November 17, 1997          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLIII  No. 31


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand that before we move to Statements by Ministers, the Premier wishes to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of this Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the members opposite for giving me leave.

Today, I rise in the House to pay tribute, Mr. Speaker, to one of the most colourful and most effective politicians who have ever served the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and may I say as well, that the hon. Jack Pickersgill was one of the most social- minded people in public life ever to serve this Province.

Mr. Pickersgill, together with the hon. Joseph R. Smallwood, worked to bring the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador into the country we proudly call our own - Canada.

Mr. Pickersgill was born at Wyecombe, Ontario in 1905 and became one of our Provinces most prominent adopted sons. Just as we adopted Canada with great enthusiasm and passion so, too, did Jack Pickersgill adopt us.

He served this Province as the Member of Parliament for Bonavista-Twillingate from 1953 to 1967 and as Newfoundland and Labrador's representative in the federal Cabinets of four Prime Ministers.

One of Mr. Pickersgill's most outstanding achievements was the development of an employment insurance program for fishermen. And I want to quote Mr. Pickersgill: "Of all the things I have done," - and indeed his achievements were legion - he once said, `what mattered the most was my connection to Newfoundland," and he referred with great pride to his ability to have found a way to have given fishermen, seasonal workers, unemployment insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all the members of this House, and indeed, for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when I extend our deepest thanks, appreciation, for a public life which contributed so much to this Province and I extend, as well, our sympathy to his wife Margaret, and to his children, Peter, Allan, Ruth and Jane of Glovertown.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, join with the Premier in certainly paying tribute to an individual who has devoted a considerable portion of his life to serving people here in this Province, and certainly we send our deepest regrets to the family of the late Mr. Pickersgill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the efforts of Jack Pickersgill. As representative of Newfoundland in the federal Cabinet, he was very effective. We Newfoundlanders have always needed good and effective friends in Ottawa and Jack Pickersgill certainly played a significant role in the development of the Province.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, that we were making the same progress these days, in terms of meeting national standards for income and quality of life that we were meeting in the days of Jack Pickersgill. Condolences are offered, of course, to his family. His son Allan was a schoolmate of mine at University here in Newfoundland. The family, of course, will be having their own remembrance of Mr. Pickersgill but he should also be well remembered by all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before my hon. colleagues here on opening day to put forward the government's program for the sitting of the House of Assembly. We have a full and important slate of issues to deal with and I want to assure the hon. members that the House will be open on a regular basis to address those matters. There will be ample time for debate of the issues and I am sure there will be lively and productive discussion on all matters.

Mr. Speaker, this government has shown great flexibility in opening the Legislature to deal with important issues. I want to assure the House today that when Term 17 -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible). The House Leader is having (inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, this government has always shown great flexibility in opening the Legislature to deal with important issues. I want to assure the House today that when Term 17 is passed by the Federal Government we will ensure that the new Schools Act is passed in a timely fashion so it may be implemented for the new school year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I would like to take a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to highlight some of the bills which will be introduced in this sitting. We will introduce a number of important bills regarding justice issues. A bill to amend the Human Rights Code to prohibit sexual orientation as a grounds for discrimination will also be introduced. We will also seek to amend the Family Law Act, which will allow us to create provincial child support guidelines consistent with the federal guidelines implemented earlier this year. Further legislation will permit the appointment of an additional judge to the Unified Family Court.

Mr. Speaker, a substantial number of bills having to do with the financial affairs of the Province will also be brought forward. Among those are bills which deal with the Public Service Pension Plan and Memorial University Pension Plan. In addition, important measures such as amendments to the Income Tax Act which will provide a tax credit for lower income individuals will be addressed. This action was announced in the Budget and it is hoped we may deal with this issue in a timely fashion so as to have credit cheques in the mail before Christmas.

We will also deal with several important pieces of health legislation, among which is a bill that will allow nurse practitioners to perform their duties and another which will permit the transfer of community service functions from the Department of Human Resources and Employment to the community health boards.

From the Department of Environment and Labour, we will introduce legislation to deal with the recommendations of the Morgan Cooper report and outline an appropriate labour relations regime for the offshore oil industry. In addition, we will seek amendments to the Shops' Closing Act.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has committed $340 million for the Labrador Transportation Initiative. We intend to introduce legislation that will establish a trust fund to receive these federal monies and which will ensure funds are available for this fiscal year.

In the area of Fisheries and Aquaculture, we will present an amendment to the Professional Fish Harvesters Act which will ensure that individuals connected to the industry have the right to be heard regarding decisions of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board.

As always, Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to the protection of the environment for future generations. That is why we shall introduce amendments to the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act to provide for provisional reserves and give authority to enforce the Act.

A number of bills have originated from the Department of Government Services and Lands, one of which will give electronically filed information the same legal authority as information filed on paper.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the bills which we intend to address during this sitting of the House of Assembly. In fact, we hope to give Notice of Motion on many of these bills today and with the concurrence of members opposite, we will do first reading. We hope to deal with the business of the House in an expeditious fashion and to fully debate these issues in a productive manner for eventual passage.

Mr. Speaker, esteemed colleagues, I look forward to this sitting of the House of Assembly, and I am ready to get down to business at hand. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr, Speaker. I'm very pleased to be able to welcome the members back. We have been awaiting their arrival for some weeks. We expected them to be here by mid-October. We are pleased to see them back, but when I look at what the House Leader on the government side has put forward here today, I look for things to address the real issues. Out-migration. I want to see what you are doing to municipalities. We talk about an ecological reserve. I want to tell the House that if you are living outside the overpass that all outside the overpass falls into the category of endangered species.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to you, we came here to address the real issues. What is happening out in school board number five with the pending lay off of another seventy-five teachers? We want to know the real things, the real issues. Where are the jobs? We want to know when the promise of a better tomorrow is going to arrive for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We hear the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in Gander, carried in yesterday's paper, saying to people: Boy, if you think things have been tough, they are going to get tougher. That is what we are coming here to now. We are coming here now to make things tougher for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

That is what we have here today. If this is all you can offer, then I tell you, you haven't been doing much homework over the last six months. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opening of the House. It allows us to debate the important issues of the day, and it certainly also allows candidates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party to show their stuff, so we should have a very vigorous session of the House. Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: You showed your stuff (inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, what is absent from the legislative agenda in the speech from the Government House Leader is the significant changes to the Workers' Compensation legislation that were brought in and recommended by the report of the statutory review committee that were going to significantly improve the position of injured workers in this Province, and restore some of the dignity that was taken away by them by this government some years ago. That is absent from the legislative agenda of the minister.

I don't hear the government speaking out on behalf of the poor people of this Province who are day in day out having their children go to school hungry.

I have not heard about a school lunch program being promoted by this government. We will hear about that day in and day out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: But I am glad to have this open so that we can bring these issues to the forefront.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to present to this House a mid-year report on the Province's finances for the fiscal year 1997-98.

In March, the government presented a three-year fiscal plan in its 1997 Budget. This was the first plan of its kind in the Province's history. It was intended to bring stability and predictability to the Province's finances, end mid-year budgetary adjustments -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: - and create a climate for job creation and economic growth.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the plan is working. This year, for the second time in a row, there will be no mid-year budget adjustment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: There will be no unplanned downsizing. There will be no pre-Christmas lay-off of public servants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, let me review what was said in the Budget and the progress we have made.

Our revenue forecast has been accurate and has improved somewhat since budget time. Our expenditures have increased primarily in the fields of health care and the educational systems. We will, however, meet our budgetary targets.

The provincial economy has performed better than forecast. Employment increased by 0.5 per cent between January and October of this year over last year. Employment increased in October alone by about 6,300 jobs.

More than 2,000 new jobs in the fish processing sector added a much needed boost to parts of rural Newfoundland, reflecting the reopening of the cod fishery in certain parts of the Province, increased crab and shrimp quotas, and the allocation of a shrimp quota to the inshore fishery for the first time ever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: The Harmonized Sales Tax has had a substantial impact on retail trade in this Province. Sales were up 6.1 per cent in the January to August period this year over last.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: As a result of these improvements, the provincial economy will decline by 1.6 per cent rather than the 2.7 per cent decline forecast at budget time.

Mr. Speaker, during the last provincial election we acknowledged that these years, 1996 and 1997, would be difficult years for the Province and for our provincial finances. We believed the economy would improve after 1997, with strong economic growth in 1998 and beyond. Most of this growth will come from major resource projects and developments. However, increased employment and commercial activity will not immediately increase provincial government revenues. Royalties from resource projects in particular are delayed until major development costs are recovered. We must therefore continue a careful and cautious fiscal approach since the direct benefits to the Province from our large resource projects are still some time away.

While we can and do take heart from these economic improvements, we cannot be foolish and spend money which has not yet accrued to the treasury. We must keep our expenditures in line with our revenues.

Mr. Speaker, we are confident in the future of our Province. Our plan to restore fiscal stability is working,. Our economy will improve substantially and our people will enjoy greater opportunities for economic growth and employment. For our part we must stay on track and create a positive economic climate in which businesses will flourish and jobs be created. We are committed to growth. Today's statement demonstrates that. Through careful planning we are keeping that commitment. Our plan is fair, reasonable, and most importantly, effective. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No wonder this Province is in trouble. A three-year plan, two little pages in a budget talk about a three-year plan that has no detail, no programs, no direction. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board thinks we have a fiscal plan for our Province? I say there is something drastically wrong when we are spending more on legal bills and lawsuits than we are spending on seniors who are being starved to death here in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He stands and has the gall to tell us we do not have a midyear correction, when they put a cushion of $30 million contingency reserve fund into the Budget to allow for those legal bills, yes, and other pending costs. It is little consolation, I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, that 7,000 people left our Province in the last year. They are the people you should talk to about an improvement in the economy. To stand here and to tell us they are happy, things are improving because their decline is only 1.6 per cent? I mean, a government that is satisfied with any type of decline is a government that doesn't care about the future of people in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister must realize that there are 16,000 less people working in this Province today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's -

MR. SULLIVAN: - than when the Liberals came to power.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if 16,000 less people working is a sign of progress, 16,000 in the Province today, the gateway - this Province is open one way. If that is progress here, this government has a job to do. It has to reassess its priorities and to look forward to giving us a fiscal plan that is going to serve us well into the 21st century.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

 

Oral Questions

 

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier and they deal with Voisey's Bay.

The Premier seems to be fast tracking everything but changes to the mineral and mining tax legislation, the one thing that will affect every person in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to ask the Premier: if he can tell the people of the Province today, why he has not brought amendments to this act into the House of Assembly?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we are currently developing a new tax act that will ensure that the Province receives a fair share in a very competitive environment.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard of the one year delay with respect to this project. This government is reviewing all of our options; we have hired some expertise around the world. When we bring this bill forward, we have plenty of time, it will be the right bill, rather than a rushed bill.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not an act they are developing, it is an act that they are putting on, I say to this House. We have been promised for three sessions now that we would see this legislation.

Is the Premier aware that taxes fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance and I ask him how much longer can we expect the Province to wait for this legislation?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, he is quite right that this falls within the ambient of the Minister of Finance, but it is also something that has to be discussed with the Minister of Mines and Energy. There are a whole range of complex issues. Ultimately, when the bill is tabled, it will be tabled through the Department of Finance.

We have hired experts from around the world to give us the best advice possible. There are a whole range of complex issues that have entered into this equation, Mr. Speaker. Issues such as: how much will be paid to the aboriginals, will there be off sets, what about the industrial benefits agreement and impact benefits agreement that the company is negotiating, equalization, a whole range of issues? This is not a simple issue. It is a very complex issue and when we bring this legislation forward, it will be good legislation rather than rushed legislation.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister tell us who the experts are that are providing the advice to government with this new legislation because I remember back two years ago when the former Premier met with people, so called experts, and brought legislation that he tabled here in the fall of 1995. Can you tell us who the experts are that are giving advice now on tax legislations in this government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, once again the Leader of the Opposition is campaigning to maintain the current bill, which would give an unacceptable tax holiday to Inco. We are not prepared to give Inco a ten year tax holiday for a one day tax holiday, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition has nearly exhausted himself, suggesting that this holiday be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, nobody, by the way - as I understand, all parties of the House supported the bill when it was brought forward, the current bill. The Leader of the NDP says he did not support it, but all of the Conservative members did I believe, but nobody could have anticipated a find like Voisey's Bay and the fact that there is a Voisey's Bay development and there is a Voisey's Bay find, requires prudence and caution and care in drafting a bill and that is what the Minister of Mines and Energy is saying and may I say as well, that I certainly welcome, as I am sure many other readers of the Evening Telegram did, welcome the sensible advice contained in an editorial in the telegram a few days ago. When the editorial pointed out, that now that we have the framework for an agreement in principal on the LIA Land Claims Agreement, now that we are moving forward to fast track the negotiations with the Innu, Mr. Speaker, prudence requires, we take our time on the mineral and mining tax regime and get it right.

Mr. Speaker, we intend in this matter, because generations of Newfoundlanders will be affected by it, we intend to be prudent, careful and do our job right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I gather The Evening Telegram is now dictating legislation for our Province. I got it from the Premier, that's his advice. (Inaudible) experts that he is going to tell us.

Now Inco purchased Voisey's Bay from Diamond Field with a ten year tax holiday on the books. Yes, that the former Liberal government put in and we have been calling to have changed. Now can the Premier guarantee that amendments to the mining and minerals tax rights legislation would stand up to a legal challenge by Inco and has the Premier sought and received a legal opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should take note that we now have the extraordinary circumstance of the Progressive Conservative Party of this Province advocating that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a legal obligation to give a ten year tax holiday to Inco.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Leader of the NDP is not associating himself with this policy position because I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, we are going to wipe out the ten year tax holiday and we challenge him to support the government in its efforts to ensure a full return of the benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question did not sound complicated, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Premier did not understand it.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not surprised.

MR. SULLIVAN: I said I am surprised; I have to give him that much credit. It probably went over his head.

I ask the Premier, can he really guarantee and assure the people of this Province that he is in control of the Voisey's Bay project? Now why is the Premier afraid to tell Inco what the minerals are worth? I ask the Premier: At what business school did he learn to let the customer set the price? I ask him, will he admit today that Inco and Voisey's Bay officials are pulling his strings and making decisions that are best for Inco to the detriment of the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, he can repeat it until he is blue in the face, the fact of the matter is we on this side of the House reject the proposition that Inco is entitled to a ten year tax holiday. We reject the assertion by the Leader of the Opposition that they have a legal right to a ten year tax holiday and we put the position that there will be no ten year tax holiday for Inco or for Voisey's Bay Nickel. There will be a full share and a full share of the benefits both in royalties and in jobs and in opportunities and in procurement for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and as we have always said, if that is not the case there won't be a development with Inco or with anybody else. We are going to insist upon the full benefit for the Province, no tax holidays for anybody, no matter how many times the Leader of the Opposition makes the case on behalf of his friends at Inco.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, a minister who hopefully knows more of what is going on in his department, Mr. Speaker, than the previous minister that I was critic for, who did not have a clue of what was going on in the Province or his department, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

To the Minister of Finance, will the minister confirm that government will be or is contemplating making changes to the retail sales tax legislation and regulations regarding the resale of used vehicles, namely forcing people to pay for money they did not spend?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government is contemplating a change to the Retail Sales Tax Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame.

MR. J. BYRNE: Could you repeat that, I did not hear you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Is the member asking me to repeat my answer?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

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

MR. DICKS: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Does the minister understand that it would be another unconscionable tax grab and that this Liberal government will be taxing money now spent by the already highest tax consumer in Canada?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker. This is a fair measure that the government is considering introducing. We did the study from a period from January through the following three months of a fiscal year. During that period the professed values shown on the Bills of Sale by people registering sales of private owners to other private owners was approximately one-third of the fair market value of those vehicles. So, either -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, they are just very good buyers.

The issue for the Province and for the people, Mr. Speaker, is, if a person contracts a sale with someone who is at arm's length and pays tax on the full, fair market value, should we allow to exist at the same time, another system where other people very often declare a value or contract sales that are about a third of fair market value, it is really not fair for one person to have to pay tax at $15,000 for a vehicle, another person to pay tax at $5,000. So, Mr. Speaker, the issue really is: What is a fair and equitable situation for everybody in this Province who transacts sales and incurs a tax liability to the government? We believe a transaction should be monitored and should be fair and the tax burden should be spread equally among the people of the Province.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Too bad, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot sell the minister for his book value. I tell you, you would not get too much for it.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that the proposed changes apply to the ordinary citizen and that this tax change will not apply to the car dealerships? What is coming next, taxes on the appraised value of ATVs, ski-doos, used furniture, fridges, stoves and what have you and, are we not, by using that system - what you are speaking of doing now - basically is a carte-blanche system, are we not basically punishing the innocent for the guilty?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker. There are two issues that the hon. member raised. The first is: To whom it applies. At this point, the only area we have identified as problematic is that between private individuals for the reasons I earlier stated.

If it proved to be a problem between dealerships and individuals then of course we would impose a suitable safeguard for the public 'per se ` as well. The second is that we are going to have an appeal mechanism so that people can go to another group if they disagree with what the fair market value is, as determined by the Red Book and seek an independent assessment and we will determine from whom and from which route we will accept an independent appraisal.

There was another point raised by the hon. member's question but has been drowned out by the member beside him.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will not sell your car (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I may, if the hon. member makes me a good enough offer and will certainly declare it at fair market value.

The other thing we intend to do, Mr. Speaker, is to set up a 1-800 number so that anybody contemplating buying a vehicle will be able to determine in advance what the Red Book value of it is, so he or she, in purchasing that vehicle, can make allowance for the taxes to be paid and taxes are often an issue to be negotiated between a vendor and purchaser in any event. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

For the last year or so, questions in this House that were asked of the previous Minister of Environment and Labour with respect to workers' compensation system - not the present minister - were always responded that the issues concerning Workers' Comp. are under review.

In May, Mr. Speaker, the Independent Statutory Review Committee tabled its report, clearly with a number of recommendations, and a scathing, scathing report, Mr. Speaker, with respect to government's recent Legislative Agenda and changes made to the Workers' Compensation Act.

I would like to ask the minister - the new Minister of Environment and Labour: What is government's agenda with respect to implementing the recommendations contained in that report, what is the agenda and when can injured workers in this Province see the recommendations in this report implemented?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The review was presented to the department back in May, and since that particular time, the officials were in the department and have been going through the thirty-plus recommendations. They are just about all finished and when they are, within the next two or three weeks or so, we will then be presenting the report to the Cabinet with the hope that the recommendations that have been aired can be acted upon. Obviously, if we were to act upon every recommendation that was in the report here, it would cost the compensation review another $60 million; obviously, the balance has to be found between looking after the injured worker and be fiscally prudent within the system itself.

I can say to the hon. member that we are proceeding, and hopefully within the next few weeks we can make the report available to Cabinet and act from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Environment and Labour believes that these recommendations are going to cost $60 million to implement, the only people he has listened to are the people at Workers' Compensation, because that is clearly not the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Also, if the minister is saying that they are proceeding with the recommendations according to the time line he has outlined - his officials have acted upon five recommendations per month. Mr. Speaker, the spirit of this report clearly comes down on the side of the injured worker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is -

MR. E. BYRNE: When will the minister move, and move quickly, to implement and put balance back into the system for the injured workers of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Whether it is done five per month, or whatever way you want to look at it, we are proceeding to deal with the recommendations. We take them seriously.

I have met with the Injured Workers Association, and have said to Mr. Haynes that there is nobody who will sympathize with him any more than I. Obviously, at the end of the day, we will make the recommendations that are best, that the Commission itself - I have talked to them as well. We will make the best recommendations that we can for the injured workers, but we will make sure that the plan remains viable and prudent, and we will do that as expeditiously as we can.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not said anything really. All he has said is that they are going to look at the recommendations, it is going to Cabinet, and it will be reported back to the House sometime.

What people are looking for today, Mr. Minister, with respect to the Workers' Compensation system, is action now that will put some balance back into the system for them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question for you remains: When can you confirm for this House that legislation that has to be enacted and changed with respect to this report will be done? Will it be done this fall, or will the people have to wait until 1998 or 1999 to see the spirit and the recommendations from this report implemented?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Can you answer that, please?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will act as expeditiously as we possibly can, and if we can do it in the fall, we will. I guarantee you, it will be done before 1999, but at the end of the day we will do what is right for the worker and what is right to make the plan fiscally prudent.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

In Gander on the weekend, the minister told the elected municipal leaders of the Province that things might be tough now but they will get tougher and rougher before municipalities can expect to see any increased help with their finances.

Given the fact that municipalities, especially those in rural areas of the Province, are seeing their communities dismantled piece by piece and bit by bit over a period of years now, how can this minister, who cut his political teeth at the municipal level, sit around and be part of a Cabinet table and a government that sees decisions made that are strangling municipalities in all parts of the Province, in particular, municipalities in rural Newfoundland?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening to his friend, the newly-elected president of the federation this morning on CBC, he would have heard that I did not say things were going to get worse. I did not say that. The media that wrote that story incorrectly quoted some comments that I made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: What I did say, Mr. Speaker, was that we are going now through a period of hope, I suppose, and that in the next year or so I am hoping that this government will reconsider what we have done, I suppose, in regard to municipalities over the last number of years, and at the end of the day I am hoping, as the minister of municipalities, that we can at least try in some way to assist municipalities in the Province from here on in, rather than -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: That is exactly what I said. I did not say that things were going to get any worse. I hope things do not get any worse, because I don't think most municipalities in the Province, especially rural municipalities - and the hon. member knows nothing about it because he is not in a rural municipality, he lives in a city.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: I hope it does not go any further because rural Newfoundland communities are the ones I am more concerned about, Mr. Speaker. I am not concerned about the Mount Pearls of the world, or the City of St. John's or the City of Corner Brook. I am concerned about the small rural communities in this Province and I think I can say that on behalf of everyone sitting on this side of the House.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the minister can tell me whether he is in the loop or out of the loop when it comes to decisions about Mount Pearl now. Because last year he admitted he was out of the loop and the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the tax base of municipalities is shrinking through business closures, through out-migration, the cod moratorium, et cetera. The changing demographics is meaning that those who can move out of rural Newfoundland very often are moving. I ask the minister: Why do you do more to foster resettlement than you do to encourage solid and consistent alternate economic development in rural Newfoundland?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley is asking this government to reconsider a resettlement program in the Province. I will tell you, Sir, this government will never consider a resettlement program! I will not be the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for any government that considers a resettlement program. Go back down in the bay. Send him back out in the bay where he came from, to get a feel for something other than Mount Pearl!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get my colleagues here to pass me some cigarettes for the minister so he can calm himself. I want to say to the minister: What I said was that your government is doing more to foster resettlement than you are to encourage economic development.

I finally want to say to the minister that we, on this side, believe that rural municipalities deserve a fair and equitable share of the Province's fiscal resources. I want to say to the minister, having admitted in Gander your failure to convince your Cabinet colleagues and going to Gander and blaming your Cabinet colleagues and saying to them: `Please give me help, I cannot do the job in there,' how can you today sit in Cabinet and come out and say these kinds of things? Mr. Minister, you have a choice. You can either quit on principle that you cannot get the job done, or you can ask to be replaced because you cannot fulfil the mandate as passed to you by the municipalities of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour, I suppose, on Saturday and Sunday to be with the largest group of municipal politicians I think that has ever come together for the Federation of Municipalities. I have to be quite honest and say to you, all that I got, and my colleagues that were with me on Saturday, the panel was -

AN HON. MEMBER: The most ministers ever attended.

MR. A. REID: Most ministers ever attended, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: I can honestly say, in the forty-eight hours I was there, and I say this unequivocally, there was not one person, not one councillor, not one mayor, who came up and spoke any - they came up and spoke nothing only praise for what we had been trying to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. REID: I have no problem with saying I am quite comfortable in the job as Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I feel that I have more compassion for rural communities in the Province than the vast majority of the elected city representatives that sit on the other side of the House. I quite honestly can say that the Federation of Municipalities have been long-time friends of mine, and have been to me as the minister for the past five years. I hope the Premier keeps me in the position for another little while, so that if and when it comes around that we might have a few dollars to help rural Newfoundland and municipalities, then I am the one who can go and make the announcement and say we are Liberals and we will try to do our best to accommodate rural Newfoundland in particular as much as we can.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: In saying that, Mr. Speaker –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. A. REID: In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I will add that because, I suppose, I am a bayman, I have a little bit more appreciation for rural Newfoundland, but then, with that said, I have to spend a fair amount of my time, on a daily basis, which I enjoy, looking after the cities in the Province as well.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is too bad that the minister did not give up smoking long before this because it is obviously taking its toll.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier of the Province.

Approximately one year ago, the federal Liberal Government reneged on its commitment and obligation to thousands of Newfoundland fishermen and plant workers by taking a full year of benefit away from the TAGS program. It was slated to end in 1999; now, the new date is May, 1998. I ask the Premier: would he today inform those thousands of hard-working, dedicated Newfoundlanders, who are presently going through a great turmoil in their life - would he inform them as to a replacement program for the TAGS program when it expires in six months time?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question and I would like to point out to him that we, on this side, are as concerned about what is going to happen in May of 1998 as anybody else in this Province or indeed, anybody else in this country and that includes himself. I know what we are all concerned about: What will happen to those 18,000 people?

To that end, Mr. Speaker, we have had various meetings. It is a federal responsibility. We are pointing out to them that it is a federal responsibility. We are telling them that it will not be taken care of through normal programming needs and that there is a definite need. We are impressing upon them the need to indeed undertake initiatives. In that regard, we hope and we believe that one of the chief vehicles we have to Ottawa - and the hon. gentleman will recall that on Friday afternoon I made a press statement saying that I would hope the Baker Fisheries Committee visits all of the areas affected in this Province rather than just along the South Coast and one stop on the Northern Peninsula, indeed, the Labrador Coast.

I might tell the hon. gentleman that we are also having a senior group of civil servants in this Province look at the TAGS program that is ongoing now as well as to look at how indeed we might be able to offer some advice to the Federal Government when and if the time comes, as to how a new program - a son of TAGS program if you would - might be structured. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that we are leaving no stone unturned to see that the Federal Government lives up to its responsibility of taking care of those 18,000 people, not through an income support program, not through any welfare program but through an income replacement program for something over which those people had no control. I want to assure him that if he has any advice to offer to us, please feel free to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, when this full year of salary was taken from the TAGS recipients, your Liberal cousins stated that funding would possibly continue after the May 1998 deadline if those who were eligible for their program were going to access EI or what have you. Would the Premier indicate today if those 18,000 people, who will be affected by this shameless act, can expect a cheque after May 15 of next year, and if so, for how long?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all members in this place would co-operate to make the case to the national government as effectively as possible, that there needs to be a follow-up program to TAGS. If the Federal Government has decided that TAGS should come to an end, then there needs to be a follow-up program. Mr. Speaker, one of the ways to effectively demonstrate the size of the need and the size of the problem is to have the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Fisheries - chaired, and I must say chaired very ably, by the Member for Gander - Grand Falls, George Baker - hold hearings in the parts of the Province most affected.

For example, on the Northeast Coast, the member opposite would have a good knowledge of the size of the impact of the loss to the fishery there, those who were formerly dependent upon fish in 2J-3KL; for example, on the Great Northern Peninsula, where there has been a devastation of people who formerly had a dependence on the cod fishery; on the Labrador Coast, where in many cases people have not yet had a chance to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, our hope is that in about - is it ten days time?

AN HON. MEMBER: November 23 or something.

PREMIER TOBIN: On November 23, when the Standing Committee comes to the Province, it will take whatever additional time that is required to go in particular to those parts of the Province where people are most affected, and give the fishermen and plant workers themselves a chance to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, we will fully support in every way we can - and the minister who has just spoken has taken up the responsibility on the Cabinet Committee for Rural Revitalization, and indeed has been in Ottawa and has met with Mr. Pettigrew - we will fully support all the initiatives to bring forth a successor program. We think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador most directly affected have to be given a chance to be heard.

MR. SPEAKER: Time for one quick question.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

Premier, you are the First Minister of this Province, not George Baker, not the fisheries Standing Committee in Ottawa, not Eugene Harrigan. I ask the Premier if he would today commit to taking a lead action and put forward the proposals of his government, taking into consideration possibilities like early retirement and licence buy-back. Premier, when will you take a lead role and not shrug off the responsibility as you are now doing, and as your predecessor did before you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you know, sometimes the facts should survive the cut and thrust of the Question Period. The fact of the matter is, this government is doing all of the things it can do and should do to make the case to the national government to bring forward a successor program.

I would remind the member opposite that I remember full well in 1993 a federal election campaign in this Province when the current leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Jean Charést, came to this Province and said: I cannot guarantee, nor am I prepared to announce on behalf of my party, a successor program to something that was then called NCARP. I remember full well, and by the way, the member remembers, because he was then involved with the union, that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada refused to bring forward a successor program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: What did I do? I brought forward a multi-billion dollar replacement called TAGS. That is what I did when I had the responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that successor program provided income for 27,000 families. Let me conclude by saying this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: This is the party opposite that in the last federal election campaigned on eliminating the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada because it said there is no future in the fishery. Mr. Speaker, we are doing our job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

 

Notices of Motion

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following resolution:

WHEREAS all Members of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly wish to underscore and emphasize their strong commitment to the unity of Canada; and

WHEREAS Canada's federalist premiers and territorial leaders met in Calgary on September 4, 1997, and agreed on a framework for discussion on Canadian unity; and

WHEREAS Members of this House have consulted Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on this framework and have found that citizens of the Province have a strong commitment to Canada, to the importance of Quebec's place within Canada; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are committed to the prosperity, vitality and wellbeing of Canada; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are supportive of reforming the Canadian federation so as to strengthen and improve the ability of the federal and provincial governments to work together for the benefit of all Canadians;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, on behalf of the citizens of our Province, endorses the Calgary declaration as follows:

All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law. All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status. Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance, compassion, and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world. Canada's gift of diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages, and a multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world.

In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlines unity, the unique character of Quebec's society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well-being of Canada.

Consequently, the Legislature and the Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec's society within Canada. If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one Province, these powers must be available to all Provinces.

Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions. Canadians want their governments to work cooperatively and with flexibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation. Canadians want their governments to work together, particularly in the delivery of their social programs. Provinces and territories renew their commitment to work in partnership with the Government of Canada to best serve the needs of Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code".

I further give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act".

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Government Services and Lands who is out of the Province on business today, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Transfer Of The Personal Trusteeship And Agency Business Of Montreal Trust Company Of Canada And Montreal Trust Company To The Bank Of Nova Scotia Trust Company", known as Bill No. 24.

On behalf of the same minister, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Enable Information To Be Filed Electronically By Business", Bill No. 38.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the same minister I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics Lien Act".

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act".

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act", Bill No. 40.

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act".

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following Private Member's resolution:

WHEREAS the provincial government has consistently reduced funding for municipalities in recent years, especially through drastic cuts in the municipal operating grant; and

AND WHEREAS the Provincial government has consistently and unfairly transferred additional responsibilities to the municipalities;

AND WHEREAS the Provincial governments down loading has increased the unfunded responsibilities of the municipalities;

AND WHEREAS many municipalities, especially in some rural parts of the Province, see their tax base eroding through out-migration, unemployment, business closures, etc.;

AND WHEREAS the government of Newfoundland and Labrador has through errors of omission and commission, actively participated in dismantling of rural communities little by little, service by service;

AND WHEREAS the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has stated that this will be a distant dream for rural municipalities to hope for a fair and equitable share of public resources;

AND WHEREAS increasing the tax rates and/or the assessed property values in many municipalities serves only to increase the accounts payable;

AND WHEREAS many municipalities are caught in financial dilemmas that has caused municipal councils to reduce services below reasonable levels;

AND WHEREAS the provincial government has the legal, moral and political responsibilities to do everything it can to preserve the integrity of local government in this Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly oppose any further transfers of unfunded liabilities to municipalities by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly direct the Provincial Government to restore the integrity of municipal level of government through a cancellation of all proposed cuts to municipal operating grant and that the Provincial Government aggressively negotiate a new municipal/provincial/financial relationship that recognizes the grave and imminent threat to the integrity of municipal government in all parts of the Province, but more particularly in rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following Bills entitled, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 and The Uniform Services Pensions Act, 1991, An Act To Establish The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, and An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of supplementary supply to Her Majesty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Petitions

 

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of - I do not know exact numbers, but hundreds of people of the community of Pacquet and Woodstock and I will read the petition first and make a few comments: To the hon. House of Assembly, legislation session convened. We the undersigned residents of the community of Pacquet and Woodstock do hereby strongly request the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to refrain from making further funding cuts to education in recognition of the negative impact that these reductions are having on the education of our children and Mr. Speaker, our future.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the last several weeks around my district and I know around other parts of the Province, the school councils which have been formed, which I will say is a positive aspect of the education reform, have taken it upon themselves to express their views and concerns that they see as education reform goes forward. I guess the bottom line and the whole essence of all these discussions that I have been to and I have been to five now in my district, five different places where on occasion I had our critic, the member for St. John's East and the member for Conception Bay South, accompany me to King's Point where we had a very lively discussion, Mr. Speaker, but all of these places, Mr. Speaker, have said: the bottom line of all this is that education reform was supposed to be for the better and that is what they look for, Mr. Speaker. But as they raise these concerns, yes, I have heard the minister say that it is all speculation, rumours, fearmongering by certain groups or by certain boards and whatever, but I still think that these parents with what these school councillors are made up of, have every right to express their concerns before the fact and it is no good to close the barn door after the horses are out.

In these particular places, Mr. Speaker, in Pacquet and Woodstock, they do not want to see more reduction in teachers, therefore finally I guess, Mr. Speaker, they do not want to see the death of the school in that community. What we have now, are small children travelling on buses and they do not want to see Kindergarten, Grades I and II, six and seven years old, heading over roads and to which I should add, that are deplorable at best in these particular areas, Mr. Speaker, so that it all relates and are all built together in the whole idea of rural Newfoundland now. It is not just the fact of the schools; it is the roads, the hospitals and so on. So, Mr. Speaker, what these people are doing, and they have every right to do that, is to express through petitions, through meetings they have had and so on, a view, to this government and to the minister that they are very concerned about more downgrading and more cuts, and like they have said to me, Mr. Speaker, point blank, and they said it to my colleagues in the meetings we have had - in Springdale also, we had a meeting, the Member for Windsor Springdale was there, they put forthright their concerns.

Now yes, it is fine to say, and I hope at the end of the day, that the Member for Windsor - Springdale and I, and the minister and everybody else can stand up and say: No, that was high numbers we have heard on re-allocation of teachers, we hope that they are wrong and that we all stand up and say: parents, you had your concerns but it did not come to fruition so I guess at least, you voiced your concern. That is all they are saying, Mr. Speaker. I talked to these people after some of these meetings were over and some of them did say that, we hope that it is right, that when the minister says that these reductions will not take place, Mr. Speaker, they are also hoping that very little of it takes place. Maybe you get the worst case scenario and you end up with something in between. Well I am hoping that is what it is because, in essence, what it is they are saying is: get on with education reform, support what is going on through Ottawa now, support it in your House of Assembly but at the same time, remember that in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, these schools in these communities mean a lot more than a building. They are the heart and soul of that community.

In Woodstock, Mr. Speaker, this particular school - as a matter of fact, I have had the pleasure of teaching there on occasion and, Mr. Speaker, the students whom they have turned out, they can be very proud of, and the parents in Pacquet and Woodstock contribute to that school and make it a very worthwhile part of that community, and I guess any time you see a threat of any type of a school or a hospital, it is just human nature and that is what these people have done here to express their views that they are concerned, that they do not want to see further cutbacks, so for the sake of the children of Pacquet and Woodstock and other communities around the Province but in particular today, Mr. Speaker, I stand proud to represent my constituents to say that they are concerned and they ask this government to, please look very hard at any further reductions and that they are minimized so that the bottom line at the end of the day is that the children of Pacquet and Woodstock are deserving and can get as good a quality of education as any where else in this Province because we are all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we all deserve equal treatment, especially when it comes to education.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today, Mr. Speaker, to rise in support of the petition as brought forward by my colleague the Member for the District of Baie Verte.

As the member indicated, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity several weeks ago to hear firsthand from a number of parents, students and teachers from a number of communities particularly in the Central Newfoundland area who, expressed serious concern, almost alarmed, Mr. Speaker, as to the status of the education system in this Province today and quite likely, Mr. Speaker, what has been proposed for the school year, 1998-1999.

Mr. Speaker, parents and students and teachers, many of whom form these new school councils have indicated that they are deeply concerned about proposed cuts to their schools and how these cuts will affect not only their schools but also the communities of rural Newfoundland. The smaller schools, the smaller communities.

They are wondering about their programs. They are wondering about their computer programs, their French classes, their physical education classes, their industrial arts classes, those programs which have a specialty nature to them and require those teachers with the specialization and with the expertise to ensure that students in smaller schools, in smaller communities, are given the same opportunity, there is an equal playing field for students in rural Newfoundland, and as it relates to students in our larger communities.

These are the concerns, and these are the concerns that have been expressed very clearly by these student councils, which when we met with them said to us: We are concerned about proposed cuts, we are concerned about the existence of smaller schools in rural Newfoundland, and therefore we are concerned about the very existence of our community.

The petition which was brought forward today is just one example of one community, but I can assure members of this House that these are concerns as expressed by many communities in our Province. Teachers have expressed concern, through their various branch presidents of the NLTA. School councils, which are perhaps one of the most positive parts of the new Schools Act, have expressed their concern. We must be vigilant at all times to ensure that smaller schools receive a fair representation and that our smaller communities are not short changed in any way as a result of any proposed cuts that may be envisioned by the minister with respect to his so-called plan of education reform in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to take a couple of minutes in response to the petition presented by members opposite.

I recognize fully and agree that the parents have every right to speak out with respect to issues that are of importance to them, and I'm very pleased that they are speaking out with respect to education, and encourage them to continue to do so. The only difficulty I've been expressing in response to what is happening, particularly in Central Newfoundland in District #5, is that it is at this point in time unnecessary, inappropriate. Because of the fact that the concern that they are expressing is based upon misinformation and improper information and unfounded speculation produced by the school board.

That at a point in time when students themselves, and teachers, are normally just getting back into the flow of a new school year - because this started the third week in September - schools were hardly open for this year before a document was circulated by the school board suggesting to parents in District #5 that in their schools, some fifty-odd schools, they may be going to lose as many as 122 teachers in September of 1998.

No wonder you would get parents, students, and student councils suggesting that they are concerned. From the very first day that I heard the information I asked the school board not to present the information, because it wasn't based on any fact. It was its speculation. It was not based on information received from the Department of Education.

To put it in context, there were three things that we dealt with, all arising from last year's Budget. One was that this school year now, we would agree with the school boards as to a designation of small, necessarily existent schools for September of 1998. For September of 1998, Mr. Speaker. Not September of 1997. All the schools that are operating are operating. They still have their small schools allocation. As a matter of fact, in a meeting with the school board chairs and directors just a few days ago, on Friday of last week, we have now understood that we have not quite finished that process yet, but within a week or ten days we expect to be able to agree upon which schools in each of the ten districts are small, necessarily existent schools.

The legislation that was passed here with the support of members opposite in the new Schools Act indicates that we are legally bound to name and gazette those small, necessarily existent schools. The resources that are going to go in them are to be identified by the government, and the school boards must allocate those resources into those schools.

What we had happening in District #5, places like Cottrell's Cove, which everybody who understands it knows, Mr. Speaker, was speculative information circulated by the school board whereby schools in places like Cottrell's Cove, which everybody who understands it knows that it is going to be necessarily existent, were told that they didn't know, they couldn't assure the parents, that it was going to be a small, necessarily existent school. No more they couldn't, because the discussion between the government and the school boards was ongoing, hadn't been concluded; still isn't concluded. Right away you have the people being alarmed because they aren't assured that any resources will be put into their school because the preliminary discussion had only just begun.

In previous years it has never been normal for any government to let school boards know what their teacher allocations are for a subsequent school year until the budget. Last year was one of the earliest times they ever heard. They heard in March, and then they have until May 7 to make their adjustments. This year we had told them last spring we hoped to have it done by Christmas. A school board went out two or three days after school opened and said: We don't know how many teachers you have for next year, you might be going to lose 122. I've spent the whole time since trying to say to them: Don't go into a panic over that. The numbers are totally unrealistic.

What we have is the following. The small, necessarily existent schools will be determined within a week or ten days. The teachers who will be in them will be told to every board and every school that qualifies under the act.

Secondly, we have said, as a matter of policy, that the teacher enrolment will track the student population size as a matter of policy. This year it was just confirmed, last week, that the enrolments from last year to this year have declined by 4,597 students. Just confirmed last week. Now we have to determine how many teachers are likely to be coming out of the system as a result of that for the next school year. That will happen in consultation with the school boards over the next two or three weeks. We had a discussion about it again on Friday.

Thirdly, we did say in the Budget that we would discuss the possibility of moving -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - the pupil-teacher ratio to the national average. We told them on Friday, Mr. Speaker, -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - that that won't be happening. We will finish the planning. The numbers will be available to all the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - school boards in a couple of weeks -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - and there is no need to be alarmed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a petition. To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland: Whereas the government gave public notice in late July or early August 1997 that it would accept public submissions only until August 30, 1997 regarding the government's proposal to remove bridges on the railway bed on the Bonavista Peninsula and other areas; and whereas these beds are used by local residents and tourists for numerous recreational activities including snowmobiling, ATV use, berry picking, the hauling of firewood, and hiking; and whereas these bridges and the railway bed in this area may have untapped recreational and tourism potential generating new economic activity, as is happening on the main railway bed with the construction of the T'Railway; and whereas local groups such as development associations, municipalities, service groups, and tourism groups, as well as businesses and individuals, could take over the responsibility of maintaining these structures if given adequate time to put together proposals; and whereas these historic structures once they are gone are gone for good; wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to delay actions to remove the bridges from the railway beds along this route and extend the deadline for receiving submissions regarding the future of these bridges and the railway bed.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition signed by 200 to 300 people from the Districts of Bonavista South, Trinity North, and Terra Nova. It is a situation whereby in July the government put forward its proposal to look for suggestions, I suppose, if you would, or their intent to remove the railway bridges on the Bonavista branch, the old CN rail bed.

Since that particular time many residents have gotten together and have come forward through petitions that I have brought forward here in the House, as well as meeting with the minister and writing the Minister of Government Services and Lands. I have to commend the minister that he has gone out. He has gone out to my district, he has been out to the District of Trinity North, I know, and he has met with some of the concerned residents there, and has agreed to give them more time to put together some proposals.

The thing that I was not particularly in favour of, Mr. Speaker, was that the minister only met and invited town councils along. I think that other people should have had an opportunity to come forward and voice their opinions. I think of recreation groups, I think of development associations, Mr. Speaker, not only municipal governments because, for the most part, municipal governments, town councillors are very busy doing what they are supposed to be doing and that is looking after their own affairs within the boundaries of their towns.

We did have a very good meeting in Bonavista and the minister agreed to take their concerns and proposals back to reconsider what he had intended to do in the first place. He has only slowed it down. He does not have the brakes put on it, I do not think. People raised the concern that if those bridges were going to be removed, then government should look at the cost of removing the bridges and maybe put that in some form of funding for a joint venture between the development associations and government and, instead of removing the bridges, repair the bridges.

Many people use this railway bed for recreational purposes. They use it for their ATV and they use it for their ski-doos. Those machines are not allowed to be used on public roads, they are not allowed to be used on the wetlands; this was their only - well, it was a good area, I suppose, that they could go and access the railway bed, have some enjoyment, and do it in a safe manner, bothering nobody.

Now this particular railway bed, if the bridges are removed, will eliminate a roadway to some favourite berry-picking grounds. It will eliminate a roadway or an access to areas where people go to cut firewood and cut logs, to take those logs and bring them out to the main road to carry them home. If we take one bridge, in many cases, we could eliminate a whole area. We are not looking for bridges to support a train anymore. There is no train and I doubt if this government will be bringing one back, Mr. Speaker. What we are asking for are bridges to be kept in a repairable condition where people can use it for their recreational purposes, as they are doing today. If we can spend a small amount of money and do it in partnership with some of the other groups there to give it some perpetual care, then there is no reason why this railway bed cannot be used for years and years to come. We should never forget or lose sight of the fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. Just a minute to finish up. You should never lose sight of the fact -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: You should never lose sight of the fact that this particular railway bed is a generator of revenue for the government. People go out and buy gasoline, they buy machines and they pay taxes on their machines and people are working repairing them. So it is a snowball effect that we all can benefit from if we only had the interest to continue to provide this opportunity for the people in that particular area to be allowed to access the railway bed, which is a perfect trailway, Mr. Speaker. It can be used not only for recreational purposes but for purposes that are very dear to many people out there, if we can help sustain them in the economic conditions that they find themselves in today, especially on the Bonavista Peninsula. Thank you very much.

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

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

I rise in my place today to support the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South. Mr. Speaker, he made some very good arguments with respect to the old railway lines across this Province. Many years ago when the people of the Province were dependent upon the railway, we knew their use and why they were utilized and how important they were, but since we have removed all the train tracks, the trestles, and what have you, Mr. Speaker, from the railways, now we see that the people in the Province want to utilize the old railway lines for other purposes, namely, for recreation, mostly. In some, I suppose, we could get into the new businesses in the Province in promoting tourism. Often you will see on television now a group trying to raise money to have a Trans-Canada trail right across this country, from St. John's, Newfoundland to British Columbia. I think they are looking for so many dollars per metre, and you have your name associated with that trail.

Here in Newfoundland, on the East Coast, we have a group, the East Coast Trails Association, trying to get a trail right around the Northeast Avalon, starting out around, I believe, Harbour Grace, somewhere in that area, and coming right around up the northwest side of the Peninsula, and coming around out to Cape St. Francis, up through Pouch Cove, Flatrock, Logy Bay, Torbay, Bauline, all around the whole community, linking into St. John's, going on up to Petty Harbour and right on out to St. Mary's. That, in itself, will tell you what the potential is for these railway lines. Often in these communities up in Witless Bay and Bay Bulls you can link into the old railway lines and make it a part of the trail.

The Member for Bonavista South mentioned that these trails, the lines out in that area for which he presented the petition, could be utilized for recreation. Now we had this Administration, a few years ago, the Liberal Government, bring in regulations with respect to ATVs, by which you were restricted as to where you could use ATVs in this Province. Especially on the marshes of the Province, you cannot use ATVs anymore, these three-wheeler bikes and the quad bikes, and what have you. But these old railway lines are an ideal location to make use of these vehicles, the three-wheeler motorized bikes. So it is very important, I think, that we have the long-term view.

Now, of course, if you are going to go in and remove the railway trestles and bridges, and what have you, all over this Province with respect to the old railway lines because there may be some liability, how much money are we going to spend to remove all of these trestles and bridges and so on? How much money is going to be spent?

If we took those same dollars, probably, and put them back into revitalizing these railway lines to clear the brush, to maintain the bridges and give people access to the interior of Newfoundland and to the different peninsulas within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the dollars could be very well spent.

I do not know if the government has done a study. I would like to know if the government has done a study to see what the cost would be to remove the bridges and the trestles, as we used to refer to them. We have done a study -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know. Have you? I am asking the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader does not think so. Then again -

AN HON. MEMBER: He does not think.

MR. J. BYRNE: He does not think. But he does not think so in particular about this, another example of the government going ahead blindfolded, not having a clue about what they are doing, not having one iota as to the impact of what is happening in this Province.

The Minister of Tourism, I expect, will get up and speak to this now, hearing me speak on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and hopefully she will be able to bring some support to this for the constituents in Gander who were so upset out there with the Lakeside Home, and the closing of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: The food was so delicious.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, the food was delicious. It will be delicious. It was not delicious; it will be delicious.

It was said that the minister had some clout in Cabinet. I hope she did, to get this back. The person who led the attack on this, of course, was the Member for CBS - he is the man.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Give credit to (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Give credit where credit is due.

The Minister of Tourism, I suppose, had some say. I imagine she was quite upset with this whole issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. TULK: Thirty-five per cent (inaudible) one minute.

MR. J. BYRNE: One minute.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, I would say again to the Minister of Tourism that hopefully she will get up and speak to the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South - speak in favour, of course, of the petition and see what they can do to support the wishes of the people who signed that petition, the hundreds of people's names that I heard the member mention. On that note I will leave it to the Minister of Tourism.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the petition that was presented by the Member for Bonavista South. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Government Services and Lands, as has been pointed out, has been out in the district, all through the three districts, actually, of Bonavista South, Trinity North and Terra Nova, meeting with concerned citizens about this, and of course, many consultations have been held by telephone and through letter-writing. I know that he has consulted with me quite extensively on this, being that my department is in charge of the trailway throughout the Province. We also, from a tourism perspective, understand very, very well the importance of trail development, both to our in-province tourism residents and also to residents who come from outside of the Province to experience our great wilderness and all of the trail systems throughout the Province.

As many people would know, the trailway is very important to our Province's future tourism product, but also trails like the East Coast Trail, the Bonavista Trail that has been referred to, the Cormack Trail, all of these are very, very important, as they will eventually interconnect with the National Trailway system which will run from one end of Canada to the other.

I am very happy, actually, with the Minister of Government Services and Lands response to the citizens in this area and I know that he is working diligently on this issue to ensure and to protect, if at all possible, the bridges and railway trestles and everything in that area, but first and foremost, of course, safety. Public safety has to be the biggest issue here and, of course, we all recognize within the fiscal constraints that we live in, he is currently assessing whether the cost of removing the bridges and trestles would, in fact, be enough in working with groups in the area and on other areas, too, I should say, throughout the Province, if it is enough to keep them going.

I suspect that the answer will be in the positive but, of course, we have to make sure that public safety comes first. And in the end we know that all of these trail systems will be wonderful for our tourism product, both for people, as the other members have pointed out, for gaining access to hunting ground, to berry patches, to cabins, etc., but also for out-of-Province tourists, of whom we hope after the success of our Cabot Celebrations, there will be many, many more.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament Assembled. The petition reads as follows: Whereas poverty and its effects are serious problems for so many in this Province and that things are getting worse, not better, now more than one-third of Newfoundland and Labrador children live in families on social assistance.

The petitioners talk about the need for amelioration of child poverty and child hunger in this Province and its effects on the ability of these children to learn in our schools. The undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to establish a universal comprehensive School Lunch Program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give our children a better chance to learn and participate fully in the benefits of education.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these petitioners were present at a meeting held last week and the member for St. John's West was there as well. It was a group of people who got together because they are concerned about the serious problems of food security in this Province where the ability of people in the Province to have nutritious food is at risk; and no greater is it at risk, Mr. Speaker, than in the case of hungry children in the Province.

I was very distressed today to hear the Minister of Finance get up and pat himself and his government on the back, saying the best thing I think he could say for the economy of the Province, that we are going backwards a little bit slower than we thought we were. We through we were going downhill at 2.7 per cent, but we are only going downhill at 1.6 per cent - and we pat ourselves on the back for that, Mr. Speaker. Well, I am concerned about the plight of hungry children in this Province and we have to have that addressed by this House of Assembly and by this government.

I am not satisfied to see this treated as a charity issue. The Minister of Education has said in the past that we are relying on the voluntary sector to look after this issue and we are giving them a few dollars to help them along. Well, so far, that has resulted in a maximum number of thirty-two school meal programs in this Province out of in excess of 400 schools. They are not reaching the hungry children. The programs are not yet working because they are not capable of working, because the resources do not exist in the communities that are most in need of a program for children in schools.

Later on this week, National Children's Day has been designated by the Government of Canada as a national day to reflect on the needs, hopes, and potential of all children. It is the anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child. Canada adopted a convention on the rights of the child in 1989, and the provinces and the Federal Government committed to ending child hunger by the year 2000.

Where are we in this Province? We are nowhere. We cannot even make sure that our senior citizens in government-run homes are fed properly without a fight - a fight for dignity that at least senior citizens, at least our elderly citizens, are able to fight for themselves and to get involved in a campaign to shame this government into acting properly. The hungry children of this Province are not in such a position. They are not in the position to go out and articulate their need the way the senior citizens in the Lakeside Home were able to do.

They are not able to do it because they are beaten down by poverty. They are unable to learn properly in school because they go to school hungry. This government has been told time and time again by members on this side of the House, by reports that have been commissioned, by nutritionists, by social workers, by people involved in the school lunch programs that children in this Province are going to school hungry. The Minister of Education knows it. He knows it because his schoolteachers know it, the school principals know it; the teachers who are working in special education know it, that the children who do not do well in school in many cases are not doing well because of the results and consequences of poverty in their homes and their inability to obtain a proper diet, and to get a proper nutritious meal.

This is a bit of a hidden problem. It is a hidden problem because hungry children do not march in the streets.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I ask the hon. members opposite and the government to address this problem and address it now.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of this petition. It has been shown by statistics from the food banks that 75,000 people in this Province use food banks. Forty thousand of these people are children. The Patricia Canning report in 1996 and the Williams Royal Commission report in 1992 both showed that learning is affected directly by hunger. We are sending 40,000 of our children to school every day hungry. We are perpetuating the cycle. It has been shown -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, this person opposite has not spoken that often in the House. I wonder if we could all just quiet down and listen to her a little bit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Annette Stapenhorst, a known nutritionist, has shown that it takes $125 a week for a family of four to have nutritious food. Some families only have this amount for a month, after expenses. How, Mr. Speaker, are they to be expected to give their children nutritious food to send them to school? In schools where school lunches are available they are used universally. The children in these schools take advantage of the school lunches, and it is done with no discrimination to any of the children. I would like to lend my support to the petition proposed by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Orders of the Day

 

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Standing Order 23, I ask leave to introduce a motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the government to introduce economic development in rural parts of the Province or to address key matters including health care, education and out-migration.

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

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

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

MR. TULK: The particular Standing Order that the hon. gentleman refers to - the first thing you have to prove is that there is an urgency, and the second thing you have to prove, you have to show to His Honour in order to allow -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. TULK: There is no place on the Order Paper to allow the debate on the issue with which the hon. gentleman is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to remind you, but I suppose somebody has to remind the hon. gentleman and it might as well be me, that under Standing Order No. 1, Address in Reply, there is ample opportunity to debate any urgent matter that might exist in this Province, even if it were of an urgent and pressing nature. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is not in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess to consider the matter raised by the hon. member and report back shortly.

 

Recess

 

MR. SPEAKER: I have carefully considered the matter that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has made, and I want to point out to hon. members that in an emergency debate, the key is the urgency of the debate and not the matter itself, and in so ruling, I refer to a ruling made by Speaker Ottenheimer in 1975, when a similar situation came to the House. He said: In my opinion, the matter is obviously urgent, obviously of public importance but I do not concur that there is urgency of the debate at this moment.

I would also refer to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, given in the House of Commons and available in Hansard of July 9, 1969, and he stated: The motion is acceptable only if it concerns a matter that has unexpectedly become urgent and not if it concerns a situation that has prevailed for some time. If I understand correctly, the hon. member's comments, the question is no doubt both important and urgent, but it has prevailed for some time and the debating of it today, would not possibly change the situation, so I rule that the motion is not in order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, before moving to Orders of the Day, there are a number of bills that we gave Notice of Motion for, the bills are ready I think or they will be ready before five to be distributed, so that members might have the opportunity to study them, to look at them before we call them. I am asking leave of the House to do first reading; that is not a debating reading that is a first reading so that the bills can be distributed. I am asking if we have leave to - they are the bills that we gave first notice of this, eight or ten, ten or twelve if I have leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to introduce the bills?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many bills, how many (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: On a point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many bills are you asking about (inaudible)

MR. TULK: Well I am just asking that you give us leave to have first reading, no debate on them, so that they are passed out and members have them so that tomorrow they will appear on the Order Paper as second reading so that we can debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, no. They are usually passed out at first reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I am just asking if I have leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader. There was a notice of motion given during that period today in the routine proceedings of a number of bills. The hon. Government House Leader is now asking if he has unanimous consent of the House to move on to the first reading of those bills, as I understand him. Does he have -

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no difficulty giving leave to the Government House Leader to pass out these bills. I do not know if he will get it but I have no problem personally but, can't the Government House Leader give out copies of the bills anyway so we can all have them?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is: Does he have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order but the question that the hon. member has raised and that the Chair is putting to the House today is: Does the hon. member have leave to move to first reading of these bills?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No?

MR. TULK: No leave?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

 

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. TULK: Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: Other provinces have given thirty days before the House is open.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: All a bluff, the fact that they want to get into the House, Mr. Speaker.

Order No. 2, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act". (Bill No. 10).

Now we will see how eager they are to go get back in the House and debate the issues of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act". (Bill No. 10)

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like today to continue the debate on the second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act."

This amendment will provide for the establishment of provisional reserves in our Province, allowing government to provide interim protection to an area that is under active consideration for possible designation as a wilderness reserve or as an ecological reserve.

Prior to designating such areas, already much of the work is done before you reach the provisional reserve stage. The area's natural features would have already been discussed, would have been determined. We would determine what was unique, whether these areas would be unique or significant enough to warrant protection. Already much of the work would have been done before you reached the provisional stage. As well, WERAC - the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Council -, which advises on the suitability of provisional reserves, would have already determined and advised government on areas that it would wish to become provisional reserves.

The intent in designating an area which would be already under consideration, to designate it as a provisional reserve, is simply to put a moratorium on land that the advisory council and government have already decided, or know, that it merits further consideration, study, assessment, and needs further public consultation. Also, I should say that there is no other legislative mechanism that can give the interim protection that the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act, the protection that it can give in this area.

It is necessary to ensure that the resources of the area under study are not compromised. Simply, we want to ensure that an area won't be disturbed while we further study it. It is really important I think to do this, because sometimes while we are assessing an area things could happen in an area. Things like a cabin development, resource exploitation. I think all of us realize the importance of the environment today and we would want to ascertain, before we went and declared a provisional reserve, or an outright reserve, that we know this area needs protection, and that we are protecting it provisionally in the interim until it is studied completely.

This amendment also would further strengthen the strong protection provisions already inherent in the wilderness and provisional reserves act. It will further ensure that the unique and outstanding natural heritage features of this Province are protected for present and future generations. I think that this is what this is all about, protection of land for the future. For those of us who live here now, but in particular for the future. In areas in particular, looking at protecting it for waterfowl, for wildlife, for flora and fauna.

In the past we have looked: at are there alternatives to provisional reserve protection. We have considered several others. However, neither of the alternatives that we considered are a comparable substitute for ensuring the protection of candidate wilderness and ecological reserves. The two alternatives that we looked at were Crown land reserves and public reserves.

We know that the Crown land reserve does not have legislative standing. Basically it is an agreement between members of the interdepartmental land use committee - I think it is called the ILUC - to honour, within a particular area, a moratorium on Crown land applications for a defined period, usually a maximum of one or two years. We know that this does not have the legislative authority that this new act we are proposing today would.

Also, we looked at public reserves, and this would come under the Crown lands act. The minister responsible may, by order, set aside and reserve areas of less than 100 hectares for the purpose and period set out in that order but of course the minister responsible may by order, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, set aside and reserve land in excess of 100 hectares. Also this designation would not provide to my department, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the power to ensure that the natural features of a reserve area are not compromised during the interim period. So while we looked at alternatives - and the alternatives would have been Crown land reserve and public reserve - neither of these would give us the necessary power required that we are seeking under this bill, amending the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act.

We also note that when the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act was passed in 1980, that government clearly recognized that this was a vehicle to sustain development in this Province. I think we all know and I notice that in all of the zonal board reports that are coming in now, their strategic plans, that they all recognize the importance of sustainable development in our Province. They all highly recommend that everything we do in this Province, whether it is land protection, whether it is in our forest, almost any area of our economy, they are certainly recommending and especially I would note in our fishery, that whatever we do in the future, whatever development we propose should always take into account the principles of sustainable development.

Government, as we are putting in place such legislation as we are talking about here today, certainly believe this is a vehicle to achieve our goals of sustainable development. A conscious decision was made to set aside natural areas of our Province for the benefit, education and enjoyment of all of the people of our Province, of all of Newfoundland and Labrador. We recognize that in some cases this would entail foregoing future opportunities, resource opportunities in some areas and we know that we are, if we are to protect for future generations, we must assess all of our Province to determine which areas, in particular when it relates to protection of our wildlife, our flora, our fauna and our waterfowl, that we have to look at all areas that need protection.

Under the wildlife reserves for instances, the minister responsible may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, make regulations to set aside reserves in which wildlife or a specific class of wildlife may not be hunted, taken or killed. The primary purpose of a wildlife reserve is to protect a specific wildlife population. It does not necessarily focus on protection of the natural habitant but more or less refers to the protection of wildlife. This is why the former Avalon Wildlife Reserve was established in 1986, as a wilderness reserve under the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act.

Obviously, a wildlife reserve would not be appropriate for the interim protection of natural features of our eco-regions reserves, fossil reserves, rare plant reserves, other than a specific population of wildlife but all of these pieces of legislation are important for protection in our Province. The provisional reserve designation, which we are talking about here today, provides a very strong interim protection measure for sites considered a priority under our Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act. In essence, it prevents any further land alienation or development activity - in particular in areas such as cottage development and ATVs, et cetera - which may prevent or seriously jeopardize the future establishment of a reserve as a full reserve. So what we are saying is all of these things must be considered, debated and consulted about before we move beyond the provisional stage into the full reserve stage.

It has been determined that there is no other suitable legislative mechanism available that gives the high level of protection that was previously offered by the provisional reserve status. This protection is essential for ensuring that a site under active consideration is not compromised during the period when the advisory council, government, and the public undertake all of its consultative processes. Both the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act, and the Parks and Natural Areas Division, have concluded that the provisional reserve stage is of the utmost importance.

The Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act was passed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on May 28, 1980, and the main purpose of this act, that I would like to read here, is to set aside natural areas in the Province for the benefit, education and enjoyment of present and future generations. More specifically the Act provides for the protection and management of selected natural areas from which economic, social, recreational and scientific benefits may accrue if they remain in an unaltered natural state. Such areas are reserved from industrial and resource extraction activities to ensure that their inherent natural heritage values remain intact for the enjoyment of future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The act, actually, is regarded as one of Canada's premiere pieces of natural area protection legislation, and this amendment that we are debating today is all a part of that process. Its particular strengths are the requirement for a rigorous review process, including inter-agency and public consultations.

Some of the public consultations, when an area is designated a provisional reserve, have already taken place because many times it is the public that comes forward to government, or comes forward to the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves group to ask that we consider an area. Many times it is a town council, sometimes it is a conservation group or an environment group, so it is a very open-ended process. Also, the independence of the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Council, which reports to Cabinet through the minister, and the requirement for a thorough review, including public consultations, before changing or disestablishing a reserve, and I think that is an important point to talk about also.

We often worry greatly that while we are putting lands under protection, is it possible that if in the future they were needed for other purposes that were designed, that the public had decided were of great importance to the land, that you can disestablish, but I think that you would only disestablish for emergency reasons, or reasons which were of very, very great importance to us now or to future generations.

The act provides for the establishment of two types of reserves: wilderness reserves, which I have described in a few short sentences just a while ago, which provide for the continued interaction of living things and their environment in larger, undisturbed, or relatively undisturbed, wilderness areas.

Traditional activities such as hunting and fishing are allowed to continue, and I know that many times when people think about reserves they think, `Oh, there is absolutely nothing that can be done in a reserve', but it depends on the type of reserve. I would like to say that we do not have reserves in which absolutely nothing can be done.

In wilderness reserves, many groups are often very, very worried that nothing can occur there, cabin development or anything else. It depends on what is decided as the reserve is put in place, and many, many traditional activities are able to continue.

Ecological reserves are usually smaller areas set aside as representative of a natural region, or an eco system, or protect a rare or unique species or natural phenomena. I think the summer when we announced that we would like to make Burnt Cape on the Northern Peninsula a provisional reserve it was for protecting of rare species. Actually, the designation that was sought there initially came from geologists who were in the area, who also had knowledge of rare flora and fauna, who looked at the fauna of that area and then asked if Memorial and other universities would study it. When it was studied, it was determined that there is in fact a species there that is found nowhere else in the world and at that stage the community and many experts agreed that this was an area that certainly needed protection and they have been lobbying strong and hard since then. So, this is one of our priorities this year in bringing forward this piece of legislation to enable that this area will be made a provisional reserve and hopefully will go on to be a full reserve after much public consultation has been done in that area.

I would also like to speak a little bit about the advisory council that assists government in these endeavours. The Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act provides for the establishment of a Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council, for the purpose of advising Cabinet, through the minister, on all matters in relation to the establishment, management and termination of reserves and for the better administration of the act.

Council members are appointed by the Cabinet. There are eleven members with at least six representing the public and members may be reappointed and the advisory council, I would like to read out to you, has several generalized responsibilities. The examination of areas of the Province to determine which are suitable for establishment of a reserve and the council of course may also accept recommendations from the public in relation to the establishment of or a change in a reserve and this is exactly what I just described was true in the case of Burnt Cape or Burnt Island as it is commonly known.

Also, they inform and seek comment from all levels of government on areas determined as suitable for establishment as either a wilderness or an ecological reserve. They also undertake the public consultative process. They advise the Provincial Cabinet to establish provisional reserves or in fact, full reserve status and I understand could also make comment on the need to establish emergency reserves. They may make recommendations to Cabinet on any proposed change in a reserve management plan or in fact can make recommendations to us about the act.

The advisory council meets at various times during the year to review proposals and to determine priorities and I should say that the advisory council is a representative of all Newfoundland and Labrador and they meet at least quarterly, usually on an annual basis.

Also, I would like to make a few statements about the reserve establishment process. The establishment of a reserve includes an extensive interdepartmental government review and public participation process. The process as illustrated could mean that reserve proposals are initially reviewed extensively by provincial and federal government departments and/or agencies.

Following these reviews, adjustments and changes are then made by the Wilderness and Ecological Review Advisory Council and they facilitate recommendations of provisional status to Cabinet process. If provisional status that we are talking about here today is granted, then the true public participation process begins and this consists of information sessions and meeting with individuals and groups in the communities that would be surrounding the proposed reserve.

This process then is followed by formal public hearings that are always very well advertised as required by sections of the act. Then after this the results of the government reviews and public hearings are then considered by the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council. The council then makes recommendations to Cabinet through my ministry for a final decision on full reserve status. At the outcome of the process the reserve is either established or the proposal is rejected and provisional status can be revoked. Usually, though, I have to say that the process that is put in place would usually mean that the reserve is established. In most instances the amount of public consultation that even goes in before the reserve status - before the provisional status - would lead on then into a permanent reserve status.

This act that we are discussing also provides for the establishment of an emergency reserve. This can be done by the minister if an endangered area is under examination by the Advisory Council and has been determined to be suitable for reserve establishment.

I should say that while recognizing the importance of preserving natural areas, the act also seeks to ensure that the areas will be so chosen that they have as little impact as possible on industrial development. I would like to say that this is often a concern of resource groups and of mining groups, and of groups who look at our land and at the moment see that some areas are being considered for designation. So I think it is important that when we look at areas like this that we would then move in a timely fashion towards either recognizing that it will be a full status reserve or it won't be, and I think that is very important for the future development of the Province.

The act ensures that by providing for a rigorous review process before reserves are established, and by creating the Advisory Council to advise Cabinet on all matters relating to reserves, that due process is always looked at, that we are protecting lands that need protecting but we are also having a full public discussion on whether an area should be reserved or whether it should be considered for other activities for industrial development.

I have a table here that provides a listing of reserves established under our WERAC and I think all of you, as you note, would realize that all over this Province government has endeavoured to ensure that precious areas of our Province are indeed protected. One, of course, that is very important not just from a protection point of view but also from a tourism point of view, is the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve which was established in 1983. This is a seabird breeding colony, and in particular a very important over-wintering site. This reserve is a little over 1,000 hectares.

The Funk Island Ecological Reserve, which was one of our first reserves that was put in place in 1983, is also a seabird breeding colony which is about 20 hectares.

The Hare Bay Island Ecological Reserve was also put in place in 1983, and this is an eider duck breeding colony which is 442 hectares.

The Gannet Island Ecological Reserve, also put in place in 1983, is a seabird breeding colony that is 202 hectares.

The Witless Bay Islands Ecological Reserve is a seabird breeding colony also put in place in 1983, which is 141 hectares.

One that we hear quite a bit about from our tourists, the Avalon Wilderness Reserve, put in place in 1986, is a caribou reserve and also protects several very important ecosystems in our Province, and this is a rather large reserve. It is 107 hectares, and very, very important to this area.

Then we have Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve that was put in place in 1987, and the special feature is the protection of fossils. This is 295 hectares.

Another fairly large reserve is the Watt's Point Ecological Reserve put in place in 1990, and this protects rare plants and special ecosystems. This one is 3,090 hectares.

Table Point Ecological Reserve was put in place in 1990. This also protects fossils and is 116 hectares, one of our smaller reserves.

Then, of course, the Bay du Nord Wilderness Reserve, which was put in place in 1990, is this Province's largest reserve at this point. It is 289,500 hectares and this protects waterfowl breeding sites and in particular caribou and many other aspects as well. Then the Hawke Hills ecological reserve was put in place in 1992, and this is a representative plant community it has as its special feature and this is 131 hectares, a relatively small reserve. Then Fortune Head ecological reserve was put in place in 1992 and it was during this past few months actually, Mr. Speaker, that I visited this area and its special feature is for fossil protection and this area is 221 hectares.

Then we have the West Brook ecological reserve that was put in place in 1993 which is a Red Pine site and this is 1,074 hectares. Then we have the Baccalieu Island ecological reserve which was put in place in 1995 one of our most recent, and this is a sea bird breeding colony on an island that is 538 hectares. King George the IV ecological reserve, is the last ecological reserve that was proclaimed by our government last year in 1996, and this is a wet land, delta, waterfowl breeding site that has its special protection features and this area is 1,841 hectares.

Now, we have two areas that are seeking provisional ecological reserve status. This would be in Redfir Lake ecological reserve that has been seeking this status since 1995 and this is a Jack Pine site which is 8,233 hectares and of course, the most recent that I have just described to you is the Burnt Island or Burnt Cape some people call it, ecological reserve that was announced this summer in 1997 as a rare plant site with 350 hectares.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline some of the benefits of protected areas and I think, most of us would know many of the benefits. The perceived benefits of protective areas are usually limited to wildlife enhancement and tourism. The more fundamental goal and far-reaching benefits of natural protected areas include, the protected natural areas provision are a fundamental component of any sustainable development strategy, and I think in this Province, at this time, we certainly recognize that this is very, very important to our future, that anything we do should be done from a sustainable point of view.

Protected natural areas provide an insurance policy against the loss of important ecosystems - we should environmentally accept developments that live up to their expectations. Protected natural areas provide a full range of ecological opportunities for future generations and I think this is one of the most important reasons why we are advocating this important piece of legislation today. Protected natural areas support ecological stability and help maintain air and water quality; and we are so lucky in this Province today to have very, very, high quality air and water, and I think this is one of the really important reasons why we should support this legislation.

Protected natural areas are outdoor classrooms providing for public education and awareness and I think you just have to go to Cape St. Mary's and to see the numerous classes of students who go through there every year to realize what an important teaching tool these environmental areas and these ecological areas are to the future education of our young people. Protected natural areas are benchmarks against which we can measure the effects of development and we certainly know that in many areas of the world there are no benchmarks left and it is very, very important that in areas of our Province where we have such land masses, that we realize the importance of pieces of legislation such as we are discussing here today.

Protected natural areas provide for economic opportunity through well managed hunting and fishing, non-consumptive recreation and through tourism and I think more and more, and this year in particular, when we have had increased numbers of tourists in our Province, we only have to realize from discussions we have had with them and from the letters and the comments they send to us and to the newspapers in our Province, how much they value the fact that there are areas left of the world that should be protected and they encourage us very, very strongly to do that.

Protected natural areas help us appreciate environmental resources for their own sake and I think as Newfoundlanders, it is only when we loose something that we truly realize what we use to have and I think now as we consider what has happened with our fishery, we recognize the importance of protecting all areas of our ecosystem.

Sustainable development must be based on undisturbed examples in which natural ecosystems work. The natural areas from which this information must come are disappearing rapidly and can only continue to exist where they are protected by legislation. Often times people feel that because we have areas that are not necessarily high traffic areas or high density development, that they will always be there, it is only after they have been exploited unnecessarily that we realize the importance of such legislation and that is why this government is reacting in a very proactive way to make sure that we always have areas where people can go in peace and enjoy nature.

A natural area system provides resource industries with greater degree of certainly with respect to access to resources and I think that this is one of the most important reasons why we need to protect areas so that when developers come to our Province, we do not necessarily impede development. We know what we want to protect and we should have it under protection, so that when people come and they want to explore our Province and to hopefully exploit resources that will be good for jobs for all of us and in particular for our youth, that they will come and look at maps of our Province and know where they can truly go and look for new economic developments in relation to mining in particular.

There are economic benefits also of protected areas. Tourism, as I have already outlined to you, is one of the most obvious. National parks, provincial parks, private parks, by their very nature attract visitors to particular regions. The economic benefits of stricter protected areas such as the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves are more difficult to define.

In addition, tourism may be detrimental to especially fragile natural areas in some reserves and so it is very, very important that the level of protection that we put in there, we are able to tell visitors about. There are several existing reserves however, which are able to sustain moderate levels of visitation. So, we must always know when we are considering tourism whether an area can sustain a high level of visitation, a low level of visitation and what type of transportation mode can be used through it.

The Witless Bay Ecological Reserve for instance, this reserve protects one of the major sea bird colonies of the world. It supports the largest nesting population of Atlantic Puffins in the North West Atlantic and has the second largest petrel colonies in the world. In the summer, whales are drawn to the reserve by the large schools of caplin. In the past ten years these spectacularly natural features have attracted large numbers of visitors who visit the reserve in a growing number of our boat tour operators who were so successful this past year.

In 1996, fourteen vessels were permitted to operate tour boats in this reserve. The following direct economic benefit analysis is based on the number of visitors of the three of the largest companies. The total number of visitors in 1997, 37,000 people visited this reserve. The average expenditure in 1991 figures was forty-three dollars. The average tour boat cost in 1997 figures is twenty-five dollars. The total average expenditure per day for tour boat visitors is $48. The total gross expenditure of tour boat visitors is over $1,776,000. This is a very minimal estimate given that the costs, some of them, are in 1991 figures and the number of tour boat visitors was generated from only three operators out of seven. We naturally would expect these numbers to be much higher if all of these tour boat operators were put together. Nonetheless, this exercise that we have undertaken illustrates that the tour boat industry surrounding just the Witless Bay Ecological Reserve is a multimillion industry. So it is very important for us to recognize that as we protect these areas, we do it for many reasons, and one of the important reasons is for the economic benefits of these reserves.

In the 1980s, Mr. Speaker, we lived with frequent predictions about the harmful effects of global warming, the growth of the hole in the ozone layer, resource depletion, pollution, overpopulation and acid rain. Often the seriousness of these real threats to our survival seemed too distant to affect us. Other more local and real concerns, like lack of jobs and a faltering economy needed our attention. Then, in 1991 we had the big wake-up call when the Northern cod stocks collapsed and our cod fishery was shut down. Suddenly, the grave consequences of mismanaging these natural resources was brought home in frightening detail to each and every one of us as Newfoundlanders. This crisis continues to haunt and challenge us and our communities, as our members in the Opposition have pointed out to us so very well today. The collapse of our fishery has made more and more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understand the importance of recognizing that environmental health and economic health are two sides of the same coin.

The cost of the TAGS program alone is an example of the enormous recovery expenditures that we have faced and that we continue to face. The TAGS program and its predecessors required almost $2 billion and this is just the monetary cost. It does not begin to address the social, the psychological and the environmental effects of the stock depletion and the moratorium on our people. Many people once felt - and I remember those people - that it was impossible to destroy the Northern cod stock. We all felt it was simply too plentiful, but now we know better. We can see by the collapse of the fishery and its devastating socio-economic results, just how intricately environmental and economic health are truly linked. From this lesson we must learn that all of our natural resources are limited and finite and cannot always recover if we abuse them. We must learn quickly to be better stewards in order to maintain economic health that will stay the course and, of course, pieces of legislation, like we are discussing here today, certainly will help future generations to do just that.

I would like to talk a little bit about how protected areas can help us here in this Province. How do we avoid repeating our mistakes with other species and other natural resources? How do we determine which environments or species are healthy and which are in danger? How do we know how much development that our environment here in this Province can stand? To begin answering any of these questions we need rulers, we need guides, we need examples. Environmentally, that means we need areas of wilderness that can function undisturbed by human intervention and activities. Using protected areas as benchmarks and natural laboratories, we can learn how healthy ecosystems function and respond to change. In spite of the natural disaster that I have just described to you, we do have many, many areas that remain in a pristine state. What we learn from these and how they will operate will help us manage similar lands outside of the borders of our protected areas on which our prospects for ongoing work and ongoing prosperity depend.

This is only one of the benefits a system of protected areas can provide for us, but it is a tool that will grow more and more valuable as the pressures to develop our natural resources increase. We must, therefore, not only protect parts of our Province while we still can, but we must value that protection. In protection, it is clear, lies the promise of ongoing economic security. Even more critical, though, is this fact. Our choices today are the keys to our very survival tomorrow. I think all of us need to consider this when we talk about future generations and the importance of jobs for people in the future.

A network of parks, natural areas, and reserves will yield many benefits that are difficult to quantify in dollars and cents but which are truly invaluable and irreplaceable. I think, already this summer we have seen with the increased numbers of tourists to our ecological reserves that there is indeed a huge economic spin-off and many, many dollars.

Maintaining Newfoundland and Labrador's identity, our heritage, and character as a clean, healthy place to work and visit is just so important, providing economic stability by supporting the healthy functioning of natural processes. That is, protecting our soils and our watersheds, fostering our forest, barrens, and wetlands that maintain our air and water quality, providing pollinators for wild and domestic plants, absorbing and breaking down pollutants, improving local and global climates.

I think many times we do not realize the importance of our land when it comes to protecting the whole wide world; protecting places that protect the bio-diversity that is essential to the healthy functioning of natural processes. In addition to contributing to the health and adaptability of our environment, supporting bio-diversity can lead to the discovery of genetic materials with potential to prolong human lives. I think more and more we see in the pharmaceutical industry that we are going back to, in many instances, the herbal and the plant remedies that we looked at in years gone by. It is only now in this Province we see that with such vast tracts of land that are still in a pristine state we are able to encourage the research that is necessary to look at these new pharmacological aids.

Also, providing opportunities for direct contact with nature and natural systems, we seek knowledge, and we already know - indeed, I have facts and statistics before me. I would never ever use; I would never give you facts and statistics without backing them up. I have no intention of ever making a mistake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: I have outlined to you the many economic opportunities this year, and I have told you, and I have referred to my facts on these very pages that outline to you that just in the Witless Bay Ecological Reserve alone we have more than $1.7 million generated by the boat tour operators alone.

On and on I could go here about preserving ecological diversity for future generations so that those who come after us may learn and benefit from it. We have to continue this process so that others in the future will have the same economic opportunities that we are now starting to see evidence of here in this Province. This summer we demonstrated clearly time and time again, that the preservation of these precious areas in our Province can lead to many economic opportunities.

Also, they are signposts for when developers come in to look at our areas, in particular for mining opportunities, for forestry opportunities, and for other opportunities. We can always say to them: We have many vast tracts for you to explore, but these are the precious areas that we will protect for future generations.

I would like to close today by saying that Newfoundland and Labrador has many opportunities that many other parts, even of our own country, do not have. If we continue in this Province on the path that we are here setting out for ourselves, we know that we will be able to provide the biological diversity that many other parts of our region in Atlantic Canada, that many other parts in fact of our country, and I know for a certainty that many other places in this world, cannot provide. It will be very important for us to realize that man against nature is not the right attitude, that for us it has to be people with nature. We always have to be able to say that we will in fact protect for all future generations. It is very important that we continue to recognize that when we put ecological reserves in place, we are in fact in many instances preserving natural, traditional activities.

We know that we have to continue to consult extensively with the public. We know the value of the education opportunities that are available in the lands we have already set aside. I have outlined to you the importance of Cape St. Mary's, but I know if any of you spent any time at Gros Morne or at Terra Nova National Park, or in all of the parks in our Province, in all of our ecological reserves, you would see our children there learning the importance of protecting our future - protecting their future, our own future, and the future of generations to come.

It is important that government continue to intervene and continue to protect. It is very important that people like us who have such strong roots in the environment, that we protect it for future generations.

We know that many of the things we advocate will serve as tools to protect in particular for waste and pollution reduction. We all know that the more trees we have the more oxygen content we have in the air, but protecting ecological diversity for future generations is the most important part of all of this legislation.

I know that the economic rewards are great. We have outlined many of them here today, but in particular we have - this year we already know...well, for instance, a stat that I have right here in front of me shows that in 1995 visitors spent $370 million in Gros Morne National Park and I can guarantee you, when the figures come in for this year, which we will soon have, the figures will be much, much higher than $370 million.

We know that just with Parks Canada alone, the economic spin-off, $3.5 million alone was spent in Terra Nova National Park that very same year, and most of the money that is put into our ecological reserves and into our national parks all goes directly into the local economy.

In particular, you know, I should say that the withdrawal of some parcels of land from industrial development or natural resource harvesting will yield many benefits. Many times we think that these lands, because we are not exploiting the minerals on them, we are not extracting the oil from them, that is all they would have been good for, but I hope I have outlined to you today the importance of all of the economic benefits that we have in place in the parks that we already have protected.

I know that in my department we are very interested in the protection of these areas, but also we know the dire need for the protection because the rest of the world does not have the opportunity that we have. I think Newfoundland and Labrador has many opportunities, as I have said, that are not available in the rest of Canada. And, most important of all, Labrador still contains vast tracts of untainted wilderness. And through implementation of plans like we are describing here today, we hope that future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will have the very same opportunities that we have.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said that before.

MS KELLY: Indeed I have not said that before.

I would like to close my remarks this afternoon by reiterating that we already have lands protected but we have a much greater job to do, and over the upcoming years this is the government that will do it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members today support this bill. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, well, well! I would first of all like to say I have listened to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for fifty minutes introducing this bill - fifty minutes to introduce a bill on the future ecological reserves or wilderness areas in this Province. This Administration, Mr. Speaker - the House of Assembly has been closed for six months and this is what they have to come forward with, fifty minutes on a bill of this nature, Mr. Speaker. It is unreal.

The Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, tried today to get something slipped through this House. He asked for leave to have first readings on a certain number of bills when he knew full well that it was not necessary to have leave if he wanted to distribute these bills. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, the first day of the House of Assembly, six months the House has been closed and we have a Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation up on a bill that could come six months from now. Really, Mr. Speaker, it tells you about the priorities of this Administration. It is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we had her stand here talk about this and talk about the facts - she said she had the facts on a question that I asked. I wonder did she have the facts, Mr. Speaker, when she publicly supported the closing down of the kitchen at Lakeside Home in Gander? Did she have the facts then? Lakeside Home in Gander. Where is Gander? In her district, Mr. Speaker, and she said it was okay. She wanted to put a bakery in there so people could smell the food and make them even more hungry than before.

Mr. Speaker, I will adjourn debate and pick it up tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, did he move the adjournment of the debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the House adjourn until at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.