June 1, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 39

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome some students from the St. John's

Learning Centre in the District of St. John's South. We have twelve students,

with their volunteers Pauline Careen and Neil Smith.

Welcome to the Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have statements by members, and the

following members will be making statements: the hon. Member for Port de Grave,

the hon. Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, and the hon. Member for Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to congratulate the GAIA Environmental Youth Group from

Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, on winning the environmental award under the

category of youth or youth group at the 15 th Annual Newfoundland and

Labrador Environmental Awards Program yesterday.

This program is a joint initiative of the Department of Environment and

Conservation, the MMSB and the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institute.

Mr. Speaker, annual awards are presented to individuals and groups who make an

exceptional effort to create a healthier environment and who help promote and

encourage environmentally friendly practices. This program is designed to honour

outstanding leaders in environment and conservation.

The GAIA youth group has done a tremendous job in cleaning up the Shearstown

estuary and they are in the second year of a five-year project to purchase a

BioGreen septic system which would reduce contaminated effluent entering the

estuary.

The members of GAIA are also involved with a mentoring program with Ocean

Net. They have put together a comprehensive education package which they deliver

to the schools in the area telling them about their project and encouraging

other schools to get involved. Only last week, Mr. Speaker, over 100 students

cleaned up the beach in that particular area.

I commend the GAIA Environmental Youth Group for their initiative, hard work

and commitment to protecting and enhancing our environment. Mr. Speaker, I hope

the general public take a page from their book to see that they keep the back

roads of our Province environmentally friendly.

I ask all hon. members in this House to extend sincere congratulations to

each member and their dedicated teachers on this wonderful achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise in this House to congratulate the Choir Group at Baccalieu

Collegiate in Old Perlican. The forty-two members of the choir attended a

national Music Festival this past weekend in Montreal. There were over 9,000

students in various choir, jazz and concert bands representing provinces all

across the country. I am very pleased to announce that the Baccalieu Collegiate

were awarded a silver medal in their category. I had the opportunity to hear the

choir on several occasions and I can definitely see why they were awarded a

silver medal. If I were the judge, they would certainly get gold.

A very special thank you to their director and music teacher, Ms Sherry

Andrews, their teacher Mrs. Au Coin, and School Principal Mr. Gillingham, who

accompanied them on their trip, and also to chaperones Tina and Joanne Barrett.

Once again, a very big congratulations to the Baccalieu Collegiate Choir.

Their hard work and dedication has made us very proud here in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past Friday, May 28, the School Sport Newfoundland and Labrador Awards

Banquet was held in St. John's.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Charlie Barker of

Elwood High in Deer Lake, who was named the School Sport Newfoundland and

Labrador Coach of the Year. As you may recall, I congratulated Mr. Barker on

winning the 4A Provincial Basketball Tournament earlier this year.

Mr. Barker has a long history of coaching involvement in school sports. He

has been involved for the last thirty-two years. The past few years, in

particular, have been very successful for Coach Barker. This is Mr. Barker's

last year coaching and it is heart-warming to see him go out at the pinnacle of

his career.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Andrew Casey of Regina

High in Corner Brook, and Danielle Stacey of St. Joseph's Academy in Lamaline,

for being named Male and Female Student Athletes of the Year respectively. 2A

School of the Year was awarded to Holy Name of Mary in Lawn. 3A School of the

Year was Baie Verte High, and 4A School of the Year was awarded to Stephenville

High.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend's awards ceremonies demonstrate the athletic

abilities our young people have. They are competitive and dedicated to their

sport.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating

Charlie Barker and all winners at this year's School Sport Newfoundland and

Labrador Awards Banquet.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by members?

Before we proceed to statements by ministers, I notice, and it was brought to

my attention by an hon. member, that we have in the gallery the former Member

for Fogo, Sam Winsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to welcome him, and tell him that we are always

appreciative when former members join us in the House.

Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise this House of a very significant event in

the development of the petroleum industry offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

Yesterday, Husky Energy announced its plans to study the commercial viability of

producing and exporting natural gas from the White Rose field.

Currently, our offshore petroleum industry is characterized by the

development of conventional light crude, which I might add, will grow to close

to half of Canada's production of light crude when White Rose reaches peak

production.

With the announcement that Husky Energy is looking for expressions of

interest to assess natural gas development on the Grand Banks, this is a very

important first step toward positioning the Province as not only a significant

player in the oil industry, but also as an emerging and significant producer of

natural gas.

To date, exploration has confirmed natural gas resources offshore totalling

almost 10 trillion cubic feet. Our undiscovered potential is significantly

greater, with more than 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas awaiting

discovery. It is an untapped energy potential strategically located adjacent to

the large U.S. energy markets which are very hungry for new energy supplies.

Furthermore, strong gas prices, further exploration and emerging technologies

all point to the fact that natural gas can be developed sooner rather than

later.

Mr. Speaker, one of the concepts that has been closely looked upon for

producing natural gas is a marine transport system using compressed natural gas,

CNG technology. I am pleased to advise this House today of a commitment of

$100,000 to the Centre for Marine Compressed Gas at Memorial University. This

support will assist Memorial in establishing a world-class centre for research

and development in the advancement of technology in the marine transport,

storage, handling and utilization of CNG.

Mr. Speaker, much work has already been done. On behalf of the government, I

want to say that we are confident that this facility will solidify the Province's

position as one of the leading stakeholders in this emerging method of natural

gas transportation. The Centre will be integral to furthering the research,

education, development and training opportunities in the area of natural gas

development for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I announced, on behalf of the government, that

this government will proceed with the development of a comprehensive Energy

Plan. Clearly, the development of natural gas will be an important and essential

element in our Energy Plan as we look for options to have natural gas as an

energy source for the Province and subsequently, lead to the development of the

necessary land-based infrastructure. It will also provide the opportunity to

assess and expand our service and supply sector which has proven it can meet the

demands of the offshore oil and gas industry; with a view of how we take full

advantage and maximize every opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Husky Energy on taking this initial step towards the

development of natural gas. Our experience tells us that Husky is a company that

delivers on its commitments to the Province and to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We look forward to the development of this industry. We look

forward, as a government, to seizing each and every opportunity both in research

and development, secondary industries, supply and service sector to support a

growing economy for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

is, indeed, a pleasure at any time to hear in this Province when our offshore

industry will be promoted and expanded in any way because no doubt, taking full

advantage of our resources on land or offshore would be, and can only be,

beneficial to the people and to various support industries in this Province.

I noticed when the current Administration were in Opposition they were strong

proponents that any development vis--vis of natural gas in our Province would

see that the benefits were maximized for this Province, including the fact that

the natural gas should be landed here in this Province after extractions. So, we

certainly would like to see that this Administration would hold Husky, or

whoever becomes the developers in future, hold their feet to the fire, as it

were, to ensure that does indeed happen here so that the resources landed here

and the benefits to support industries, as has been proven in the oil industry,

are maximized for the residents of this Province and for the Treasury of this

Province.

I would also like, of course, to see that the government makes sure that

local consumption vis-- vis natural gas is examined and to ensure that we have

guarantees and appropriate securities in place to ensure that the residents of

this Province can avail of the resource if it in any way can be utilized for

lower prices here. For example, for heating homes and so on, or in industry in

commercial natures.

It is also nice to see, in particular, that the CNG technology being

referenced here was indeed first talked about and was an initiative of the

former Administration. It is nice to see now that Husky, and I am assuming

government, are putting some money into seeing that this technology is going to

be advanced for the benefit of this Province. It is good news, again, to see

that someone is finally - Husky - taking a very serious look at the natural gas

potential. Hopefully, it will indeed lead to monies in the Treasury and

employment for this Province in the future. I just hope the government is taking

us up on our offer earlier, because this does form a part of that big parcel

called the Atlantic Accord Initiative.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. PARSONS: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

It would have been nice to see if the government had taken our suggestion of

including the Atlantic Accord into a proposal that had the federal leaders sign

on, because this natural gas thing fits in with our resources, fits in with the

Atlantic Accord problems we are having in being the principal beneficiary. We

should have pushed together, as one, to see that all federal leaders had

committed to the maximization of the benefits for this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly welcome the news that Husky Energy is interested in looking,

very, very seriously on a commercial basis in the development of natural gas for

a very forward looking company with lots of resources behind it. So that is very

positive, and the government's role in supporting a centre for marine CNG at

Memorial is also very positive. Mr. Speaker, the CNG technology that is being

developed by individuals right here in the Province - the compressed natural gas

technology is very exciting, because not only is it likely to be able to get

hold of what they call stranded natural gas, that maybe in small amounts not

only in the offshore of this Province but also elsewhere. It is the kind of

technology that could lead to a significant manufacturing effort in Newfoundland

and Labrador. I think that Husky's interest is certainly going to spur that

development -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for leave. Husky's interest is really going to spur that

development because it is on the cost (inaudible) development and I think we

will see a significant investment in that kind of technology. So, it is very

good news, indeed. I know the government is well aware of it and I hope that

they will see ways of spurring that - continuing to excite that development

because it can offer tremendous potential for this Province.

I will say though, Mr. Speaker, if we are going into the excitement of a new

technology, a new era of development in the offshore, that we ensure when the

development takes place that we do better in the royalty schemes than we have

done in the past on the oil, that is a step that this government will certainly

have to take, to change the rules to make sure that we are the principal

beneficiaries of the resource as it gets developed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today, as the Minister responsible for sport and

recreation in the Province, to inform hon. members about SummerActive 2004, a

national promotion that is organized by Health Canada in partnership with

provinces and non-government organizations. The event, which runs until June 19,

provides Canadians with information and support to improve their health through

regular physical activity, healthy eating and tobacco-free living. In this

Province, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation works in partnership

with Newfoundland and Labrador Parks and Recreation Association to co-ordinate

this campaign.

Mr. Speaker, each year, as part of SummerActive, my department hosts a

Sneaker Day Walk to create awareness about the benefits associated with an

active and healthy lifestyle. This morning my colleague, the Minister of Health

and Community Services, and I, participated in the annual Sneaker Day Walk at

Confederation Building. Approximately 100 people turned out to participate in

the walk around Kent's Pond and back to the building. I am pleased to say, Mr.

Speaker, in an unbiased way, that the Department of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation deserved the award for most participation this year.

Mr. Speaker, physical inactivity is a major concern for this government and

for all involved in the development and delivery of recreation and sport

programs in this Province. Recent statistics indicate that the health of

two-thirds of Canadian children is threatened by increased obesity rates caused,

in part, by physical inactivity. Type 2 diabetes is now being diagnosed in

children as young as nine years of age. In addition, due to the onset of obesity

in childhood, the Heart and Stroke Foundation is predicting that heart disease

in this generation will likely occur twenty years earlier than previously

dictated by experience.

Mr. Speaker, as a government we are concerned about the negative consequences

associated with physical inactivity and we are committed to providing

opportunity for increased participation. For this reason, my department is

pleased to have recently partnered with the federal government, through Sport

Canada, on a bilateral agreement to help young people in junior high school and

in rural areas benefits from participation in sport.

Mr. Speaker, the three-year $1.1 million agreement will support three

programs - Regional Games, Travel Subsidy and a Festival of Sport. I am

particularly excited about the Festival of Sport Program and the opportunity

this program will present for junior high school students to participate in

physical activity through organized sport. The program will be administered by

School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador and will involve a series of multi-sport

competitions between junior high schools throughout the Province. Mr. Speaker,

there are approximately 21,000 students in Grades VII to IX in our Province. The

Festival of Sport Program will encourage participation from all junior high

school students, regardless of their athletic ability.

Mr. Speaker, government recognizes the importance of working in partnership

with the federal government to increase the opportunity for all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians to participate in physical activity and sport. We are committed

to supporting initiatives that increase physical activity levels and developing

further opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to participate in

organized sport. We recognize that such events such as SummerActive go a long

way in promoting the benefits of a healthy lifestyle gained through regular

physical activity.

This year's partnership between the Department of Health and Community

Services and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is an important

first step in working together to recognize physical inactivity. I am confident

that we will continue to build this partnership as we address this important

issue. On behalf of the minister and myself, I would like to thank all MHAs this

morning and government employees who took time out of their busy schedules to

participate in today's walk. Together we can help increase physical activity

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy. I know the minister, personally,

is very much involved in active living and the promotion of lifestyle for the

youth. I know the minister, on many occasions, has provided that.

Today we are celebrating two events, the SumerActive campaign which was

kicked off by Sneaker Day by the minister - both ministers, actually - and I say

congratulations on that. Anything that we can do here to promote active living

is very beneficial to all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: our youth,

our middle-aged and our seniors.

As we go through the notes that the minister made in his speech, diabetes is

a major concern. My wife is a dietitian, and she is well aware that diabetes is

a major concern for youth. If we can get the youth active, it is very important.

The thing that I like about this, Mr. Speaker, this program itself, this

bilateral agreement between the provincial and federal government, the most

striking thing from a coach is that the kids who usually fall through the cracks

of an athletic program will now be picked up. I think that is the most important

thing. If you take away all of the initiatives that coaches do in this Province,

all the programs that are offered, there are some who just cannot make it to

that level. Some just cannot do it. This program will allow youth who have

fallen through the cracks to be able to participate, to get involved somehow,

somewhere along the line, meet other kids, other groups, and just remain active

in their communities. I think this is a great, great, great program, actually,

for the youth and I commend both levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I would just like to concur with the Member

for Humber Valley on Mr. Charlie Barker as Coach of the Year. I have to take a

bit of credit for Charlie being such a good coach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, Charlie Barker's early days of coaching were

chasing myself and his brother Bob off the basketball court with our outdoor

shoes on.

To Charlie, congratulations!

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 thank the minister for an advanced copy of the statement. We certainly

support any initiatives that lead to increased physical activity among the young

people of our Province. I say to the minister, this is really important for the

rural areas of the Province where much infrastructure is needed that would allow

young people to participate in sporting events and activities within their home

towns. It is important that the infrastructure be in place in the various

communities throughout this Province in order to allow for it to be facilitated,

for physical activity to increase.

It is also important, Mr. Speaker, that the interaction between different

communities, different schools in our Province take place so that it brings

people in the Province closer together. I know the minister announced in the

Budget, I think, $150,000 or $160,000 in Labrador for the sports federation to

take

part in events throughout the Province, and this additional funding will

certainly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: This additional funding will increase that activity,

hopefully, and bring about people so that they can relate to each other and they

can build friendships that will go on into the future.

Mr. Speaker, anything that increases this activity for our young people is

certainly appreciated.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers? Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question is for the Minister of Government Services.

Maybe today we can get some answers. God knows, the public certainly deserve

to have some of their concerns addressed regarding this auto insurance reform

package that we have before the House.

Minister, could you explain to the House, and to the consumers of this

Province, what rationale was used by yourself to justify a change from a $2,500

cap to a $2,500 deductible?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the deductible was recommended in a select

committee back in 1998. A cap would restrict compensation for people who were

injured in car accidents. The only fair and simple way to go was to put a

deductible of $2,500 in this reform.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, anyone you might wish to talk to today, who has knowledge of

this plan since last Thursday, is opposed to the plan. The biggest insurance

consumer group in the Province, in today's The Telegram , is condemning

the plan. Insurance companies are crying out against it. The only one quiet, it

seems, is the legal profession, maybe because they have the most to gain.

We know that this legislation will call for a one-year freeze but, Minister,

why are you using this band-aid approach now by Bill 30 when you, yourself,

acknowledge that you are going to have to do a major consultation and what you

have here in Bill 30 is only for one year? Why are you doing this now, before

you have done your public consultation on the rest of the major issues that are

outstanding?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the reason that this is being done now is because

we have already had a claims study done a fair time ago and it is outdated data

right now so we need a new closed claims study. In the meantime, we are bringing

in these reforms because the people of Newfoundland have been asking for eight

years now for reforms for the insurance. The premium rates have been, I guess,

going sky-high, rocketing, and they have been asking to get reduced premiums so

we are bringing in the reforms today. I am very proud to present this bill

today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Minister, in addition to your pride, maybe you can give the consumers

of this Province some assurances and some explanations as to why you are doing

what you are doing. For example, government did not even put the deductible in

this legislation. It calls for the deductible amount to be determined by a

regulation of Cabinet, which is pretty well lawyer dominated we can see. It is

no wonder people are calling this the Williams, Roebothan, McKay, Marshall

insurance plan.

Why, Minister, has government reserved the right to make the crucial

decisions about the amount of the deductible in hiding, free from public

scrutiny, but you put the responsibility, once some bungling takes place, on the

Public Utilities Board to explain to the Province what happened? Why, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we wanted the ability Cabinet to - if the

deductible eroded over a period of time, and it may not, but if it did, we

needed the ability to be able to increase the deductible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Premier.

Premier, you stated as recently as today in a The Telegram

article

that you consulted widely with people of interest and stakeholders in this

particular issue of insurance in this Province and that you have received a lot

of support. Well, Premier, I received today a copy of a draft letter from a

lady, President Power of the Aviva Canada Group who functions here in the

Province. In fact, they have 24 per cent of the auto insurance industry in our

Province. President Power states that she has been trying for three months to

get a meeting with yourself, but have not been able to get a meeting. How could

you, personally, be involved in this and have played a major role in this when

according to the President of Aviva - who, by the way, in the same letter has

put this Province on notice, that effective tomorrow they will not be

underwriting and selling any new auto insurance in this Province, and as of

January 1 they will be withdrawing from this Province totally; 24 per cent of

the insurance industry now withdrawing. Add that to general, which is another 10

per cent, we have 35 per cent of the insurance industry gone.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. PARSONS: Premier, how can you say you consulted widely when the

president of this major insurance company in the Province says she has not been

able to get a meeting with you for three months?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the hon. gentleman opposite has a draft letter which is a letter

that we may or may not have seen. I do not know what draft it is, draft one,

draft two or draft three. That is really meaningless for the purpose of this

House, but perhaps he would like to table it, after which we can certainly have

a look at it.

With regard to consultation, I indicated yesterday in the House - and I

indicated outside the House, actually - that consultation has been done with

several government officials as well. I have been speaking to the Premier of New

Brunswick, the Premier of P.E.I., the Premier of Nova Scotia. As he knows, as he

very well knows as a lawyer, the experience in Ontario has been a difficulty

one. When you talk about caps and you talk about deductibles, Ontario have

actually changed their plans and changed their legislation at least three or

four times because this is a very fluid problem that is changing all the time.

As the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi knows, New Brunswick is even

considering public insurance. So, you really have to be open here. You have to

look at all the alternatives. Now, if one particular company decides that it

does not want to do business here, well, that is its choice. We do not want to

interfere with those companies. But, the very fact that we have people in the

legal profession who do not like this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We have people in the insurance industry who do not

like this. We have some consumers who do not like it. It tells me that we have

probably come up with a very, very good compromise and a very good solution

because we are not there to try and please the big insurance companies. That is

not what it is all about. It is to try and get better rates for consumers!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have a question other than a comment to say that maybe the Premier

does indeed - he is not too worried about insurance companies and the

ninety-five employees they have in this Province. Maybe he is only concerned

about the legal fraternity. I do undertake and will immediately table the letter

to which I have referenced, where this company is pulling out of this Province

and 24 per cent of the insurance industry has gone down the tubes because of

this government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear a question, so we will go to the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I invite the Premier to name some member of the legal community who is

complaining about this legislation. I will bet he cannot name one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it shows the level of seriousness, or lack thereof, of which the

government caucus treats these issues. Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader

is treating and dealing with this issue as an elected member of our party.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this Legislature - they can relax,

we will get to our questions - the Premier indicated that he was hopeful that

his meetings with the Allied forces would result in a long-term military future

for 5 Wing Goose Bay. The Premier indicated that he was hopeful his recent

meeting with the German Ambassador to Canada would produce results. He described

the meeting as a good meeting, right here in this Legislature yesterday.

Yesterday, in the presence of four other government caucus members, the same

German Ambassador emphatically stated there would be no future military presence

in Goose Bay for Germany.

Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is this: Did the Ambassador tell

the Premier something other than that, so he could describe it as a good

meeting, or has the Premier, again, chosen to mislead the people of the Province

about this issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have indicated to the House, and hon. members opposite, that we did attend

in Europe; that we met with the German officials. We met with the German

Minister of Defence. We were very, favourably received. He indicated in that

particular meeting that the door was closed, but as a result of our meeting that

the door was opened. Although, he admitted, it was opened a little bit, but that

is better than where it was before we attended the meeting.

With regard to the Ambassador to Canada; yesterday the German Ambassador

certainly did not indicate to me, in our meeting, that there was not going to be

any other German presence in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Now, it is obvious, that is what the hon. member opposite would like to

happen, because that would mean that we probably have not succeeded as a

government in tying to correct his problems and his mistakes, and his inaction

and his government's inaction over the years. We continue to try to clean up

his mess, and we will try to do that to the best of our ability, with or without

his help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe if he consulted with the four members of his caucus who

heard the German Ambassador emphatically state and go on for five minutes to

explain why there would definitely be no German military presence in Goose Bay

after 2006, he might have a different answer.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier left the impression in the House yesterday, and in

the media, that Germany - and he just repeated it - left the door open to more

military training. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the real facts are that Germany has

invested $40 million over the past few years in infrastructure, like new hangars

in places like New Mexico. At home, they are closing bases and reducing the

sizes of their air force and their full military.

What, Mr. Speaker - because the people want some real commitments - what, if

any, assurances did the Premier of our Province receive - and has he ever

received any - from Germany, or any of the other allies that he visited

recently, with respect to their real, active, future involvement in Goose Bay

beyond the year 2006? Could he give the people of the Province an honest answer

as to real commitments that he has gotten from any of the allies, other than the

real statement from Germany that there will be no presence after 2006?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we faced when we took over this government was the reality

that the allied forces were leaving Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Two had already

indicated that they were leaving, and two were indicating that they were

possibly going to leave, so we went in and we were trying to turn that around,

and that is exactly what we did. We went and we visited the officials in Europe.

The Member for Lake Melville was with me on that particular trip. We talked to

them about alternatives. We talked about other types of maneuvers. We talked to

them about tactical transport. We talked about unarmed vehicles. We talked about

absolutely any possible maneuvers that they may be interested in. As I said in

the meeting in Germany, the German Minister of Defence indicated that the door

was still open and that they were prepared to negotiate.

My colleague tells me that in a meeting yesterday, when various caucus

members were present, that the Ambassador indicated that I was dealing at a

higher level in Germany and he was not aware of those discussions. So, do not

attempt to try to put words in my mouth. I do not know if you were at that

meeting. If you were, you could probably state exactly what was said at that

meeting. I was not there, but I can go by people who were at that meeting and

they are not saying what you are saying.

I can only go by the conversation that I had. There was no indication that

the Germans would never show up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Maybe that is what

you want. That is obviously what you want. You want that to shut down, so you

can try and hang it around our neck.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Well, we are going to continue to try and clean up your

mess, and we will talk to the Italians and we will talk to the Dutch and we will

talk to the Brits and we will talk to the Germans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will talk to DND and we will see if we can get greater Canadian

participation at 5 Wing Goose Bay. We will also talk to the Americans, as the

Member for Lake Melville is.

We have lots of alternatives and we are going to try and do absolutely

everything we can to keep that base in operation. That is our commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In the last several exchanges we have been way over our usual time. The

schedules are, the comments back and forth between the Leader of the Opposition

and the Premier are running about a minute-and-a-half. I ask the members for

their co-operation. Keep our questions and our answers around fifty seconds.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are not interested in anything other than the Premier, on

behalf of the government, telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the

truth about these matters.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier does not get some real commitments some time

soon, now, Goose Bay may become another Stephenville Air Base or former Argentia

military site. We pointed out last week that the issue is not necessarily in

Europe; it is in Canada.

In yesterday's The Telegram , his Director of Communications is

quoted as saying: The Province is not willing to put any money into the

long-term future of Goose Bay because it is a federal responsibility.

I ask the Premier if that is his position, if he agrees with that statement?

What is he going to do, then, as the Minister of Business, to partner with the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, Mr. Speaker, we inherited a fiscal

mess from the previous government. We have a situation where our consolidated

deficit is over $800 million. We have a situation where our cash deficit is $362

million. He and his Cabinet and members of his government have left this

Province in a very, very, very serious financial state. We are going to do

everything we can to turn that around, but that is going to take a little bit of

time.

We do have a commitment to 5 Wing Goose Bay, but the first responsibility is

the federal government, so we are not just going to step up to the plate and

write out a cheque that we do not have, or write out a cheque when we do not

have any money in the bank, because you have not left us with a cent in the

bank. That is not what we are going to do. We are going to work with DND. We

have already successfully gotten $40 million out of them. We did not have to put

anything up for that, and we hope to get more, but we do have a commitment to

Lake Melville and we do have a commitment to 5 Wing Goose Bay. We do have a

commitment to the member. We do have a commitment to Labrador, and we will

fulfill our commitment. When the time comes for us to step up to the plate, we

will assess it within our limits and we will deliver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to you, Premier, I hope the $40 million is not a closure fee.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

Minister, I have been receiving a number of calls from concerned

municipalities and construction companies regarding roadwork for this year. Can

you explain to this House why no tenders have been called, no work is on the

horizon, and people are being left unemployed due to the slow actions on the

part of this government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is not correct, as the hon. gentleman puts it, that no

tenders have been called. In fact, there are several tenders that have been

called over the last number of weeks and months, but the $30 million Provincial

Roads Program is ready to be finalized and it will be finalized very shortly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Minister, the Lewisporte and Area Chamber of Commerce is

promoting ticket sales for an evening cruise on the Bay of Exploits aboard the

motor vessel Northern Ranger . Most people are aware, the motor vessel Northern

Ranger is a passenger vessel that services the North Coast of Labrador with

all expenses coming from the Labrador Transportation Fund.

I ask the minister if he approved this cruise and will he tell this hon.

House if the associated cost for this trip to promote Lewisporte, including

salaries for the crew, the cost of fuel, is coming from the Labrador

Transportation Fund or other government funds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, some years ago, long before this government

came into power last November, the government of the day instituted a policy of

offering, at the beginning of the season, the Northern Ranger to the

Lewisporte and Area Chamber of Commerce and the Happy Valley-Goose Bay Chamber

of Commerce. For years that was done as a run up for the vessel. The vessel

needs to have a day run up before it goes to Labrador.

For a number of years, both Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the Lewisporte Chamber

of Commerce took advantage of that, if there was enough time after refit to do

so. The Chambers have requested that again and we have given permission for the

vessel to do it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, again, I guess, the funds are coming from the

Labrador travel fund, the same as the $700,000 to do repairs for the ferry

service that is coming from the Labrador Transportation Fund as well.

Minister, people on the North Coast of Labrador are more dependent on marine

transportation to receive their goods and services than anyone else in the

Province. Well over a month ago in this hon. House, you said you would consider

sailing the motor vessel Trans Gulf out of Lewisporte if that was what

the people on the North Coast wanted. Well, Minister, they are adamant, as they

always have been. By the way, Minister, the Trans Gulf is the only vessel

that does not have a confirmed

schedule for the coming year.

Minister, will you confirm today that you will grant the people on the North

Coast of Labrador their request, and announce today that you will sail the Trans

Gulf out of Lewisporte?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I should add, in response to the previous

question as well, that it was tradition that the Northern Ranger used to

also do this day for the St. Anthony Chamber of Commerce. This is not something

new that was invented just this year.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Trans Gulf -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: I am attempting to answer the hon. member's question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked, the minister has the floor.

MR. RIDEOUT: In terms of the Trans Gulf , Mr. Speaker, I have given

very serious consideration to the request from the hon. gentleman, from the LIA,

from business communities and so on, on the North Coast at every conceivable

manner to improve the distribution of freight to the North Coast. We have

indicated that we are going to put a full-time manager in Cartwright this year.

We are going to do that. We think we can do a better service with a full-time

manager in Cartwright on a seven-day cycle to the North Coast of Labrador than

operating fourteen days out of Lewisporte. Mr. Speaker, we are going to try that

and we think that will work and provide a better, more efficient and faster

service for the people of the North Coast of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is on automobile insurance. If you listen to the Premier's

answers today in the House, Mr. Speaker, you would think the Premier is of the

opinion that if nobody likes his insurance plan then it must be a good one.

My question though is for the Minister of Government Services. We had a

complaint from a consumer, to my office, who has to pay $500 to insure his

daughter on his car for a couple of months coming home from university. What I

want to know from this minister, is this legislation and her plan going to do

anything substantive to change that, given that the minister and this government

are not doing anything about discrimination on the basis of age in her plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, those reforms will benefit all of the people in

this Province who are carrying an automobile insurance premium, on an average of

15 per cent savings overall, depending on the type of coverage they have and

where they live in the Province.

Thank you.

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.

At 9 per cent on the comprehensive, that will be $450 for a couple of months

instead of $500.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Consumers' Association of Canada has

recognized that the public automobile insurance system has consistently

delivered, across the country, the lowest rates and the fairest type system, why

isn't she and her government undertaking a comprehensive study with full

public consultation and full resources available to it of a public system for

Newfoundland and Labrador - the way the New Brunswick government did - with an

all-party committee of the House to do a good job and to produce a comprehensive

report for this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this is the first step in those reforms. We are

going to have a full-blown public hearing and all of this can be addressed in a

public hearing. We are not ruling out public insurance as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: We will get to the survey, I say to the member, we will get to

the survey.

The Minister of Tourism and the Premier have been touting their new million

dollar investment into tourism marketing. I just found out that a part of this

investment is for jobs in Nova Scotia. I was astonished to find out this morning

that the Tourism Minister has hired a Nova Scotia firm to conduct a survey of

provincial tourism chalets, another visitor information services in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Can the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation tell the House why he has

commissioned a Nova Scotia company to do work that could have easily been done

by a Newfoundland and Labrador firm who has the local flavour and expertise?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed we are doing a survey right now and

we hope that in very short order we will have very good information on visitor

information services in this Province, and it is a company from Nova Scotia. We

are looking forward to what they are going to report to this Province. At the

end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we will improve visitor information services in

this Province, therefore grow tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I finally got to the roots of the glossy report that the minister presented

last week: Tourism coming into Newfoundland and Labrador, because it says here

in a letter from the Department of Tourism: The consultants will soon be

visiting a number of Visitor Information Centres across the Province. That is

where we are going to get our influx in tourism, from outside people hired by

the Department of Tourism.

Will the minister now admit that there are local companies which could have

completed this survey and provided local employment and give a true picture of

the tourism? My question for the minister: How much will this Nova Scotia survey

cost taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and were the local firms considered

to do this work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had made it back to the House in time

yesterday to answer the previous survey that the member put forward yesterday.

The fact of the matter is, one of the biggest deterrents to tourism in the

Province is the hon. member putting out false information when, in fact, he knew

the information he gave yesterday was incorrect. The fact of the matter is this,

Mr. Speaker, tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador is growing, whether you like

it or not. You are the only deterrent to tourism in Newfoundland. We will

continue and consult on Visitor Information Centres in this Province and we will

do the right thing for tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

Once again, the minister is saying I put out false information but he cannot

produce the information as usual.

I ask the same question: Will you table how much it cost to provide this

survey done by a Nova Scotia firm, and will you provide what local companies

were asked to provide these services? Will you table the cost and what local

companies were requested to do this work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problem tabling the exact amount. I will certainly give it to the

member the next day of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, with his accuracy on numbers, he talked about

the huge increase. We are starting to promote this Province within the Province.

Ads started just a couple of nights ago to tell people in this Province

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The Chair has recognized the Minister

of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I ask him to finish his answer to the

question.

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

They are a little testy today, Mr. Speaker. They do not like to hear the

facts. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, it was misinformation the member gave

yesterday. Here is a huge increase that went into the provincial parks. It went

from $9 to $10. By the way, if the member would check his information, he would

know that Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, who represents 700 businesses

in this Province for tourism, made the request for the increase in the fees.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bay of

Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to be skeptical of the minister,

but the government has a horrible track record of saying one thing and doing

another. There has not been a study commissioned by this government yet that has

not resulted in job losses, service reduction or increased rates. This survey

talks about new technologies. This means using computers to replace people to do

the work. Will the minister admit that part of this study is just another way of

legitimizing further cuts and service reductions that will hurt the tourism

industry? How many chalets will close, are in the master plan, I ask the

minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the hon. member, the critic

for Tourism in this Province, of all the people throughout the Province who is

so positive about this industry this year. We are simply doing this to improve

the situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Visitor Information Centres, the Web site, the 1-800 numbers

are all ways to improve, of course, marketing this Province as a whole. Whether

you like it or not, I say to the member, we are up 15 per cent on indicators for

this Province already this year. So, if you hang on tight, maybe there is some

worst news for you next week when we see a bigger increase in tourism in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for one brief question.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, many people in this Province are concerned

about the potential sale of the marketing and the value-added division of FPI,

and the impact that would have on people and communities in this Province. I

remind the Premier, on May 2, 2001, the current Minister of Fisheries when he

was Opposition Fisheries critic said, and I quote: That government should

"...ensure that not all, not substantially all, not even a little bit all,

of the assets of FPI, particularly its marketing arm in the United States, are

sold to competitors or otherwise."

Mr. Speaker, your House Leader, the Minister of Natural Resources, said at

the same time: That government should not stand by if FPI chooses to sell its

marketing arm. I ask the Premier: Why has he softened his stand on FPI by saying

it is a private company and we cannot say much about it? Why is he softening his

stand on FPI? I ask him: Why doesn't he stand here today and assure the people

of this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. REID: - that he will not permit the sale of these assets like the

Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Natural Resources said in 2001?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

We have time for a brief response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member opposite, we have not softened our stand. We have

firmed up the stand of this government, unlike the previous Premier who, as you

remember quite well, quite frankly was not interested enough to ask any

questions. Do you remember saying that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You did not ask any questions. You were just going to

let them do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Well, we are not going to let that happen. We have

asked all the questions. We are going to ask more questions and we are going to

be consistent with the statement by the Minister of Fisheries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: When you were Minister of Fisheries, you know what your

statement was?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Your statement was: I am sorry. I am just as much -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members that, when the Chair is standing, the House should be

silent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members again, when the Speaker is standing the House should be

silent immediately.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I table 2002-2003 Annual Report of the Treasury Board Secretariat.

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the government's commitment

to accountability, I am pleased to submit the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the

Department of Government Services. This report addresses the department's

activities from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure to table for the hon. members, the Annual

Reports for the following public bodies: Consumer Protection Fund for Prepaid

Funeral Services, Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation, Petroleum Products

Pricing Commission, and the Public Accountants Licensing Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 would like to, at this time, Mr. Speaker, present the 2002-2003 Annual

Report for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House of Assembly today, the Annual

Report for the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for the year

ending March 31, 2003.

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I hereby table the Annual Report for the

Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador,

for the fiscal year 2002-2003.

This annual report is dedicated to the memory of Nellie Nippard Murphy, a

survivor of violence and an outspoken advocate for victims rights. Her ten-year

fight to allow victims the opportunity to confront their abusers at National

Parole Board Hearings was a victory for all Canadian women. Mr. Speaker, on a

personal note, in my former career, I certainly saw the benefit of her fight for

women in this country.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the Advisory Council

and their ongoing work to advance the status of women in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Their efforts to advise government on issues regarding equality ensure

women across the Province have a voice when key decisions are being made.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling further reports? Notices of motion? Answers to

questions for which notice has been given? Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in my district with

regard to the decision regarding the Labrador Marine Services, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair,

and I ask that she be heard in silence.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, on a petition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents with regard

to the Labrador Marine Services.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented petitions similar to this on many occasions in

the House of Assembly, and that is because the people of my district, and many

others in Labrador, Northern Newfoundland and Western Newfoundland, feel that

the decision that government has made to relocate services of the Sir Robert

Bond out of Labrador to Lewisporte is a wrong decision. It is an extreme

waste of money and it is being done at the expense of the people who depend upon

money from the Labrador Transportation Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I was at a Viking Trail Tourism Association meeting when I heard

the Member for St. Barbe stand up in the annual meeting of the Viking Trail

Tourism Association in Rocky Harbour, and he said to the gathering there: I did

not want to see the Sir Robert Bond move to Lewisporte. I know the

benefits that can accrue to my district from having the Sir Robert Bond

operate between Cartwright and Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was really admirable of the member, to stand up

and to tell how he really felt, and that he did not support the decision that

his government had made; but, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate when you have

backbenchers in a government and their voices and their opinions are not even

being heard by the crowd in the front benches, by the people who are sitting at

the Cabinet table making the decisions.

Mr. Speaker, it is the people on the Northern Peninsula and the people in

Southern Labrador who will pay the price for the loss of opportunity and the

loss of jobs that will occur as a result of moving this vessel out of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we saw yesterday in the House, through questions that I asked,

and questions that I asked the minister in the Estimates Committee, that almost

$700,000 of the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund will be used just to

keep the terminal facility open in Lewisporte, the ticket offices open, and run

the on-the-ground handling operations of the marine services.

This is certainly not an expenditure that the people in Labrador would

approve, Mr. Speaker. In fact, they would rather see that money put to use in

their own communities to do things like snow clearing on the roads, which the

minister says he cannot do; to look at extending the season for the ferry across

the Strait of Belle Isle; to put a year-round reservation system in place in

Labrador for marine services, and to see upgrading on the road between Goose Bay

and Northwest River. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of expenditure that people in

Labrador want to see out of the Labrador Fund. They want to see a road built in

places like Williams Harbour, but that is not to occur because the money will be

used to meet the minister's own political commitment that he made during the

election to have the service based in Lewisporte, operated out of Lewisporte,

using Labrador money to supplement the economy in that area and not using it for

the benefit of Labrador communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for a few more seconds.

MS JONES: I appreciate some leave, Mr. Speaker, because this is an

important issue. I am sure I will have other opportunities in the House to

present petitions on this issue on behalf of my constituents over the next three

years, as I serve them in the House of Assembly. I can guarantee you, Mr.

Speaker, this is a wrong decision that has been made by the government opposite

and I will continue to represent the people in Labrador, Northern Peninsula and

the West Coast of the Island who oppose that decision over the next few months

and years ahead, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the citizens

of Ramea, Grey River Franois and Burgeo concerning the closure of the HRE

office at Burgeo.

It is signed by about 600 people and they express their total utter amazement

and disgust with this decision that has been made to close this office which

served the region of the South Coast, Burgeo and surrounding areas. These

services will now be available only in Stephenville, which is, as everyone knows

in this Province, at the end of 180 kilometres from Burgeo, if you can get out

during the winter months. They are very disgruntled and upset with this

cost-cutting measure. Let it be understood and there be no mistake about it as

to why this was done. This was done to pinch pennies. The minister was obviously

told that you must save some money so go about finding a way to do it.

I asked the minister on May 18, in fact, in the Estimates, if there had been

a cost-benefit analysis done to justify the closure. For the people in TV land

who maybe want to get a - I am not using technical terms here of cost benefits.

The question basically meant: How much more are you going to pay, as a

government, now, for your clients to have to go to Stephenville to offset what

you are going to save from closing the office? A pretty straightforward

question. Did you figure that out before you decided to close the office? The

minister's response was: No, the cost analysis that we had done is on a

provincial basis. We do not have it broken down into the individual offices.

An admission from the very minister who closed the office that, no, we did

not look at Burgeo and see what it is going to cost us now to ship everyone from

Grand Bruit and Ramea or Burgeo up the highway, from Franois to Stephenville.

We did not do that. We looked at it and said we are going to save at least the

cost of three employees, the cost of pen and paper and light and heat, and based

on that we are shutting you down. Get your own way to Stephenville. We will

figure out the cost of that later.

It just goes to show, Mr. Speaker, exactly why this decision was made for the

wrong reasons. It is not even being made for financial responsibility reasons.

That is why the people are utterly disgusted and upset with this decision having

been made. The minister, herself, has acknowledged in the Estimates that she did

not do a cost-benefit analysis. I ask this government and this minister: How can

you justify putting this hardship on the people of this Province when you,

yourself, do not do your own homework to justify the decisions that you are

making? It is no good to wreak havoc and harshness upon the people of this

Province if you cannot justify what you did from any perspective, let alone

financial.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My petition today reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and

Labrador, in legislative session convened: The petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS Grand Falls-Windsor is the location of the family physicians of most

residents of Robert's Arm, Pilley's Island, Port Anson and Miles Cove; and

WHEREAS the medical records of most residents of Robert's Arm, Pilley's

Island, Port Anson and Miles Cove are not accessible at the Springdale Hospital

but are kept in Grand Falls-Windsor; and

WHEREAS the residents of Robert's Arm, Pilley's Island, Port Anson and

Miles Cove have to pay $115 for ambulance services to Springdale Hospital and an

additional $115 if they have to be transferred to Grand Falls-Windsor Hospital;

WHEREFORE your petitioners are hereby requesting the Department of Health and

Community Services to take immediate action to change the present policy and

permit patients to choose to attend either the hospital in Springdale or the

hospital in Grand Falls-Windsor and, if attending the hospital in Springdale,

for the Department of Health and Community Services to absorb the extra cost of

ambulance services to Grand Falls-Windsor should such a transfer occur.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a policy that has been here for several years. I think

the policy needs to be revisited and that the people in Green Bay South are

complaining of not having the choice of where to be taken in the case of

emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, we realize that not every case would apply to this petition

because of the severity of the cases of the emergencies, but I do recommend to

the department that a committee should be struck, to have people go out into the

area of Green Bay South and have input from the people of Green Bay South to

make recommendations, and also to explain the current policy so that people will

understand that when they do make this choice it could be affecting not only the

patients but the families of the patients, because right now it is incurring a

big cost for the patients and their families to have to travel either from

Springdale to Grand Falls-Windsor or from Green Bay South to Grand

Falls-Windsor. Also, it could be detrimental to the patient's health if the

wrong choice is made.

What we need is more input through the people of Green Bay South and

Springdale area, and call upon the department to strike a committee to do that,

Mr. Speaker, so that we will make sure that the best health care services are

provided for the people outside the Grand Falls-Windsor area. Not only that, but

the cost of it is so enormous that even in one case, for one family, it has cost

them up to $345 just to see one physician, because of the transfer from one

hospital to the other. That went right from Springdale to Grand Falls-Windsor to

Gander. It is a big cost, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HUNTER: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to say to the minister and the department that I think she

should take the responsibility of striking that committee as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labrador regarding the auditorium in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, as I

said before, the importance of such an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville

area is essential for students, especially, from all over Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised today to hear the Minister of Transportation,

when he said that the motor vessel Trans Gulf would not go out of

Lewisporte. By putting the Bond in Lewisporte this year, it is going to

cost $700,000 extra a year plus the cost of fuel. The cost of the auditorium was

budgeted for and approved by the previous government at $2.4 million.

Mr. Speaker, if they made the right choice - because I attended a meeting

with members of the town council and the Chambers of Commerce from all over

Labrador about two weeks ago and they expressed concerns about the Bond

running out of Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if government took the right approach here, we

would find the money for the auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area, which

parents from all over Labrador have asked this government to do.

Mr. Speaker, because we have such a short construction season in Labrador, if

we go past July or August this year, we are going to go into another year, which

will mean it will probably be two years before the auditorium becomes a reality.

Mr. Speaker, the children all over Labrador deserve an auditorium. As I said

before, there are different groups who are travelling all across the Province to

put off different shows and so on, but they do not have a place to put off some

of these shows and concerts in the Upper Lake Melville area. Government should

approve this cause. As of February this past year, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs said yes, the money was still in the Budget. I know that government has

to make choices, but this is a building not just for Upper Lake Melville; it is

for students and people all over Labrador, and that is why it makes it such a

vital thing to make sure that it is done.

Mr. Speaker, again, I encourage government to reconsider some of the things

that they have done, because I honestly believe that if they look at some of the

projects that they are doing, there are ways they can save money. The auditorium

in the Upper Lake Melville area certainly needs to become a reality, because the

children in Labrador deserve a lot better than what they have now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called. We are not finished with

petitions yet, but a point of order has been called by the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand on a point of order today

because I think it is very important, especially as Tourism Minister in this

Province, in promoting tourism, that we have correct information; because any

time there is wrong information, that is a deterrent to tourism in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member - and if the Opposition

Leader will listen, and he should know, as a matter of fact - I will give you

some dates. It is, in fact, true that EPG, Economic Planning Group of Halifax,

Nova Scotia, has been awarded a contract to do consultations of the Visitor

Information Centres in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is correct. Also, it is

correct that the tender was called in June. It was awarded in August of 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: In August of 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the Chair noted several days ago, after Question Period we should not be

using points of order to extend the commentaries made in Question Period.

There is no point of order. It might be on a point of explanation but it

cannot be a point of order.

The Chair is continuing petitions, and I think we have one from the Member

for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: If you could only restore order in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the people of Grand

Falls-Windsor, on behalf of the constituents, the business -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. I ask

members for their co-operation.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said just a moment ago, today I am presenting a petition on behalf of

the people of Grand Falls-Windsor, the business community of Grand

Falls-Windsor, and area. This is the first of its kind. I have never had

occasion to present a petition like this one before. The petition, I will not

read it out, I will table it for the Table. I want to basically give you a gist

of what it is.

The petition is concerning the proposed consolidation of the health care

boards that are currently in Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor. It has come to the

attention of the business community, and the people in general of Grand

Falls-Windsor, that there was no criteria used in the recent consolidation of

schools boards in the same area of Grand Falls-Windsor, and also of Gander. We

are not going to sit and wait for a decision to be made by this new government,

which proclaims they are going to make every decision based on the best of

evidence. We know exactly what happened to the consolidation of school boards.

We did not see any evidence whatsoever, but for the people in Grand

Falls-Windsor - particularly, the Chamber of Commerce - who have put forward a

very strong business case as to why both boards should be consolidated and

located in Grand Falls-Windsor.

We already know that 85 per cent of the population between Baie Verte and

Eastport are only one hour's drive from the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor. We

also know that the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor Central West Health Care Board

can provide administrative space to accommodate two of these boards at

absolutely no cost. How can you refuse something that is free? No cost. No

renovation cost and no rental cost in the future.

We already know that this consolidation is basically for administrative

purposes only. The administrative wing of both boards will be located in one

location and they will oversee the day to day running of all facilities. That

day to day running is done 99 per cent road based. We also know that Grand

Falls-Windsor, or the Central West Health Care Board has a stellar reputation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired. Does the member have leave?

MS THISTLE: May I have another few seconds?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: A few seconds to clue up. Leave has been granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We already know that the Central West Health Care Board has a stellar

reputation both in fiscal management and recruitment and retainment of

specialists. In the interest of fairness, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister

of Health and Community Services to develop a proper criteria so that when the

final decision is made both communities will have equal opportunity to

participate and the best decision will be made based on evidence and fairness.

Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

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

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

On the Order Paper today, Mr. Speaker, Order 5, second reading of a bill, An

Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The

Highway Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance,

Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30,

An Act To Amend The

Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Highway Traffic

Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance, be now read a

second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile

Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Highway Traffic Act To Effect

Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance." (Bill 30)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce Bill 30,

An Act To

Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Companies Act And The Highway

Traffic Act To Effect Certain Reforms Respecting Automobile Insurance.

This is a very proud day for me as minister, and for our government. We are

introducing legislation that will result in average savings of 15 per cent on

consumers auto insurance bills.

Bringing in reforms to control the rising cost of insurance was one of the

first priorities of this government. I announced these reforms at a news

conference on March 17, less than six months into our mandate. I am pleased

today to now bring them before the House. These reforms will save consumers $25

million a year in premiums. This is money consumers can spend in the economy on

other things.

I am glad to have this opportunity to outline the merits of this package and

our plan for the future. The cost of auto insurance has been an issue in this

Province for over a decade, the first Select Committee was appointed in 1995.

That is how long the people of this Province have been waiting for a solution.

I am proud today that this government is delivering on a plan in a reasonable

time frame of taking office. The members opposite had this file for eight years,

and failed to implement any meaningful reform.

Reforming auto insurance is a priority for the people of this Province, and

it is a priority for us.

We have developed a starting package of reforms that will provide for average

savings of nine to 20 per cent, depending on your coverage and where you live in

the Province. Our target has always been to reduce rates by up to 20 per cent.

With the starting reforms in this legislation, and our plan to hold a full

hearing into the insurance industry, we believe this number can be achieved. Our

reform package is based on sound actuarial advice. We have released the Public

Utilities Board study so everyone in the Province can see how we came up with

this package. This is part of our commitment to openness and transparency.

The savings will be achieved through a combination of reforms, including a

$2,500 deductible on claims for pain and suffering. We did originally talk about

implementing a cap on minor soft-tissue claims. Given the difficulties of

defining what is a minor injury', along with the experiences in other

provinces, we have gone with a deductible. A cap severely restricts compensation

to those injured in car accidents. A deductible is simple and fair. It simply

means $2,500 will be deducted from any claim paid out by insurance companies.

The Opposition will talk about how these savings will be eroded over time,

and how lawyers will tack on an additional $2,500 to the claim to recover the

deductible. The insurance industry is in the best position to prevent this from

happening. They know what they paid out for a particular injury in the past.

The actuary took this possibility of erosion into account when calculating

the savings to be achieved from the deductible. The actuarial study was based on

a closed-claims study completed in 1998. We will do an updated closed-claims

study to get more current information. This will tell us what is causing the

claims to go up. Our hands are not tied. If we have to make additional reforms

to achieve real savings, we will. However, we think this is the best combination

of reforms, based on the information we have now.

Lost wages will be based on 100 per cent of net wages instead of gross. This

just makes sense. A person's true income is their net take home pay, not the

amount before all the various deductions are taken out, such as your income tax,

employment insurance and Canada Pension Plan premiums.

A person will also have any compensation they received from other plans

deducted from their award. This ensures the claimant doesn't earn more being

off work because of an accident than if they were working. Again, these are the

types of reforms that will return the auto insurance industry back to what it

was originally intended to do. Insurance should fairly compensate people for

their injuries.

We also want to encourage people to wear a seatbelt, which reduces the

severity of their injuries if they are in an accident. Claimants will have a 25

per cent reduction in their award if they were not buckled up. They still have

the right to argue that not wearing a seatbelt did not contribute to their

injuries.

I will not speak to every reform at this time. There will be time for that

during debate. I do want to touch on the reductions in premiums for third-party

liability, collision, comprehensive and uninsured motorist protection.

People with full coverage will realize the most savings, up to 20 per cent.

If someone only carries third-party liability, the savings, of course, will be

less than that, around nine or 10 per cent.

We have also frozen rates until a full public hearing can be held. The Public

Utilities Board study indicated that premiums for collision, comprehensive and

uninsured motorist were on the high side, and could be reduced by these amounts.

We are not trying to cause hardship on the insurance industry. Any concerns

they have about these reforms can be raised at the hearing. We've taken a

balanced and a fair approach with these reforms.

I want to give this House an idea of what these reforms will mean for people

in this Province. A driver in St. John's, age twenty-five or older, with full

coverage, will save an average of $188 on their insurance bill. That is a

reduction of 13 per cent. The same driver living in the rest of the Island, or

in Labrador, will save an average of between 18 per cent and 19 per cent. Mr.

Speaker, these are significant savings no matter where you live. A

twenty-year-old male, who has been four years accident free, will save an

average of $510 on his full coverage policy. The greatest portion of that is off

the third-party liability. The savings for a young man living off the Avalon is

greater.

Fairness is what we want to achieve with these reforms. We are making

significant changes to the underwriting guidelines insurance companies use to

determine rates and whether to insure a person. An insurance company will no

longer be able to refuse coverage or rate individuals solely based on

not-at-fault claims, minor damage where no claim is paid, NSF cheques, another

company refusing to insure a person, or a lapse in coverage. This will keep our

drivers out of Facility Association, thus substantially reducing their premiums.

An insurance company will only be able to refuse to insure a person for a lapse

in coverage if the reason for the lapse is: a cancelled policy for failing to

make payments; failing to disclose a conviction or a claim that would result in

a higher premium; or a driver's license is suspended for driving without

insurance. This will result in additional savings for young drivers.

A company will no longer be able to refuse coverage based on age, gender or

marital status. We are not eliminating rating based on age, gender or marital

status at this time. This is something that the Opposition has criticized us

for, but we have reasons for doing it this way. We are not finished yet and we

want to do it right. Eliminating rating based on age, gender or marital status

will cost drivers over twenty-five years old up to 6 per cent more, and some

seniors will lose discounts. We are deferring these measures to the hearing to

find out what the public thinks is the fair thing to do. We have tried to

achieve a balance, and I think we have done this with this starting package of

reforms.

We are addressing the problems with Facility Association. Approximately 60

per cent of the drivers in this Province in Facility Association have never had

an at-fault accident or a driving conviction. They should never be in Facility.

We have taken measures to ensure that only the drivers who should be in Facility

are in Facility. The new underwriting guidelines should go a long way to

achieving this. We are also requiring companies to tell drivers why they are in

Facility and what they must do to get out.

We want to reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road. The presence

of uninsured drivers raises the cost of insurance because everyone must carry

coverage to protect themselves from these drivers. We are increasing the minimum

fine for an uninsured driver to $2,000 for the first offence, and $3,000 for the

second offence. The vehicle will also be impounded for ninety days upon

conviction and the driver's licence suspended, also for ninety days. Mr.

Speaker, we believe these measures will deter people from driving without

insurance.

When we announced our auto reform package on March 17, one particular measure

delighted parents of driving-age children. Drivers will now be able to exclude

anyone from coverage. This means parents will now be able to exclude driving-age

children in the household from their policy. Right now, many parents have to

claim any children under twenty-five, whether they drive the vehicle or not. If

a household has two or three-driving age kids at home, this can cost parents

thousands of dollars a year. Our excluded driver endorsement provision will

reduce the premium paid by the parents. If the excluded person drives the car

and gets into an accident, the vehicle is considered uninsured and the driver is

subject to the penalties for driving without insurance. Mr. Speaker, we think

this is fair.

We are making several changes to the way companies are required to handle

claims. Companies must make interim payments to individuals whose claims are

being processed, and where liability is not in dispute. Companies must inform

policy holders of claims made against them, and the amount ultimately paid out.

We have had instances in this Province where drivers were not aware a claim was

made against their policy until it was time to renew. It was then that they

noticed their premiums had gone up, and a claim had been made. This practice

does not allow the driver to contest the accident. It just assumes that they

were at fault.

We also want to ensure the financial stability of companies starting up. This

is why we are increasing the minimum amount of capital required to start a

company to $3 million from the current $1 million. We think this is a more

practical figure in this day and age. The capital requirement has not changed in

about twenty years. Mr. Speaker, increasing the requirement ensures companies

starting up have significant investment behind them, and that they are serious

about undertaking the business venture. Companies must also give six months

notice before withdrawing from the auto insurance market in the Province. If

not, the penalty is a minimum fine of $100,000, up to a maximum of $1 million.

This is just a starting package of reforms. We are not done yet, Mr. Speaker.

Other measures will be discussed at the public hearing on auto, homeowner,

marine and commercial insurance. This bill gives the Public Utilities Board the

authority to conduct the hearing and a closed-claims study into what is causing

claims to go up. The hearing will require full disclosure from the insurance

industry. It will also give us a change to investigate other possible measures,

including: penalties for claimants who give false testimony; measures to combat

impaired driving; preventing claims from impaired drivers and uninsured

motorists involved in a not-at-fault accident; prohibiting insurance companies

from rating based on age, gender and marital status; and mandatory accident

benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of this package today, and of this reform, and

of the work done by my staff over the past six months. These reforms will result

in meaningful savings for the people of the Province. Government is acting in a

fair and balanced way by bringing in these initial reforms and holding a

hearing.

Mr. Speaker, people want adequate coverage at reasonable rates, and our plan

achieves that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to made a few comments in second reading on this

most important bill. I gather from the public reaction so far, since this bill

was tabled here in this House last Thursday, that it is indeed a very important

piece of legislation to the consumers of this Province, virtually all of whom,

at some time or other in their life, have to purchase auto insurance. The issue,

I should say, is important. I might not take a whole hour to address the matter

at this time, but I would like to make a few comments.

The issue of auto insurance is indeed very important to consumers of the

Province. I am not so sure that anything in Bill 30, vis--vis the deductible

issue, does anything to allay anyone's concerns. I am still somewhat amazed,

as well, by the minister's opening comments here in second reading where she

says she looks forward to the debate on this issue of Bill 30 in giving us some

answers to this insurance issue.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have asked the minister two succeeding days, yesterday

and today, in this House, questions about Bill 30 and, quite frankly, I have

been sloughed off, not worthy of a response, not worthy of being given any

information. In fact, I asked the minster a question yesterday and she said: I

cannot tell you the answer now because we will get into it when we get into the

debate - and the minister left her chair in this House and walked outside to the

media and gave them the very answer that I was looking for. Now that is not only

disrespectful to any member on this side who asks a legitimate question in

Question Period; that is disrespectful to the people of this Province.

I would like to think that I am asking questions in here not for my benefit

and enlightenment all the time, but hopefully it can be of some help to the

people of this Province, many of whom watch this thing on TV. It is an avenue of

education; it is an avenue of information for these people. Yet, the minister

did not see any need to give the answer to us yesterday. Just tell the media

when it suits our purposes. Then the minister stands up today in Question Period

and again sloughs off the answers. We will get to it in debate when we get down

to it. Now she stands up here in second reading and says: We will get into the

issues of this more when we get into debate.

Maybe the hon. minister does not know the rules of this place, but I always

thought that second reading was a part of the debate. Minister, we are engaged

in debate. Bill 30 is on. So, please, do not detract, do not deflect, do not

stall any longer. Please enlighten the consumers of this Province when we ask

you questions and we would like to get some explanation, not simply reading from

a prepared text and nobody gets any understanding of the background and the

rationale behind why you adopt a certain policy position. Let the people of this

Province understand, this is what our position is, this is where we came to this

position, and the logic and rational reasons why we came to this position.

You have gotten your opportunity now in second reading and you chose not to

do it. For God's sake, we look forward to, at some time, this minister

educating us and the people of this Province in terms of giving us information

on this most important issue.

Mr. Speaker, just to go back and set the grounding here, the background

behind all of this, and why we ended up here today with Bill 30. Last year -

there has been an outcry for many, many years in this Province about the

escalating cost of insurance premiums. We all have insurance ourselves. We have

a public liability component, which you must have by law, and then there are a

number of other types of insurance that you may or may not want on your vehicle.

You may want specified perils, you may want comprehensive. There are all kinds

of things that you can buy. Now, public liability you have to have. The law says

you have to have it or you cannot drive a vehicle in our Province. The other

matters of insurance, you decide whether you want them or not and you pay based

upon what you want.

The public liability thing, the rates generally have been going through the

roof. Some people blame it on the insurance companies and say: Those insurance

companies are gouging. That is why the rates are going through the roof. They

are making too much money. The insurance companies show their annual statements,

their books and whatever, and people say: You have made a killing on the backs

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What can we do to stop this escalation in

the premiums?

There have been committees of this House struck in the past, on the go since

1995-1996, looking for ways and options on how we might be able to fix it. So

far, nothing definitive came out of it. Other people pointed a finger at lawyers

and said: Ah, it is a money-making racket for the lawyers. One time, if you went

and had an accident, a fender-bender with somebody, you might have had a stiff

neck for a few days or whatever and home you go. Nowadays, your insurance

company is going to pay a buck for that, a few bucks. I think the average

settlement in the late 1990s was $32,000 or $33,000. I was involved in it

myself, as a lawyer. I often acted for people in personal injury actions in

Western Newfoundland in my law practice for twenty years. A lot of people blame

those money-grubbing lawyers for wanting to make money, and that is why the

rates went up, because every Tom, Dick, Harry, Mary, Joseph and Josephine who

wanted to have an accident, or had an accident, was going to recover some money.

We want to adopt the American way. I am your lawyer, who will fight for you. If

you slip and fall, give me a call. That was what we heard on the airwaves. We

have law firms who even got into advertising on our TV programs, on our

televisions and radios - never, ever, heard of it - sponsoring Open Line shows

and everything.

Mr. Speaker, I am, I think, fair enough to say that maybe it is a little bit

everybody's fault. Maybe there has been a fault that this has escalated

because of lawyers' actions in promoting. I am not saying that is bad. If

somebody gets an injury you ought to recover. There is no question about that if

you have a legitimate injury, and there is nothing wrong with an insurance

company making a reasonable return on their investment. They have shareholders

who put money into their companies and they are entitled, like any company who

has shareholders, to get a reasonable rate of return. But, wherein lies the

balance of the insurance company interest and the lawyer's interest but most

importantly, the interest of the consumer. That is the big one here. It is not

only between lawyers and insurance companies. The main one that we, as

legislators, have to be concerned about, is where does the consumer fit in this

puzzle?

I cannot get up here and talk because I might wear a lawyer's hat

sometimes, or I have two sons who wear lawyer's hats. I have to speak here

because I believe in something that is right for the people. That is why I am

here today. I am not here as a lawyer, I am here as an MHA; as a representative

of the people, the consumer. So, what was the approach that different parties

took to this dilemma of increasing cost? What did we do?

The former Liberal Administration came up with a plan. They said, here is our

plan. We will give you an option. We will give the option of continuing to pay

for what - these injuries, by the way, are called soft tissue injuries. It is

called non-pecuniary loss. You hear lawyers flipping around these words all the

time, but basically, you get in a car accident, if you have a soft tissue injury

or some - usually of a minor nature and there was compensation paid for that,

for those types of injuries. This government said: look, if you want to maintain

your right to sue because you have gotten those types of injuries, we will allow

you to do that. That is up to you. You can walk into the insurance company of

your choice and you can purchase that kind of insurance, if you wish. You can

maintain all the rights, the benefits that you now have, but, of course, the

downside to that is you, the consumer, if you want to have those rights you are

going to have to pay whatever rates and premiums it is that the insurance

companies charge you. It is like if I want to drive a Jaguar versus I want to

drive a bicycle, I am going to pay for what I want to purchase. So, that was

part of the Liberal Administration plan; option A we will call it. You buy want

you want in terms of coverage.

You have to have public liability, yes, basic minimum amounts, but if you

want more, if you want the right to sue somebody for soft tissue injury, you can

buy it. The other part, option B, of the Liberal plan was: If you do not want to

have that and you do not want to buy it, we will legislate a system whereby we

will mandate, by law. There will be public liability for everybody and insurance

companies must give a 30 per cent reduction in the premiums that they charge; 30

per cent on public liability. But, in order to get that 30 per cent, you had to

restrict the rights of the person to sue. You can have the cheaper model if you

want, but do not think once you had an accident that you can come back and sue

because you had a soft tissue injury. Now, you could still sue if you had a

serious, permanent disability, not a problem. Under either option A or B, you

could sue, but for the small minor, soft tissue injuries, no recovery but you

get 30 per cent less on your rates; or you can take B option, or A option I call

it, pay for what you like and maintain all of your rights but you paid more.

That was called the Liberal plan.

What do we get then? We had the Williams plan, I call it. That was when the

present day Premier was Leader of the Opposition, last August I believe it was.

The Premier and the Member for Conception Bay South, who was the then critic of

Government Services and Lands, sat here in Confederation Building in the media

centre I believe, and made a big announcement about: Williams introduces

policies to reduce automotive, home and commercial insurance. Now, under that

system, that this current government told the people of this Province in this

written release, which I have taken off their news press, off their wire, they

said: A cap of $2,500 on minor soft tissue injury claims.

What that group said, the Tories said last August: We will give you a 20 per

cent reduction on average in your insurance premiums, and we are going to

institute a cap, so that if you get injured, no matter - before, for example,

someone might recover $1,000 or $5,000 or $10,000 or $25,000 or $30,000, what

they called the minor types, not the extreme permanent disability type of

injuries. But for minor sprains and minor injuries, you would be limited to

$2,500. That is pretty good too, because what was happening there is that at

least the insurance companies had some consistency. The insurance companies

could say in that case: Yes, we can give you a reduction now on your insurance

costs because we know for all of those soft tissue injuries of a minor nature,

the most we have to pay out is $2,500. That is why that was a manageable, doable

system.

I did not agree with a $2,500 cap. To me, personally, I thought it was

insignificant. I prefer the option of either you have it all, if you want to buy

it, or you have none. Why stick in this $25,000 cap, which I thought was an

appeasement to somebody for $2,500? To me, you either got a serious injury and

you are going to recover or you have a minor injury and you are going to recover

or you do not have one. Anyway, that was their proposal on the cap. The

insurance companies did not seem to mind the cap. The consumer would have

benefitted from the cap. So, off we go with the two plans - and the NDP, of

course, had a third plan called the public insurance system. Governments should

get involved, public should get involved. A whole new comprehensive system

should be devised called public insurance, which would again be under the

control of government.

We had three plans out there as of last August. The then Opposition agreed

that within 120 days of taking office, their plan of August of last year, would

be implemented. Now, I think we are a far cry removed from October 21 when they

became the government last year, and what do we get? We get Bill 30, which is a

watered-down version.

That is the background of what we had, three different plans. The government

have gone from a cap which would limit what you recover for soft tissue injuries

to $2,500, to now, in this Bill 30, this government is now, today, saying that

there is a $2,500 deductible. In other words, if you have an auto accident today

and your claim works out to be, once the lawyers and the insurance companies and

the medical people are all involved, and if, at the end of the day, the parties

feel that claim is worth $10,000, for example, the law will say: You do not get

$10,000 back. There is a deductible of $2,500. So, in that case, you are only

going to get $7,500 back even though your claim is $10,000.

Now, the question is: What does that do for rates for the insurance

companies? What does that do for rates that the consumers pay? Who wins? Who

gains? And, is that any way to try to bring the rates down? Well, it is quite

obvious that it is not, and there are a lot of reasons why. For example, I think

the silence is deafening from the legal community. I might be ostracized for

making such comments, being one of the fraternity, but I am certainly entitled

to my opinions as well. It is amazing how silent the legal fraternity have

become now. The only people who you have not seen in the media talking about

auto insurance in the last three months, or four months, is the legal fraternity

- other than one gentleman. I have to hand it to him, he is very forthright. He

had the guts and the gumption downtown here in St. John's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, no, a St. John's lawyer had the nerve to come out one

day and say: Well, we do not mind that system, the deductible. Why would we? All

that means is that we are going to tack 2,500 bucks onto the claim. Now, there

is a very honest lawyer, a man who admitted, a member of the practicing

fraternity in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, who said: We do not mind

that. If the claim is $10,000, we simply put in the claim for $12,500, thank you

very much. So, that is why we have not heard from the legal fraternity. In fact,

the idea of a deductible - anybody who wants to go back and check the records on

that House committee we talked about back in 1994, 1995, 1996 and again in 1998

and whatever, you go back and look around. There is a proposal floating around

in one of those committees in submissions from a firm called Williams,

Roebothan. In it, no doubt, there are suggestions about maybe we could use a

deductible. I think we got some idea where the minister got her idea of a

deductible from. No question. In fact, not to malign the man - he is obviously

there and ought to pick up for his profession and his job; it is his income -

but the first person to call into the Open Line show when the deductible was

announced was Mr. Steve Marshall of Williams, Roebothan. The first called to the

Bill Rowe show Open Line, saying the deductible was a great idea. So we know

where the lawyers stand on this.

MR. E. BYRNE: He had a right (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader, and as I just said if

he had been listening intently, Mr. Marshall has a right to defend himself, his

company, his occupation, and do whatever he feels, but that does not take away

from my right to comment on what he did or did not say, I say to the Government

House Leader, and I shall continue to state what I know to be the truth and the

facts. He came on the Open Line show and said he was in favour of and liked the

deductible. He was the first caller of the morning, and since that you have

heard zilch from the legal community about this deductible. I say to the

Government House Leader, the reason you have not heard from lawyers is because

this is what lawyers want. We are not concerned in this House, not to be

concerned only about what lawyers want. We ought to be concerned, as I said from

the beginning, with what is in the best interests of the consumer. Never mind

the lawyers, never mind the insurance companies, but what is right for the

consumer. Mr. Speaker, this Bill 30, using the deductible formula, will not give

to the consumers of this Province the premium breaks that they deserve and want.

The deductible will not do it.

Mr. Speaker, you asked about reaction. Again, do not get the impression here

by anybody's imagination that I am pro insurance companies. I have concerns,

too, about: Do insurance companies disclose their information properly? I do not

think they do. I say to the Member for Lake Melville, I do not think they do. I

think there ought to be full, complete, verifiable disclosure and accountability

to the insurance companies who operate in this Province and sell the products to

the people of this Province. Absolutely. If it takes putting teeth into Bill 30

to do that, which it will, if it takes changing the Public Utilities Board's

authority to demand information and disclosure, it should be done. Absolutely.

The insurance companies should not get off and be allowed not to give

disclosure. Whatever is necessary for anybody, whether it be government or

Public Utilities Board in this Province, to arrive at what is fair for the

consumer ought to be done. No question about it. That is what this is all about,

the balance I come back to between the insurance companies' right to make a

reasonable return and the lawyers' rights to do what they are doing, but most

importantly what the consumer is allowed to do.

Now, we talk about reaction. I say to the minister, maybe she is not

concerned about the reaction. So far today, in twenty-four hours - this hit the

House here last Thursday and no doubt copies of the Bill 30 went out to the

insurance companies, and they have had a chance to look at it.

We only have a certain number of providers of auto insurance in the Province,

and in the last twenty-four hours we have two companies, one Aviva of which the

president is a lady by the name of Jennifer Power, herself a Newfoundlander and

Labradorian, I believe. That company Aviva Canada sells 24 per cent of all the

insurance policies in this Province, 24 per cent. One company has ninety-five

employees in this Province. Here is another company called Dominion Insurance.

They have, I believe, 8 per cent to 10 per cent of the market in Newfoundland.

If you had those two companies together, 35 per cent of all auto insurance in

the Province - these two companies have put the government on notice that,

number one, we are not selling any new policies. In fact, Aviva made it quite

clear, as of June 2, tomorrow, no new policies. We will honour what we have out

there, no question, but as of January 1, 2005, we are out of here, because under

Bill 30, under the deductible, they can't exist. Now, I believe, as well, it

is up to them to prove that they can't exist. We shouldn't give them any

breaks just because they come to us with a big stick either, and say: We are out

of here, if you don't do what we want. I have no problem with that. There are

ways around that. That might be just a threat on their part too. Let's put

their feet to the fire when it comes to saying - you say you are going to leave,

let's see if you will.

There are some things wrapped up in this, Minister, that are concerning, very

concerning. The Premier, for example - the media expressed to me, when I just

died a scrum, that the Premier didn't seem too concerned, that 35 per cent of

the auto insurance providers in this Province are going to be withdrawing, are

even threatening to withdraw. I am not concerned about the threat they are

making to withdraw, as much as I am about the Premier's refusal to even meet

with them. I understand they managed to get a meeting with the minister. They

managed to have a meeting with the minister after several attempts to do so, but

cannot get a meeting with the Premier. No disrespect to the minister, in her

capacity as a minister, but this is of major importance. The Premier, you must

remember, is also the Minister of Business. I don't believe he is the Minister

of Business only for the purpose of growing business. He is the Minister of

Business to ensure, I believe, that the climate exists so that the businesses we

have will continue to stay here and continue to grow, not to just bring in new

ones.

When the Minister of Business and the lady - Mrs. Power, President of Aviva,

said in her letter, this is her quote: We have been attempting to discuss

automobile reform with you - this is addressed to Premier Williams - for the

past three months.

MR. SKINNER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: As a matter of fact, I say to the Member for St. John's

Centre, I tabled the letter. It is on the table if you would like to get a copy

and read it. I can only table you what I have, Sir. This is a letter that was

provided by the President of Aviva and it is only draft form, or whatever. I can

only give you what I have. I am sure, draft or no draft, President Power has

signed her name to this letter. I am not going to question the lady's

credibility. Maybe you will, but I am certainly not going to question President

Power's credibility and honesty in making those statements.

She says that she could not get a meeting with the Premier for three months.

Maybe the Premier does not mind, but I would hope the Minister of Business would

mind if we got ninety-five employees of one company who could be out the door,

if we have 24 per cent of our options as an insurance provider out the door. I

think that is very serious. I think that is, at the very least, deserving of a

meeting. Whether it is a threat on their part or not, the minister and the

Premier of this Province ought to be sitting down and talking with these people.

If they have anything worthwhile to say, they should be listened to. If there

are concerns that the minister and the Premier have about disclosure, openness,

accountability and competition, the Premier and the minister should make their

concerns known.

You talk about reaction of the consumer. We dealt with the lawyers reaction.

None. We have dealt with the insurance company's reaction. They are out of

here. The biggest one is left, the consumer. What does the consumer say? The

president of a provincial insurance consumer group, Craig Rowe - Mr. Rowe has

been around for awhile, very informed about insurance issues. He has been

involved in this debate for a long time. He knows his stuff. He is very well

respected. He represents a major insurance consumer group in this Province. His

comments are: it is going to have very little or no impact on the insurance

market. The $2,500 deductible will be totally useless. All they will do is just

add the deductible onto the amount of a settlement. Window dressing.

I ask the minister, you can stand up here and toot the virtues of Bill 30 all

you want, but, Minister, if the head of the consumer group, a major consumer

group, is saying that Bill 30 is window dressing, particularly the deductible

piece, if the insurance companies - at least 35 per cent of them who do business

in this Province, and we are only into this yet by a couple of days. We will see

where the other insurance companies are going to stand in the next few days. I

am sure we have not heard from all of them yet. If you take these two major

groups, surely there must be some concern that Bill 30 does not cut it in terms

of looking after the consumer.

There are some things in it, some minor changes in Bill 30, which are good.

In fact, a lot of the stuff in there was put forward by the former

Administration. There are no concerns about that, like the Facility insurance,

for example, the fact that Facility now just cannot deny you and throw you out

the door or put you in Facility if they feel they want to, without giving you

any reasons and explanations. That is good stuff. Make them accountable. The

Facility Association must file a report with the superintendent. That is good.

Again, openness and accountability. Brokers must make disclosure, so that if you

walk in through a door and you are trying to negotiate an insurance package,

they have to tell you. Who is to know? You do not know if the insurance agent

has a particular arrangement with a certain broker, and why they recommended one

broker to you over another. Now they must disclose to you how many brokers they

represent. If they have ten brokers in their stable, and you walk into see agent

Joe, Joe has to tell you now: I deal with ten brokers. This is my relationship

with them, and this is the deal that I asked all ten. I put your quote to them,

and this is what I got back. Obviously, the one here from company x is the best

for you. Total disclosure. Good stuff. Ought to be there. Giving notice of

claims and so on is there. Settling your claims, putting an onus on the

insurance companies to settle claims in a reasonable time limit, that is all

good stuff. No problem. The issue of the seat belt reduction, absolutely no

problem. If anything in legislation is going to encourage people to wear their

seat belts, we have to and ought to do it. No questions about that. That is good

stuff.

Where Bill 30 differs is two major aspects. One is the deductible. Again, you

can call it what you want, government members. You can call it what you want,

but the people of this Province - and remember them - they are your voters. They

are your constituents, as they are mine. They have sons and daughters and they

have their own cars and vehicles that they insure. It is not lost on the people

watching this on TV or when you are asked a question in Tim's and I am asked a

question in Tim's to explain where you stand on insurance coverage. It is not

lost on them that they are not getting a break. All they want to know, quite

rightly, is: What are you going to do to give me a break in my pocket in terms

of my premiums? That is the essential question of the consumer. We do not want

to get wrapped up in a PC plan versus a Liberal plan or an NDP plan. What is

going to save me some money right there?

Maybe you do not want to face the facts of it. Maybe this government does not

want to own up to what is the truth of the situation, but there are two very

obvious comments to be made. Number one is, you broke your commitment again. In

the last two months or three months since this House convened, there have been

at least fifty incidents said about where this government have broken their

commitments. Here is another one. We say, in August, a $2,500 cap. We say, in

February, a $2,500 deductible. Now, I have explained the difference between one

and the other. One would have guaranteed you, under even a PC plan, a 20 per

cent reduction. All of a sudden, we are to a deductible which, according to Bill

30, only mandates a 9 per cent reduction on the public liab