December 8, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 54

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder) : Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

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

hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; the hon. the

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

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits,

the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my distinct pleasure to stand in this hon. House this afternoon and

bring greetings to a very special lady. One-hundred and one years ago today,

December 8, 1903, Catherine Young was born to James and Mary Bridget Young in

the small Cape Shore community of St. Bride's, Placentia Bay.

Catherine later married Patrick Mahoney, also of St. Bride's, and today

Mrs. Catherine Mahoney is celebrating an incredible milestone, that of her 101 st

birthday.

Mrs. Katie, as she is affectionately known, has lived a long and dedicated

life, dedicated to her family, her church and her community. Her presence at the

garden parties and fall fair tables is a pleasant memory of the way things used

to be in our hometown. Mrs. Katie is a lady of faith, walking to church in all

types of weather up to just a few years ago.

Mrs. Katie is a true example that hard work does not harm you. She was always

busy and active around her home and her community. Believe it or not, Mr.

Speaker, at the age of ninety-eight Mrs. Mahoney underwent major surgery and

returned home after just a few short days.

As a young boy growing up in St. Bride's, Mrs. Katie was my next door

neighbour, and I was always amazed at her energy and enthusiasm for life. Just

think for a moment, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Katie lived through World War I, World War

II, the Korean conflict, the Great Depression and the days when Newfoundland was

still a country unto itself.

Mrs. Katie was a few years short of becoming a senior citizen before

electricity was introduced to the Cape Shore area during Christmas of 1965. She

grew up in a world without telephones, computers or electronic mail. She grew up

in a world, Mr. Speaker, where close-knit families, strong friendships and solid

traditions and values ruled the day.

A wonderful lady who has enjoyed a long and wonderful life and I ask all

members of this hon. House to join with me today in wishing happy 101 st

birthday to Mrs. Catherine Mahoney of St. Bride's.

Happy Birthday, Mrs. Katie.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits, and Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a native of Point Leamington in

Exploits district who has recently been honoured with a most prestigious award.

In a ceremony at the Arts and Culture Centre here in St. John's on

September 21, 2004, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Betty Andrews was awarded the prestigious

Public Service Award of Excellence for 2003 in recognition of her work at

Government House.

The Public Service Awards of Excellence have been presented annually for the

past three years to individuals and teams of people who, as government employees

working in the public service, have made exemplary contributions to their area

of work and who have positively impacted their work environment in some way.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Andrews won this award as a result of her outstanding

contribution and dedicated service to Government House, here in the Capital

City, where she has worked for the last thirty years.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Betty Andrews has served many prestigious individuals over

the years at Government House, from Queen Elizabeth to Prince Charles and

Princess Diana, to many Prime Ministers and Premiers, to Governor Generals and

Lieutenant-Governors, Mrs. Andrews service has been nothing short of excellent

for the whole period of time.

Personally, Mr. Speaker, during my many years in Cabinet and as Premier, I

frequently met Mrs. Betty Andrews at Government House and found her always to be

upbeat, professional, and completely and totally courteous and friendly.

I congratulate her today on receiving the Public Service Award of Excellence,

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

extending congratulations to her as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a group from the

District of Grand Bank whose service to their community has been exemplary.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Lions Club in Grand Bank were recognized recently

for their tremendous contribution to their club and to the people they serve as

a community-minded organization.

Brothers Bruce Buffett and Allister Buffett received presidential

certificates of appreciation from the President of the International Association

of Lions for forty-four years and forty-three years of service to their club

respectively.

Two other members - Lion George Walters and Lion Lance Blackmore - were

presented with the highest honour bestowed by the Lions Foundation of Canada,

the Judge Brian Stevenson Fellowship Award. Also, Mr. Speaker, Lions Charles

Savoury, George Walters, James Tessier, and Howard Bonnell received service pins

for years of service to Lionism, to the community and to the world.

Mr. Speaker, there were eleven Lions granted Life Membership Awards in the

Lions Foundation of Canada. These members were: Norm Fizzard, Charles Savoury,

Bob Hunt, Ruby Walters, Lance Blackmore, Harriet Savoury, Clyde Anstey, Voilet

Payne, Lloyd Hines, Georgina Hines, and John Turpin.

Mr. Speaker, at this ceremony, the Lions Club of Grand Bank donated $400 to

the John Burke High School Scholarship Fund, and provided $500 for two students

to attend the Terry Fox Center in Ottawa. Another $200 was donated to the

SeaHawks, a group in the area involved with young challenged individuals in

sport.

Mr. Speaker, service to the community like that of service groups such as the

Lions Club is certainly worthy of recognition.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending congratulations

to all Lions Club members throughout the Province for their hard work and

dedication and determination to make a difference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute and celebrate the life and contribution of Almon

Thomas Dale, who died in St. John's on Monday, December 6.

Al, as he was known, worked as an employee of CN Telecommunications, but it

was in his retirement that he made the contribution for which he is known and

respected in many parts of the world.

Having served as a deputy returning officer with the Province's Electoral

Office, he took his experience to the world. Al carried out seventeen missions

in international election monitoring and as a peace verification officer under

UN sponsorship in Southern Africa, Southeast Asia, the former Yugoslavia, and in

Afghanistan.

At seventy-two, he was ready to embark on a further last mission despite his

battle with cancer, but it was not to be. Al died Monday in the presence of his

family.

A most unassuming and compassionate man, he sought no special recognition,

but enjoyed the opportunity to serve in this way. Al Dale was very fortunate to

be able to make this international humanitarian contribution, and we share the

pride of his family in the work that he has done to help advance democracy and

peace in many parts of the world where both are needed.

I ask hon. members to join in offering condolence to his wife, Betty, his

children and extended family, and his many friends on their loss.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair calls Statements by Ministers, it has come

to the Chair's attention that we have a former colleague in the gallery, Mary

Hodder, former Deputy Mayor of Marystown, former Deputy Speaker of this House,

and former MHA for Burin-Placentia West.

Welcome back to our Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this House that my

department will begin using the Canadian Financial Services Ombudsnetwork as

part of its consumer complaint system starting in the new year.

This network is another tool in solving complaints consumers may have with

financial service providers. It will enable us to deal with complaints more

quickly, and it provides another avenue for consumers to have their complaints

heard without having to go to court.

Mr. Speaker, a joint forum of financial market regulators has worked with the

insurance, securities and banking industries over the past years to create this

network. My department is a member of the steering committee.

The first step in the process is for the consumer to try to resolve their

complaint with the company. If the consumer is still not satisfied, the

complaint can then be referred to the Ombudsnetwork.

Mr. Speaker, the network has the ability to ask the company to provide

redress to the consumer if it is determined the company acted improperly. The

company is not bound by the suggested course of action; however, the network

will publish the name of any company not complying with its request.

My department will continue to deal with complaints involving violations of

our legislation and regulations. The network is just another tool we have in

assisting consumers in resolving their complaints.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this network will be a valuable mechanism for

consumers in dealing with complaints they may have in the financial services

sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her advanced copy of her statement. I

certainly would have liked to have a little bit more information about this

Ombudsnetwork but I guess anything that you strive to do, Minister, to help

provide more information about this initiative would be a benefit to the

consumer. Anything that does make it - especially this part of the industry,

with the financial services in our country - more friendly to consumers is

certainly a positive thing.

You know, considering in the past twelve months, I think we have had an

increase in the number of complaints in this sector, in this Province, and in

the country as a whole, because of our electronic services that we presently

work under, financial services. I know the calls to my office have certainly

increased over the past twelve months. We look at what happened in Ontario in

the past little while, where information regarding bank accounts was being faxed

to a fax machine in Arizona, down to a junkyard. That was something, I guess,

and hopefully this thing here will help to curtail some of those things.

Minister, I guess most of all I hope that this service and the government's

subscription to this service does not result in a loss of jobs to any of our

public sector employees.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In making this announcement, I hope this is not a reflection that the

minister's departmental officials and staff are insufficient to deal with the

complaints that are coming forward. Perhaps the answer, Mr. Speaker, is that she

should have an increased staff to deal more vigorously with the kind of

complaints that are coming forward. I know they are increasing in the insurance

industry, Mr. Speaker, where people are dissatisfied with the kind of treatment

that they have been receiving and the kind of rates they are being charged.

Perhaps the minister would be better served by adding staff to her department.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform you of truly inspiring

events that speak to the generosity of spirit of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians that is so important as we move into the Christmas season.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, this past September there was a fire at Amos

Comenius Memorial school in Hopedale, Labrador. There was considerable damage to

the gym and surrounding areas, including the home economics room and industrial

arts room. The lobby, administration suite and faculty room received smoke and

water damage, and the classroom wing received some smoke damage. This

represented a great and tragic loss for the community, as it was not just a

school but was very much the community centre in Hopedale.

However, following the fire, the Faculty of Education at Memorial University

of Newfoundland, recognizing what a great loss this was for the community,

established a Sharing Hope with Hopedale Campaign in October of this

year. The purpose of the campaign, Mr. Speaker, was to provide support for the

K-12 school community within Hopedale.

The Education Society, a mostly undergraduate organization within the Faculty

of Education, participated actively in the project, raising funds through

various initiatives and collecting donations.

Drop-off locations for the initiative were established in the Office of the

Dean of Education and the Curriculum Materials Centre, in the Hickman Building

at the St. John's campus of the university.

Throughout the campaign, individuals from many university and community

organizations donated both school related materials and cash contributions. The

list of participants included: the Queen Elizabeth II Library; the Curriculum

Materials Centre, the School of Nursing, the Faculty of Education, Ascension

Collegiate in Bay Roberts, Newfoundland, and 99.1 Hits FM.

In total, the Faculty of Education collected twenty-seven boxes of school

materials. The donated items, Mr. Speaker, included science books,

encyclopedias, children's books, novels, geography books, nature books,

geometry sets, calculators, pens, pencils, crayons and coloring books, puzzles,

games, flash cards, glue, paper and scissors.

Cash donations were collected to the amount of $510. Of this, $350 was

collected during a bake sale held by the Education Society.

Memorial University's Facilities Management Department assisted with the

transportation of the boxes from the Faculty to Provincial Airlines. Provincial

Airlines, Mr. Speaker, then shipped the twenty-seven boxes weighing

approximately 350 kilos free of charge for delivery to Hopedale.

I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, to report that the Department of Labrador and

Aboriginal Affairs at the request of our colleague, the Member for Torngat

Mountains, provided a $2,500 donation to the school to assist with the purchase

of emergency school supplies. In doing so, we were matching an earlier

contribution made by our colleague, the Minister of Education, bringing the

total contribution to $5,000.

Mr. Speaker, as a former school teacher and vice-principal myself, I know

very well how important a school is to its students and its community. Having

visited Hopedale this past August, as Minister responsible for Aboriginal

Affairs, I know how important this school was to the Community of Hopedale.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank President Dr. Axel Meisen of

the University. It was Dr. Meisen who approached my colleague, the then Minister

of Education, and myself, in my role as Aboriginal Affairs Minister, asking how

the university could help out in this project shortly after the fire at the

school. I would like to thank Memorial University of Newfoundland's Faculty of

Education, the Education Society, and all those who contributed to the success

of the Sharing Hope with Hopedale Campaign.

Once again, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have exemplified what a generous

and giving people we truly are.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an

advance copy of his statement.

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that for the people of Hopedale, and the

students, it was a sad day when we learned about the fire. I arrived in

Hopedale, Mr. Speaker, shortly after and I can tell you that the whole Town of

Hopedale was devastated.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great contribution by Memorial University, there is no

question about that. Again, with the airlines, Mr. Speaker. What people do not

know is the contribution that Provincial Airlines and Air Labrador make to the

people on the North Coast by flying in stuff free of charge is an asset.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to the former Minister for Education,

the Member from St. John's East, who I believe was in a Cabinet meeting or on

the way, and took my call immediately, responded and gave me the assurance to

tell the people in Hopedale that they would do everything possible; to the

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for what he did, the Minister of Labrador Affairs

and to the current minister, who travelled into Hopedale with me.

Mr. Speaker, today we talk of people, but at the end of the day when the

school is restored there is a story that needs to be told, of how it unfolded

and how we put the school back together, and probably not a story about the

natives but a story about a whole lot of good people who worked to give the

children of Hopedale back a school that they deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this was indeed a tragic day for the Community of

Hopedale and for the students of Hopedale when their school was affected by that

fire. I think it bodes well for us, as a people of this Province, that we are

known throughout the country and the world, indeed, for the generosity that we

extend, not only to each other but to people from anywhere in their time of need

and that is well documented, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to offer our congratulations and thanks to the many people

who were mentioned by the minister as taking

part in the initiative to improve

the school in Hopedale. A school in many small communities, Mr. Speaker, is

indeed the heart and soul of the community.

As the Member for Torngat mentioned when he thanked Provincial Airlines for

their work, I think it needs to be acknowledged the work that Provincial

Airlines does in this Province, in all aspects in communities where they

operate.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, this will turn out good. Hopefully, things will

improve as the year goes forward and further renovations and work is being done.

Again, I say to the minister, this is a reflection of who we are as a people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

Before we begin Oral Questions, it has been brought to the Speaker's

attention that we have some other visitors in our gallery today, Stelman Flynn,

President of the Cruise Ship Authority of Newfoundland and Labrador and Mayor of

Forteau, Labrador; with him is Yvonne Power, Executive Director of the Cruise

Ship Authority of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We welcome these visitors to our gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier. The Premier stated yesterday that if FPI

were to continue with the sale of its American assets the Premier has asked them

to give the people of this Province some very, very important concessions. That

is what he said in the House yesterday, that he asked for very, very important

concessions from FPI.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier that he, himself, has given FPI some very

important concessions, the jobs of the people of Harbour Breton and the jobs of

the people of Fortune. I ask the Premier now, will he tell us what concessions

he has asked of FPI?

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said in this House on many occasions over the past couple of weeks,

and as the Premier has articulated also, we have had some extensive discussions

with Fishery Products International on their proposed income trust transaction.

We have been asking for some substantial undertakings from them over the past

six or seven months, I guess it has now been. We have not concluded those

discussions. When we have concluded those discussions, if they are concluded and

concluded satisfactorily, then the undertakings that we sought will be provided

to this House and to the people of the Province to see.

Mr. Speaker, to connect what is happening with the income trust transaction

with what is happening in Harbour Breton or Fortune, or elsewhere in our fishing

industry, is nothing short of political rhetoric and does a disservice to the

people of the Province and the seafood industry that they work in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister and the Premier continue to say that they are on top of this

file, I wish the people of the areas like Harbour Breton and Fortune could

believe that.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in discussing FPI yesterday, also stated that he

was only interested in protecting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask

the Premier: What did he do to protect the people of Harbour Breton? I ask the

Premier: What is he doing to protect the people of Fortune? I ask the Premier:

If he continues to procrastinate, who is going to be left to protect?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said before, and as we pointed out yesterday, we are working with

the people of Harbour Breton to try and secure their future. FPI have made their

decision as it relates to Harbour Breton. The people of Harbour Breton

understand that and the government understands that. The people of Harbour

Breton understand that there are things that the government can do and there are

things that the government cannot do.

Mr. Speaker, we have said to the people of Harbour Breton, quite clearly to

them again yesterday, when I met with about 150 people in front the hotel in

Harbour Breton and when I met with a committee of the community, that we are

very much going to work with those people to try and find a solution for them.

But, Mr. Speaker, I will not jump for the bait that the member is throwing out

there and engage in the political rhetoric that he so often wants to engage in.

The people of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador deserve a lot

better and, certainly, the people of Harbour Breton deserve a lot better than he

is offering.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I am not throwing you any bait. I am asking you what

you are going to do for those people that you have let loose on the South Coast

of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, a very serious question, one that the Premier did not answer

yesterday. In reading Hansard from yesterday, it is obvious that the Premier did

not understand the question I asked him regarding the sale of FPI's American

assets. So, I will ask again: Will the Premier commit to having a free vote in

this House of Assembly before the sale of these assets - that being the American

assets of FPI - goes through? Will he have a vote in this House of Assembly

before that happens? A simple answer, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have said time and again over the past couple of months on

this issue, that we are engaged in a discussion with FPI and we are seeking

undertakings as it relates to their income trust transaction to try and make

sure that the interest of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, the seafood

industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, are protected. If we succeed in that

negotiation, which we have been engaged in, that information will be brought

before the House and there will be a free vote that will be allowed. That is

what the Premier has said time and again. That was our position over the past

couple of weeks and it remains our position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Trevor, read Hansard (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for going down to Harbour Breton yesterday. My

question is to the minister. Yesterday when the minister was in Harbour Breton

he witnessed the desperation of the workers first-hand and he heard from the

mayor, the union reps and the business representatives of the overwhelming

responsibility they feel to find short-term employment for over 200 people.

Neither the mayor nor the local committee feel they have the resources to cope

with the crisis situation. I ask the minister if he or the government will take

the lead in putting together a plan to deal with this immediate short-term

employment problem?

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said to the people of Harbour Breton yesterday, and I

believe I said it in this House previously, the provincial government will

engage, to the extent of our abilities, to assist the people in Harbour Breton

both in the short term and in developing a long-term vision and a way forward.

Mr. Speaker, there is an onus on government to assist here, I believe there

is an onus on the company to assist here, in the short term and the long term as

well, but, Mr. Speaker, as we had our discussion yesterday I think the community

also recognize that they have a role in identifying some things that can be done

in the short term.

I can tell the member that I have not had an opportunity to update Cabinet

yet. We probably will be meeting tomorrow or the next day - it is uncertain yet

as to when we will meet - but I will give my Cabinet colleagues a full briefing

as to what happened in Harbour Breton yesterday.

I can also tell the member that I have, since coming back from Harbour

Breton, had a discussion with the company on what I think they should be doing

and how we can all work together to try to find a short-term solution and also

to position the people of Harbour Breton for the long term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la

Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second question is to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development. I am asking the minister if she would commit to provide the

community with personnel from her department's Bay d'Espoir office to take

the lead and put a plan in place in co-operation with the Harbour Breton

committee that can be up and running in a matter of weeks so that the people can

go back to work in the short term.

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to assure the member that our department will do everything we can in

this circumstance to help the people of Harbour Breton in the short term as well

as in the medium and long term. You will have our full co-operation in

everything that we can do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question is for the Minister of Fisheries.

It is my understanding that the federal Minister of Fisheries will be in St.

John's on Monday. I ask the minister: Does he have plans to meet with him? If

he does, would he begin discussions on a community quota for the Town of Harbour

Breton?

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, it is my understanding also that the minister will be here on Monday. I

do plan on meeting with the federal minister on either Sunday evening or Monday.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that there will be a discussion around quotas. There

will be a discussion around community quotas and, Mr. Speaker, how that will

turn out I cannot say right now; however, we will have a discussion about quotas

and we will have a discussion about Harbour Breton, and how we might be able to

secure quotas for the future of that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, FPI issued a press release to

correct what it called rumours and inaccuracies concerning the fish plant in

Fortune. I quote from that press release: FPI has no intention of closing its

plant in Fortune.

Today we learn that just the opposite is true, as FPI dealt another deadly

blow to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Is it any wonder the workforce is

confused?

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: When did you know of FPI's

true intentions, and where is the protection from FPI's callous actions for

those people who work at the fish plant in Fortune?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I answered that question last week, or the week before, here in

this House. I certainly answered it outside of the House in a scrum, when the

same question was asked to me about Fortune.

It is my understanding, as I said here in this House last week, straight from

the horse's mouth, straight from FPI's mouth, in front of myself, the

Premier and the President of the FFAW, that they have discussed two options with

the people of Fortune, with the plant workers of Fortune. They have had

discussions on this for a period of time. How long a period of time? They are in

a better position to answer that. I know it has been for some time.

I was informed of the options that they had presented to them several weeks

ago, was informed in front of the Premier and the FFAW last Monday night as to

the two options. The two options are what the people of Fortune know. FPI will

maintain the operation in Fortune on locally-sourced product - that is one

option - or they will take the operation in Fortune, the people who work in the

operation in Fortune, and accommodate them either between the Burin operation

and the Marystown operation, in those operations, with the product that they

would be prepared to move there. Those are the two options that have been

presented to the people down there.

That, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, because before I came to this House I

talked to FPI again today, as I told the previous member, on Harbour Breton. I

also asked them what they talked about recently on Fortune, and it was told to

me again that those were the two options that were presented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, make no wonder there is confusion here. The

minister obviously is not being told the truth, if what he is saying to us in

the House today is, in fact, what he has been told.

As late as an hour ago, I was told by the union leader, Mr. Speaker, that

there is no plan by FPI to do any product in Fortune. In fact, they are closing

Fortune. All of the product will now be done in Marystown.

Clearly, Minister, you are being lied to, and I am asking you: Why are you

not taking FPI up on this and dealing with what FPI is telling you, and protect

the workforce in this Province, especially today, the workforce in Fortune?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member's question was.

The member asked me, previously, what I knew about the options that were

presented to Fortune. I told her my awareness of the issues that were presented

to Fortune.

Before I came into the House today, I had a chat with Mr. Graham Roome, the

Chief Operations Officer with FPI, to ensure that what I had understood

previously was still the case. I was told that was still the case. I understand

that Mr. Bill Mullins from the FFAW local in Fortune has been on, saying that

FPI only wants to keep ten or twenty-five people in Fortune on some type of salt

fish operation, I believe he said. My understanding -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I never said I do not believe him, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader

of the Opposition would be quiet for a little while and stop trying to play

politics with this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - he might be doing a greater service to the people of

Fortune than he currently is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member has asked a serious question - all questions are serious

questions, the Speaker would say - but we are having difficulty hearing the

member's answer. I ask him if would conclude his answer rather quickly.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the two options were to maintain an operation at

Fortune on locally-sourced product. My understanding of that scenario is that

there will be a hundred-some people who would get some type of work, and then

the other people would obviously not have much work.

The other option would be that the people would be accommodated between

Marystown and Burin and they would basically be able to look after the vast

majority, if not all, of the workforce between those two operations.

Those are the scenarios that were presented to me, and those are the

scenarios that were presented to the FFAW President and the Premier up in the

Premier's boardroom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, to hear the minister responsible for the fishery

in rural Newfoundland and Labrador get on in the manner that he has in this

House is truly troubling, and it is certainly disconcerting for people who work

in Fortune and in Harbour Breton, by the way.

I can tell you, if you took the time to call Mr. Graham Roome, why didn't

you call Bill Mullins personally? The twenty-some odd jobs they are talking

about are to maintain the storage facility in Fortune and to keep a number of

engineers there, not to produce any raw materials, so there will be no

production taking place in Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: You know, this is astonishing, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister

of Fisheries would get on with what he is getting on with today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All members know that the supplementary questions should be rather short and

brief, and I would ask the member now if she would pose her question

immediately.

The hon. the Member of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: If it wasn't such a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, the

preamble

would be shorter, but today we have two fish plants closing as a result of FPI's

decision, and this government doing absolutely nothing to try and ensure they

stay open.

Minister, when are you going to take this seriously and protect those people

who make a living off the fishery in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there are two options that have been presented

to the people of Fortune. One of them includes ten to twenty-five people

maintaining the cold storage and the operation at Fortune, with the rest of the

people being accommodated between Burin and Marystown. The other option is to

leave Fortune open and to operate on locally-sourced product.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the FFAW, Earle McCurdy, myself, the Premier,

Graham Roome and Derrick Rowe sat in the Premier's boardroom last Monday night

when that was said by Derrick Rowe and by Graham Roome. It was not challenged by

the President of the FFAW. I am not saying he agreed with it or disagreed with

it, but he did agree that those were the options that were presented.

Mr. Speaker, it is between the union and the company to work out which option

they want to pursue. I, unfortunately - I wish I did have 10,000 or 20,000 tons

of fish to push through some of those plants, but I do not. We are taking a

responsible (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will have to recess the House if the Chair is not being recognized

when order is called. All of us are parliamentarians and all of us have a

responsibility to respect the institution of parliament. Therefore, all of us

have that goal and we should always be cognizant of it. I ask members, when the

Chair calls for order that the Chair be recognized immediately.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Yesterday,

he announced an important public health measure for adults by banning tobacco

smoke from bars and bingo halls in the Province. Given that our Province has the

highest rate of childhood obesity and child poverty in the country, will he

announce today a similar, significant public health program for our Province's

children?

Mr. Speaker, what is needed is a comprehensive program to ban junk food in

our schools, to provide a nutrition program, to provide a significant increase

in physical education activity and guarantee that all of our Province's

children have a universal school meal program. Will the minister announce that

kind of program for our Province's children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raises, obviously, an important question. It is an issue that

- in my previous portfolio and in discussions with my colleague, the present

Minister of Education, these are issues that are ongoing. They are issues of

wellness. They are issues that, again, Mr. Speaker, deal with the full continuum

of health care, particularly as it relates to young people, particularly as it

relates to preschool age children.

I say to the hon. member, the issue is an important one and will continue to

be raised in consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Education, as we

move forward on general overall wellness principles for the young children of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today we heard that the Department of Education is considering a ban of

vending machines that peddle only junk food. Mr. Speaker, obviously that is not

going to solve the problem; a significant public health problem that we have of

childhood obesity.

There is a comprehensive program that is available by banning junk food, by

increasing nutritional education, by increasing physical activity and by having

a school meal program that everyone can take advantage of. Will he not do that,

Mr. Speaker, instead of saying we are going to do something some time down the

road?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: In response to the reference to the schools, I have to say

that I am certainly proud to be partnering with the Health and Community

Services in initiatives that are addressing this very serious problem.

When we talk about collaboration, we are talking about certainly looking at

developing new nutrition guidelines for schools. The government has committed

$250,000 to a "Healthy Children-Healthy Schools" initiative that is

concentrating on healthy eating, physical activity and a healthy self-image.

Now, that is a program that we are involved in right now. We are moving forward

and we expect to see results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that only 15 per cent of the school children in this

Province have access to a school meal program and that many students get only -

their whole meals for the day come through meals in school. Will the minister

look at increasing and having a universal school meal program so that every

child could take advantage of this opportunity to get a decent meal, at least

one per day?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, we are involved in the Kids Eat Smart

Program. There are funds being put into that program and we are looking to

developing an overall strategy to deal with, not only in the schools but in

society in general. When we talk about healthy eating, healthy eating is about

attitude and that is what we are working on in our curriculum, in making sure

that we are promoting what you are talking about. We are moving along, we are

getting there but it is going to take some time. I say to the hon. member, we

are seeing results and I would hope that the strategies that are in place will

bring about great dividends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a series of questions related to the process

that was used to end the VON strike in Corner Brook, which resulted in the

resignation of a former minister and the sudden and unexpected dismissal, I say

to you, of a senior civil servant, and I asked the minister a very simple

question. So, I ask him again today, will he either table the request for

proposals that was received in his department or will he admit that there is no

proposal, none exist?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize that the question is identical to yesterday and I have to state

on record, Mr. Speaker, that the answer will be identical to yesterday.

Essentially, as the hon. member knows, the details with respect to the terms of

reference of the program to which she alludes were completely enunciated and

expressed in a press release given during the third week of November, 2004. I

have a copy of the press release and, Mr. Speaker, I will be more than pleased

and honoured to provide her a copy of it at her request.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, several times in this House, in this session, I

have seen a question posed to the minister opposite and he answers a different

question.

Mr. Speaker, I asked him about a proposal from the VON. I asked him to table

a copy of the proposal in the Legislature, or tell us, is there a proposal that

actually exists. I did not ask you about the Terms of Reference, Minister.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The proposal, Mr. Speaker, to which the -

MR. GRIMES: Does not exist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement that is put in place

between the Western Health Care Corporation, Community Services Western, with

the Victorian Order of Nurses, in partnership with the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador in particular -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficult hearing the hon. the minister. I ask the hon.

minister if he could complete his answer now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The arrangement that is in place between all those groups and associations

leading towards, I might add, a program that deals with the very sensitive and

important and critical issue in health care known as palliative care, that

particular arrangement is in place, the details of which are fully explained and

expressed in a press release dated November 19, 2004. It is there for the hon.

member to see clearly. Again, I would be more than honoured to provide a copy of

same to the hon. member.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, I have a copy of the press

release. You do not have to provide it to me. I have read it over and over and

over again.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the minister to table in the House of

Assembly the Terms of Reference, and he misled this House by saying it was

outlined in a proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I caution members using certain words in terms of Parliament. We have to be

very careful. When we say the words a minister misled, we are directly then

saying the minister had knowledge but did not share it. I ask the member if she

would be more careful and if she would be kind enough to withdraw that

particular allegation now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if the language -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if the language I used in reference to the

minister was unparliamentary, I do withdraw, but what I will say is that

government did mislead this House yesterday when I asked a question with regard

to the Terms of Reference. The answer implied that the Terms of Reference were

outlined in a press release. Well, that is not the case. There are several

points outlined in a press release.

I ask the minister again today if he will table the Terms of Reference, the

full Terms of Reference, in the House of Assembly? I also want to ask the

minister, because, with regard to the amounts of money -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - paid out to VON to settle the strike - we know that there was

an amount of money that was paid out, Mr. Speaker, from newspaper articles

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for her question.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am totally perplexed and puzzled by the hon. member's

question. The release, to now - and she now acknowledges that she has it - quite

clearly states that the Terms of Reference are expressed, and they include a

needs assessment, a learning module, a teaching module, leading to a report that

will be finalized on or before April, 2005. These are clearly the Terms of

Reference. These are the guidelines with which this program will move forward. I

say to the hon. member, all she has to do, simply, is reread; not read, but

reread the release.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for a very short and brief question from the

Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and an equally brief answer from the

government.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that there is no proposal that exists from

VON. It is obvious that there are no Terms of Reference that the minister is

prepared to table in the House of Assembly; nor is he prepared to give us the

details on the funding. There is so much secrecy surrounding this file.

Mr. Speaker, my question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for a brief question. The member has about five seconds to

finish her question.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, a minister has resigned, a senior civil servant is

gone. I ask the minister: What is going to happen on April 1, next year, when

the money runs out for the VON workers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for a very brief response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, there is no secrecy. There has been total

disclosure. The cost is $120,000. It is in the release, and the report will be

tabled during the month of April, 2005.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am having difficulty -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask members for their co-operation. In Question Period, it is a

spontaneous event and we often have some shouting across the floor. We have now

moved to another

part in our routine proceedings, and I ask the members for

their co-operation.

The Chair has recognized the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, who is

presenting a report.

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

I wish to table the annual reports of the Department of Justice, the Legal

Aid Commission, and the Public Utilities Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits (Bill 58), and I

do so on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice, according to Standing Order 11, that the House

not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, and give further notice that the House not

adjourn at 10:00 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader and Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition on behalf of constituents in the

District of Exploits, from the communities of Botwood, Bishop's Falls,

Peterview, Northern Arm and surrounding areas with respect to the snowmobiling

legislation in the Legislature. I will read the petition into the record.

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is currently debating

An Act To Amend The

Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act, Bill 45; and

WHEREAS the provincial government underwent no public consultation before

bringing these changes to the Legislature; and

WHEREAS the fees that are being enacted by this legislation represent a

taxation of our culture as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS we feel that we are being discriminated against by having to pay a

fee to use groomed snowmobile trails that we have been using long before the

Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation started grooming these trails;

WHEREUPON we call upon the provincial government to withdraw this legislation

until public consultation has been held.

As in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.

Mr. Speaker, these are the words of the petition from the constituents in

Exploits District, which people would recognize is in the very heart and center

of some pretty good snowmobiling terrain on the Island of Newfoundland, here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is - I will just tell one particular

incident of one of the petitioners that I have spoken to directly, and who has

contacted me. This is a petitioner, Mr. Speaker, who indicates that he is one of

the founding members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Trinity North would take it a

bit seriously, I follow the rules of the House all the time. I am presenting a

petition on behalf of my constituents. He might do the same, at some point in

time, instead of sitting in his seat, refusing to stand to be recognized, and

taking the issue seriously.

Mr. Speaker, the petitioner says: I am one of the original founding members

of the Exploits Snowmobile Association. We believe in groomed trails, and we

worked to get groomed trails, but our understanding always was that the groomed

trails in the central part of the Province were there - because there are a lot

of woods roads and a lot of other access and a lot of other territory and turf

that they have used for years - they formed that Association in Central

Newfoundland so that they could groom the trailway. That is why they established

themselves. They wanted to be able to use the old railway bed and use it as a

groomed trail. They did not want to groom the abandoned woods roads. They did

not particularly want to groom other trails up through the country to their

cottages and cabins where they have been going all of their lives, ever since

snowmobiles had been invented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Just for a second to clue up, Mr. Speaker, if I could?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, here is a person who believes in the cause but

is saying that he believes now that it is gone too far because they started

grooming abandoned woods roads to go up to people's cabins and now they have

to pay when they are going to their cabin, when some of them are voluntarily -

many of them are voluntarily - paying to keep up the grooming on the trailways.

Mr. Speaker, that is the nature of what is there. All they are saying is,

come out and consult with us some more. Make sure we all understand this. Make

sure we get it right so that we can support it, because this is a supporter of

groom trails sending me and this Legislature a petition saying: Please pull the

bill until we have some more consultation and get it done right the first time

around.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

We have one minute.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the students in Labrador,

regarding the request for an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area. Today,

I present it on behalf of the students in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, when the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs was speaking, he said we put our money where our mouth was. Mr. Speaker,

that may be true, but I would say to the minister today, because it is his

department who will play a key role in this, I would say to you: Christmas is

around the corner. A whole new year is approaching. Give the children in all of

Labrador some hope for their auditorium.

Minister, I call upon you and your government today to do the right and

honourable thing. Give the children in Labrador a Christmas present. Give them

what they deserve. Send your Member for Lake Melville back to break the news to

them. He deserves the credit for this too.

Minister, I say again, do the right thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ANDERSEN: I call upon your government to do the right thing and

announce, before Christmas, an auditorium for the children (inaudible).

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, Private Members' Day, the Chair calls

private members' motions.

I do understand today we have a private member's motion by the hon. the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

I do understand that, in order to facilitate an event of the House later in

the afternoon, there is an agreement in the House that members who wish to speak

will speak for a maximum of twelve minutes, and that the Chair will call the

question at approximately 4:40 p.m. or thereabout.

Is that the agreement among all hon. members?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair hears agreement, and calls upon the hon. Member

for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to present this motion to the House, which calls for

the establishment of a select committee to inquire into the system of public

automobile insurance that would be more suitable to the House. I will read the

resolution, Mr. Speaker, because it outlines the nature of the argument being

put forth here today. It starts off:

WHEREAS fair, affordable and accessible automobile insurance is a concern for

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS public automobile insurance has been suggested as a model that could

bring relief for Newfoundland and Labrador drivers, and may be a necessity in

the event private insurers discontinue their operations in the Province; and

WHEREAS there are many models of public insurance that contain numerous

options and in the interest of an informed debate these models and options

should be explored in the Newfoundland and Labrador context; and

WHEREAS the Province should be ready to operate a public automobile system

that has been developed to satisfy the needs and desires of the people of the

Province with a practical plan for implementation and delivery;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED THAT this House appoint a Select Committee on Public

Automobile Insurance to examine into and inquire on the most suitable form of

public insurance system for Newfoundland and Labrador should the Province

conclude that a public system is required;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Select Committee shall inquire into and

identify;

1. The most suitable model of public automobile insurance to ensure fair,

affordable and accessible public automobile insurance including: (

a) the type of

public automobile system to be recommended; (

b) the types of coverage and

benefits to be offered; (

c) a proper risk rating system for establishing

premiums; (

d) the method of distribution; (

e) the types of insurers;

2. The start-up costs for establishing the proposed model, including

infrastructure, office equipment, payroll, initial provision for losses, etc.;

(3) The fixed and recurring costs of operating the proposed model;

(4) The legal and trade implications involved in setting up the proposed

model;

(5) The downstream impact of the proposed model on the legal community, the

physiotherapists and other therapists, as well as the brokers, independent

adjusters, automotive repair shops and trades or professions;

(6) The creation of a basic automobile insurance policy within a public

system.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Select Committee be provided with

sufficient resources to conduct an adequate public consultation process and

engage consultants to advise on matters required to fulfill its mandate.

Mr. Speaker, that is a rather comprehensive motion, because it is expected

that a select committee would have such a mandate to make a comprehensive

inquiry and consult with the public on the kind of system that would be

reasonable for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons for asking for a public automobile system are

reasonably well known in the Province. It has been argued by me and by many

others over the last year or so, that a public system would provide some relief

to consumers, and that is based not on ideology, Mr. Speaker, but on factual

analysis of what has happened in other provinces.

We have, for example, Statistics Canada reports demonstrating that for the

period from 1992 to the year 2003 there has been, in this Province, a 227 per

cent increase in the cost of automobile insurance. That is a very significant

change and is much higher than anywhere else in the country, save in Ontario,

where the rate of increase was 241 per cent. Now, what we see when we compare

the provinces with public auto systems versus the private systems that we have

here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the annual increases have been the smallest

in those provinces with public auto systems.

British Columbia, for example, since 1992, have had an annual increase of 3.8

per cent; Saskatchewan with the public system, 3.8 per cent; Manitoba with the

public system, 4 per cent while Newfoundland and Labrador has had 11.6 per cent

annual increase in premiums since 1992. Only Ontario was higher, with 12.8 per

cent.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of comment about this from the insurance

industry, particularly by one of their chief spokespersons, Don Forgeron, who is

the Vice-President for the Atlantic Insurance Bureau of Canada. He has been

speaking on behalf of insurance companies on these issues for a number of years

but many of the things that he says are actually, totally misleading. He wrote a

letter to the editor a couple of weeks ago in The Telegram in which he

says: It has been proven time and again that government-run auto insurance

systems do not work for consumers. That is what he says in bold, black and white

letters. It has been proven time and again that government-run auto insurance

systems do not work for consumers. It is time to put this idea to bed. Well,

exactly the opposite is true.

A review of automobile insurance rates in Canada, done by the Consumers'

Association of Canada in September, 2003, studied automobile insurance rates in

forty cities in Canada. All of the lowest rates for cities in Canada were in

provinces with public automobile insurance systems. It is very clear, Mr.

Speaker, that the exact opposite is true. The lowest auto insurance rates in the

country are in those provinces with public auto insurance systems.

So, Mr. Forgeron, for his own reasons, because he works for and represents

the insurance industry, is producing this kind of statement in our public

newspaper and this needs to be answered. The evidence, in fact, of what is

happening in the insurance industry is very clear. In 2003, for the first nine

months, the insurance industry in Canada made $1.8 billion in profit; twice as

much as what they made in that same period last year. Twice as much, and that is

for all property and casualty insurance. That includes fire insurance, auto

insurance and commercial insurance. So, the insurance industry is doing

extremely well, Mr. Speaker, on the backs of consumers, and the consumers are

the ones who are suffering.

We have a model that we promoted in the last election, a model of the British

Columbia system, which maintains our tort benefits and maintains the system that

we have now. In fact, a model which actually gives and continues to give the

business to independent brokers, private brokers to sell insurance for the

British Columbia system, ICBC, it is called - Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia - and they get a commission on that. They support the system and they

have supported it when it was under attack in the last year or two. That system

provides some of the lowest rates in this country and the private insurers are

still operating; they have products that they sell too. There is a monopoly of

ICBC, only on the public liability insurance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will have a chance to say a few words at the end of this

debate and respond to some of the comments that may be made by members opposite,

but I will just say, there are four principal reasons why public auto is

actually cheaper than the private system. Number one, there is no profit. It is

a not-for-profit system; cost-recovery system that relies on recovering the

costs that are expenditure, and that profit can run anywhere between 10 per cent

to 12 per cent-plus. I have been told that the plus is where it is really at

when it comes to private insurance in this country, and I have been told that by

people in the business.

The second reason is that there is lower overhead. I can quote the Chair of

the ICBC in British Columbia, who was with the Jimmy Pattison Group, a big

private entrepreneurial group. He went in and said that he discovered that ICBC

had been holding its light under a bushel and that many good things were

happening. He was the one who said that the overhead rates in the private sector

were anywhere between 27 per cent plus,

whereas their overhead rates were around

12 per cent. That is a savings of about 15 per cent, Mr. Speaker, as well as the

savings on profit.

The third reason is that there are fewer uninsured drivers. The national

average is between 10 per cent and 15 per cent uninsured drivers, driving the

roads, not paying into the system, causing accidents, causing premiums to go up.

In fact, the insurance premiums in this Province for uninsured drivers are $25.

Each consumer must pay $25 to cover people who are not insured themselves.

A fourth reason, Mr. Speaker, is that the insurance corporation, the public

insurance corporations, actually pay for safety improvements in the Province and

cut down the number of accidents.

Mr. Speaker, there was a similar study in New Brunswick in the last couple of

years. They produced some very positive findings, that government revenues would

go up, that it was doable even in a market like New Brunswick, a small market

like ours. They designed a program that would work for them based on what they

heard, and we should do the same thing here, Mr. Speaker. Members on both sides

of the House, all sides of the House, should participate in a select committee

that would hear from consumers, that would help to design a system that could

work here so that we would have that as an alternative that people would

understand, know about, be transparent and understand the issues, and not be

tempted to be badgered one way or the other by people who have an axe to grind,

such as the insurance industry itself. Listen to the public, get independent

advice, get proper studies done, and come up with something that we think would

work for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are asking, because if we need to have an

option, and I think we will, because what is going on with the Public Utilities

Board is not going to study public auto insurance. It is only looking at the

kind of tinkering that has been done in the four Atlantic Provinces, that has

not resulted in significant decreases in rates and has not solved the problems

of discrimination against young people on the basis of age or gender. We need to

see a public auto insurance system, fully explored and discussed in a sensible

way by people with experience - people in this House who know, who can sift the

evidence and can listen to the experts and come to some conclusion.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that members support this resolution because it is

supportive of a petition that I presented in the House the first week the House

was open, from 7,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from over 200 communities,

that was presented to me by the Advocates for Fair Automobile Insurance. I think

they want an independent study. We think that a study done by an select

committee of this House would provide adequate answers for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour

Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought that maybe the minister was going to respond to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to endorse the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

on his motion for public insurance. There is a wide debate across this country

as to which insurance is the best for the people. Public insurance is working in

other jurisdictions, but so is private insurance. Government needs more

information, I say to the minister, and to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,

to decide which is the best fit for the market of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Government must also decide what type of insurance the people of this Province

want.

Back in August 2003, there were three proposals submitted by the three

different parties in this Province. The first one - I was the minister of the

day - I brought forward the choice system. The choice system, basically, was:

You either keep your current coverage or you choose to give up the right to sue

for minor pain and suffering, and for that you would achieve 30 per cent savings

and you would eliminate the age, sex and marital discrimination.

The PC Party, at the time, proposed a $2,500 cap on the payouts for minor

injuries, for a savings of 20 per cent. They also, as part of their policy,

pledged the elimination of age, sex and marital discrimination. Leading into an

election, I can see that because they were trying to keep up with the government

of the day.

The NDP proposed a full tort insurance system similar to the one in British

Columbia - very similar to the current system expect that it is publicly

delivered with the elimination of age, sex and marital discrimination.

The problem we had with all of that, and unfortunately what happened is what

the PC Party promised at the time and what the present PC government delivered

are light-years apart.

MR. J. BYRNE: At least we delivered.

MR. SWEENEY: No, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, you did not

deliver, because what you promised -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Getting elected, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis,

means honouring your commitments. If you promise something to the people and go

to the polls, honour those commitments.

Let's see what you did. You backed out of the $2,500 cap and went to a

$2,500 deductible. You promised to eliminate rating discrimination based on age,

sex and martial status. Guess what? It did not happen. Most appalling of all, I

have to say, was that the government's promise was to do all of those things

within 120 days - that is four months - of taking office. Guess what? We are

nowhere close to our 20 per cent savings. The average saving right now is around

9 per cent to 12 per cent, depending upon what company you are insured with.

A person came to me the other day, he showed me his refund cheque, and it was

for $32 for the whole year. That is a far cry from the 20 per cent that was

promised in this Province. The government has broken all three promises that

they made in their Blue Book, all three promises.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I am not for picking one system over the other.

I am not for doing that. I am not going to say that the public system is the

best way to go. I won't say that the private system is the only option, but

tort reform of the current system is certainly the easiest method to pursue. It

is the easiest method right now, without establishing a whole new system to

realize savings for the people of this Province when it comes to insurance.

If government is going to continue to study the insurance industry, it should

certainly take a look at the benefits of public insurance for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why I am speaking in agreement to this motion

this afternoon.

One of the things that we realize is that the cost of living is increasing on

a daily basis. Insurance has gone - even in the twelve month period that it took

the government to get itself straightened out around the meager savings that it

tried to give the people. Many people do not realize it, but a $2,500 deductible

- guess where that $2,500 comes out of? If a person has a $20,000 claim for

minor pain and suffering, the first thing that is going to happen is they are

going to lose approximately 35 per cent in legal fees. That is $7,000. The next

thing they are going to have to pay is a $2,500 deductible. That is $9,500 off

their $20,000 claim settlement. So, what is the person left with? Ten thousand

dollars. At the end of the day, with the increased costs of the insurance that

has taken place in the twelve months - because we did, in August, 2003, we told

all the insurance companies in the Province that there was going to be reform

for insurance in this Province. Now, it is taking a little bit longer for true

reform to come because, as I said, a $2,500 deductible - that is not doing

anything for the consumer. Most of all, I would say to the minister, that a 9

per cent reduction in costs for the consumer is not cutting it either. It is a

far cry from the 20 per cent that your government promised.

There are a number of other things, I guess, that we can probably look at but

I would wish to see a select committee because, minister, the Public Utilities

Board is not the agency in this Province that makes legislation. They are not

the lawmakers. They are the people who carry out the policies that this

government, that this House of Assembly brings out of it. So, I want to see the

members of this House on a select committee, even though I am concerned about

the time frames because people were promised 120 days action, a notice to them

to change their rates. They are still sitting down waiting. Most of the people

in this Province have not realized any savings. As a matter of fact, they are

still paying more for their insurance than they did in August, 2003. They are

still paying.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should take our time, have a select

committee of this House and hear from the people of the Province. Because one of

the dangers of hearings is the people who make the money, the great

beneficiaries of this - and insurance is supposed to be a benefit to the people,

to protect the ordinary person out there who is purchasing it, but what happens

with all of this is that the real stakeholders in the insurance business are the

insurance providers and, of course, the legal community on the other end because

there is a firm, I have been told, who made $23 million off the insurance claims

part of this Province last year. That is $23 million. That is big stakes, and I

witnessed some of that when I was minister because as I saw the people making

the proposals to me, as minister, they were marching in. The big wallets were

opening and people were being mobilized to come in to state their cases, but the

ordinary consumer, the person out there who is paying to foot the bill for all

of this, never got a fair hearing.

I applaud the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for this initiative, because

looking at what has happened to the insurance industry in this Province and the

insurance reform in this Province, it has not happened. The consumer is still

paying more; in some cases probably getting less because many people are

changing their deductibles now because it is cheaper to go with a higher

deductible to get themselves a rate of insurance that they can afford to pay.

Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure of that government's path right now - and I

know they are going to vote this motion down this afternoon. I know that because

of their stubbornness and unwillingness with other things that complies with

their openness and transparency in this Province. They talk a great game but

they do very little to show they do what they mean.

One of the other things, if the government was really serious about doing

something about insurance, they would jump on the willingness of the other

provinces, what they have learned; Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward

Island. They would follow their suit and initiate that $2,500 cap and give real

deductions and real savings to the people of this Province.

In the spirit of this motion that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has

done here, I think the people of this Province - and especially noting the fact

that there was a petition brought to this House the first week we opened with

7,000 signatures on it; 7,000 taxpayers of this Province, 7,000 voters, 7,000

people with real blood running through their veins, have asked government to

give a public insurance system a look. I think it is incumbent upon this hon.

House to do just that.

So, I ask the government not to put on the hobnailed boots here now and step

on this motion. I ask them to give it some serious thought, think about their

own constituents, put them first. There is no reason why the ordinary person of

this Province cannot receive a hearing and be given the opportunity to provide

to them the very best in the options of insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I realize my time is coming to an end here. I say to the members

opposite, take the time, use a little bit of compassion, give this some thought

and provide the resources to back the member here in his plea to have a look at

the public insurance system in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to be able to rise to make some comments with respect to the

private member's resolution, but before I do I want to comment on a couple of

statements made by the Member for Carbonear. He made a couple of comments about

the election promises made by this party during last fall. He made the statement

that we have not lived up to the commitment because we have not done everything.

I just want to remind him of something: That party opposite was in power from

1989 until 2003 and did absolutely nothing. We have made a fundamental change.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, on a point of order.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, of all the people in this hon. House to remind

me about when I was in government - he was part of the same government that did

nothing only cry and lament upon the eighth floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh1

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, if there is a point of

order, would you get to your point of order and the Chair will decide.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, just to continue: Because this gentleman has

more face than a robber's horse. His government has done nothing. They

promised in black and white four commitments, they honoured none.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, I recognized the mistake and I decided to do

something about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I couldn't tolerate staying part of a government that was

leading the people of this Province down the garden path.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I stand proudly in this House today, knowing I did what I

did for the people of Trinity North and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Just to show me how much they appreciated what I did, last

year they returned me with a resounding victory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, my victory last year was about four

times that of the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I say to the member, before he starts criticizing what we

have not done, just reflect on their time from 1989 to 2003.

Having said that, I will skip back to the member's statement. The Member

from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, opposite, has made a real genuine effort here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, a little bit of protection here from the yahoos

opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the motion itself because I think the Member

for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has made a real genuine effort to respond to what has

been a real concern by the public of Newfoundland and Labrador about the rising

costs of insurance, and their inability to be able to maintain basic insurance,

liability protection, on their vehicles. I think it is a significant issue.

We realize, over the course of the last two years particularly, that this has

become a significant problem for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we, as a

government, are embarking on a process, a process that started with Bill 30, and

it is ongoing as we speak today. The next leg of that process is the closed

claim study that is undertaken right now, the results of which you will see some

time shortly. As the Premier outlined in his press release in May, 2004, there

is a series of other issues and other initiatives under review as we speak, some

of them mentioned by the Member for Carbonear, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I think one of the things that we need to recognize here, before we run out

ourselves in Newfoundland and Labrador and start putting together legislative

committees and doing studies and spending a tremendous amount of taxpayers'

money, let's reflect on what has happened in other jurisdictions; because the

member made some reference to the kinds of things that have been done in other

jurisdictions. I think one of things, at least in my bit of research that I have

done, one of the most recent studies was done in Ontario. I think it followed a

commitment by the former NDP Government in Ontario that they, in fact, were

going to bring in public insurance. They campaigned on that platform,

successfully campaigned on that platform. When they got in, they realized, this

is not quite as simple as they thought during the election campaign, so they

undertook and they commissioned a study. The study that was done was referred to

as the Osborne Commission.

I just want to read something, Mr. Speaker, because it says, in this document

that I am reading here now: The commission concluded that the taxpayer's

dollars required from government for the start-up costs, et cetera, and the

elimination of competition would not result in any significant, if any,

financial benefit for consumers. In addition, the commission found no compelling

social benefit or other non-economic justification to support the case for

government-run automobile insurance. In fact, the report concluded that the

elimination of consumer freedom of choice, employment dislocation and other

factors reinforced the case against public monopoly.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I see some of the merits in the arguments put forward by

the hon. member opposite as he made his motion here today, and I have had

conversations with him in the past about public insurance and there is some

merit in the argument, but what I say to the hon. member is, it is a matter of

timing here. He is calling upon the House today to rush out and put together a

committee and to do this quickly, to spend a lot of taxpayers' money to go

down a road of looking at public insurance. At some point in time in the future

it may well become necessary - I really do not know - but, today, look at where

we are today. As a Province, we heard recently the Minister of Finance say we

have an $11.5 billion accumulated debt. We are dealing with a significant cash

deficit in this fiscal year. We have a significant accrued deficit in this

fiscal year, so we are dealing with some significant financial challenges. To

run out and start doing a major study on the insurance industry, you have to

make sure you are going to give that some very serious consideration before you

start spending taxpayers' money frivolously.

As I said earlier, we are embarking on a process. We made a commitment last

year leading into the election of 2003. We introduced Bill 30. We are getting a

closed-claim study done today. There are other initiatives that are being

considered, many of them that have been referenced earlier. Just to make a

reference to some of them, we are talking about penalties for claimants who

provide false testimony or evidence, preventing claims for impaired drivers and

uninsured motorists, prohibiting insurance companies from rating based on age,

gender, martial status, and permitting group ratings, just a number of the

things that are currently being evaluated.

I say to the members opposite, and anyone else who is considering their views

on this particular resolution, to look at where we are in a point in time. Is it

appropriate to be doing this today? Is it something that we should be doing,

maybe down the road in six, eight, ten or twelve months from now when we have

gone through an initiative that we have outlined?

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, just twelve short months ago, gave

us a mandate as a new government to lead this Province into a new direction. A

part of the platform that we campaigned on was insurance reform, and we are

delivering on that. We have started down the road with Bill 30, as I have said

earlier, and the other initiatives that are in the works right now, today. These

are major changes. The insurance industry is a very complex industry. It affects

every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and we need to be very careful of

how we are proceeding with this. Before we start going out and going down a road

- because the request in this motion clearly says, let's study one particular

form of insurance, publicly-funded insurance.

We already have a study in Ontario, in the late 1980's, which is not that

long ago, not that long ago at all, Mr. Speaker. I think there is some relevance

to that study in today's setting in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other thing, just to talk to the merits of the issue, because I think

fundamentally, I say to the member opposite - and I respect his motion. As I

said, there is some merit in some of the points he has raised over the past

number of months, but I think his timing is off. I think if, in twelve months

time or eighteen months time, as a Province, we haven't been able to resolve

the significant issues facing the people with respect to insurance in this

Province, maybe it is time, at that point, to start having this discussion, but

I do not believe today.

One of the other things, I think, just to the merits of the motion made by

the hon. member in terms of publicly-funded insurance, and how that might look

and whether it is worth looking at, there are a couple of - not publicly-funded,

publicly-administered is the terminology, publicly-administered insurance

program - a couple of things. Again, with the limited amount of research I have

done in this area, looking at it, this is the year 2005. The other jurisdictions

of B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan that have a public insurance program, they

were established twenty-five, thirty years ago. The amount of investment that we

would need today, as a Province, to invest in establishing of a public insurance

program has been billed somewhere in the range of - depending on who you talk to

- as low as $180 million to $190 million, to somewhere upward closer to $300

million, depending on who you talk to. There are some who have suggested it

might only be $60 million or $80 million. That is an extremely low figure,

particularly when you consider, when B.C. established theirs in the early 1970s,

the first couple of years of operation, they had to go out and invest what I

understand to be somewhere in the range of $180 million. In the early 1970s,

they had to go out and invest $180 million of additional public money just

several years after the program started, and that was in mid-1970s dollars.

Today, in 2005, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, we need to, before we go down this kind

of road as offered by the hon. member, recognize that, if we were to do such a

study, and to realize that maybe it had some merit, we still have the

significant problem of, where do we come up with several hundreds of millions of

dollars to fund the establishment of the program. The very initial issue is, we

are going to take over some twenty-odd thousand in claims that are going to be

filed annually. We need to have an immediate contingency fund for the claims

that we would experience in the first twelve or eighteen months, I say.

I recognize the time, and my time is running out, but I do want to make just

one

summary comment. I give credit to the member for the merits of his motion

that he brings forward. Unfortunately, I say, Mr. Speaker, the timing is wrong.

If we were to be debating this in eighteen months time I may have a different

view, but today, in 2005, I cannot see myself supporting the motion as put

forward by the hon. member, despite some of the merits and the arguments he is

making. I thank him for introducing it today but, unfortunately, he will not get

my support today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted today to stand in support of the member's motion, the Member

for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. He is not asking for change to the current insurance

program. He is asking this House to appoint a select committee on public

automobile insurance to examine into and inquire on the most suitable form of

public insurance system for Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what he is

asking. He is asking that the government undertake to appoint a committee and

study the merits of a public insurance system. We know that was not done in the

beginning, when Bill 30 was introduced to this House.

It is interesting, it was last June when we were in high flight, I guess,

talking about insurance in this House, and the Minister of Government Services

and Lands at that time - it was one of the Question Periods during the time the

bill was tabled in this House. I remember it well. It was June 3 and the time

was 1:59 p.m. The Minister of Government Services and Lands said: this

government has a mandate to mandate insurance. Now, really! This government has

a mandate to mandate insurance. Is that what you want to do, ram something down

the throats of the people of this Province and not consult them? Is that what

this government is all about?

She also said: this is a starting point and she was very proud of the

package. I wonder, would the member like to call at random the people of this

Province and ask the ones who have received their rebate cheque in the mail this

fall, were they satisfied with the rebate cheque they got? They were promised

anywhere from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. What did they get? About 9 per cent.

The Premier had a day when he decided to give a report card, November 6, 2003

to November 3, 2004. He was really proud of the insurance plan that his

government had delivered to the people of the Province. One of the things he

said was that the PUB review and public hearings will form the basis of the

future direction of insurance in this Province. That is what this government

did. Instead of dealing with it themselves they sloughed it off to the PUB. They

would get rid of it and they would not have to answer any more questions about

insurance in this Province. They did not get elected on sloughing it off to the

PUB. They got elected saying that they would have a cap on insurance. That is

what they said. What did they have when it was all said and done? They had a

$2,500 deductible on insurance.

Who do you think was the first one to put an ad on VOCM Open Line talk show

as soon as the bill was passed through the House? Who do you think had the first

ad on radio that morning? Confused about what Bill 30 will do to your auto

insurance, $2,500 deductible, your right to sue, know this: the average personal

injury settlement without a lawyer, guess what? It is $3,500. With a lawyer it

is over $25,000. I am (inaudible) Roebothan Mckay and Marshall, the Province's

leading personal injury lawyer practice. Call us and we will walk you through

Bill 30 and your right to compensation. It costs you nothing. Roebothan Mckay

and Marshall, who will fight for you.

Now, what did you do with Bill 30? One thing you did do, you lined the

pockets of all the lawyers in this Province. That is one thing you did because

it has been clearly stated that if you have a $2,500 deductible on insurance you

know that is going on the claim. You know yourself that is going on the claim.

In fact, it was only two days ago that the Government House Leader introduced

in this House of Assembly a bill on accountability and transparency for to hold

up as a model of this government, a new step forward. They are going to be

accountable and transparent.

It was only August 27, 2003 that the current Premier, who was Leader of the

Opposition at that time, said: as a lawyer with thirty years experience in the

insurance industry, I believe I have much to offer in presenting a realistic and

workable solution on how to deal with a problem that has been essentially

ignored by the previous Administration. This is what I promise you if you will

elect me, a cap of $2,500 on minor soft tissue injury claims. Is that

accountable and transparent? Say one thing, get elected and throw that to the

wind.

Even his Parliamentary Assistant believed in the Leader of the Opposition,

who is now Premier, so much at that time he came out on the same thing on

Wednesday, August 27. French said: the Tory plan will also contain some kind of

cap on soft tissue injuries. He believed what the Premier said - his own

colleague, I suppose - well, not in the Cabinet but definitely in the caucus

room. The current Member for Conception Bay South believed what the Premier

said, and look what you got. Look what you got!

The Member for Trinity North stood up and said his reason for not going along

with the select committee on reviewing and examining the possibilities of public

insurance was the cost to the taxpayers of this Province. For that reason, there

would be not need to spend that money frivolously right now and undertake that

process.

The latest buzz word of the Tory caucus is process. Every question that is

answered in Question Period begins with: We are in a process. I wish you would

get out of that process so we could see what you are going to do, but we know

what you have done with insurance.

The Member for Trinity North said that he could not justify, being a member

of the government, to spend money going around this Province just checking and

asking people about insurance. He could not justify that. I would like for him

to ask his Premier if his Premier can justify some of this waste of the

taxpayers money: replacing senior civil servants without cause; destroying

careers, professional careers; forcing people to leave their place of work

prematurely; and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers'

money unnecessarily.

What the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is asking - he is not asking this

government to agree to public insurance - he is asking this government to go out

and appoint a select committee, which they promised in their Blue Book, that any

policy that is brought forward that is of interest and of concern to the public

in general, before legislation and regulation is brought to this House of

Assembly and passed, consultation will take place.

It has not taken place with insurance. It has not taken place with the bill

before us now on snowmobiling in this Province. That is the reason why the

minister is experiencing so much debate in this House. He has not done his

homework.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) relevant to the debate.

MS THISTLE: It is all relevant, I would say to the Minister of

Transportation and Works. Anything that is concerning spending the taxpayers'

money in this Province is relevant. What your priorities are, and the priorities

of this government - we know what the priorities of this government are, because

the Finance Minister, on his feet, November 30, in Question Period, at 2:09 in

the afternoon, said it was his duty to assure that the priorities established -

by whom? - not the government, but the Premier, were done. That is his priority

and that is your priority. There is lots of relevance. Whenever you are talking

about spending people's money, everything is relevant.

Let me remind you of what you promised to the people of this Province on

insurance, and delivered nothing. That is what you delivered. You talked about a

savings of 20 per cent to 30 per cent. What did you deliver? Nothing. What is

going to happen when that freeze is over next spring? What is going to happen

then?

You promised you would eliminate rate discrimination based on age, sex or

martial status. What did you do with this? Nothing. You would not even entertain

the thought of discussing it. That is what you did. What did you do with the

PUB? You replaced the Consumer Advocate, who was completely up to date. The next

thing you did, you sloughed it off so they would go and do their review. What is

their review going to be? What is the Public Utilities Board going to do about

insurance in this Province? They are supposed to be a non-partial board. They

have not - this was June, this bill was passed. We are into December, we are

into almost a new year. There has been no date set for consultations by the PUB,

no review done, absolutely nothing, so what you have done is the minimum. You

have brought this bill to the House, which meant nothing to the public at large.

You have not reduced their insurance rates. You ask anybody who is out there

today and has a young person who wants to drive. How about a senior citizen,

when they are up for renewal, what is going to happen to them? How about

insurance on commercial establishments in this Province? You have not looked at

that. Some people are having to close up their business because they cannot

afford to insure their property. You have promised a lot and delivered nothing.

That is what the matter before us is today.

Talking about insurance, you said you would consult with the people and now

what you are doing is consulting with the PUB. You are telling them what to do.

You look at the fact that the legal community themselves - look at the lobby

that they put forward to influence the government when they came to passing this

legislation. Look at the lobby that was put forward by the legal community. Who

is benefitting right now from the $2,500 deductible? Is it the ordinary man and

woman in the street? I don't think so.

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Well, I would like to thank this House. I am disgusted that

you have only allowed twelve minutes, but thank you for the opportunity and I

will sit down.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure here today to say a few words on this private

motion.

First of all, before I go into saying a few words, I would just like to

address a couple of the things that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has said.

She just said that we absolutely did nothing. Madam Speaker, I have been driving

on the roads for about twelve years and in October of this year, in our

household alone for two people, we did receive a rebate of $600. In all the time

that I have been driving I have never, ever received a cheque or a rebate or a

reduction in insurance rates in the fourteen years that they were there. So, I

tell you, that is something that we did.

It was also mentioned that there was only a savings of 9 per cent. Madam

Speaker, 9 per cent was the minimum savings - that is the minimum savings on

third party liability. The average savings overall was 15 per cent, I will have

you to say. I also spoke to many people who in fact saved more than 15 per cent,

because people who were in Facility Association before, they came out of

Facility and they were wrote into the regular market.

This insurance problem is a decade old problem. It has been around for quite

some time. We had a plan, we took action. Our first step was bringing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Our first step back on March 17 was introducing a wage

freeze. Then following that - five months into it, we introduced a wage freeze

on March 17- yes we did - which is much more than I can say for the other side

in the time that they were there actually.

Then on August 1 we mandated changes, as I said, that brought reductions

anywhere from 9 per cent to 20 per cent. Certainly, comments from my district

and from all around the Province, the people are very thankful for the

reductions they received and the cheque that they got in the mail. Better in

their pockets, they say, than in the pockets of the insurance companies.

I certainly want to thank the minister, the Premier and the government for

all their time and dedication on this file because for once people finally did

see a reduction in rates. I will remind everybody, that this problem is not only

a problem in this Province, it has been a problem across Canada. It has been a

problem for ten or more years and this is the first time anything has been done

about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Madam Speaker, that was just our very first step. As I said,

we are not going to stop there.

As you know, coming up in the new year there will be a comprehensive hearing

which, again, is the first time ever in this Province that people will have an

opportunity to speak up on whatever it is they chose, whether it be an

individual, an interest group, whether it be a company, an organization such as

the Girl Guides, or whether it be you or I. Any member in this House can

certainly have an opportunity to go there and speak. They can speak about

whatever it is they wish on many things, such as the topics of deductibles, cap,

whether or not you want a deductible or cap, whether or not how much that cap or

deductible should be. I will be talking about rating territories. Certainly, the

issue of ratings based on age, marital status, gender, that is all up for grabs

at the hearing. You can talk about mandatory accident benefits -

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: I will tell the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans what we did do

about age, marital status, and gender. What we did do this time in this

legislation, not only did we reduce rates but we also changed some of the

underwriting guidelines. As a result of debate in House, and our legislation

that was passed, a company now can no longer refuse to write insurance to a

person in the regular market based on their age, gender or their marital status.

Before this legislation, if a twenty-one year old wanted to get insurance

they would be automatically sent to Facility Association. Because of this

legislation that we introduced, first time something was done about it, they now

have to be wrote in the regular market. I will say that the issue of rating

based on age, marital status or gender will be put to the hearing and we

certainly welcome all of your input on that.

It is a known fact that about less than 5 per cent of the population are

drivers under the age of twenty-five, and it is also a known fact that these

drivers do experience high accident rates. So we have to decide whether or not

we want to subsidize those drivers. Certainly not all drivers under the age of

twenty-five do have accidents, but that is a decision that has to be put forth

to the people of this Province. Do people over the age of twenty-five want to

subsidize it so that rates will be consistent and based on your driving record

and your driving experience? That is something that, again, we welcome all of

your input at the hearing on that.

There was a study done, if people over the age of twenty-five did pay

approximately a 10 per cent increase in premiums then certainly people under the

age of twenty-five could see reductions as high as up to 50 per cent. Again,

that is something that we are doing something about. We have brought in the

legislation that you cannot be refused based on it and further talks will be

there to look at whether or not you can be rated on it.

Other things that can come up at the hearing is: What can be done to bring in

more stringent regulations for drinking and driving, or what can be done for

more stringent regulations for uninsured motorists? The list is endless.

Whatever it is, a member or an industry, or an organization wants to talk about

it, it is an open, comprehensive hearing; something that our government took

action on, people wanted it. We did see the first steps, and we are off to

continue on with that plan so that hopefully more reductions will be achieved.

Again, I do commend the member for bringing this private member's motion to

the House. Certainly, public automobile insurance, the topic has been out there.

Other provinces are looking into it, or, in fact, have implemented it. I

certainly think that this an opportune time for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi to take his time and use his time at that hearing to present his views. You

know, we do not know what is going to come out of the hearing. We want to hear

as much feedback as possible. We will do whatever is best for the people of this

Province so that they have reasonable fair rates, and at the same time, maintain

a level that if they choose to still sue for pain and suffering, that is there,

that is an option. We are not sure what will come out of it but we will

certainly do what is in their best interest.

Before that hearing is to take place, Madam Speaker, we also did say that a

closed claim study will be done. My understanding is that this will be done

soon, and that is an opportunity to provide for up-to-date information on the

claims, frequency, severity and get a better picture of the accident claims and

what not. I do know that it was brought up by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour

Grace and also the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, about the issue of perhaps

there is discrimination there based on age, marital status, or gender. So,

again, we will welcome that at the time of the hearing.

If after this hearing, after all the evidence is presented, people want to

eliminate rating based on age and they are willing to subsidize that, then

certainly that is what will happen. That is something which will have to go

before the PUB, and if people in the Province are willing to pay a little extra

so that people under the age of twenty-five will pay significantly less, then

that will happen. We are not going to say it is not going to happen. We want to

see what people's thoughts are on the issue. If people want public automobile

insurance, if there is a strong outcry and a lot of information presented for

that, well it is possible that that will happen. If people want to continue with

the system that we have today, the $2,500 deductible, and still maintain the

right to sue, then that is what will happen, or if they want the deductible

increased or if they want a cap, nobody knows what will happen out of this. That

is the whole point here. We are trying to be as open as we possibly can, and get

as much feedback from all of the people in the Province so that the best

decision can be made at the end of the day.

Certainly, we encourage full participation from all interested shareholders,

industry, consumer groups, volunteer organizations. and certainly any member in

this House will have ample opportunity at that time.

As a result of the legislation that was proclaimed on August 1, this

government has saved the people of this Province $25 million annually while

still maintaining their right to sue for pain and suffering. That is a

significant amount of savings, Madam Speaker. The hope and the intent is that at

the end of the comprehensive hearing there will be an opportunity for even

further savings. Again, it depends on what the people of the Province want.

This private motion, Madam Speaker, I cannot support. I do not feel that

there is a need for a select committee. The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace

said that the people of the Province are still waiting to see reform in this

Province, but then the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans gets up and says we should

take our time. I am a little bit confused. I am not sure what it is. Do they

want us to take our time, or do they want us to hurry up and get it in there? I

think the plan that we had devised a year ago is a very good plan. There were

many steps taken. We are on the right track, and the final step in that plan is

to have this comprehensive hearing. Therefore, I see absolutely no need for a

select committee at this time because, as I said, we are providing opportunity,

ample opportunity, for people to speak out.

That is why I will not be supporting this private member's motion today. As

I said earlier, insurance is a decade-old problem. It is something that needs to

be looked at. People in the Province are very thankful for the rebate and the

reductions that they have received to date. We have taken action. People have

received rebates, anywhere from 9 per cent to 20 per cent, and we are not going

to stop there.

There is no need for a select committee at this time. This government

committed to reducing rates. That is exactly what this government did. We are

very proud that we did that, and so are the people. As I said, the comprehensive

hearing is the next step to our plan, which I invite all members of the House of

Assembly to come and have their say, and member of the general public, because

the final end result will be the one that is best for the people of the

Province. It will provide them with the insurance coverages that they need at a

reasonable rate. Therefore, I will not be supporting this private member's

motion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion today. I cannot

support the motion that is on the floor today. It is not appropriate to strike a

select committee. There is already a committee, a hearing, in place, a process

to hear the insurance concerns in this Province.

I would like to say that, back when we campaigned, we campaigned for

affordable, accessible and reasonable rates for insurance in this Province, and

today I stand here saying we are doing what we said we would do.

Madam Speaker, it is important to note that back in March we froze the

insurance rates in this Province. We announced insurance reforms, and the people

in this Province realized, on a average, 15 per cent savings on their premium.

We introduced regulations and underwriting guidelines for everyone to have fair

insurance in this Province.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, we commissioned a closed-claim study to

give us some recent data on the claims. That study will be completed by the end

of this month. From there, we are going to put in a process of public hearings.

I say to my hon. colleague across the way, you will have ample opportunity to

present the public insurance data at that hearing. The PUB will report back to

the government the level of interest in a public insurance system and, if it

warrants at that time to do an in-depth study, we will consider it. The cost of

a detailed study would cost the taxpayers of this Province thousands and

thousands of dollars, and we would want to be convinced that the current system

is not working in this Province for the consumers.

I would like to say that I cannot emphasize or express how important it is

for everyone to participate in those hearings coming up in the very early new

year.

Madam Speaker, I know earlier that my colleague talked about, we did

absolutely nothing. Well, I would like to say to my hon. colleague across the

way, I thank her for all the reports that I found on a shelf. I dusted them off

and read them, and I have quite a bit of knowledge on the insurance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Madam Speaker, I would also like to say that everyone in this

Province is very concerned about issues of unfair insurance rates. I have looked

at the industry reporting record number of profits. This government is concerned

that the consumers have a reasonable and fair rate of insurance. This government

is committed to achieving savings for the citizens of this Province.

The Public Utilities Board certainly does not have the expertise or the level

of staff to do an in-depth study on the public insurance. Madam Speaker, over

the course of the next few months, the hearings will be done by the Public

Utilities Board and I want to emphasize to everyone who has a concern or an

issue with insurance in this Province, please make representation there, because

it will determine the future direction of where insurance is going in this

Province. I say once again to my hon. colleague, please present at those

hearings; it is important that all data be collected at those hearings.

On behalf of the government, we are committed to looking at reasonable,

affordable and accessible rates for the consumers.

On that note, Madam Speaker, I conclude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I remind the hon. member, if he speaks now he will close debate.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to thank members who participated in the debate today, for offering

their views on this important issue. I have to say, though, I am extremely

disappointed to hear that members opposite are not interested in studying the

kind of public auto insurance system that might work for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We have to understand that, you know, as a result of the announcements that

they made, there were four insurance companies made an announcement that they

were no longer going to sell insurance in the Province. The Premier said, well,

if that happens we will have public automobile insurance.

Madam Speaker, the reason that this proposal was made in the first place,

last spring, was to say to the people of the Province and to the government,

that if we are going to have a genuine option of public automobile insurance we

have to study the system, we have to have knowledge of the system, we have to

understand how it could work in Newfoundland and Labrador, not why Ontario

rejected it fifteen years ago. That is an entirely different province where all

the head offices of all the companies are, with the jobs that would come back to

Newfoundland and Labrador, if we had public auto, now reside. There are many

reasons why Ontario rejected public automobile insurance fifteen yeas ago, Madam

Speaker, one of which was the concern at the time about the free trade

agreement, about NAFTA. It wasn't understood at that time that this was not

going to prevent it from happening. There were many reason, Madam Speaker, one

of which, as I say, was the fact that the head offices of all the insurance

companies were in Ontario and they mounted a significant campaign to try to

convince the government not to implement public auto.

I will say this, Madam Speaker, that there are three provinces that have a

full public auto system and those systems have been in place for thirty and

forty years. They were all introduced by NDP governments, I will acknowledge

that. Madam Speaker, those governments were followed by Liberal governments, by

Conservative governments, by Social Credit governments, and - guess what? - none

of them changed it. None of them changed it because it worked for consumers,

because consumers liked it.

If you remember, back during the election campaign when we raised the issue

of public automobile insurance as an alternative, the public caught on to the

idea and the party opposite, that was seeking government at the time, stopped

talking about insurance: No, it wasn't important anymore. On the Open Line

programs, Madam Speaker, people were calling in who said, I know about public

auto insurance because I just lived in BC, and it cost me $500 to insure my car.

I come back to Newfoundland and Labrador, with the same car, and it is costing

me $1,800 or $2,000, for the same car, for the same coverage.

Madam Speaker, when we announced our policy on public automobile insurance,

NTV did their own separate study, and one of the reporters phoned British

Columbia and got a rate, phoned Manitoba and got a rate, phoned Saskatchewan and

got a rate, and compared it to the rates for the same driver, same car, same

policy, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and what did he find out? That the

rates in British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan were significantly cheaper

than they were here.

What did this government say? Oh, no, we do not want to study that. Let's

wait. The Member for Trinity North is satisfied to wait another eighteen months,

but we do not know what kind of chaos we will have by then. You know, we have

four companies threatening to leave and we have no alternative in place. They

have not studied it.

Madam Speaker, the Member for Trinity North talked about a study that was

done fifteen years ago. Well, let me tell him about a study that was done six

months ago in New Brunswick, a province closer in size of market to Newfoundland

and Labrador; not fast Ontario, not British Columbia where the start-up costs

might be totally different because the population is about ten times ours. In

New Brunswick they did a study and they concluded that it was feasible