you must carry is public liability.

In every other province of Canada,

Section B, which is the medical

section of

your insurance, is compulsory. As a member of the insurance committee, the

property and casualty insurance committee that traveled around this Province,

held in excess of sixty-two meetings, our recommendation was that we make

Section B compulsory. While

Section B of your insurance policy is not

compulsory, it is compulsory for every insurer, for the 436,000 vehicles that

are insured in this Province, it is compulsory for the insurance company to

reimburse the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador $12.56 for each vehicle.

Not each policy. You can have a dozen vehicles on a policy. Each vehicle. The

436,000 vehicles in this Province have to contribute back to government in

excess of $5 million a year. So there is already a compensation -

MR. SULLIVAN: That is besides this levy.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is besides this levy. If there is a new levy, have a

guess who is going to pay for it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. FITZGERALD: Have a guess! Every insured person in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen. We are already

paying government 19 per cent in taxes. We are paying a 15 per cent tax, which

is not a HST tax, it is a tax that the provincial government themselves have

added to your insurance policy. We are already paying a hidden tax of 4 per

cent, so that is 19 per cent in taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Frugal management. That is why Standard and Poor's

increased our bond rate (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: By what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Frugal management.

MR. FITZGERALD: It isn't frugal management, I say to the minister. It

isn't frugal management when you have to go out and take it from the poorest

of the poorest people in this Province and charge them 19 per cent on their

insurance policy that they struggle to maintain, and insure a vehicle to give

them the right to drive to and from work. That is not what I consider frugal

management, I say to the President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) dialysis (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is right, and I will always continue to push for

that. We should not pass it back again on the taxpayers who can least afford.

Let us do it in a way that those who can afford it will pay a higher premium,

and if that includes me, so be it. I will accept that.

Mr. Speaker, in the Province of Nova Scotia insurers pay something like 4 per

cent insurance tax. In the Province of New Brunswick, insurers pay less than 6

per cent as a insurance tax. Then you come to Newfoundland. What are we paying?

Nineteen per cent, and included in that is $12.56 for every vehicle that is

insured in this Province, I say to you.

Now the minister in her wisdom, in Bill 26,

section 18(3), says, The

minister shall impose a levy to be paid by every licensed motor vehicle insurer

with respect to each vehicle insured by that insurer... My question to the

Minister of Health and Community Services is: Minister, is this levy that you

are going to be imposing on insurers in this Province in addition to the $12.56

that you presently charge every motor vehicle owner in this Province today? If

it is, then that is wrong.

I do not know if the ministers, when they stand up to introduce this

legislation, take it so lightly that they feel nobody will bother checking into

any legislation that is brought here, that we will pass it off and allow it to

go through by the mere fact that nobody wants to speak on it or nobody wants to

ask questions, or because it was introduced and it is a fait accompli that it is

going to happen by the mere structure of this House or what. There needs to be

some explanation brought forward. If my insurance is going to take another hike

of $20 a year, which does not reflect the number of accidents that I have had,

it does not reflect the risk that I have, it does not reflect the type of car

that I drive, if it just reflects the minister's intent to collect some money

from me then that is wrong. That is not the way it should be.

While governments stick out their chest and say that there are no new taxes

and we are going to reduce taxes, then, `Mr. Government,' do not come through

with the strong hand and try to do it by the backdoor and start raising fees and

services and getting people to pay by the mere fact that they want to enjoy - I

do not know if you would call it a privilege of driving or a privilege of owning

a vehicle. Because that is what is happening here. The amount of money that we

pay out in fees and services is certainly getting out of hand. Sometimes, I

think, it costs more money to administer those services and to administer and

collect those fees than we actually make from them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you recoup (inaudible) on tax reduction?

MR. FITZGERALD: Recoup what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Those fees.

MR. FITZGERALD: Those fees? I will recoup the fees that I pay to my

insurance company? I doubt it. You know different from that, that you cannot

recoup what you pay in taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you can get it (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: You can get it from where? No, the only way I can get it,

I say to the minister, is if I do something underhanded to connive (inaudible) a

government. That is why I think we have this big underground economy. That is

why I think we have those people who go out there and deliberately try to not

pay what they rightfully owe to government, because they feel it is wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you explain the increase in employment last year

if we have an underground economy?

MR. FITZGERALD: Your employment figures would reflect a lot differently,

I say to the minister, than what they actually are if we could do away with the

underground economy. I know that you know that yourself. You know that there is

a tremendous underground economy here and you know that there is a tremendous

amount of money out there to be collected that is not collected. This is a way

of even making it greater.

Some of the foolish rules and regulations that your cousins up in Ottawa

brought in as it relates to Unemployment Insurance - or Employment Insurance

that they call it now - I believe encourages that. It encourages the underground

economy. While you have a very vibrant underground economy, while people are

employed, and while they go and look for the benefits they can get from that

employment, many times the rules and regulations are such that they are

restricted so much that they have no other choice, in order to keep body and

soul together, and in order to support their family and survive, but try to take

part in an underground economy to maintain and support their families.

The department of social services is a prime example. The new catchword is

Human Resources and Employment. Look at some of the people on Human Resources

and Employment and look at the amount of money they have at their disposal. I am

not suggesting that we should write them out a check, or that we should not have

some policy and some guidelines to be guided by, but I think we should be a

little bit more flexible.

There is a lot of people today that go to the department of social services,

not by wish or by choice, but because they do not have a choice. Sometimes when

you talk to people and they have fallen behind with their hydro bill, they have

fallen behind with their heat bill, and they try to get caught up and they try

to be able to keep body and soul together, and you see the paltry amount of

money that government is supplying to them, it makes you wonder in astonishment.

You have to shake you head and wonder how they survive.

It was only the other day I was talking to a gentleman who called my office,

and his wife was sick. He had to leave his job because of his wife's sickness.

He has a son twenty-two years old on social services. I think his son gets

$40-something every two weeks. Do you know what that family was living on? He

has a fifteen-year-old son, besides the twenty-year-old son. That family was

surviving on $82 a week. That is what he had in disposable income, to go out and

try to buy food and clothing and put his son in school - $82 a week.

He called and I said: Boy, you must be entitled to more than that. He said:

Well, I know I am entitled to more than that, but I was behind on my light bill

and I was behind on another bill. He had no other choice. Then he entered into

an agreement with Newfoundland Power where a certain amount of his money would

be taken - a very responsible family, I say to members opposite, not a family

who went out and wasted their money or was uncaring, or the husband or the wife

was out playing the slot machines. None of that. I checked it all out and know

the family very well, Mr. Speaker.

Here they are, trying to survive on $82 a week. It has to be frustrating.

They do not have a car, thank God, because the minister is going to go now and

impose another fee on them to drive up their insurance.

I fully agree - I have no problem, and I might differ from a lot of people on

this side of the House or the other side of the House - that if somebody

wilfully goes out and does something and it causes an expense to the Treasury of

this Province by neglect or by the actions of a certain individual, and they are

actions outside the norm and outside the law, maybe we should look at recouping

the cost of some of those inflicted injuries. Maybe we should. It is something

that we should look at, but I do not think we should bring in blanket

legislation to say now that we are going to start levying taxes on automobiles

again when we already have a tax levied on automobiles where you collect in

excess of $5 million a year.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to do things. If you are going raise taxes,

raise taxes. Don't go out and say we are not going to raise taxes but we are

going to raise every other service and every other fee that we have here, and

the people who want to go and catch a few rabbits, or the person who wants to go

and get a marriage licence, or the person who wants to go and get a permit to

develop a building lot is going to have to pay through the nose, because it all

comes from the same pockets. It all comes from the taxpayers of this Province.

I have to relay a little story here. It is too bad the Minister of Forest

Resources and Agrifoods is not in his seat. A few years ago - I think it was the

Minister of Environment at the time, decided he was going to - or she it was -

decided she was going to bring in a piece of legislation to stop the use of ATVs

on wetlands and boglands. The Member for Topsail knows full well what I am

talking about, because I think he was the minister's executive assistant at

the time when this piece of legislation was introduced.

The Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods takes his seat, and I would

like for him to listen to this one because this is a real dandy. A few years

ago, the Minister of Environment decided that they were going to bring in a

piece of legislation and they were going to stop ATVs from the indiscriminate

use of wetlands and boglands. Not a bad piece of legislation, I fully agree, and

the people I have talked with fully agreed to it. What they said is: We know

that this is a generator of income for the economy. We know people go out and

buy ATVs and they pay taxes and they buy gasoline, and they have repairs and

they keep people working. We are aware of all that, and we are also aware of the

enjoyment and the relaxation that people get from using all terrain vehicles.

So, what we are going to do now is to allow people with ATVs who want to go and

visit their cabin, or visit their favorite fishing hole, we are going to allow

them to go and use a

section of the land that can support that kind of activity,

hard ground. If you come to a bog , then you cut a trail around the bog or you

do whatever you have to do in order to build a trail that you can use on a

regular basis and not destroy the environment.

This group of people from Bonavista said: You know, we have to abide by the

rules and regulations. We want to go to our cabin, and in order to get to our

cabin we have to go over a piece of wetland. What we will do is, we will go up

and cut a trail across some hard ground and that way we can continue to use our

ATVs and go into our cabin.

Fair enough, they decided they would check into the rules and regulations.

Just listen to this, I say to the Member for Topsail and I say to the minister,

if he has a minute to listen. Those responsible individuals went to the

Department of Government Services and Lands, told them they were going to cut

their trail, and said: What do we have to do?

First, Sir, you have to pay a fee of $100 in order to get a permit to cut the

trail to your cabin. That is fair enough; there are four of us, so we are going

to cut the trail. They paid their $100.

Then they went up and started cutting the trail. They were only there one day

and the Department of Forestry showed up and said: What are you doing here?

Well, we are cutting a trail into our cabin. Do you have a permit? No, we do not

have a permit. Well you have to have a permit now in order to cut that trail,

and the permit is going to cost you twenty-one dollars.

Okay, there are four of us so we will pay the twenty-one dollars. They cut

part of the trail. The next year they went back to finish it. When they went up

to start cutting the trail again, the Department of Forestry showed up again and

said: Do you have a permit? Yes, we have a permit. Do you have a permit for this

year? No. Well, it is going to cost you another twenty-one dollars. So they went

and bought their permit for another twenty-one dollars.

Then they came to a brook, a little stream. Now, in order to pass over the

brook they had to put something there, a little bridge to get them over the

brook. The Department of Forestry came and said: Now you have to go to the

Department of Environment or waterways and you are going to have to pay another

fee in order to put the bridge over that water. That is going to cost you

another $100. Then they said: Boys, we have to stop and wait and see what is

happening here. They counted the bridges. There were four streams that they had

to go over.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It is being done? Good. The minister tells me it is being

taken care of, but I have to tell you the rest of it.

There were four streams that they had to cross over, so here was another

$400. Now, all of a sudden, the trail is costing them about $800 and they are

not even to their cabin yet. This was all done by a government to try to get

people to abide by the rules and regulations.

Finally, somebody else showed up and said: Are you fellows cutting that trail

going into the cabin up at such a pond? They said: Yes we are. He said: Do you

know what you have to do now? You have to go and register that trail. You have

to take out a registration for that trail. That is going to cost you another

$100.

Now, after paying for the bridges, paying for the permits, paying for the

right to cut the trail, now they have to register the trail and that

registration, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agrifoods, is another $100.

But listen to this; they do not even own the trail. The trail has to be

registered in their name and they do not even own it.

So how serious or how much consideration are you giving to the legislation

that you introduce into the House? The Minister of Health and Community Services

stood here, and when she introduced that piece of legislation it took her all of

three minutes. She did not touch on

section 18 that told you that every vehicle

in this Province was already being charged $12.56 because government has decided

to issue a levy against them already. She didn't tell you that government was

already collecting in excess of $5 million from everybody who owns a vehicle in

this Province. That is why we get ourselves into those kinds of situations, and

you wonder what the Opposition is doing standing here - to use your words -

beating their gums about legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Minister of Forestry and Agrifoods, or I don't

think the Member for Topsail, when he was the executive assistant to the

Minister of Environment, ever intended to charge somebody $700 or $800 in order

to have a trail put into their cabin that was there for everybody to use, and it

was being done and built and cut in order to abide by government rules and

regulations. I don't think that was his intention. In fact, I am sure it wasn't.

Because somebody did not take the time to look at what it was costing

individuals who were going to get on their ATVs and go - and we are talking

about people here, now, who do not go to Florida every year. We are not talking

about people who jump on Air Canada and go down to Cuba for a week every summer,

or go to Florida. We are talking about a group of people who went out, saved

their money, bought an ATV - in some cases it was probably a second-hand one -

and decided that I deserve a little bit of relaxation, and maybe I can afford to

have a cabin. Maybe I can afford to go in to my favorite fishing hole and put up

a cabin. As little as it may be, it is a getaway. It is somewhere that I can go

and somewhere where I can enjoy some rest and relaxation.

That is what is happening here, and that is the kind of situation that we get

ourselves into when we do not take enough time to read legislation, to have

questions asked about legislation, and to introduce it. There is not enough

time.

It is a shame, when ministers stand, that they do not take the bill, and if

they did - if the Minister of Health and Community Services stood up here when

she introduced that piece of legislation... Look at the introduction to it, the

explanatory note. This is what the Minster of Health and Community Services

provided on a bill here that has great repercussions. I just told you about some

of them. It is twenty-two pages long. Do you know what the explanatory note is?

Just listen to this, The purpose of this Bill is set out in its

Long Title.

That is the explanation to Bill 26 that is going to go out and have great

repercussions on charging everybody who lives in this Province, the people who

own 436,000 vehicles, another levy. She is not saying how much it is going to

be. She is not telling you that you are going to have to pay $5 or $10; you have

to trust her for that.

I say to the Government House Leader, wouldn't you think that the minister

would have stood and explained the bill? Because there are people over there who

do not know what this bill is all about. The Member for Bellevue sits there

bewildered, with his head to one side, wondering what I am talking about. He

doesn't have a clue what is in this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That was used as an example to explain to them.

I say to the Member for Bellevue, who takes great pride in saying he

represents his district and he represents his constituents, take that piece of

legislation out to your people, explain to them what it is all about. Sit down

in their kitchen and see what they tell you to say about this piece of

legislation.

What the Opposition House Leader talked about doing with this piece of

legislation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. gentleman something.

The last time I was in Clarenville, he and I had our picture taken together and

I want to know if he will give me his permission to put in on the back of my

year-end brochure. We missed him last night, and they were asking for him out in

Clarenville.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader wants to add

a little bit of charisma to his folder, he can use my picture any time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Roger, tell him if he wants to enhance his chances of

getting re-elected, go ahead.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Government House Leader that it probably

will enhance your chances of getting elected, because I have some good friends

down in your district.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I want to remind the hon. House Leader and hon. Member for

Bonavista South that the hon. the Member for Bellevue is also in that picture,

and in no way do I want my picture being circulated in his district or the hon.

member's district.

MR. TULK: To that point of order, I want to assure the hon. gentlemen

that we will cut him out.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that was out in Clarenville a few weeks ago

and the photographer insisted that I give him the pictures. It had nothing to do

with invitations.

AN HON. MEMBER: It made for a good picture then.

MR. FITZGERALD: It made for a good picture.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) didn't I?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you did. I give the minister credit.

I say to the minister, there is nobody on that side of the House who can

stand up and refute what I said today about legislation being introduced in this

Chamber - nobody. There is nobody here in this House who can stand up and

seriously debate what the Opposition House Leader has brought forward as an

amendment to this piece of legislation, and that is to use the Committees of

this House in a way that they were struck and structured to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: When your former leader, I say to the Government House

Leader, kept you controlled in the back benches, kept you in the wings - the

Member for Baie Verte said you were so far up, you used to get the nose bleed -

when you would sit there and couldn't look across this House, couldn't look

at your leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is right. That is the way he would come in.

Only then, when the cameras were here, when the Budget was being read or when

His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, would come and waltz through here.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You tried.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It wasn't what you said.

MR. FITZGERALD: That was to prove a point.

Mr. Speaker, what the Member for Ferryland is suggesting is that we take this

piece of legislation and we take it very seriously, and we pass it back to the

Committee that was structured in this House, in order to take it out and look at

it. Now that do not mean, I say to the Government House Leader, that we are

going to take it out and travel to Corner Brook, and travel here and there. We

will let the Committee sit down and go through it.

If the minister is not going to stand and explain this bill, and if the

minister is not going to tell us what she means by a levy on motor vehicles in

this Province -

MR. TULK: She is going to do all of that.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, she is not going to do it. Obviously she will not do

it. It has not been done. If it was going to be done, it would be done at the

introduction of the legislation.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I wonder, could the Member for Bellevue -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Racket, yes.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know that the place to ask questions

on any clause in the bill is in Committee. Of course, the minister will answer

any questions the hon. gentleman has in Committee, when we get to that stage of

the bill. It is not a problem; we are debating the principle of this bill. He

knows that. That is the reason he is up there talking about - not the skidoo

roads. What do we call them?

AN HON. MEMBER: ATV trails.

MR. TULK: ATV trails. That is the reason he is talking about that. He

knows that he is using the time of this House for nothing, but I have to tell

him something: he is very entertaining.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is not a point of being entertaining. It is the point

of showing people opposite and the people on this side what happens when we

allow a piece of legislation to go through without questions being asked, and

without explanations given.

If the minister, in my way of thinking... If I ever become minister in this

House of Assembly - and praise God I will some day - if I ever introduce a piece

of legislation, I intend to be fully versed on that piece of legislation and to

stand and go through it clause-by-clause and allow the questions to be asked.

Never mind waiting for committee, I say to the member. Let's do it so people

can get up and debate it. If that was done, if that particular -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: If there are any more Tories appointed to that Cabinet

there is going to be a revolt over there.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if that is the way that legislation was

introduced into the House then there would be no time taken up here. Because the

questions that we ask and the information and the concerns that we put forward

would not be a topic for discussion because we would know the answers. The only

topics we would discuss would be the topics that the minister explained that we

did not agree with, or we pointed out the inequities in that piece of

legislation. That is not what is done here. While legislation is slipped

through, far too often the result is that people out in this Province get hurt

by it, and that is what is likely to happen with this piece of legislation here.

I know the Government House Leader has used the committees of the House, I

know that. I remember introducing a piece of legislation here myself, the `Good

Samaritan' act, that his former boss would not allow to go through, and the

former Government House Leader would not hear tell of. This leader did and this

Government House Leader allowed it to go through. While there was somebody's

name put on it, that is not an issue with me, I say to the minister.

The minister referred it to a committee of the House and the committee of the

House worked very well. I remember the committee going down and visiting the

food banks around this city. I remember them going out and visiting the areas

where the food was being stored and all the fears that were raised in this

Chamber were laid aside. I think the Minister of Environment now was the

chairperson of that particular committee at that time. I know the Member for

Waterford Valley was a member of that committee. We had hearings up on the fifth

floor and allowed people to come in. In fact, my friend to my far right down

there almost had the two elevators going, bringing people up and down, saying:

No, I'm against this piece of legislation because there should not be any food

banks. What a silly comeback in saying if you are going to introduce something

to deal with a problem that you do not believe that the problem should exist

when it is there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was it?

MR. FITZGERALD: You know who it was. The Member for Quidi Vidi, I say to

the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

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

MR. EFFORD: No leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is what happens I say. No, I don't want any leave,

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I've said what I've had

to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will just reiterate. In conclusion, I say to the

minister, pass it on to a committee of the House, let them report back to the

House, and then we will know for sure.

Thank you.

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

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

I am pleased to stand in my place to say a few words on Bill 26,

An Act To

Revise The Administration Of Medical Care Insurance. I have a question. I would

like to know what road this Province is traveling down when it comes to health

care in this Province and who is going to pay for it in the future?

Since this federal government came into power - nationally, the Liberals - it

has gone from 25 per cent of medicare bills in the country being paid for by

insurance companies up to 30 per cent, I believe. Now we have this legislation

before the House of Assembly. I wonder, do the people in this Province know

where we are heading?

This legislation, albeit, that there are sections already existing, but I

would say that many people in this Province do not know about this hidden tax.

Many people do not know about this hidden tax. I have been in this House of

Assembly many times speaking about all the license, fees and permits after

doubling, tripling, quadrupling since this group came into power in 1989. They

have brought in taxes, fees and permits required for things now that were never

there before. Now the minister wants the people of this Province to be paying

money on all vehicles to go towards cost recovery.

We see people going into the Health Sciences and if they want a room, a

private room or a semi-private room, if there is insurance I do believe - now, I

stand to be corrected on this - that they have to give them a cheque for $300

before they can go in through the door. If you don't have insurance I think

you have to pay $200. We are talking about health care in this country being

free? Not likely. I would not think so.

I think if the people in the Province had the opportunity to have some input

into Bill 26 - and that is why I support the amendment put forward by the

Opposition House Leader to refer this to a committee. Sure, we should refer it

to a committee. That is what the committees are set up for, where we bring

legislation to the House that is going to have an impact upon the people of the

Province. Sure, we should refer it to Committee.

It is more than housekeeping, I say, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Government

House Leader over there, who looks like a fish under water with his mouth going

up and down - yes, the Government House Leader - that this is very serious

stuff.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know. I just do not like the color of your tie, I

suppose.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it was not a point that was made by a couple

of the previous speakers. I wonder why when we have legislation brought to this

House of Assembly it is always the Opposition that have to be on their feet

pointing out the flaws in the legislation.

MR. TULK: That is what you get paid for.

MR. J. BYRNE: We have backbenchers on that side of the House. The

Government House Leader says that is what we get paid for, but we have many

Members in this House of Assembly. I am elected to represent my district. We

have the members over there who represent their districts. Surely they have an

opinion on what is happening. The Member for Topsail, surely he must have an

opinion. When the government are going to try and rip off the taxpayer in this

Province he must want to get up and speak to it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I just cannot sit here and hear the hon. gentleman accuse

backbenchers or private members on this side of the House of not putting their

thoughts forward to government. I say to the hon. gentleman that he may not be

aware of how the system works, but the truth of the matter is that we have great

discussions about all kinds of legislation, all kinds of problems in caucus, and

I have to tell him that in this Administration the caucus is practically treated

like a Cabinet. That is how much respect there is from the leader over here for

people who are private members.

The hon. gentleman must know that that is his job. If he sees flaws that we

do not see over here - although that would be difficult for him to do because he

would have to think - if he sees those kinds of things, if he does think at all,

well, that is his job, that is what he gets paid for. He should learn that and

be a better Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I can't hear the Speaker. What did you say, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

No point of order again, as usual. Batting a thousand, I say to the

Government House Leader. The man who is supposed to leading the decorum in the

House of Assembly, who is supposed to know the rules and regulations of the

House of Assembly, gets up and I have yet to see him right on a point of order.

Never yet. Never is he correct with respect to a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader. The Member for Terra Nova gets

up every now and then and gets really into it, gets really upset - at least he

appears to be - but his points of order sometimes make sense. Most of the time

they do not either, Mr. Speaker.

Back to this piece of legislation. Some of the reasons that this should be

referred to Committee are as follows. One, we all know that MCP theoretically

are supposed to be paying the doctors' bills. If I go see a doctor he sends

off a bill for seeing me. The same thing with members on that side of the House.

The Minister of Fisheries, I would say, would go to see a doctor very often, I

would imagine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: He doesn't? I was not saying physically now. I was not

speaking physically. Anyway, theoretically the bills are paid by MCP. This

legislation is really, at the bottom line, bringing in a hidden tax. It is there

now I would say, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if the people in the Province

actually knew that it was there. I did not to be quite honest, but it is at a

certain per cent now. The Member for Bonavista South made the point that we are

now paying $12.56 per vehicle that is there now plus another - well, it was 15

per cent plus 4 cent, so that is 19 per cent. If you have a bill of $1000, you

are paying $190 for government fees, hidden taxes, and another $12.56 plus, and

that is passed directly onto us.

I have to ask the question: Where are we headed? What road are we going down,

I say to the minister, when it comes to health care? Who is paying for it and

who is going to pay for it? We have the Minister of Health on her feet answering

questions from the Opposition House Leader, trying to extol the attributes and

how good the health care is in this Province, but when you walk into the Health

Sciences over there, or any hospital in this Province, and you see seniors on -

they call