MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have Members' Statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity North; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's West; the hon. the Member for the District of Twillingate & Fogo; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; and the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. the Member for the District of Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Neighbourhood of Friends Advisory Board for hosting an Open House to celebrate the establishment of a Family Literacy Centre for Clarenville and the surrounding area.

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, this group, in partnership with the Rural Secretariat, Human Resources Skills Development Canada and a local advisory board, have been developing a new Family Literacy Centre located on Moores Road in Clarenville.

Outreach from this main site will also be carried out with the assistance of local parent support groups that have been established in the communities of Little Heart's Ease, Swift Current and Hickman's Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of this Centre is to assist children and their families of the region in the areas of early childhood development and family literacy. Through the co-operation of a number of community partners, the capacity is established for the community to now deal more effectively and more efficiently with issues relating to low literacy and unemployment by working directly with those who are most impacted by those barriers.

Mr. Speaker, this project demonstrates the value of forming community partnerships and the results of dedicated volunteers coming together. Mr. Speaker, ensuring our citizens have appropriate access to literacy programs is an important component of any sound social and economic agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me today in congratulating the Neighbourhood of Friends Advisory Board and all of its partners in the establishment of the Family Literacy Centre. This Centre will play a very positive role in the community of Clarenville and the surrounding area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to bring greetings to a gentleman who will celebrate his ninety-fourth birthday on Sunday, December 5.

Up until a couple of years ago, Jim Ridgley was a very active member of the community, giving freely of his time to the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the BIS, and his parish church at St. Theresa's Actually, his volunteerism was publicly recognized when he was awarded the Queen's Jubilee Medal.

Jim is now a resident at Glenbrook Lodge and is still on the go, taking real joy in a party, especially if there is an opportunity for him to get up and dance, and I guess he will have that opportunity on Sunday when he celebrates his party there.

He has five children, fifteen grandchildren, and fifteen great-grandchildren, and on behalf of everyone it is with great pleasure and pride that I wish a very happy ninety-fourth birthday to my father, Jim Ridgley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a family physician from my district who has been recently distinguished by his peers for years of quality service.

Dr. Mohammed Ravalia, affectionately known in the area as Ravs, has received the distinction of "Family Physician of the Year" by the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this is no small accomplishment, and the people of Twillingate & Fogo District are extremely happy that Dr. Ravalia has been honoured in this way.

Dr. Ravalia arrived in Twillingate in the mid-1980s to escape the uncertainties in his native Zimbabwe. He met and married a young lady from Lewisporte and the rest, as they say, Mr. Speaker, is history.

Mr. Speaker, all of Dr. Ravalia's patients see first-hand what a caring physician this man is, and that he is certainly very deserving of this honour.

Mr. Speaker, I consider Dr. Ravalia to be a great individual, a wonderful doctor, and a valued friend. I ask all members of this House to join me in extending to Dr. Ravalia congratulations on this most recent distinction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to commend a group of students at Prince of Wales Collegiate who, with the co-ordinating effort of one of their teachers, Timothy Harpur, recently undertook to gather food for the Salvation Army Food Bank. This one-day blitz took place in early November and was also supported by parents and members of the Rotary Club who drove the students all over St. John's to collect the food items. Mention should also be made, Mr. Speaker, of those teachers who had done some classroom activities designed to teach the students the need to make a contribution to the community and to help those less fortunate.

This is the twenty-first year that such a food drive has taken place at PWC, and it is estimated that the approximately one hundred students who took part this year succeeded in putting the total value of food collected in those twenty-one years over the $1 million mark. Mr. Speaker, a special note of appreciation must go to Bernice Langdon, a former guidance counselor at PWC, who retired two years ago but who co-ordinated this food drive for some fifteen years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating all teachers, volunteers, students and members of Rotary who have played a part in this magnificent effort this year and in the twenty years previous.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour two very community-minded individuals who recently celebrated their retirement.

On October 2, members of the Bay d'Espoir Emergency Health Organization gathered at St. Alban's Inn to thank them and wish good luck to two people who have given generously of their time and energy over the past thirty years to help make the community a little safer.

Brendan Collier began as a driver with the Bay d'Espoir ambulance in 1974. Over the past thirty years, Mr. Collier became well-know throughout the area for his dedication and compassionate nature as he helped those who required his services. Mr. Collier also acquired his instructor's licence and dedicated many hours to offering first aid courses to other employees as well as various groups in the area.

Mr. Gerald Cox was also recognized at this gathering. Mr. Cox was a volunteer member of the Bay d'Espoir Emergency Health Board for over thirty years. His many years of volunteer service to the Bay d'Espoir area are exemplary, and all from the area are truly thankful for his service.

Mr. Speaker, community service like that of Mr. Collier and Mr. Cox are invaluable to the community, and I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating them on the conclusion of their successful careers and in wishing them the best in all their future activities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and celebrate the selection on Monday of this week of Tommy C. Douglas as the popular choice for The Greatest Canadian.

The CBC television series championed the lives and contributions of many great leaders of Canada, including Prime Ministers, scientists and sports heros, and did so using advocates - including our own Mary Walsh and Rex Murphy - extolling the virtues of their choice.

Over 1 million Canadians participated by voting for their choice, and the winner - and in the lead from the beginning - was Tommy Douglas, five-term Premier of Saskatchewan and the first national Leader of the New Democratic Party.

For more than fifty years his staunch devotion to social causes, rousing powers of speech and pugnacious charm made him an unstoppable political force. Tommy Douglas was a master orator who could sway a crowd with his keen sense of humour and absolute passion, and used his skill to further equality and compassion for humanity.

In his youth, he was a amateur actor, boxer and apprentice printer before he found his first calling as a Baptist minister preaching the "social gospel" of religion-in-action, before entering politics in 1935.

His vision, "to ensure that medical care was available to every man, woman and child regardless of race, colour, or creed or the size of their wallet", is taken for granted today, but was a radical idea when it was introduced by Tommy Douglas in the Saskatchewan of the fifties - and earned him the title of "Father of Medicare".

Tommy Douglas's legacy as a social policy innovator lives on. Social welfare, universal Medicare, old age pensions and mothers' allowances - Douglas helped keep these ideas, and many more, in the forefront, watching as more established political parties eventually came to accept these once radical ideas as their own.

Tommy's words of inspiration - "Courage my friends... It's not too late to build a better world." - still ring true toady and offer us hope and guidance for the future.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in celebrating the selection of Tommy C. Douglas as "The Greatest Canadian."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to update hon. members on the "New Deal for Communities" which has been proposed by the federal government. Up until recently, provincial governments did not have much information on this new initiative, but I am pleased to say this has changed.

In mid-November, I attended a meeting in Toronto with my provincial and territorial counterparts at which the hon. John Godfrey provided us with our first official briefing on the new deal. Mr. Godfrey's comments were very encouraging. Funding for the new deal will start this fiscal year 2005-2006, with a total federal commitment over five years of $5 billion. Funding will progressively be increased to an annual expenditure of $2 billion per annum by the fifth year.

Mr. Speaker, this new deal is still very much in the early stages. Mr. Godfrey informed us that bilateral agreements will be negotiated. However, he was unable to provide us with draft templates to review. Also, no final decision has been made yet on how funding will be allocated among the provinces and territories. I can assure hon. members that I will be pushing hard for a fair and equitable funding allocation for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The new deal will be an infrastructure program and not simply a new source of revenue which provinces or municipalities can use at their own discretion. Funding will be targeted toward sustainable infrastructure projects in communities of all sizes.

In addition, I was very pleased that Mr. Godfrey supported the principles which the provinces and territories proposed to guide federal and provincial-territorial negotiations. In essence, we proposed that the federal government has to recognize provincial and territorial jurisdiction over municipal matters and our legislative authority in this realm.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see there is still a great deal of work which needs to be done in order for our municipalities to get the best possible deal from the federal government. I have written to Mr. Godfrey expressing my high satisfaction with this meeting and requesting that we get started right away on formalizing some of these details in bilateral negotiations.

I will also be meeting with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities to discuss how this Province will allocate the federal funding among municipalities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of the statement before coming to the House. As he said, they have had discussions with Mr. Godfrey on a new deal for municipalities. However, I find that, as the minister has said in his statement, there is not a lot to be able to comment on. Although he says that the program will start in 2005, it will wrap up to about $2 billion per year by the year of the agreement, which is probably the year 2011.

In the third paragraph it says, it "is still very much in the early stages." The minister was unable to provide us a template of what to review. No decision has been made on how funding will be allocated among the provinces and territories and that decisions for the funding will be targeted towards sustainable infrastructure projects in communities of all sizes. That is encouraging but, yet, we have to depend on what sustainable is.

One of the things though the minister said that Mr. Godfrey supported, the principle on that was to not bypass the provinces because that has always been a concern where the federal government would deal directly with cities -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. LANGDON: - and bypass the provinces to recognize that, that is very important because the Province has to have a say in all those infrastructure things that are going to be done.

As the minister already said, I think in the last paragraph, there is still much work to be done but we look forward to a successful conclusion to a program so that we can find many more projects that can go into the Province, especially in the rural parts, to have good sustainable projects that the communities can take advantage of in water and sewer and other things as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, for one, was pleased when the federal government's so-called agenda for cities became an agenda or a deal for communities broadening the scope of the program to include all municipalities and communities in Canada, not just the big cities that are driving the initial agenda.

I look forward to this government playing an active role in helping to determine the kind of principles that will be involved in allowing this Province to take full advantage of the new money that is apparently going to be available to support the work of municipalities in our country.

So, I do hope that the minister is able to have some influence on that program and not just us be the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to finish my sentence.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: - not just sit around and wait until the federal government makes an announcement and complain about the fact that it does not work for us. So we should be in there with some say at the beginning and try to influence the course of events.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Reverting to Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: They seem to be enjoying it, Mr. Speaker, so I will continue.

I rise today to inform hon. colleagues that tomorrow, December 3, is the United Nations International Day of Disabled Persons. Started in 1982, the purpose of this day is to promote an understanding of disability issues and mobilize support for the dignity, rights and well-being of persons with disabilities.

The theme for this year is: Nothing About Us Without Us. We must focus on the need for persons with disabilities to be actively involved in the planning and implementation of strategies which affect their lives. This theme also reflects on the importance of persons with disabilities participating as full citizens, living as independently as possible within our communities. In our Province, groups and organizations such as the Independent Living Resource Centre, provide many worthwhile supports and programs to persons with disabilities, and government is proud to assist in funding the important work they do. Representatives from the centre are here in the gallery this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, within the provincial government, we are committed to ensuring that persons with disabilities have equitable access to employment opportunities within the public service. Treasury Board Secretariate is responsible for the government-wide Opening Doors Program. This is an employment equity initiative created to build a representative public service. Since it inception, the program has provided several hundred people with disabilities the opportunity to build successful careers in the provincial public service. These careers cover a wide range of occupational areas including social work, information technology, education, communications, human resources, and environment.

In addition to its role with the provincial government, Opening Doors works closely with the federal government. The program acts as a single hiring agency for both levels of government for persons with disabilities. This arrangement is unique in Canada and makes it easier for individuals with disabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador to seek and secure employment in either level of government.

The Opening Doors Program is under the leadership of Mr. Jim McDonald. I want to inform hon. members that Jim was a recent recipient of a Public Service Award of Excellence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: He has worked with the provincial government for over twenty-five years, and the award is a testament to his unwavering commitment and dedication to ensuring that persons with disabilities have a strong advocate within government and that the program evolves to continually meet their needs. I want to acknowledge Jim joining us in the gallery today.

Mr. Speaker, to help mark the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, hon. members will receive a copy of the latest edition of the Opening Doors To Success magazine. The purpose of this publication is to showcase public service employees with disabilities who began their careers in the public service through the Opening Doors Program. Along with celebrating the varied careers and the many successes of this unique public sector employment equity program, the publication also serves as an educational tool for departmental managers, and persons with disabilities alike, and promotes the employment of persons with disabilities in the provincial Public Service. I encourage all hon. members to review Opening Doors to Success, and read first-hand the achievements that individuals with disabilities are making within the provincial government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a ministerial statement that I am pleased to support, and this side of the House is pleased to support it as well.

Tomorrow, being December 3, is the United Nations International Day of Disabled Persons but I believe every day is a day for disabled persons in our Province and in our world. The theme: Nothing About Us Without Us, talks about people being integrated into the community. Well, I think one of the happiest moments that I have experienced since I have been a member in this House, which is almost nine years now, was April of 1998, that was the day when legislation was passed in this House for disabled persons to be able to be involved in the disabled hunting program. I think that was a major step for this Province to take and I think it was one of the most gratifying pieces of legislation that came to this House.

Regarding the Opening Doors Program, I know that program very well, as I am the former President of Treasury Board. I, too, would like to stand and congratulate Mr. Jim McDonald. I know him personally and I know the fine work that he does, and I know the benefits of the Opening Doors Program. A lot of people have gotten their first jobs, disabled persons, by going through that program and are still working today.

There are a couple of things that I think we can probably pay attention to more in the future and that is accessibility to buildings. Even though we have a policy here in this Province of grandfathering in existing business, I think the time has come when there should be accessibility to all buildings. I think this is something that can be brought in gradually but this needs to be done. Then again, there is more respect for disabled parking, that is another area.

I would like to say to the provincial government, the former Administration always seen a need to increase funding to the Opening Doors Program and I hope they will as well in their upcoming budget.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, a statement that is a very important one indeed.

I think the fact sheets, Mr. Speaker, demonstrates clearly how far we have to go in helping people with disabilities to help themselves. For example, on the fact sheet I have outside it states that 12.4 per cent of the Canadian population has a form of disability and of that 12.4 per cent with disabilities, Mr. Speaker, they are 41 per cent of the consumers using food banks. I think that says a lot about the plight of persons with disabilities in our Province and in our country. I think it clearly demonstrates a need with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to make buildings more accessible. I know a case where people applied to get into Newfoundland and Labrador Housing but they could not be accommodated because of their disabilities.

I served as a member of the Labrador West Employment Corporation and we had some success in getting persons with disabilities employed in the private sector. That went over big, Mr. Speaker, and the group is continuing to work well today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Also, Mr. Speaker, I will challenge people to get in a wheelchair for a day and go around their communities and see how many places they are actually barred from getting into. I think then you would come across and find the real challenges that are presented to persons with disabilities.

I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works: One example in his department is the Sir Robert Bond, where the cafeteria is downstairs and it is a very steep incline. A person with disabilities cannot access the cafeteria on that boat.

Mr. Speaker, I will clue up by saying the other thing that has been talked about recently in this sitting is the fact that gas stations are going completely self-serve and persons with disabilities are going to have great difficulty while they are operating their vehicles to refuel. I think, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of work to be done in this area. I hope to encourage this government to take as many proactive steps as they can in that direction.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to extend an invitation to all hon. members, the general public and the media, to attend the annual Christmas Lights Across Canada Ceremony this evening. It will take place in the main lobby of the East Block of Confederation Building at 6:15 p.m.

This occasion marks the eighteenth year that the Province is taking part in Christmas Lights Across Canada. It is an event held in capitals across the nation, illuminating the country from the east to the west coast with hundreds of thousands of colorful lights, symbolically linking all Canadians at this time of year.

Mr. Speaker, this year's display includes approximately 60,000 lights and six billboards depicting Christmas scenes along the Prince Philip Parkway and including Memorial University. Tonight, we will be lighting thirteen trees with white lights, as a symbol of our country's thirteen provinces and territories. We will also be lighting a tree containing multicolour lights which symbolizes the diversity of our nation.

I am also pleased to inform this hon. House that well-known traditional singer and leading figure in the revival of Newfoundland traditional culture, Anita Best, will serve as our chairperson again this year. She was a founding member of the much beloved Figgy Duff and is very active in the broader community of arts, culture and heritage. She is currently a Cultural Policy Development Officer with the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Entertainment will be provided by St. Theresa's School Choir along with the Salvation Army, St. John's Citadel Band.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all to attend this evening's events as we celebrate the beginning of the holiday season and, hopefully, mother nature will co-operate and the weather will improve as the evening progresses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of his statement and for the invitation.

Mr. Speaker, this morning at 7 o'clock as the Air Labrador flight I was on barreled down the runway for takeoff, dawn was breaking in Labrador and the snow was falling. I arrived in St. John's to gale-force winds, fog and rain. Had I known, I would have taken a cooler of snow and, prior to the performance tonight, I would have gone up one story, opened the window and, as the ceremony began, I would sprinkle Labrador snow on the minister.

Again, it is a time when Christmas tree lightings are common all across Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for the invitation. I am sure that many of us on this side will join him in his celebration tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that this government is continuing the tradition of having the Christmas lights lit up. I know when they were in Opposition, the Member for Municipal Affairs used to complain about the cost of electricity, the number of lights and all that. He said it was like a runway. I guess, Mr. Speaker, that the Grinch hasn't completely taken over the financing of the opposite members. I am glad to hear that, despite the Auditor General's comments yesterday, we are not going to close down expenses to the point that we cannot enjoy a little bit of Christmas cheer. I imagine the wattage might be down a little bit this year, but at least we will have some lights and be able to celebrate the Christmas season and I hope people get a chance to join us.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the past several months we have witnessed a drastic increase in drug use in related crimes in the Province, particularly here in the metropolitan St. John's area. Abuse of drugs such as OxyContin have become a real epidemic, and are being blamed for the dramatic increase in armed robberies and theft in this area and in the Province. We have heard stories from those with drug addiction problems who need help in getting treatment to end their addiction, but cannot get government help to aid in this process.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services, Mr. Speaker: How many new addictions counselors have been hired, and what actions has government taken as result of the OxyContin Task Force Report, to ensure that addiction services are readily available in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot give him specifics on the number as a result of OxyContin. I am sure the figures might be provided later, from the department, but I can tell him that it is a big concern of government, not only in the accessibility and some of the problems encountered from a legal perspective, too, but also in dealing with it. Another one, methadone, is a prescription, and we have seen that

Recently, where there is only one doctor in this Province, we are very cognizant of that. The advisory committee, for instance, dealing with methadone, in that aspect has been working to help identify a doctor in this area who can help deal with that. There has been increased emphasis put on addiction counselling in general, Mr. Speaker. There is about $4 million annually spent on addiction counselors here in our Province in the Budget.

Dealing with other types of addictions - I have mentioned here in this House earlier - 1 per cent of proceeds from VLTs are used, put in by the businesses. Government had committed 150, and the Premier indicated another $100,000 there. While we are working to increase the number and deal with the very serious concerns there, the department is very much aware and we are doing what we can within the fiscal ability of our government to give the increased awareness that it needs, and the remedies to try to resolve it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard complaints of those with substance abuse problems, and advocates such as Chaplain Mr. Ron Fitzpatrick, regarding access to methadone treatments in the Province. It is estimated that upwards of 90 per cent of addicts who require methadone treatments live in the immediate St. John's area, yet there is no treatment facility on the East Coast; nor is government willing to provide any significant financial support for those people to travel to the only provincial treatment center in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Again, I ask the minister: When will government start listening to these people, take some definitive action, as was recommended in the OxyContin Task Force, and either establish a second treatment centre in the Province that will serve this immediate area, or provide the necessary financial assistance so that the people who need the service can get to the only available service now in Grand Falls-Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are only four physicians in the Province who have been licensed and able to provide it. One of them, of course, is in Central Newfoundland, the Grand Falls-Windsor area. There are three others not there.

It is a personal choice of a physician if they want to carry out that specific practice. That is not something you can force a physician to do. It is an independent professional choice of that physician.

The committee and the department are working very closely to try to identify somebody in the specific area where the incident rate is higher, to be able to deal with that. That is something that is ongoing. Hopefully, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, that can be resolved certainly sooner rather than later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it seems clear that more people are turning to criminal activities in an effort to support their addictions. One of the recommendations, again, of the OxyContin Task Force, was to establish a methadone treatment program for correctional facilities, to help inmates, themselves, deal with their addiction so they do not reoffend after serving their prison term. We have recently heard stories that inmates are not getting any new treatments; nor are they getting their regularly prescribed drugs while incarcerated.

I ask the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker: When can inmates expect these new and recommended drug treatment programs, programs that will hopefully end the cycle of reoffending once a prison term has been served?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the story that the hon. member was referring to dealt with an inmate of Her Majesty's Penitentiary who is dealing with a psychiatrist, who is dealing with a medical officer. This is a medical issue and, of course, the member would not expect me, as the Minister of Justice, to interfere with a professional doctor, a professional psychiatrist, in determining what is right for his patient.

With respect to the methadone program in our prisons, the department has not made a decision on that. These matters are quite complex. I know that methadone treatments are available in some prisons in other parts of the country, but at this stage, while this might be a useful alternative, it is a complex issue. The department is continuing to study this, and a decision will be made in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One final supplementary. Recommendation 45 of the Oxycontin Task Force recommended that legislative amendments to the Medical Act be prepared for this session of the House of Assembly to address some of the current issues surrounding drug addition in the Province. In fact, the task force, Mr. Speaker, said, and I quote: It is extremely important that these timelines be met to protect individual and public safety.

Again, I ask the minister responsible for drafting of the legislation: In the interest of public safety, will government be bringing these legislative changes, as recommended, to the House of Assembly before this session ends at Christmastime?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the hon. Leader of the Opposition refers is a matter that comes under the review of the Department of Health. Officials in Justice have been engaged with the Department of Health in reviewing these matters and reviewing the relevant legislation. Legal advise has been provided to enable the minister to come forward with the legislative changes at the appropriate time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday I asked a question about the comprehensiveness of the Occupational Health and Safety assessment which was done on the Harbour Breton plant. I want to ask the Minister of Government Services, now that she has had a day to check: Can she confirm that the only structural engineer present during the assessment was the one hired by FPI to make the initial inspection, and will she now commit to a comprehensive independent study of the Harbour Breton plant so that an accurate assessment of the state of the plant and the cost of the necessary repairs can be done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, our Occupational Health and Safety officials went to the plant in Harbour Breton after reviewing the report of the external consultant, the outside report, and their findings were consistent.

My hon. colleague asked about the engineer. He had input into that report, had consultation, and all of the findings do bear out what the external consultant said.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I know that the structural engineer who went to Harbour Breton did not go into the plant. He left the hotel in the morning and came back here because of a personal commitment that he had, and I would have done no different. All I am asking you is: If he didn't go to the plant, how could he have had a hand in making the assessment to determine if the original inspection had been done, to verify what FPI had already said?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, our engineer has evaluated the report. The findings are consistent with the external report. The only time that we would call in a structural engineer is if it was an inconsistent finding with the external report. The findings are consistent with the outside report, and he did have input. I am quite satisfied that he has done due diligence with regard to this inspection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will deal with that question another time.

My second question is for the Premier. We have been asking questions and advocating that the FPI quota remain in Harbour Breton. This morning, on an Open Line radio show, I was very pleased when I heard the Premier indicate that he supported the concept of community quota as a way of helping Harbour Breton.

I want to ask the Premier: Will he recommend to the federal government that the quota traditionally processed in Harbour Breton by FPI remains in Harbour Breton under a new operator?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what I can indicate to the member is that we are doing everything possible in co-operation with yourself, with the minister. I have met with the company as recently as last Monday, together with the union and with the community groups. What we want to do is explore all options and try and find out what the best solution is for the community in your district. Our goal here, our common goal, all of us, is to protect the people of Harbour Breton.

When we go through that entire process, there will be certain solutions that will appear to be the best and the most favourable. Those are the ones we will choose, but I think we have to explore it. I know as a result of the discussions just the other day between the union and the company, certain options were explored, were discussed.

If the quotas happen to be the right option, and that would be the favoured option, we would support it. We will support whatever is the best choice for the people of Harbour Breton at the end of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We want to make sure we go through the process. There may be variations on that, that might work; but, of course, we are faced now with a situation, a very difficult situation. We have things that are out of our control. The Canadian dollar is completely and totally out of our control. We have cheap labour competition coming from China.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If the Leader of the Opposition would just allow me to finish the answer.

As well, you have a question of product here, and the question of the structure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A very serious question has been asked, and the Premier is attempting to give the answer. I ask the Premier to conclude his comments very shortly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member knows, it is a very, very complex problem and there are no easy solutions, but we, as a government, are committed and determined to protect the people of Harbour Breton and find a solution for the people in the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Lawn indicates similar problems which exist in many other communities around the Province. My questions are for the Minister of Government Services, pertaining to the general policies of her department when it comes to water testing in the Province.

Can the Minister of Government Services inform the House how many communities in the Province that are currently under boil water advisories have potential E. coli bacteria? Minister, do you know the answer?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We are very concerned about the water quality in this Province. With the heightened Walkerton incident a few years back - and my hon. colleague knows this, being a minister at the time - we did put in twelve EHOs in the government to sample the water.

I would like to also say that all untreated water, we advise people to boil. The E. coli in Lawn is 2 per cent. It is a norm for untreated water. I think my hon. colleague in the House, yesterday, offered a solution to the people of Lawn, and the ball is in the court with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Town Council of Lawn to correct that situation for the residents in Lawn.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister does not know, and when I was minister I could have answered the question because I can answer the question now. There are over twenty communities in this Province - from the information on the government Web site - that may have E. coli bacteria in this Province. There are presently almost 300 boil water advisories in the Province, and government refuses to test them for E. coli and other threats.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, and asks him to complete his question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not find any humour in E. coli in their water, I will tell you that.

I ask the minister: Will she begin testing all water supplies in the Province today, to ensure others are not being exposed to this deadly bacteria, Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, as previously indicated, sampling is not done on untreated water, because the hon. member knows over there that the fluctuation from hour to hour, day to day, varies, and we suggest and we emphasize that we should boil all untreated water. That is the norm, when it is not a treatable system.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is not going to do anything about it. Another fluff answer to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister yesterday about the environmental health officers, the people who check the water in our Province. We know that some of these positions are currently vacant in the Province. Can she tell us why they are vacant and if she plans to recruit more water inspectors to test all water supplies to ensure deadly E. coli bacteria is not a health risk for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we do have a vacancy for an EHO. We have increased our staff by twelve new positions for a complement of thirty-four. Those positions are highly technical certification, and very hard to recruit. Actually, across the country there is difficulty in recruiting these type of positions, but we are actively recruiting an applicant for the vacancy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the C-NOPB lifted the suspension order for the operation of the Terra Nova offshore oil facility based on a plan submitted to them by Petro Canada to prevent further oil spills. What is disturbing about this is that both the cause of the largest oil spill on our offshore, and the cure that has been proposed by Petro Canada for the largest oil spill which went on for five hours before being detected, are being held in secrecy by the C-NOPB.

I want to ask the Premier: Why is the public of Newfoundland and Labrador kept in the dark about this very significant matter affecting the offshore operations in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, if we are going to talk about this issue - and in a public way we need to, to instill that there is confidence in the regulator, confidence in that when a situation like this occurs that we can deal with it effectively on behalf of the people of the Province - in order to do so, though, we need to deal with the facts, and the facts have not been determined that there was a spill ongoing for five hours, I say to the hon. member.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now.

I say to the hon. member that the investigation is not complete. It is not conclusive in terms of exactly how long the spill was occurring or how much was occurring early and how much occurred late. So, I think it is important and incumbent on all of us in understanding this process, Mr. Speaker, that when the investigation is ultimately done, it is then given the written investigative report according to law and according to the regulations, which the member is aware of, is then put in a federal prosecutors hands for his or her judgement on: Should there be criminal actions laid? So, until such time that that brief is done, that investigative report is given to the federal prosecutor and a decision is made, I think it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we not get out in front of this to start making accusations that may not be in fact true.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker - and I know it is a little long winded but it is an important answer. With respect to the secrecy of the C-NOPB, I completely disagree. The C-NOPB is a regulator that is enacted by laws and regulations and legislation passed in this House and in Parliament and the member either knows or ought to know that according to section 119 the C-NOPB board is very prescriptive in what it can release. I can say, Mr. Speaker, with absolute confidence that the board acted in the interest of the people of the Province and I believe that they did so in a timely manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was Petro Canada who said that it went on for five hours before it was detected. Mr. Speaker, I can understand the issue with respect to possible prosecution but how do we know it is fixed? That is the point I am asking here today. They were operating under the authority of the C-NOPB when it happened in the first place. They are now saying it is fixed but how do we know it is fixed, Mr. Speaker? Why can't they tell us what they have done to fix the problem so that we can have some confidence that they are actually doing their job?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

For clarity and understanding I think it is important to know this: The chief conservation officer, who works out of the board office, you can compare that person to the Auditor General of the Province. That person makes an independent decision; is independent of the board members; is independent of the process; is independent of the federal government; is independent of the provincial government, and it is there for a reason. Because that individual is enshrined and ensconced with the absolute responsibility to protect the public.

When the chief conservation officer issued the order to suspend production, he did so in a timely manner. They would not be issued - the suspension would not be lifted if the chief conservation officer did not feel ultimately, I guess, that the corrections that were needed to be made, were made. We have confidence in the system. I have been briefed as the provincial minister. I have confidence in the decision that he made, and when the investigation is complete and when the federal prosecutor sees it, Mr. Speaker, we all be able to know exactly what happened (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, time in your allocation for one brief question.

MR. HARRIS: Briefly said, Mr. Speaker.

The Auditor General, when he makes recommendations, does not make them in secret and why does the Chief Conservation Officer of the C-NOPB do so?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a lawyer. He understands, I am sure he does and, if not, I think he should, that until the investigation is complete, any information that could be released could jeopardize the investigation itself. We do not know what will come out of this investigation. There could be criminal charges laid. The fact of the matter is that the chief conservation officer made a decision. I was briefed on behalf of the government, or for the government. I am confident in the decision that he made. I am confident in the board that they stop production until all issues are related to the FPSO are dealt with, and I believe the public should have the same level of confidence as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I get to my question, I followed a precedent with that yesterday and I take the opportunity to welcome my colleague, the Member for Parliament for Labrador, to our Chambers today and to say it is a pleasure to have him here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Social workers hired in the past year to deal with a large number of assessments of child abuse cases are now being let go even though there are still more than one hundred cases in the system on backlog. The professional Association of Social Workers have indicated that money will run out for these jobs but the minister has more money in his department now than when he originally made the decision to hire these people less than a year ago. How does the minister justify terminating the employment of these social workers and how does he plan to respond to the growing needs of child abuse cases in the Province today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whenever there are any pressures on any area in the system, the department tries to move forward and hire extra people to deal with these. When we get back to regular levels - there are numerous pressures in the system not only in this area, which is very important, but in numerous other areas in the system and you have to use resources within your means to deal with every single pressing need within the Department of Health, generally, not only in these cases. There are other many pressing cases, too. We have to manage our resources. Your government, when they were there, put us a billion dollars a year in the hole. We have to deal with that problem as well as try to provide important services to the people of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: It is always about money over people whenever you ask a question in health care here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, young children in this Province are on the waiting list for up to two years for diagnostic services. Three-and-a-half year old Mitchell Bishop of Paradise, his parents were absolutely shocked when they learned their child would have to wait eighteen to twenty-four months to have an MRI done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These are young children who are growing and their health concerns require immediate attention. The minister has refused to lay out the priorities for new health care investments from the federal government transferred to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister directly: Will he act immediately to assign any of this new money to reduce the wait list for children who require these tests, such as MRI, for they cannot wait for this government to sort out the paper trail on this federal transfer dollars?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to use the available extra resources we have to address many pressing concerns in health care. There are numerous priorities identified. In fact, this year, I might add, we have gone on to address almost 28 million more concerns that were budgeted with the health boards out there this year, in spite of not having money available at that time. We are concerned.

We do know that the MRI in Corner Brook will help reduce the per capita amount access by 50 per cent. In fact, with CT scans, that has doubled the national average in excess to these. So, we are working in areas in diagnostic equipment. MRI is going to be involved and hopefully it will cut it in half, the waiting list, with two machines in our Province. We are working to address that. These are very pressing concerns and we are going to live up to the commitments that the Premier gave on dealing with health care plans for the future. When we get the money, which we do not yet have - there must be legislation drafted and passed in the Parliament of Canada before we can access this money - we will spend it prudently. We will address the number one priority of people in our Province (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the speech by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health on these new health dollars is wearing a little thin, I can tell you that.

Mr. Speaker, recently we have had reports that there are problems related to the safety of children in secure custody care at the Janeway hospital. These matters were raised with the minister, so can he tell me today what action has been taken to ensure that these kind of serious incidents do not happen again at the Janeway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are always incidents where things happen in the system. We are all human, but I can tell you that we have very competent professionals working there, who are going to make every effort to make sure that every single case is dealt with appropriately and professionally, and that anything of that nature does not happen a second time in our system.

We cannot guarantee it. Those people are professionals; they are human. We are dealing to cope with the situation there. We did move and address it when it was raised to the attention of the officials in the department, and we will continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the number of accidents and incidents involving tractor trailers continue to pile up. Recently, there was another incident that occurred just outside of Clarenville.

Can the Minister of Government Services tell the House today why her department cut inspection services and weigh scales in the Budget when she knew there would be problems on our highways?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, that was a Budget decision, to close the weigh scales. We have indeed seen no evidence by closing those weigh scales with regard to accidents. They are constantly doing their inspections, and our portable weigh scales people are out in force. We will continue to uphold highway safety in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, on a very short supplementary.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable - there is no evidence of any incidents. Every day there is some incident in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, until the minister acknowledges there are problems, the accidents will continue. We had reports recently (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I inform the member there is time for a very brief question. I ask him to get to the question immediately.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, we have reports recently about leaking trucks carrying contaminated soil from Gander across the Island. Why is it that officials of Marine Atlantic and the Nova Scotia Government are able to do proper monitoring, but her own department has missed at least four cases? Who is protecting our people, and who is protecting our environment in this Province, Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to address a matter that came up yesterday and happened again today. Members know that when we are in Oral Questions, or other times in the House, members should not be welcoming people to the gallery, or commenting on it. It happened yesterday and I spoke to both members involved.

I am always pleased, as the Chair of this House, to welcome all hon. members to the House. I received three notes from members today welcoming the MP for Labrador into the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I want to acknowledge that we are always pleased to have the MP with us, and any member of the federal Parliament coming to visit. Formally, I would welcome you here to our House. We am happy to see you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Labrador West concerning subsidies for medical transportation, particularly pertaining to airfares.

Mr. Speaker, people in my district find it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I say, this petition is in regard to concerns raised by residents of Labrador West when it comes to the cost that they have to pay to obtain quality medical services that other people in Labrador do not have incur, Mr. Speaker. It is directly in relationship to people who are referred to the hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay by their physician for treatments that are not available locally.

Mr. Speaker, all other residents of Labrador can go to St. Anthony or Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the cost of $40 return, while residents of my district, Mr. Speaker, have to pay upwards of nearly $500. That is grossly unfair to people who live in Labrador West. This has been ongoing, Mr. Speaker, for far too long. As we speak, each and every day there are people who have to incur that debt in order to get medical services that are not available in our area. They asked the question, Mr. Speaker, they asked the question, why? Why should they be the only people in Labrador who are not entitled to this subsidy?

I know that the Premier, when he talked in the meetings in Ottawa at the First Ministers' Conference on health care, he raised the question of Labrador travel. I was very happy to hear him raise that, Mr. Speaker, because there is a need for such a subsidy, but I do not believe that while this government is trying to figure out how that money is going to be spent, I do not believe it is necessary for people in Labrador West to continue to have to pay these high airfares when other residents of Labrador do not have to incur them.

I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the other residents of Labrador should have to pay more than what they are paying. I understand the cost of travelling within the region, but there is no legitimate reason why we, too, should not be part of the plan that provides that benefit to other residents of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I say to this government to immediately act upon solving this problem, and treat people in Labrador West the same as people in other parts of Labrador are treated. It is a discriminatory practice that should not be allowed to continue, and I ask the government to immediately fix this by including the residents of Labrador West into the total plan that is now available for other residents of Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I just rise to raise a question regarding Standing Orders of the House, in particular Standing Order 63, subsection (8) with deals with the issue of a private member's motion. Next Wednesday, Private Members' Day will be upon us once again, and I just want to call to the attention of Your Honour, 63 (8) "... recognizing motions introduced by Members who sit in the Opposition, the Speaker shall ensure that motions made by Opposition Members who do not sit with the Official Opposition are called for debate in proportion to the number of those Members to the number of all Members who sit in Opposition, with the intent that each Member sitting in the Opposition shall have an opportunity to introduce a Private Member's motion once during a Session."

Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree that the allocation of members on this side of the House since the last election has resulted in a situation where we, in the NDP caucus, have two members, approximately one-sixth of those sitting in Opposition with regard to the official Opposition. Therefore, it is my calculation that by Wednesday of next week it will be our Opposition day. I do note, however, that Standing 63 (3) does not provide for this particular type situation, and, in fact, calls upon either the Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader to announce the private member's motion to be debated on the Wednesday that is forthcoming.

I raised it today, Mr. Speaker, because Monday is the day when either of these House Leaders are called upon, by the procedural rule in section 63 (3) to give that announcement. However, I wouldn't imagine that the substantive rule in 63 (8) could be overridden by that. I bring it to your attention and perhaps the Opposition House Leader might have some comments on that. The rule says it is Your Honour's duty to ensure that this might happen. I don't think we have a problem, Mr. Speaker, because I believe there is some agreement on it. Perhaps the Opposition House Leader would wish to address it.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed Standing Order 63, in particular subsection (3) and subsection (8). We have no difficulty whatsoever in recognizing that next Wednesday ought to be the private member's day for the NDP in this particular case. It is our view, in fact, that notwithstanding the anomaly between subsection (3) and subsection (8), I don't think the Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader is going to be reading in the NDP's private member's motion. I would suggest and submit that subsection (8) is substantive, whereas subsection (3) is procedural, and being procedural we leave the procedure to yourself, Your Honour, to decide that the NDP would read in his own motion on the time required, which I believe would be Monday.

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

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

Who am I to interfere with two hon. gentlemen who have already worked out a relationship, an arrangement?

As the member has highlighted, there is a formula - I guess, for the lack of a better term - in terms of how private members' motions are put forward and by whom. I will say this, this is not a debating point for today but maybe something that my hon. colleague, the Opposition House Leader and my colleague the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi might think about over Christmas, and when we get back in January and we look at the review of the Standing Orders that we try to find a more equitable way for the dealing of private members' resolutions. It is just a thought that I throw out there, unsolicited as it may be, but certainly with the agreement, the arrangements and whatever guidance the Speaker provides the government certainly will adhere to, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair notes that it is a valid point of order and agrees with the presentation put forward by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and thanks the other members for their contribution.

If it is in agreement with the House, then on Monday the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi, or the Member for Labrador West, will put forward a motion to this House. I do understand that section 53 of the Standing Orders would dictate that if the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi were to put forward a new motion he may wish to have the motion which now stands on the Order Paper withdrawn. That would be an agreement, I do believe, between all hon. members.

We will let the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi be guided by the consensus in the House and we look forward on Monday to his announcement in the House. I agree, he should announce his own resolutions.

Orders of the Day.

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

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

Motion 2, the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible For Aboriginal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. (Bill 44)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement," carried. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Ratify And Give The Force Of Law To The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 4, I ask leave that the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 46)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act," carried. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

For the sake of everything, I ask your advice on this. I am going to introduce Motions 5, 6, 7 and 8. Is there a potential that we could do those together or should we carry on through them one by one? This is just the opportunity to have all those bills read a first time so we can get the legislation distributed. Can we have concurrence on that? Would that be -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair can concur if there is agreement among the House Leaders.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It seems to be agreed with, Mr. Speaker, so I will move them all together and then we will do it together.

Motion 5, which is the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 55)

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Court Security. (Bill 54)

Motion 7, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act. (Bill 53)

And myself, in my capacity as Government House Leader, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affair shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 55)

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Court Security. (Bill 54)

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act. (Bill 53)

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act. (Bill 56)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. ministers shall have leave to introduce said bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act," carried. (Bill 55)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Respecting Court Security," carried. (Bill 54)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act," carried. (Bill 53)

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," carried. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bills be now a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bills be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 55)

A bill, An Act Respecting Court Security. (Bill 54)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act. (Bill 53)

A bill, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: These bills have now been read a first time. When shall the said bills be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 54 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 53 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 56 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

I will ask now that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Order 4, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 45.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on said Bill 45?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise again today. Of course, I have been up already to speak to this bill in second reading, but we are in Committee stage today. There have been some concerns and questions raised, and it is a good time to debate those things.

I will just make a few short comments today and then give it to my colleagues to go back and forth across the House to speak to the bill, but I have to make a few more comments because I did speak for just a few brief minutes the other day. I must say, there has been some good feedback, some varying views, and that is exactly what it is all about when you debate in the House, back and forth, and we get into now, of course, Committee stage and so on.

Mr. Chair, there have been a few points raised from people across the Province who have said the same thing to me: that, first of all, this is a $21 million investment that has been done over a number of years. We built this, basically, we as a people, both from the provincial standpoint and a federal standpoint. Twenty-one million dollars have gone into an infrastructure in this Province which, by the way, I think most people agree, has a great potential to increase our winter tourism potential.

Whenever, even ten years ago, we talked to people, they talked about tourism in this Province as a summer or even a fall tourism. Now, of course, we have tourism operators in this Province who employ some 2,600 people to talk about tourism in this Province - but they just referred to summer tourism or usually fall - but now we have the potential, with this particular industry, of expanding that into a winter tourism here which we know has such incredible potential.

That has been evolving over the years. It has been an ongoing debate. I remember sitting in Opposition three or four years ago talking about the trails, and how are we going to maintain and upkeep these trails, the ones that we are building now throughout all of our communities, throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the potential for them. So that question, Mr. Chair, and that debate, has been ongoing for a number of years. I guess what I said in my initial remarks was that I have always believed, when you are building an infrastructure, no matter what it is for, part of that plan should be how you are going to maintain and operate them as we go forward. That is something, Mr. Chair, in my opinion - and I have said this publicly a couple of times the last couple of days - this whole idea of how we are going to operate and maintain them should have been a part of that plan back four and five and six years ago when they were looking at building this infrastructure.

That being said, we are here today and the short history on my side of it is that just last year one of the first situations I ran into in the department that I went into, Mr. Chair, was from the federation and so on, at a point last year where we thought the industry would not even be able to get started. Of course, with some short-term measures last year, and with a lot of co-operation, we did.

Mr. Chair, there was a good point raised by the Opposition critic, the Member for Bay of Islands, yesterday. Keeping in mind that we have these $21 million worth of trails built, it was a real good point that the member brought up, and I am sure we all would like to make mention of it, and that is, these are volunteers. These are people on these associations, clubs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, who spent hours and hours of volunteer work to develop what we have now as a snowmobile industry.

The Member for Labrador also made a good point - and I myself have snowmobiled for years - to get on a groomed trail in the comfort that it is today, a lot of people will tell you that they love it, and that is the way it should be. I could also tell you that people have said to me that what it saves on maintenance on your snowmobile, and of course gas monies, all of that comes into effect when you are talking about a groomed trail, a smooth ride trail with signage and so on.

So these are a lot of things that have developed in this industry, and it is going to continue to develop. The good news is that this is the beginning - a lot of people believe - of a potential industry that could bring very good economic impact to this Province. It does not hurt to repeat it, it was volunteers who had the foresight and the vision to keep pursuing this, keep pursuing governments from all levels to get commitments of funding, and to finally end up with an infrastructure in this Province that is worth over $20 million.

Mr. Chairman, on top of all of that - and I am sure the Member for Labrador will agree with me on this one - as we talk about the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as we have gotten comments back from last year of Europeans and so on, and people from Quebec especially that came into Labrador to snowmobile, saying that it was the best in the world. Not just the best they have ever seen, the best in the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: That is what we have before us today. So just think about when we put all of that together. We have volunteers who are on the ground, who have done so much work in this, in all our communities - I know them and you know them. We have a quality product, that I believe too, is the best in the world. Now we have to move forward to co-operate and make sure that those volunteers in all of those clubs across this Province know that they have the support of this government and that we are going to act on it. I made a commitment last year that we would act on it. That is why it is in the Legislature today. We want to move forward.

I am glad we are going to enable those associations - and that is the key point in this legislation. We are enabling those associations to take upon themselves, from fee structures to whole maintenance of the trails and so on. It will be how they collect the money and how they spend the money. There will be an audited statement annually, which they have agreed to. They think it is the right thing to do, that every year this Province will get a full update of monies collected and how they were spent. That is very important, the accountabilities there. I think a lot of things fall into place there.

Another concern that was raised by a number of people, and I have already spoken to both associations - the Labrador trails and the Newfoundland and Labrador federation - that some clubs are smaller than others. For example, I heard the president of the St. John's Avalon area on this morning talking about how they are trying to get hooked up now and they are working towards their trails. The potential of all the snowmobiles around the St. John's area to go out around the Province. So while we are talking about the smaller clubs saying that they have small numbers, of course when they collect fees there is a lot less money, but they still have the good trails. In bigger areas where they have the bigger numbers, as far as both associations have told me and indicated, all of this should be looked at as a complete Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As funds come in, whether it be a large number in an area or a smaller number, that all of that should work towards helping smaller clubs and so on, making sure they have the help to maintain and enhance their trails.

Mr. Chairman, this has to do with an inaugural year, really, of this whole thing moving forward, of co-operation among the people out there in clubs who are volunteers. I have a good indication and a good feeling that this thing could work if we all co-operate and chip in. Also, as the Member for Labrador reminded me, there are a lot of good points as this debate moves on; that as most people co-operate and pitch in and become part of this and pay their fees, that helps everybody. It helps the trails, and the clubs that have smaller numbers. It helps everybody in the amount of fees there are and, of course, the rising cost of insurance and the cost that comes with fuel and so on.

Mr. Chairman, this is a win-win for everybody if we co-operate. We have an infrastructure in place now that can grow to, of course, benefit people in the Province, but also as a tourism potential for people who want to come and see our beautiful Province and explore it from a winter perspective, which I think is my favorite time of the year when I was talking about snowmobiling.

There are a lot of good points. There is a lot of good debate. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, as we move into this - keeping in mind that the association is on the ground, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation on the Island. The Labrador Winter Trails are going to work with us and co-operate with us, co-operate together as an entire Province to make this good for everybody.

There are a number of questions. I am going to allow my colleagues to get up. I will take some notes, Mr. Chairman, and give them a chance to speak. If there are any concerns or questions raised I will come back later on in the day and make notes and make sure we try to get the answers to some of those concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Would you just confirm for me first how much time I have to speak? Fifteen minutes, is it?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The first two speakers in the Committee of the Whole taking part in debate have fifteen minutes each, every other speaker will have ten minutes.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted to speak on Bill 45 today. Yesterday, we were talking about salmon. Today we are talking about snowmobiles. Both of those areas of recreation are near and dear to all of us in Central Newfoundland and, indeed, the Province all over.

I believe this is a good piece of legislation. My greatest concern about this legislation is the fact that I do not believe the government has done their communications on this piece of legislation. That is the biggest problem I see with it. I know that people mostly all around this Province are in favour of this but the problem, as I see it right now, with Bill 45 is that the general public are not informed. There are a lot of unanswered questions out there in the public today. I am certain that the minister feels the same way as I do from what he has said in his preamble today.

I would have thought - and I think most of the Province would have thought - that early fall this year you would have taken this show on the road. You would have actually gone out all over this Province -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) associations.

MS THISTLE: I know it is the associations but somebody has to be the umbrella, the catalyst to get this moving and get the communications out in the public because most people have a lot of questions. They do not know what is happening. They know that Bill 45 was actually laid on the Table on Tuesday afternoon, just two days ago. Yesterday was Private Members' Day, so we had no opportunity to debate it yesterday. Today is the first day that, really, we are having a to and fro here in the House. We started a little bit on Tuesday afternoon but not the entire Tuesday afternoon.

MR. SHELLEY: We have all day. Take your time (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I know we have all day. This is good stuff that is happening and you do not want to give the impression that you are trying to railroad it through and not give people ample opportunity to have their questions answered.

I received quite a lot of phone calls and e-mails, as I suspected I would living in Central Newfoundland, where snowmobiling is very popular. The main concerns that I had is there are some people who do not use the groomed trail and they were wondering if they had the ability, once this legislation is passed, to actually cross over the groomed trail to access their cabin without buying a permit. That question - now, I do not know why the Member for Lake Melville would laugh at that because that is legitimate. That is legitimate because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: It is not a stupid question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Sometimes when there is no other access, only the groomed trail, you might have to cross over. So there is no such thing as a stupid question. If that is a question on the minds of people out here in the Province, it needs to be answered.

Another question that was asked was that - we have a situation in Central Newfoundland, and I know it exists in Western Newfoundland, where logging is taking place. A lot of those contractors, although they have good intentions, don't restore the rail bed to its original condition. Who will be responsible, once this legislation goes through, in putting the rail bed back to where it should be? Even though it is groomed, you have a lot of ruts in this rail bed in areas where logging is taking place and it doesn't seem to get repaired. These are the kinds of things that, naturally, users will have to know. If they are paying a sticker price, they want to know that the rail bed will be in good condition. I know it is going to be managed by independent snowmobile clubs throughout the Province, and everyone will be responsible for their particular area.

What some other people are asking me: Once they purchase a sticker, whether it be in Clarenville or Lab West or in Western Newfoundland, can they be assured that the condition of the trailway will be uniform throughout the Province? Will some snowmobile clubs do a better job of maintaining their trails? Who will make the decisions with regard to the expenditure of funds? Will some snowmobile associations decide to build lodges? Will they decide to put more trails in at the risk of not maintaining the primary trails? All these are valid questions.

I understand, from what I have been reading and from talking to different people, that decisions that affect the overall usage of the trailway come under the guise of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Snowmobile Clubs. Any big decisions - this year there was a question put forward to the federation and it revolved around the idea of a family sticker for snowmobilers, anyone who might have more than one snowmobile in their family. They wanted to come up with a fee that would look after the entire family instead of having them all separate. Apparently, the Federation of Snowmobilers turned down that request and they went with individual sticker price or individual machine price. That is a concern for anyone who has a family and the entire family is using the trails.

Then there was another question brought up: Who is going to do the policing on the trailway? Is it the RNC, where they preside, or is it the RCMP? Is it the conservation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I don't know what is going on here. You have a whole row of backbenchers who do not want me to ask these legitimate questions that constituents of mine have asked. They are all answering in unison. They do not take this matter seriously. The minister takes the matter seriously, but I think you need to hear these; they are good questions. These are the kinds of questions.

You have said conservation officers, RCMP and RNC, anyone who is entrusted or authorized to do that kind of enforcement. We have not spoken about the fees. There is nothing in this legislation to talk about the fees, and what kind of fees there are going to be for different violations. There is nothing there.

I know, personally, from talking to the Exploits Snowmobile Association, the one that is in my area, they had a membership last year of 441 but up to today they have 800 stickers sold. So, I know that most people in my particular constituency are interested in having groomed trails and are willing to pay the price providing they get the service. I think the only question is the fact that they have not had the opportunity to go through public consultations on this matter, because anything that affects the outdoors and the outdoor rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is a very sensitive issue. I think we want to make sure that any questions that come to the forefront are answered.

I know a lot of this will be regulation once legislation is passed. A lot of these questions will form part of regulation, and anything that is regulated is internal to government and it can be changed as time goes by; however, I recognize, as well as every member in this House recognizes, the potential of having our trailways groomed. We had the unfortunate incident a year or so ago, in Badger, of losing one of our groomers in a bog; but, like the minister has said, we are dealing with volunteers.

Do you know that volunteers and the business community themselves actually pulled that groomer out of the bog? There was a young man inside that groomer who managed to get out. He almost lost his life. The bog was so deep, it consumed the groomer. Volunteers and the business communities actually pulled out that groomer and restored that back to its original shape, which was a wonderful, kind gesture on behalf of the business community and the local people who realized the potential for that groomer and needed it done.

When I look at the fact that we have winter tourism right from - I will speak about my district, but we know it is all over the Province - Grand Falls-Windsor to Buchans, you are getting people now coming from Howley on the West Coast going to Buchans, through the Gaff, down through Millertown and out to Grand Falls-Windsor. They frequent service stations, they frequent hotels, and they frequent communities. I know that every community within my District of Grand Falls-Buchans is in entire agreement with having groomers on the trail and passing this legislation. From an individual perspective of people who have called me and e-mailed me, I do have to bring forward their questions and make sure that they get the answers to them.

There is another question that came up, and that was about the actual collection of the fees and how the money was going to be distributed. I know it is going to be looked after by each independent, I guess, federation - or, not the federation, each individual snowmobile association.

AN HON. MEMBER: Part of it.

MS THISTLE: Part of it. They are going to get a portion, I think, of maybe $20 out of every sticker that is sold. I guess the uncertainty that was brought to my attention by a constituent was the fact that: Will some associations be getting more money because they have an idea of doing things differently in their particular neck of the woods?

What safeguards will be put in place so that every snowmobile association would have a uniform and a standard trail bed that would attract users from one end of the Province to the other? Instead of saying, well, I am not going to go down that section, that is never groomed, or that is full of ruts, or I think we will go over there, they have the best lodges or whatever, what kind of safeguards are going to be in the actual dividing up of the money that comes as part of the sticker price so that we can be sure that when we go to promote our trailway outside the Province and inside the Province, whether it be summertime or wintertime, it is going to be in good condition?

Another question will arise, too - and it did; I received a call last night at home - we know that in the summertime when ATVs use our trail beds, I heard that some $59 million went into provincial revenues, one way or another, because of the ATV business across our Province last year. I would also like to know, and ask the minister, was any of that money put back into the system, or was it put into general revenues and used for other kinds of tourism promotion? We know that has happened. Do we have any guarantee that our trailways will be in tip-top shape for users on quads and ATVs in the summertime?

We know we are looking at legislation now for grooming the trail in the winter, but we have to look at this as an all-season marketing tool, and something that is going to be able to bring in a lot of money to this Province.

We know, looking at the stats that come with snowmobilers, that the average age of the snowmobiler around the world is forty-two years old. It says that 75 per cent of snowmobile owners are married.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time has expired.

MS THISTLE: It is too bad, but I thank you for this time. Maybe I will have an opportunity to speak again later.

Thank you.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I am going to do, because there are a number of questions - and the member asked some very good questions, commonly asked questions, as a matter of fact, and some good points - instead of me doing all the questions now, I will wait until we get responses from all members. I will make notes here and, at the end of it all, I will answer the best I can the questions raised. I thank the member

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lake Melville.

CHAIR: Lake Melville, I am sorry.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for recognizing the great District of Lake Melville.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in the hon. House today to speak to this, what I believe to be, very important piece of legislation. I congratulate the minister and his department for putting this forward to this hon. House today. The Province, in partnership with the federal government, has invested approximately $21 million into the development of groomed snowmobile systems in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is approximately 5,500 kilometres of snowmobile trails that have been developed to date through this investment.

This legislation will require that all users of groomed trails will be required to buy and display a trail use permit. The cost of an annual trail use permit will range from as low as $60 to as high as $125, and weekly and daily passes will also be available for the purchase at a lower cost.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good piece of legislation because of the great opportunities that we have in this Province, and I want to talk a few minutes about, certainly, my own district, and indeed Labrador, where I basically spent literally thousands of hours on a snowmobile, where we have a great trail system running from Cartwright to L'Anse au Clair. In Southern Labrador we have a trail system now which runs from Happy Valley-Goose Bay North to North West River and on to the unique, beautiful Town of Postville up on the North Coast of Labrador, and there is a trail system that runs from Labrador West, Labrador City, Wabush, to Churchill Falls and then into Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

What we are finding is that, certainly, a lot of people own machines in Labrador. I would suggest to you that pretty well every household in Labrador has one, and many of them have two snow machines, because this is a favourite pastime of Labradorians. This is a favourite pastime for people to get away to the cabins on the weekend and to get to do hunting trips, and adventure tourism is a great opportunity here for snowmobile trips, guided snowmobile tours. So, Mr. Chairman, I believe that in order for us sustain the trail system in the Province in the long term, then obviously snowmobilers and snowmobile clubs must play a very important role in managing this particular activity.

What this legislation will do, it will ensure that the policing of these trails will take place and, as I understand it, these trails will be policed by peace officers, which include the RCMP, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and other provincial enforcement employees, conservation officers and wildlife managers, will be given the authority for trail use permit enforcement as part of their normal day-to-day duties.

Penalties will range from $100 to $200 for a first offence, with a possibility of a short-term imprisonment in lieu of a fine to also apply to offenders pursuant to these proposed amendments. I think this is good, because it ensures that those who use the trails will indeed pay for their memberships.

Mr. Chairman, there was a comment made earlier by the member across, what about people crossing snowmobile trails? This legislation does not - as I see it, anyway, the reading I have done on it - say that you cannot use a snowmobile trail, or a snowmobile to cross a snowmobile trail. I think this is something that will happen from time to time, and I think we will have to leave it to the good judgement of our enforcement officers to ensure that they use their best judgement. as they normally do in these type of situations. It will also give those who do not want to buy stickers and do not want to become part of snowmobile clubs, they still have the opportunity to get out into the country, to get out into the outback and to enjoy winter on their snow machines.

I think this is a very progressive piece of legislation. As I understand it right now, all provinces, with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia, require the annual registration of snowmobiles for their snowmobile systems.

I do know that in the Province of Quebec this has become a multi-million dollar industry in which the Province of Quebec, particularly in Northern Quebec, have built a great tourism industry. I hope that some day soon we will see a trail system across Labrador and into Quebec, and tie into the other trail systems across the country. I think this is something that we can shoot for. I think this is something that is realistic. I think it will create an atmosphere of winter tourism in Atlantic Canada that is second to none in the world.

I congratulate the minister for this piece of legislation. Certainly, from my district, we have many groomed trails throughout the community that have been built over the last number of years with federal funding, for the most part.

I will say, Mr. Chairman, that these trails are used extensively. There is a big advantage, and for anybody who has done any tracking with snow machines over great distances, I can tell you that riding a snow machine on a groomed trail saves money in gas, saves money in maintenance repairs on your snow machine and saves on ones back because I remember in the years where we had to go over - as my good friend from Labrador West calls them - the yes ma'ams for miles and miles and miles when we were caribou hunting and into the bush. I can tell you that these snowmobile trails will provide many hours of pleasure to the snowmobile public and to the travelling tourists.

So, I congratulate the minister, Mr. Chairman, and the minister certainly has my full support on this piece of legislation.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say it is great that we are having this debate today on Bill 45 and the amendment to Bill 45. I want to say that it is great that debate is also taking place in the Province in the various forms of media that we have the opportunity to use.

I am glad, Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday night when I raised this issue for the first time publicly because my strongest argument with what is happening here today is the fact that people in the Province did not know it was happening. Indeed, most people in the Province did not know until I went on the Open Line show on Tuesday night and again on Wednesday morning. Now the people in the Province are actively discussing this issue and I think, for the most part, it has been pretty positive, that finally something will be done to make trail passes mandatory in the Province.

But, having said that, Mr. Chairman - and I am a member of the White Wolf Snowmobile Club, I have been for years. I have my two Ski-Doos registered but there are still a lot of problems that I am not comfortable with, even though I support the prospect of mandatory passes for trails. There are still a number of things that I am not comfortable with. I think a lot of the issues that I am not comfortable with are issues that the public are not entirely comfortable with either, Mr. Chairman. If there were public meetings held than a lot of these things would have been thrashed out. The parameters could have been set so that everybody would know the ground rules going in.

Now, the minister has stated that this issue has been talked about a lot of times; he has had a lot of discussions. Granted, he may have but, Mr. Chairman, he has had them with the snowmobile associations and the snowmobile clubs around the Province. There has not been a lot of discussion, or any discussion, with the general public at-large, who are the largest number of snowmobilers in the Province.

Mr. Chairman, issues - I would ask the minister if he could address when he gets up the next time. One that the Member for Grand Falls mentioned is: What happens to people who are using the trail to get off the trail, so to speak? Because there are places in the Province where people have to go on the trail in order to get away from it entirely. What happens if someone is caught crossing the trail, or the 400 or 500 feet? I certainly hope common sense will prevail in judging these situations, but I would think it would be a lot simpler and straightforward if they were addressed by way of regulation.

Also, Mr. Chairman, in the amendment to Bill 45 we talk about fixed stickers. I know a lot of people in my area who probably have an old Ski-Doo by their cabin that they only use to haul water with or go to cut wood, things of that nature. Now, they would have to licence that as well. If they had a good Ski-Doo that they use for the trail itself, they would have that one registered, but what about the old one that is sitting by their cabin? Probably there may be people out there in the public, if they had the opportunity, who would say: Well, why have a fixed sticker? Why not have a sticker that you can transfer from one Ski-Doo to another so that the Ski-Doo you are using is registered? That is what the important thing is, the Ski-Doo that you are using is a registered Ski-Doo; not the fact that if you have two or three old Ski-Doos that you have to have them all registered because you might use them for different purposes. A lot of people who have a new Ski-Doo may not want to take their old one in through the bushes and the ‘gulley' in order to get a load of wood. There are areas in that, Mr. Chairman, that is of concern to me as well.

I do know the value of the groomed trail, Mr. Chairman, and I can say first-hand that in my area of Labrador West we have some of the greatest trails and we have some of the greatest groomer operators in this country who keep the trails in tip-top shape. We also have a chalet system. Every fifty kilometres on the trail there is a chalet with a wood stove and wood stocked. All of this, Mr. Chairman, is done by volunteers who put in many hours of work in making sure that public safety is met, because it is a concern when a person is in the wilderness subject to changing weather and cold temperatures. It is a great comfort to have these chalets strung out along the trail for people to go in and get a warm-up or to use in the event of an emergency.

Another area, Mr. Chairman, I think, that could have been addressed by having a public meeting is the area within a community, the town boundaries, so to speak, and whether or not the trails should be subject to the town boundaries, whether or not people would have freedom to move, but if they use the trail they would pay. Mr. Chairman, there are a large number of issues that I can see arising out of these proposed amendments to Bill 45 that are going to cause people problems.

The idea, Mr. Chairman, in making this change is to bring as many people as possible into the snowmobile associations so that we can have the largest number possible. I don't believe the best way of doing that is by bringing in legislation and finding solutions after. I think, as much as possible, the problems should have been identified in the communities, the problems should have been solved in the communities, prior to the legislation coming into effect.

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, the minister could say that when this bill goes through and becomes law, then in the winter the snowmobile associations - and I hope he would agree - that the snowmobile associations can have these meetings to evaluate what some of the problems were in the first winter and to identify what the solutions might be, and that the minister will respond to these by way of changing regulations to fit them before the next skidoo season starts, next fall in our case, Mr. Chairman. The intent and the desire here is to get as many members as possible.

The other thing that I hope will result from that, as well, is that when the membership increases, as I predict it will, the price of the sticker for the trails would, in our case, probably go down. If we have more members, rather than paying the $125 plus tax, which is nearly $150 now, for one machine, maybe that can be reduced significantly if the membership increases significantly. I think that is one of the things that should be looked at as well.

I also want to ask the minister: This is An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act, and they give a definition, Mr. Chairman. I say to the minister the definition in Section 3(e.1) states a, "‘motorized snow vehicle' means a tracked vehicle, commonly known as a snowmobile, where the driver sits astride a seat and which is designed for operation over snow covered land and ice."

I have seen, Mr. Chairman, many times where four-wheelers or quads have been on Ski-doo trails. I ask the minister, is there anything in the regulations, or the act, that would prevent four-wheelers or ATVs from using the Ski-doo trails? Because this talks about what happens if you use a Ski-Doo or a snowmobile on a Ski-doo trail without being a member. This is what all this addresses. What about four-wheelers and ATVs and quads? It is common for them to be on Ski-doo trails once they are hard-packed. I ask the minister, by not including, are they excluded, and will they be subject to the same thing as using a Ski-Doo without a pass?

I think there are a number of questions that are going to require a lot of tweaking, if you will, to make this system work. I talked about the buffer zones.

Another thing I would like to ask the minister, as well, is in section 20.3(f.4) states that, "providing for the allocation of powers and duties of bodies referred to in paragraph (f.1) to designates", and (f.1) talks about, "providing for the compulsory purchase of trail use permits and identification of that purchase by the affixation of stickers or other identifying markers to motorized snow vehicles operating on managed trails established and maintained by specific bodies." I wonder if the minister could explain what that means in its entirety, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I want to say to the minister that, while a lot of people may be applauding the efforts that this amendment to Bill 45 is making, there is also a lot of concern by the public. There are also concerns, I would suggest, by people who are already members of the various snowmobile organizations around the Province.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Labrador West that his time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: Just to clue up, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. COLLINS: Even members of association, like myself and many others, may have concerns in the area I have talked about, where you have an older Ski-Doo by your cabin that is used for specific purposes, whether or not you can transfer your sticker to a different machine, or whether there would be any other solution that could accommodate things of this nature.

I would conclude on that, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that before this day is over, or before this bill is passed, I will have the opportunity to rise again.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to take an opportunity this session to make a few comments about Bill 45. I think this is a very significant piece of legislation, because it has a major impact on what is becoming the fastest growing recreational activity in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think, in the district that I represent, in Trinity North, it just happens to be probably the start of what has become a major tourism industry and a major recreational activity.

If you look at the East Coast of the Province, and you work your way from St. John's towards the west, you get in around the Trinity North area, around the general Clarenville area, is where you start the very beginning of the groomed trail network that actually starts in the Island portion of the Province.

MR. COLLINS: That is where it starts to snow.

MR. WISEMAN: That is where is starts to snow. I say to the Member for Labrador West, he is absolutely right. That is why I am very pleased and very proud to note that the winter tourism activity, the winter recreation activity, has really become a major part of the economy in the Trinity North area, particularly around the Clarenville area, with the cross-country and downhill skiing, and, in recent years, with the emergence of a large network of groomed trails.

The comment I would like to make, Mr. Chair, today speaks to not only to the substance of the bill - because I think the bill, in fact, is a progressive piece of legislation. There are a couple of things about it. Number one is that this bill represents an action by a government, but the reality of it is, the groomed trial network in this Province, and the maintenance of the groomed trail network, and the emergence and support of this major recreational activity, has taken place with a large network of volunteers, dedicated individuals throughout Newfoundland and Labrador who have put a tremendous amount of effort in, and continue to work hard and diligently in making sure that this industry continues to grow.

I think, at this time, I would really like to thank all of those individuals who have done such a tremendous job in advancing this recreational activity in this Province, because it is their hard work that has allowed us, as a Province, to reach where we are today, which is the eve of what we think is a major burst, an emergence of a new industry - winter tourism. I think this is going to be a future for large parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other significant issue with respect to this bill, it also deals with an industry that has a tremendous impact on an economy. This is where I want to speak first-hand with respect to how it has impacted regions like mine. As I said a moment ago, as you move from St. John's West, you are into Trinity North before you really start to have a winter season, where you have reasonable snow conditions to be able to participate in these kinds of activities. As a result of that, I do not know for a fact, but I suspect, just based on an observation in travelling throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, that Clarenville has the largest number of recreation equipment dealerships than anywhere else in this entire Province. These individuals have developed and grown successful businesses, employing large numbers of individuals because of this industry, because of the emergence of snowmobiling in this Province. One of the things that has lend to this, being the large number of groomed trails that exist throughout the Province.

In addition to this - inasmuch as this bill speaks to the groomed trail network in the Province, we are very fortunate in Newfoundland and Labrador that we still have a large network of what is ungroomed trailing to be characterized, and it is categorized as ungroomed trails throughout the wilderness. That also, I think, speaks to one of the concerns that have been raised in this House today. Will this legislation apply to each and every snowmobile owner in the Province, regardless of where they snowmobile?

The reality of it is, I say, Mr. Chairman, is this bill - as the minister has already pointed out - applies to those individuals who are going to use the groomed trails, and that has been the single issue that has been raised in my district. What about those individuals who still want to travel throughout the wilderness, blaze their own trails, go into the back country away from the groomed trail network altogether? This particular legislation does not deal with those people at all. This deals with individuals who want to use the groomed trail network. That is an important point and important message, I think, that everybody needs to understand. That is a significant issue, because as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we still value the vast wilderness area that exist in this Province. Our ability and our freedom to be able to use that at our leisure - and this legislation does not, in any way, restrict or inhibit or in any way try to control the use of that wild and vast wilderness area where many people can travel, as they will, throughout the Province. So, anybody who wants to stay away from the groomed trails will have lots of opportunity to do it and will not need to have a licence for their machine, but anybody who wants to use the groomed trails, this legislation ensures that the associations throughout the Island and Labrador will have a revenue stream to allow it to be supported and continue to be maintained. That is what this particular bill is about.

We have been very fortunate, extremely fortunate, I say, Mr. Chairman, in this Province to have had been blessed with such an attraction to the outdoors. As a result of that, I think many people have found that many leisurely hours can be taken from snowmobiling and other recreation activities. I think as a government and as a Province we have a responsibility to enact legislation like this which allows us to nurture that budding industry. We have been very successful in recent years, extremely successful, Mr. Chairman, in developing a strong summer tourism industry. It is this kind of supportive legislation that allows us to move forward and greatly enhance winter tourism in this Province.

I want to commend the minister for responding to the request of the industry out there, the people who are involved with the snowmobile industry, the people who are involved in - the large network of volunteers, as I mentioned - developing a strong network of trails throughout the Province. I think on the weekends, particularly on Saturday and Sunday, starting now in January and running through to April, every weekend you will see snowmobile trailers and pickups with machines in the back stopped along the Trans-Canada, anywhere from Swift Current to Clarenville, offloading onto the groomed trail network. If you talk to these people, where are they from? Carbonear, Harbour Grace, St. John's, Trepassey. They are coming from all over the Avalon, where we have the greatest concentration of people in this Province, coming out to what is my district and getting onto the large network of groomed trails in the Province. I can see, in a very visible way, the tremendous impact this has had on our local economy. These people stay in hotels, stay in motels and they rent cabins. We have an industry now emerging, taking people on tours, taking them across the Province on groomed trail networks and bearing off on occasion to the wilderness area because this is an enjoyable family recreational activity.

The snowmobile dealers have really prospered as a result of this emerging industry. Local economies, such as those in my area, with restaurants, motels and the people who service these things. People buy these machines but they require servicing. So there is a real spinoff business associated with it, in addition to the tremendous amount of recreational activity and the benefit of that recreational activity and the benefit to the families and individuals who participate in an activity such as snowmobiling on trails that are well groomed, well maintained. This legislation allows the snowmobile association to generate revenue that allows to maintain it. I think that is significant. With the large network being developed - and I understand from the minister there has been some $21 million spent in Newfoundland and Labrador in developing a groomed trail network, and that is a significant investment. It would be irresponsible of any government in this country to invest $21 million in infrastructure and not spend five cents or create a mechanism to generate a revenue stream to be able to maintain that kind of infrastructure.

I want to commend the minister for recognizing the tremendous potential of the snowmobiling industry in this Province and recognizing the tremendous benefit in enhancing this industry and these programs by introducing a piece of legislation such as this. I want to thank all of the people in my district, the general Clarenville area and the Trinity North part of the Province for their tremendous work that they do because there is a large network of volunteers in that local snowmobile association who put countless hours into developing the network of trails that start in Clarenville and move westward. On behalf of those individuals, Mr. Minister, I want to thank you today for bringing in this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to have some comments with regard to Bill 45. I spoke on this bill on Tuesday and outlined a number of concerns that I have with the legislation as it pertains to my district.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in the past day or so I have had an opportunity to meet with the minister and to raise a number of these issues with him, and also to talk with the Labrador Winter Trails Incorporated myself, and I am not satisfied, at this point, with the proposed options that have been given. I would like to go into some explanation of this and I will certainly have some questions afterwards.

First of all, in this bill, Bill 45, which is, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. Mr. Chairman, there is a clause in here under section 2(d) which says, "‘managed trail' means a motorized snow vehicle trail constructed, maintained or operated by the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation Inc. or the Labrador Winter Trails Inc. incorporated under the Corporations Act."

Well, Mr. Chairman, under that Labrador winter trails Corporation's Act fall all the communities and all the trails in my district, even trails to communities that don't have any other road connections, which means that essentially their highway is their groomed trail.

Mr. Chairman, for the past fifteen or more years, the government has paid for, or subsidized I should say, the grooming of those trails. They have subsidized the cost of the groomers, the operators, the fuel, and everything that was needed to provide for a very safe transportation route for those communities; only because it was the essential transportation link into many of these communities. As the legislation currently reads, any trail fees that would be charged would, in essence, be charged to those communities as well, simply because they are part of the Corporation's Act for the Labrador winter trails.

I talked to the Chair of the Labrador winter trails, I asked him how they could provide some security that these communities would not have to buy trail passes, or they would be exempt under this particular regulation, and they told me that they could not guarantee me anything. They told me, for this year they would be exempt simply because the funding that is in place for grooming trails in that area would take care of the permit, but beyond this year they could not give me any commitment. I said: Next year, if government decides they are going to cut the snowmobile grants to communities in Northern Labrador or in Southern Labrador, how does that impact those communities? Their answer was: We would then have to charge them a trail fee, just like we do everyone else. That is unacceptable to me, as a member, because the communities in my district have to use this trail. It is essential to them for every single aspect of their lives.

Mr. Chairman, if I was living in Norman Bay today, as a number of my constituents are, I would have to take a snowmobile trail ride of well over an hour to access a hospital, a clinic where there is a nurse for medical treatment. I would have to do that same trip to access postal services, to access an airport, to purchase any goods and services. If I wanted to pick up a case of milk, I have got to use that trail to do that. The trail is essential to these communities and to the people who live there and they should not have to pay for a trail pass.

Now, I understand that they can be exempt for this year, but the legislation does not protect communities like this for the long term, and that is the problem I have with it. If I am in Black Tickle where it takes me two-and-a-half hours on a groomed snowmobile trail to get to the nearest community, which is in Cartwright, over some of the worst terrain, as we all know, because you are over saltwater ice and you are over land that is very barren, it gets very bad there in the middle of winter, you have to use that trail to access the nearest community, which is Cartwright, for all the essential services, with the exception of the clinic, because there is a clinic in Black Tickle, but for mostly all other services they would have to access Cartwright. It is not right that they should have to purchase trail passes to be able to do that. This is essential to them, as a community, and to their way of life.

Mr. Chair, there are two members from my district who are on the Labrador Winter Trails Incorporated. They support having fee structures brought in. They support the principle of it; however, they share my view as well that these other communities should not be included as paying people to use the trail system. They could not give me any commitment that the fee would not apply to these communities next year or the year after, or whatever the case may be. Because of that, Mr. Chair, it has raised a lot of issues in my district and a lot of concerns for people.

In Williams Harbour, Williams Harbour is another community. They have to use the trail system again to access again all the services that they need, everything from clinics to groceries. Well, there is a grocery store there but it is a limited general store and most of their goods and services they have to access from outside. Mr. Chair, up until recently the people in Williams Harbour were still hoping that they would have a road connection. As you know, when we were the government, we committed to build a road to Williams Harbour. It was eighteen to twenty kilometres of road. It would have cost less than $6 million to the government. The money was in the Labrador Transportation Fund to build that road, only eighteen, twenty kilometres from the main highway, but the government opposite, when they took office, cancelled that. They did not see, because they said there was no reason, there was no economics to support it, Mr. Chair, so the people in Williams Harbour would not get a road, although at the time that the announcement was made to cancel it there was $107 million in the Labrador Transportation Fund, of which less than $6 million would have been required to connect this community by road.

It was cancelled, and I thought that over the twelve-month period the government opposite would have a change of heart; they would get to know the Province a little bit better; they would get to understand the needs of people in communities like this, and that they would have change of heart.

It did not happen, because last week the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Transportation and Works withdrew the project from environmental assessment; in essence, allowing the entire thing to die as it was. It was a sad day for the people in Williams Harbour - and the Minister of Environment is over there now looking at me. It was a sad day for the people in Williams Harbour when the project was withdrawn last week from environment assessment by the government opposite.

Now, after being told that a week ago, the people in Williams Harbour today are going to be told that, if this bill passes, you may have to pay a fee to access the trailways. That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to communities that have no other access route when it comes to transportation; absolutely not acceptable.

I want to see some guarantee, and I do not see it in this legislation. I could not get it from the Labrador Winter Trails. They admitted, as much as they want these fees imposed in Labrador, and as much as they support it - even the members from my own district who sit on the Labrador Winter Trails support this - but they also share my view that we cannot allow these communities to pay for passes to access this trail route. There is no way they can assure me that will not be the case. In fact, the Chair of the Labrador Winter Trails told me only two hours ago, in the last conversation that I had with them, they can give me no guarantee at all. This time next year, if the government's funding is not maintained at the level that it is now for those trails, they will have no other choice only to charge the trail pass, and under the legislation they have the ability to do that.

Those are some of the issues that I have with this legislation, and I have other issues as well. I think the legislation itself is really short on detail; it is short on regulations. When we looked at fees, and they were talked about, the minister talked about it a year ago, I thought it was going to be a uniform fee structure. I do not see any uniform fee structure in this bill whatsoever. In essence, if the White Wolf Snowmobile Club in Labrador West wants to charge $200 for their fees, and the Humber Valley snowmobile club wants to charge $60 for their fees, that is totally acceptable.

I think there has to be a streamlining of fees. That is not included here. In fact, there is very little regulation here, if any.

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Well, you can come back.

MS JONES:(Inaudible) leave.

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: For a few seconds.

MADAM CHAIR: For a few moments, yes.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to finish the -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: If the Government House Leader could just settle down for a moment, I just wanted to finish the sentence that I was in the midst of before I was interrupted, and that is that there are a number of things that are not in this bill. Those things pertain to the regulatory pieces of how this will roll out, and also what the penalties and fines will be for any violations under the legislation.

Madam Chair, I will come back and speak to this bill further.

I thank you for the time.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. J. HODDER: Madam Chair, I just want to add my congratulations to the snowmobile clubs and to the minister who has responded to the needs of the snowmobile clubs.

Madam Chair, in Western Newfoundland, snowmobilers look forward to winter. There have been problems with the groomed trails as far as the maintenance of the trails is concerned, the insurance, and the ability of the groups to function in the area.

I understand, Madam Chair, that there are differences in Labrador, and there are different snowmobile clubs in Labrador, but, at the same time, this is a good first step as far as trying to regulate the snowmobile organizations in the Province.

We have $21 million, as the minister had pointed out, in infrastructure in snowmobile grooming equipment throughout the Province. They have to pay for their insurance, the cost of grooming the trails, and some costs go to the organizations and the groups themselves.

Madam Chair, some moves had to be taken, and this was the request - the President of the Newfoundland Federation is a constituent of mine and, as well, has briefed me on a number of occasions, and actually was a former student of mine. Through him, over the past number of years, with the problems that the snowmobile associations have faced, I have been fully briefed on their problems.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to add my thanks to the minister and to the snowmobile clubs and to the volunteers who work so hard at grooming the trails, and in the past years basically have done yeoman service with little to work with.

This is a chance for us to get our House in order. Winter tourism can be just as important as summer tourism and, as has been pointed out, all of the organizations and the businesses will benefit through this legislation.

Again, I would like to congratulate the minister and thank the volunteers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will just speak briefly to this piece of legislation, Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

Madam Chair, this act was first introduced, I think, just a few short days ago and we, on this side, originally thought it was a good piece of legislation, but we really haven't had the opportunity to be able to look at it in-depth and discuss it with our constituents.

What this act, as far as I can read into it right now, what this piece of legislation will do, it will effectively allow any snowmobile association in this Province, whether it be in Newfoundland or in Labrador, that organization or the association, to go out and buy a groomer, groom a trail, and then be allowed to bill anyone who uses that trail a minimum of $80 - as far as I understand.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, I will give the minister - and I must congratulate him, because it is his first piece of legislation that he put forward to the House, but we still have the right and the privilege to discuss the piece of legislation. Had we had it for more than the couple of days that we had it, we might be able to sift through it and understand -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: - but we haven't, I say to the minister who keeps interrupting me while I am trying to speak here. We haven't had the opportunity to ask questions. What we are effectively doing is allowing some snowmobile association in this Province to charge an $80 fee for using a snowmobile on a groomed trail.

Madam Chair, I do not have, at the present time, any groomed trails in my district, but I can see that down the road this could possibly be the case. I have lots of groomed cross-country skiing trails in my district. The people on New World Island are know are being the best cross-country skiers in the Province, and indeed Canada. One individual, whom I had the opportunity to teach some years ago, did actually win a gold medal for this Province in the Canada Winter Games; I think it was in Saskatchewan or Manitoba a few years ago.

Madam Chair, before I can actually stand here and vote on this particular piece of legislation, we need to have more answers - like, who these snowmobile associations are, and if the fees will be allowed to go up next year or the year after, or who will make those guidelines. It is not like setting out today and buying a set of licence plates for a car, because we all know what that is going to cost us. It is universal across the Province, but already some of these associations are offering deals: buy your pass before Christmas and get a discount. Are all the snowmobile associations offering the same discounts? Are all the associations going to be offering the same discounts next year? Are all the associations in the Province going to be charging the same fee next year?

The other problem that I have with it is this - and the member for Clarenville just spoke about the beautiful trails in his area. One of the most used trails, I say to the members in this House, in this Province, when it comes to snowmobiling, as far as I am concerned, is the old rail bed. I know a lot about the rail bed between Clarenville and Gander, because I happen to have a summer home located along that trail.

I know for a fact that since the track was taken up there have been a number of cabins built all along that piece of railroad track, in around the Port Blandford area. These people have been using the railroad track to get back and forth to their cabin. Has anyone discussed with them the fact that now that this trail is going to be groomed by an association that some of these people do not even know, are they going to be charged $80 if they need to drive a kilometre along the track or along the trail on a groomed trail?

The answer is, I do not know at this particular time, but if you look at the piece of legislation, if you are caught with a snowmobile on a groomed trail, then you can be fined. I think the fine is $250. The other thing is that some people in this Province use the railroad track to cut firewood on, and they have been ever since the rails have been taken up in 1988 or 1989. These people depend on that track every year to go in and cut the firewood; people who cannot necessarily afford to spend $80 each year for a pass. The reason they are cutting firewood, most of them, is that they cannot afford to pay for the electricity or the fuel oil to heat their homes. So, what you are saying to them now is: We will get you another way. We cannot tax you on your electricity because you are not burning enough of it. We cannot tax you on your oil because you are not burning enough of that, so we will tax you on your firewood.

There are some questions, and the minister shakes his head, but as far as I am concerned these are legitimate questions. If, for example, you own a cabin, a remote cabin somewhere, and someone decides they are going to groom the trail that runs by your cabin, does that mean that you are now forced to pay a fee to get to your cabin? These are legitimate. Here they are talking about grooming trails in the Province, when the government of the day will not even plow roads in certain unincorporated areas, these class 4 roads. The government washed their hands of those just recently, and said, we are not going to go in and plow a road for individuals, elderly people and young children so that they can get out to school. Not only are they saying we are going to charge you now if you put a Ski-Doo on a groomed trail, but they are upping every other fee.

I just look at this. It is not a tax grab on behalf of government, I know that. The money is going to go back to the association, but what I am saying is that I do not think that this bill, this piece of legislation, I do not think there is enough people out around the Province today who know enough about it to be able to comment on it, because it is being pushed through the House so quickly that, before we know it, it will be through the House and people will be calling me one of these days: What about this $80, Gerry, that I have to pay, that you voted for?

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Exactly, and that is what I am saying. The minister does not have to get irate about it. I am here today to present some of the problems that I see with the bill, and that is the purpose of the Legislature, as far as I know. The purpose of the Legislature is to be able to debate a bill. Debate means that you are allowed to say things negative as well as positive about it, so I do not want to be criticized because I am complaining. All I am asking is what I consider to be legitimate questions, and raising legitimate points about this.

I am hoping that the minister, in the next reading, will be able to answer some of these questions, allay some of the fears that some of the people in this Province may have. Like I said to the minister, right now it is not a problem in my district because we do not have groomed trails, but who is to say, at the end of this winter, that an individual might say, or a group of individuals might say, let's go out, buy a groomer and start grooming trails in our area as a money-making venture.

Is there anything in your legislation that will prevent an individual or a group of individuals from going out and grooming trails so that they can make money on it? Because I do not see anywhere where that is mentioned in your legislation because - who knows? - it might be a great money-making venture for me to go out tomorrow and buy a groomer, go down to my district and groom all the trails and say: Now, if you ever set foot - not set foot, set your snowmobile on these trails you have to pay me $80 for this season.

Madam Chair, all I am saying is that I think we are moving ahead far too hastily with this piece of legislation. I think that I need more time, personally, to discuss it with - not only the constituents in my own district, but the constituents in other members' districts, like the Member for Terra Nova, because I am sure that a lot of the constituents in his district certainly use the rail bed. In fact, when a previous minister outlawed the use of vehicles, personal cars and trucks on the rail bed in this Province, there was an uproar in the area of the (inaudible) Lake from individuals who had cabins. They were using the track to get back and forth on, driving their vehicles over and they were told, at that time, you can no longer do that. This track is made for walking trails and ATVs, and you are not allowed. I know there was a big racket kicked up in the Gander and in the Glovertown area. Now what you are saying to these individuals who have cabins down there is that this year to get to your cabin, or to go up the old track to cut a bit of wood, you are going to have to pay $80.

Madam Chair, what I am saying is that before I will vote to the bill I certainly need more information or I will not be able to support it.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

AN HON. MEMBER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. SHELLEY: No, Madam Chair, but there are a number of questions, and of course, they are piling up. I will keep taking notes of all the questions, I guess, because there is an overlap of those. I will take leave so that the member can go ahead.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a few comments on this piece of legislation that e are dealing with here today. I guess it is pretty obvious to the minister, this being his inaugural piece of legislation, it is probably one that is causing some confusion, shall we say, or turmoil at least on this side of the House, and no doubt in the Province, in the sense of the number of e-mails and comments on Open Line shows in the past few days.

Exactly what is this about? It is probably a case of - again, explanation to the public would have probably saved a lot of trouble, because we understand there was no consultation process with other users. There may have been with the snowmobile associations but there are a lot of users in the Province other than snowmobile associations. These are the people today who finally see in the media that they might be impacted by this law. They want to know: What is it going to do to me? What does it or does not do?

I think these are fairly legitimate questions. It is not a case here of trying to stop a piece of legislation from going through. This is the purpose of Committee, to find out - here are the questions, do you have the answers? If you do, fine, thank you very much. If you don't have the answers, could you get the answers? Maybe in the course of the debate some good ideas might be tossed back and forth, too, and it is better to find the loopholes here now. That is the whole purpose of this. If there are any weaknesses in the legislation or anything that can be corrected, that is the whole purpose of this. Let's put out something that is good and will stand up to scrutiny once it is imposed, rather than do it in a rush and find out we did not do it right.

My question to the minister - I have two comments I would like to make at this point. One is - maybe the answer has already been given - what affect would this have on ATVers or snowmobilers who come in from another province? I ask that question because we quite often, in Southwestern Newfoundland, get groups of people who come across the Gulf with their ATVs and their snowmobiles and they make a vacation out it. They get off and they go wherever around Newfoundland using their snowmobiles. What will be their responsibility in terms of use of a managed trail, shall we say? Because these people are not going to know the law. I think they ought to know, or is there an exemption they can get if they are here from another province and so on? I think those things should be clarified. I am sure someone from Nova Scotia who comes over in good faith to go skidooing for the weekend and brings a crowd with them and is putting money into our economy and our hotels and our liquor stores and our clubs and whatever, our food establishments, do not want to find out that they are on a managed trail, that they knew nothing about, and they are subject to a $250 fine. So, that needs to be answered.

My second question is - in clause 2 of the bill we talk about amending section 20. Now, I have looked at section 20 as it stands in the act. It is already in the Statutes going back to 1990. What we are doing here is we are adding another section. We are not amending section 20. We are adding a section 20.1, and in section 20.1 there are three subsections to it. The first one says, "A person shall not operate a motorized snow vehicle on a managed trail in the province except in accordance with the regulations." And you defined managed trail in the definition section.

In subsection (2), and this where - I notice the Minister of Justice is here. Maybe he can inform us as well what he believes, being a lawyer, or the Minister of Transportation and Works is also a lawyer, but I am at a loss, myself as a lawyer, to figure out what subsection (2) means. Because it says, "An action or other proceeding shall not lie against an owner or occupier of land, a municipality, Her Majesty in Right of the province, a Minister of the Crown, or an employee, officer or agent of them for any injury, loss or damage suffered as a result of or arising out of a person using, operating, riding or being towed by a motorized snow vehicle on a managed trail."

Now, I look in the old act, as I say, and in the definition section in the old act an owner is defined, but owner there, in the original statute, talks about an owner of a piece of personal property, a snowmobile, whereas this section here talks about owner or occupier of land. I am wondering where this fits in term of liabilities. Does this mean if I am driving on a managed trail, to which I have obtained a permit that is required under subsection 1 - I paid my fee, I have my permit - and I have someone on the back with me. Now, I am an owner of land. It does not say anywhere what land we are talking about. It says: an owner of land or an agent of them. So I am driving down on this managed snowmobile, which I have a legal right to be on - I paid my fee - and I get reckless. Maybe I was drinking for example, and I did something negligent and unlawful and the person on the back of my Ski-Doo falls off, bumps their head and becomes a quadriplegic. Now if I were to read that section right, because I am on a managed trail, and because I paid my fee, you have just exempted me from any action. I do not think that is the intent of that section. I definitely do not think that is the intent of that section.

My difficulty, I say to the minister, is I cannot relate the use of the words: owner or occupier of land, in that section and the words: agent of them, to users of the trail. I certainly do not think that is what we want to do. I can see in subsection 3 where you talk about exempting the Crown from what it might do under certain regulations. That is fair of all. The Crown has often exempted itself from any liabilities. We did it under the FPI Act in here about a year ago, so that if the government did something and the FPI Board of Directors were upset, they could not come back and sue the government for it. That is what Mr. Rowe was talking about the other day in the media when he said he did not like that piece, because if the government told them what to do he could not take them back to court to do anything about it, and he is quite right. That is the concern here. Why the differentials between subsection 2, in terms of liability and subsection 3, which deals with the Crown?

The other question I raise is not whether it is right or wrong, but maybe the minister can give us an opinion as to: Why are we exempting the Crown here from liability for anything that might happen on a managed trail whereas we do not exempt the Crown from liability in the case of a highway? If the Crown, for example, is responsible for sanding and salting roads and they do not do it - I had a case down on the Burgeo Road 470 some years ago, there was a fatality, something happened, the roads were not salted properly, early enough, and in that case the Crown is not exempt. The Crown becomes a party to the action. If it happens on a highway in our Province, you can sue the Crown if they are negligent. Does this mean if the Crown is negligent on a managed trail you cannot sue them? I am saying, why would we differentiate between a managed trail and a highway, in that case, to let the Crown off the hook? I would like to hear the rationalization of why we would do that.

Those are the comments I have at the present time. I am sure there are some more, and some of my colleagues have further questions, and I am sure that we can look forward to the minister providing us with his answers.

MADAM CHAIR : The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to also speak on Bill 45 today. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for having the foresight to recognize the importance of snowmobiling as an industry here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for bringing this amendment forward at this time. As you are aware, we face many challenges with the snowmobiling industry and I think it is very important that this legislation be brought forward at this time.

Madam Chair, I, as MHA for Humber Valley, fully support this legislation here today to help secure the snowmobiling industry here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This amendment, I think, is a compromise that meets the needs not only of the people of Humber Valley and snowmobile users but also meets the needs of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Snowmobile Federation.

Madam Chair, I think what we are doing here is supporting and enabling the Snowmobile Federation to maintain the trails here in Newfoundland and Labrador and to further develop the industry, while at the same time, Madam Chair, I think we are making them accountable for their actions. Like any legislation, like any program that we start, yes, there will be growing pains here.

Madam Chair, I remember growing up in Deer Lake and having free use of snowmobile trails in Deer Lake and creating our own snowmobile trails. I also remember working in the tourism industry for ten years, and when the fall season came around, all of a sudden the economy in the Humber Valley and the Deer Lake region just died off. However, over the past few years - and I can actually go back to when the trails started to be groomed here in the Province - we saw the economy of Deer Lake, all of a sudden, turn around. Out on the West Coast and in rural Newfoundland, the snowmobiling industry is very important to us and to the people. Also, the snowmobile trails, when they were developed in Deer Lake and Humber Valley, have created a hub for winter tourism here in the Province. I am very pleased to say that we can see, when we go out in districts like Humber Valley and Humber East and Humber West and the Bay of Islands, that those are the areas, that is the hub for snowmobiling here in the Province. This legislation is very important for snowmobiling here.

Madam Chair, I spoke at the Chamber of Commerce a couple of evenings ago and I spoke about how the winter tourism has affected the Deer Lake Airport and how successful the Deer Lake Airport is, and the whole area is, due to industry such as snowmobiling. People are now choosing to vacation here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the wintertime. The last couple of years, actually, I had relatives come home and vacation in the wintertime instead of summertime, so they could go snowmobiling.

One evening last year I went out for a ride on a Ski-Doo myself, actually. I drove by a hotel in the community of Deer Lake and I looked in the parking lot and noticed all these trucks there with trailers on the back with snowmobiles on them, and I looked and I noticed how many rooms were full at the motel in Deer Lake on a Monday night. I think the snowmobiling industry is very important to the economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially to the District of Humber Valley.

Madam Chair, I would also like to take this time to commend the many volunteers who have worked with the snowmobile clubs and the Snowmobile Federation, for the job that they have done over the past few years. They have been around, in the past few years, developing the trails and developing the snowmobile industry. I think we have a responsibility, as a government, to support them and make sure that they can maintain the trails.

Just last year, shortly after the election, yes, we did have all kinds of consultation and debate over this issue. Over the past year I have been out in the district talking to the users, the industry, and the business people in the communities about the mandatory stickers. When I spoke a couple of nights ago at the Chamber of Commerce, I brought up this issue of mandatory stickers and I had total support from the people who were in attendance there. I went out around the community and I talked to users. I totally understand how individuals feel about traditionally having the freedom to use the trails without having to pay for them, and the fact that they used the trails long before they were groomed, but the reality here is, in rural Newfoundland we are dependent upon tourism and it is very important that we pass this legislation here.

Madam Chair, I would like to say that I totally support this bill. We have invested $21 million into this industry. Besides the $21 million that has been invested, our people have invested their time and effort into this industry. Businesses have invested greatly into this industry. We see tourism attractions on the West Coast and the tourist lodges popping up everywhere on the West Coast. I believe it was the former government that supported all of these tourist lodges going out there. I believe we have to support this bill here today.

Winter tourism is vital to this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. With 5,500 kilometres of trails here we have a responsibility as a government. I think the fact that we are supporting the Snowmobile Federation, I have to take my hat off to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for taking this on here today, and, as the Member for Humber Valley, I totally support this bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly will take the opportunity to speak on the bill.

Madam Chair, I will say to every member who stood in the House here today and spoke and supported the bill, that I would ask them one very serious question: Are you taking every person in Newfoundland and Labrador in mind when you bring in this legislation? Madam Chair, I can tell you that the North Coast of Labrador was the last to get groomed trails. By the way, Madam Chair, it is their only form of transportation, other than by air.

Madam Chair, let me tell the people on the other side, to fly from Makkovik to Goose Bay return, $480, to fly from Nain to Goose Bay and back, $631. I ask member across the way, and even members on this side: What member is going to have to pay $600 airfare to travel from one end of their riding to the other? Then you turn around and say: We support this bill.

Madam Chair, what about the trappers on the North Coast of Labrador who have made trapping a way of life? Now, because the groomed trail comes through there are certain parts they have to use, and if someone comes along and they haven't paid for a sticker, they are going to be charged up to $250. Madam Chair, I think that is a grave mistake.

This past year, Madam Chair, the Community of Postville lost their groomer given to them by the provincial and federal governments. Labrador Winter Trails had no money. Thank God the Labrador Inuit Association signed an IBA with Voisey's Bay Nickle. I will tell you why: The smallest community on the North Coast of Labrador had to take $35,000 out of their inland trust fund, and God knows they had enough projects that they could have spent it on. They had to take $35,000 from the inland trust fund to buy a groomer. Granted, Madam Chair, people from the United States of America, parts of Canada, and Newfoundland and Labrador, are going to travel over this road, this groomed trail and no doubt tourism is going to be big on the North Coast of Labrador. Many people refer to the North Coast as the second Alaska, and with the beauty, Madam Chair, it is.

When we look at the cost of fuel on the North Coast of Labrador at $216 for a forty-five gallon drum, the highest cost for electricity - people cannot afford electric heat, they cannot afford fuel. Their only source of heat, Madam Chair, is firewood. Yet, if they are caught on that groomed trail and they haven't got a sticker, we are going to stick it to them and charge them $250.

Well, Madam Chair, I can say to the minister, and his bill, shame on you. Once again, no one has taken the time to take the people on the North Coast of Labrador into consideration; the people whose only form of transportation, other than to fly, is by this new groomed trail that we fought so hard to get, and now we are going to turn around and stick it to them. Madam Chair, I have a conscience.

We just saw this government jack up the permit on the trappers, the people who depend on the ability of the land, we saw them jack up the licence on the small game licence. Now we are going to bring in a bill here without taking the people into consideration, those who cannot afford to pay, and we are going to stick it to them.

Boys, I can tell you, you have a good conscience. I hope that when you go to bed at night that your conscience reminds you that every person, not just that side but over here as well, has an obligation to every person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Chair, until there are amendments made, until I am reassured by the minister that changes will be made, then I can guarantee you that I am not going to vote for this bill because I do have a conscience.

I came here to speak on behalf of the people on the North Coast of Labrador. I would ask every member across there, before they embrace that bill, just think about people not just in your area but all across the Province before you vote. I ask every member across the way, before they vote, to ask themselves one question: With this bill, have we considered all of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador? If they can turn around and answer the question, yes, then maybe I am the person who does not have a conscience, and maybe I should not be here speaking on behalf of the people that I represent.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Chair, I have been listening all afternoon to members on the other side blowing in the wind like a piece of an old spruce bow compared to where they were only a couple of days ago.

I want to say to the hon. member who took his seat, I will take no lectures from you, Sir, on conscience. I have as much conscience as anybody else in this Province. I believe you know, Sir, that there is an exemption in this legislation for people living on the LIA lands in Northern Labrador. I think you know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: You get up here and you talk about people with conscience. I think you know that. I think you have been told that. You have been told that. The word of a minister or the government, does that carry any weight with the hon. gentleman?

Madam Chair, the hon. gentleman knows. He just got up there in self-righteous indignation, put on the cloak and the mantle, and tries to get on then with that nonsense.

Now, Madam Chair, let me point out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: What is the member ranting and raving about now? I never opened my mouth when he was on his feet. I had my earplug in, listening intently to every word he said. I thought he was talking about the snowmobile bill, not about deputy minister positions in Labrador. I never heard him mention that, or senior positions in Labrador West, never heard tell of that. I heard him talk about this government and the lack of conscience that was sticking it to the people on the North Coast of Labrador. That is what he was talking about, and it is not true, and he knew it wasn't true.

Now, let me have a word or two or say about the Official Opposition. The official spokesperson, the critic, who speaks for the party, I assume, just as ministers speak for the government, the official critic, on Tuesday, had this to say, "People on this side of the House will support this bill. Again, I am saying I am confident and hoping to have the bill done by Thursday." - the critic, Madam Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, like I said, the old spruce bow trick, blowing in the wind.

That is what the critic said. Listen to this, Madam Chair, "With all agreement, I am sure that we will."

Madam Chair, what happened since then? The people on the other side of the House agreed, the hon. members on the other side of the House, as I understand it, agreed to a timetable. It was not imposed on them. It was not the hobnailed boot approach of closure. It was a voluntary timetable. That is my understanding of what I am told, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, that is my understanding. As a matter of fact, just listen to what else the critic had to say. They don't like it when the truth comes out. They want to be able to get up and take that little modicum of truth that I spoke about a couple of days ago and then stretch it into something that never happened, Madam Chair.

MR. E. BYRNE: Or will happen.

MR. RIDEOUT: Or will happen.

Just listen to what the critic had to say when he spoke on Tuesday. "Personally, I was one of the people who called the minister...".

MR. E. BYRNE: Took credit for it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Took credit for it.

"Personally, I was one of the .people who called the minister and said, let's see what we can do..." about this, and introduce the bill.

Imagine, Madam Chair, the official critic for the Opposition. Then the Opposition, today, for some reason or other, has all of those concerns.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is still supporting it.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, is he speaking for the party or is he not? That is the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: They can shout, but they cannot shout me down when I get on my feet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank God, the good Lord gave me a good set of lungs, and I can bawl with the best of them. I can shout with the best of them. I am not a bit concerned about it. They will not sit me down by shouting, Madam Chair, and I do not need the protection of the Chair to carry on either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!.

MR. RIDEOUT: Free vote. Who said there was a free vote on this, Madam Chair? Look, they are over there blowing in the wind. Whatever they think the public opinion is one minute, let's get out there and get ahead of it. Let's see if we can get a bit of wind in our sails because of it. Let's see if we can dig out of the hole that the critic dug us into.

The official critic for the Opposition went on for a whole pile of time. What was it the former Government House Leader, Mr. Lush, said? The worst thing about Hansard -

MR. E. BYRNE: Any regrets in politics, I suggest Hansard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The worst thing about Hansard is that if you start to change and swing and blow, then you might have to come back and defend it.

The Official Opposition, two days ago, the critic for the Official Opposition, was begging the government and the minister to get on with it, get it passed; I want it done by Thursday. I want it in place, and we will support you doing that..

Well, it is time for them to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the view of the Member for Lewisporte is quite obvious, but I will let the member know that I speak for myself in this Legislature, and my constituents, and no one else has to do it for me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: When I spoke on Tuesday in this Legislature with regard to Bill 45, I raised the very same issues on Tuesday as I raised today, I say to the minister, and those are still issues and still concerns for me in my district, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: I will certainly not be intimidated and sat down in this House by the outburst of the minister opposite on any particular issue, I say to you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Whenever and wherever there is legislation in this Assembly that negatively impacts upon my constituents and the people that I represent, I will stand on my feet and I will say what I have to say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - irregardless, Madam Chair, of what other people in this House may feel or irregardless of what their thoughts may be.

When I rose in this House on Tuesday, on Bill 45, I made it quite clear -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: - quite clear, Madam Chair, to this Assembly what the issues were in my district and what the concerns were. I outlined them one by one and I said that I would look for clarification and that I would look for changes to be able to ensure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has the floor. I would ask you to respect her, please.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

They may not want to hear all of this, but they can either hear it or I guess they can choose to tune it out.

Madam Chair, when I stood in this House on Tuesday, I made it quite clear that this bill was going to have impacts on people in my district. I indicated I have concerns and that I would work to try and get those concerns sorted out over the next few days. I did meet with the minister and spoke to him on a couple of occasions. I have been talking with the Labrador Winter Trails Inc. in Labrador to try and ensure that communities in my district will be protected, that do not have roads and connections from having to pay this fee to access the trailways.

Madam Chair, as it is right now, as I stand here today, that has still not been sorted out and there is still no protection for those communities. Therefore, I still have grave concerns about this legislation, irregardless of what any other member in this House feels.

Madam Chair, no one on this side of the House is bound to support or not support this legislation. Every member in this House has the right and is entitled to stand up here and speak on any piece of legislation, to have their own view and their district's view on every piece of legislation, and that is what they are elected here to do. I certainly do not tie myself to any comments by any other member in this House.

Madam Chair, I am going to continue to try and sort through this legislation, because if it is enacted as it is right now, it will not provide any assurances or any protection for communities in my district that are completely dependent upon the trailways.

The hon. minister stood and said that people living in the Torngat Mountains area, or in the LIA land claims area, would be exempt. I do not know if that is the case or if it isn't, but, you know, we will certainly be looking at the act. The Member for Torngat Mountains is looking at the act to see if that is, indeed, the case, that they are exempt. If they are, well, then, we are still left with the situation that would exist in Southern Labrador as it relates to these trails.

Madam Chair, I will not be intimidated by the Minister of Transportation and Works and the Member for Lewisporte, and I will certainly not be intimidated to the point that I will not voice my opinion on this particular issue. This is a big issue in my district, I say to the Member for Trinity North. It is a huge issue in my district. The entire lifestyle of people in that region of the Province, if you do not know, is completely centred around the use of trails, and snowmobile trails in particular. It is a very big issue and I have been consulting with people in my district on this issue ever since the minister tabled the bill in the House of Assembly. I indicated to him, on that day, that I had some concerns with it, as I indicated to others. I am all there to try and sort through this and to see if there is a way that we can do it, but unless there is protection for the communities in my district and that they are going to be exempt from having to pay these fees, well, then, obviously I am not going to be able to support it and I hope that no one in this House would expect me to.

I am not here to wreak hardship upon the people who elected me. I am here to protect them. I am here to speak on their behalf. I am here to make sure that any legislation that goes through this House, that is not is going to have a positive impact on them, that I have to do whatever is in my ability to ensure that it gets defeated or not passed. The fact that any member in this House would take exception to someone having a different perspective, frankly, is unheard of, because every member in this House is elected to speak for their district and for themselves, and that is what I am intending to do.

Now, Madam Chair, just to get back to Bill 45. The sudden outburst of the Member for Lewisporte, now that I have addressed that I would like to address a couple of things within the bill. We will seek to clarify what the minister said with regard to the LIA being exempt under the act. We will seek to clarify what section of the act that is in, and, in fact, how it is worded.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Oh, it is not in the act. The Minister of Works and Transportation just indicated -

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I did (inaudible).

MS JONES: - that the LIA land area -

MR. RIDEOUT: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will not have the Member for Torngat Mountains or anybody else put words in my mouth and accuse me of saying things I didn't say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. RIDEOUT: Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Sorry!

Of course, when regulations are made, Madam Speaker, they are made under the act and they become part of the act and they are enforceable under the act, and the LIA knows that. They know that they are exempt under this legislation through the regulations. They know it, Madam Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: And members were told they know it.

MR. RIDEOUT: And members were told they know it, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright & L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Madam Speaker, when the Member for Lewisporte spoke earlier I had been convinced that the had said that the LIA land areas were exempt under this act, but what he is indeed telling us now is that the regulations which will pertain to this, some of which are not yet written, as I understand, not yet completed, that under those regulations that are not yet completed the LIA lands may be exempt. I was not aware of that. I had not been informed of that. The minister says that once the regulations are written, then the LIA will, indeed, be exempt. I guess the people in Torngat Mountains will have to take the word of the minister as it relates to that and hope that it will be in the regulations.

Madam Speaker, as it pertains to people in my district, we are still back to dealing with the same issue and the same matter, that this particular legislation may impose fees upon them for access and use of safe motorized snowmobile trails in their regions, and that is unacceptable. I will certainly do what I can, use what power I have in this Legislature, irregardless of what everyone else feels, to ensure that if there is any way these communities can be protected or can be exempt and can be given full assurances for the long term that the fees will not apply to them, I will do whatever it takes to try and ensure that happens.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will be speaking to this bill further in days to come.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

What a wonderful debate, I say to all members. First of all, there is nobody in any rush anywhere. We can have all day, we can have all night, we can have all next week, we can have all next month if you want. We were under the understanding in this House - I spoke to my hon. critic, whom I have a lot of respect for. We spoke about this bill. He passed it around and talked to some people on Tuesday. The notice was given about a week ago, and we can discuss it at length. Regulations come after the act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you. Somebody finally said they understand that. That is exactly what happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I would thank the Opposition House Leader for making that point also when he stood in his place to say that is the reason for debate, to flesh these things out, to get concerns. I spoke with the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and had some very constructive discussions. Officials talked to her today. I will try to address most of -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Madam Chair, if the Leader of the Opposition, who has been away from his seat for a while, will sit back and relax, we will try and to answer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: That is exactly what I just -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Madam Chair, the Opposition House Leader made a very good point just a few minutes ago - if we can get the Opposition Leader to be quiet for a few minutes and let us have few words here. That is what debate in this House of Assembly is all about. As a matter of fact, some of the most constructive points made today were by the Opposition House Leader, to tell us that there was a problem in some of the wording of the act, which I have checked out. We can make a friendly amendment to that, to correct that. That is what debate is all about in the House of Assembly.

As far as the questions that were asked today, we will try to answer as many as possible. The Member for Grand Falls had some very good questions on accessability, fees and so on. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo raised some very good questions. The Member for Labrador West had a lot of good questions - twelve or thirteen questions - which I will answer one by one.

Madam Chair, I have to say to all hon. members here today that these are questions, fair enough, as we move ahead into this industry to try to develop it, but to jump to conclusions, or try to create something that is not there - we know that the regulations follow the act. We know that we are consulting with people in the industry and, I say to the Member for Labrador West, people who were not inside the federations of the Province.

The Member for Twillingate & Fogo talked about some association. We are talking about two main associations: The Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Association, which is the Island portion of the Province; and we have the Labrador Trails, which is the Labrador portion of the Province. That includes 8,800 people. That is not just some association that the member was talking about, that we threw together. These are people we have been talking about, yes, but we have also had discussions and input from people who are not involved in the federation, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of questions there.

As far as the accountability of the whole process, Mr. Chairman, the federations will be enabled, with this legislation, to come back with fee structures which they recommend to us. They will be accountable on an annual basis, to give an audited statement of what money they collect, how they spend it, and yearly it will be back to this House of Assembly. As far as the fees that the member mentioned, they are recommended by the Island portion of the Province, in fees, the same as the Labrador section. All of those things are in consultation with both federations back and forth throughout the Province, but the final say on fee structure does lie with the Minister of Government Services.

There are a lot of these questions, and a lot of time is needed to debate. That is what we are saying today, that all of these questions will be answered one by one, and if there is more time needed - as much time as you need, as we follow through on this debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

Order 5, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 38)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear?

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to the amendments to the Labour Standards Act to introduce compassionate care leave, which I think is a very progressive move and one that certainly is needed and one that has been implemented in various provinces to date.

This past year, Mr. Speaker, the federal government amended the Canada Labour Code, Part III, and the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new employee benefit known as compassionate care leave.

Compassionate care leave will allow an employee to have leave for up to eight weeks to care for a family member who is at significant risk of dying within the next twenty-six weeks. This leave, of course, will be available to all people who are employed under the Labour Standards Act. The significant risk of death will be determined by a qualified medical practitioner.

Compassionate care leave will be available to employees who have to care for a family member who is very ill and, as I said, at significant risk of death within the next twenty-six weeks. The relative, the family member, will be defined under this act as a spouse of the employee, the common-law partner, or the cohabiting partner of the employee. It will also include a child of the employee, or a child of the employee's spouse, cohabiting partner or common-law spouse, and will also include a parent of the employee, or a parent of the employee's spouse, cohabiting partner or common-law spouse. In essence, what it will involve is, the employee will have access to this leave to care for either a parent, an in-law or a child. That is basically what the definition refers to there.

This amendment allows employees to have access to compassionate care leave as a right. Up to this point, people have been able to access this leave if the employer agrees to the leave. This act will ensure that people will have access to this type of leave and that they will be able to return to work without being disciplined or without having fear of having their jobs changed, or any changes made. They will be able to be reinstated to their former employment. Basically, in a sense this mirrors what we now know as maternity leave or parental leave from work.

Why I really think this amendment is important at this time is that years ago as the baby boomers moved into the workforce, it was noted that women often felt at a disadvantage because they often had to take time off work to care for a young family. So, as a result of that, maternity leave was introduced in Canada so that women who had young children, who had infants, were able to have some time to care for that infant before they returned to work without any fear of discrimination when they return to work.

The maternity leave benefits, which eventually came to include parental leave so the father of the young child could also benefit from this type of leave, was very progressive. It went, in essence, from at one point being four months leave, seventeen weeks to six months, to now a year that a person can access leave and be able to return to their job.

Mr. Speaker, there have been changes in the workforce. There have been changes in the demographics and I think compassionate care affect some of those changes. As the baby boomers have been aging and are nearing retirement, but not yet at the state of retirement, they often are faced with caring, sometimes, for their elderly parents. Sometimes they have to try to balance work and family needs, and that becomes a real crisis for people because they are unable to reach that point of retirement to be home to care for somebody. They are going into work, they are probably very concerned about what is going on at home. They probably want to spent those last weeks, if they can, with their family members. They probably have additional duties to do at home to try to care for somebody who is sick. They may need additional time to travel to a hospital, and when they try to balance that with work, sometimes it becomes very awkward. So, compassionate care leave will give them the time that they need to address their personal issues and be able to care for a family member without interfering with their employment status.

Prior to bringing in this amendment, we did consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council. We also consulted with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The consultations have indicated to us that these groups certainly support the implementation of compassionate care leave.

People who would qualify for compassionate care leave would basically qualify under the rules and regulations that are set out in the Employment Insurance Act. That is: An employee must have accumulated 600 insured hours of work in the last fifty-two weeks or since the start of their last employment insurance claim. They also must qualify, as I had said before, with a note from a qualified medical practitioner that the family member is at significant risk of death within the next twenty-six weeks. So, basically, it mirrors and it stands to the same level of qualifications as the EI Act stipulates.

It is anticipated, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be excessive use of compassionate care because of the very strict reasons why it is set up. So it is anticipated that employees will use this on a very infrequent basis. One thing that is also important to note is that two members of the same family can share the leave. So, if two people need to split the leave in order to spend time with the family member who is at significant risk of death, that is possible as well. I think that is an important note.

In saying that employees will use this on an infrequent basis, there is still going to be an issue with some employers that they have to try to replace that employee for a very short period of time, and with a skilled shortage we may see some fallout from that, but I expect that will be minimal. I still feel that the overriding need for compassionate care to care for a family member who is at significant risk of death is very important. That is basically the focus of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, compassionate care leave will assist any employee who requests such leave to care for a family member, but specifically, I feel that it is going to be a benefit to women who are in the workforce. Women right now represent 43 per cent of the full-time workers in the country and they represent 69 per cent of part-time workers. Traditionally and historically, women have been the caregivers of family and it is often women who have to give up their employment in order to care for a family member who needs that care. Mr. Speaker, this leave will ensure both men and women, but particularly women who have had to give up their employment in the past, will be able to maintain their employment and their right to employment but yet have access to leave in order to care for a family member.

Mr. Speaker, the struggles of women to balance work and family are not new today. These are struggles that women have fought to overcome for many years which would have been one of the precursors, I am sure, to the maternity and the parental leave. Again, this compassionate care leave will certainly assist women who do take on oftentimes as the primary caregiver of family, whether it is for elderly parents, small children, or a spouse who may be quite ill.

Mr. Speaker, other provinces have introduced this legislation. Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have made similar amendments to make sure their employees have rights to compassionate care leave. Saskatchewan has also introduced this in the past and they are in the process of reviewing to see if they meet federal standards. Quebec has actually brought in compassionate care leave that exceeds some of the federal standards.

Mr. Speaker, I see this as very progressive. I see it as very important. I see that it is going to help the employees of this Province, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, be able to balance work and family responsibilities in a more effective manner than what they have been up to this point. The Labour Standards Act will be amended to make sure that we do recognize that the demographics of our workplace are changing and that when somebody has to face the significant risk of death of a close person or a loved one that that does impact on their ability to balance work and family.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to be able to introduce this. I think back to the first session that I sat last spring and I had a question from a member of the NDP Opposition at the time, and they asked about compassionate care leave and when we would be bringing it in. It was a priority then. We were not able to bring it in in the spring, but it is certainly something that I feel at this time, it is timely, it is needed, it is progressive, it is keeping Newfoundland and Labrador up with the rest of Canada and it is certainly acknowledging the families and the workers who need this level of support to care for people who are very ill.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I have covered the basics of compassionate care leave. I think it is important that we be able to make this amendment to show the people who are caring for family members that we are very serious and we are concerned about their ability to balance their work and family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure today to stand and speak to this bill. The process for this bill, I guess, started a long time ago. As a matter of fact, the consultations and the leg work was done on this bill over the last year or so, the last year and a half or so. I guess it mirrors the legislation that was passed in Ottawa. Contrary to what the minister might say, it is not a progressive piece of legislation. It is a very liberal piece of legislation, in that they brought in an amendment that would be able to get people who have to stay at home with a family member who is seriously sick - we all know. All of us in our lifetime, at one time or another, have come across situations where your partner, or you have a son or a daughter or a spouse, is about to pass on and needs the comfort and support of the family member. We have a great medical system in this country and in this Province, but sometimes having a person around, a family member, is very, very important in terms of the last days that a person has on this earth, that they need the support and the companionship that is provided. All of us, at some time or another, have experienced this kind of difficulty.

I think, rightly so, that we make sure that the worker who has to do that is supported, and the law protects them. There are guidelines here to protect the employer too, to make sure that all the documentations are in place - certification from the medical community that the person is terminally ill, and that the period of time is a limited period of time. The person can get the time off to be able to spend with their loved ones.

I fully endorse this legislation. As a matter of fact, it was started when I was the minister in the department, and I am glad that the minister is progressing with this Liberal legislation.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards, and I thank the minister for bringing this forward. We did ask about it in the spring, and it is good to see it brought before the House of Assembly today.

Many times in this Province in the past, women, even during maternity leave, the time that was taken off from their employment, generally, even in unionized environments, I say, Mr. Speaker, the time that was taken off for maternity was subtracted from their total overall seniority. If they used up a period of eight months maternity leave during the course of their work life and they worked thirty years, in fact they were only credited with twenty-nine years and four months. Things like this were happening pretty regular in this Province and in other provinces across Canada until a few short years ago.

I think this is important, and I do not care whether you call it Progressive or Liberal, it is a good piece of legislation that will do a lot of people a lot of good. I think the minister summed it up pretty well in introducing the bill. I think she stated the case very clearly as to why this is needed, and there is not much that I can add to that, other than to say this will correct a lot of wrongs that have taken place over the course of many, many years, where employees were mistreated, particularly female employees, Mr. Speaker. Most times, they were the ones who bore the responsibility for dealing with a lot of the issues that are covered under this particular bill.

It is good to see it finally coming to be in our Province and I look forward to a speedy passage.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today, as the MHA for Humber Valley and a former registered nurse, to speak to this amendment to the Labour Standards Act respecting compassionate care leave.

First, I would like to commend the minister for bringing this amendment forward to the Legislature. It, certainly, is a very progressive piece of legislation, not only when we speak about the job protection and the labour standards but also when we speak about health care. Mr. Speaker, as a former front-line health care provider, I have seen, on many occasions, where family members have had to take time off work and have had to balance their jobs with looking after family members who were facing critical illnesses. I also have seen many instances where individuals have had to quit their jobs because they had to look after family members who were ill. Mr. Speaker, I fully support this legislation here today.

I also have, in the past few weeks, actually had a family member who was quite ill and recently passed away, and several individuals in that family were allowed to take compassionate care leave from their employers so they could look after their father. I must say, the fact that this is a federal law and was passed by the federal government and we are following suit here, as a provincial government, I, certainly see it as very progressive.

Mr. Speaker, as a front-line health care provider, I see where this fits into our comprehensive health care plan that we have here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Over the past year, we have implemented many changes to our health care system which takes into account such things as looking family members who are ill. We just recently announced our Palliative Care Program that the Premier brought forward in working with the VON. We also are pursuing primary health care.

Mr. Speaker, as a registered nurse, when a family member comes into a hospital with an illness, I have seen on many occasions where they have spent weeks in the hospital and family members most times want to stay at home with their families. I think this certainly alleviates some problems here and allows family members to stay at home.

Also, Mr. Speaker, as a front-line health care provider, I see that this fits right into providing quality health care here in the Province, not only to individuals who are sick. As a registered nurse, when we walk into a room and a patient is ill, we also have to look at their extended family and I think this here certainly provides for that, Mr. Speaker.

I, as a registered nurse and the Member for Humber Valley, certainly do support this piece of legislation here today.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see this piece of legislation coming before the House of Assembly today, because prior to this a lot of people who are tending ill parents and ill members of their family lots of times come into work when they are tired. They are not able to do their jobs, they are not able to concentrate on their work, and they have been in fear of losing their jobs. With this legislation they have protection. I am glad that the federal government brought this in. It is certainly one of the more compassionate pieces of legislation I have ever seen.

There are a couple of questions that I would like to ask the minister and one is concerning - I know the length of leave is actually eight weeks and that could be taken by any member of the family who is directly-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. I ask for some quietness in the House.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This piece of legislation is very important. There are a lot of people out there today, particularly in the baby boomer age group, who have ailing parents and are overly concerned and concerned about what would happen if one of their parents were faced with and untimely death and they had an obligation to work and did not have any time to spend with that particular parent.

The question I would like to ask is - I know the entitlement for this leave is eight weeks, and that can be done in a combination of either partner or both partners or any member of the family - if there was a situation where both partners took that eight weeks together and the family member's condition improved, would that be the end of that eight-week leave? Or is it possible, if their condition deteriorated again in the future and that person was faced with death at a later date, could a family member then use that option of taking that eight weeks again in the future? Because there are lots of circumstances where you may think that a person may die, but it sometimes happens that they do get better, or they do live longer, or that period might be extended.

My question would be: Could that same eight weeks be used again in the future for another opportunity?

Would you like to answer that now, or shall I ask any other questions I might have?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: You are going to answer that now? Okay, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, answering a question that has been requested by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. This will not come out of her allotted time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to stand more, not to answer the question but to acknowledge it. I am going to get some information on that; because, as the question was being asked, I was thinking: a person could be at significant risk of death in the next twenty-six weeks, but it could be as a result not necessarily of a terminal illness; it could be as a result of an accident, and the person recovers from the accident only to find out next year or the year after that they have a terminal illness.

I am going to clarify that, because we could be actually talking about two separate incidents as opposed to the one incident where they take their leave, which could be broken up into one-week time periods at a minimum, but I will clarify that information because I think it could address two specific issues.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Minister, and Mr. Speaker.

These are the kinds of things that may come up, and also the fact that we know that lots of times, partners, husbands and wives, work at the same employer, particularly in government. I guess what you are saying is that the family member who is requesting the leave, that can be split up with any other member in the family. Can you now say that two individuals who are living together as partners, who are working for the same employer, would there be any problem with both of those individuals, working for the same employer, being able to access that eight weeks?

I do not know if the minister heard me or not. I was saying to the minister, in a situation where the two individual family members who want to take that compassionate leave, if they are working for the same employer, would there ever be a situation where an employer can refuse leave in that situation where they are required to perform a certain function in their jobs? Would that ever come into play, or would this overrule any of these types of situations?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the minister.

Before the minister speaks, we are in second reading and usually we do not have these exchanges; but, by agreement, we can do anything we wish to do. If it is agreeable to the member who is speaking, the Chair recognizes the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can clarify the issue. The leave can be split between the family members who are caring for the ill person, in the similar manner that the parental leave is split between the two parents. It is the same block of time, it requires the same eligibility, but the two people share that particular time. If two people work for the same employer, they will have the right to the compassionate care leave - how they break up the weeks for their own particular case for that leave, to care for that family member.

If the couple, the husband and wife or the cohabiting partners, work for the same employer, they qualify for the compassionate care leave for the eight weeks. How they divide up that time will be determined by them, but their right to split that with the same employer would be the same as if two employees right now work for the same employer but decide to use their parental leave. It would be the same basis and the same split of time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, continuing debate.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, maternity leave is a little bit different because we know, when it is maternity leave, generally it is the female who is going to take the extended period, although in parental leave, lots of times, once the child is born, or if the child is adopted, either or can decide who is going to take the leave. However, in the situation of attending to an ill member of the family - I am glad you stated that as a part of the act, because in a situation - particularly if had two individuals working for a small employer, and both of those were key to that particular business, if they were to take four weeks each, or whatever, it might make a significant impact, whereas if you were dealing with parental leave or maternity leave, there would be one or the other who was going to take it usually for an extended period of time. I am glad you clarified that, because no doubt it would be a question later on.

These are all the questions I have in this part of the debate, Mr. Speaker, and I hope to speak again in third reading.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment speaks now, she closes debate on second reading.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated, it is time for Newfoundland and Labrador to move ahead with some of the other provinces in Canada in bringing compassionate care leave.

I want to thank the hon. members who contributed to this debate. It seems that there is quite a consensus that we need to move in this direction to recognize the changes in our workforce and some of the issues that people have to address.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 38)

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

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 38.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor in House of Assembly in legislative session convened as follows:

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not know if I said in the beginning, but this is a very good act. I am certainly in favour of it, and I do support it. However, the question that I asked, the minister said she would give me an answer. Since we are going into third reading I would like to hear that answer, if I could?

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to just say a few words here on this bill, which, of course, we support. We are very interested in the fact that the minister has brought this forward now. As was indicated by the minister and the Member for Labrador West, this was something we were most anxious to see come along as quickly as possible once the federal act is changed. Maybe - I am not sure if this is the same concern that was raised by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. One of the concerns that was raised, and I do not think it has to do with this act in particular, but I know it has been raised by women's groups and by some of the unions, that one of the effects to the changes to the EI act is that if a person accesses and uses this particular provision of the EI act in order get benefits and also get their job back, that this appears to cause them some problems with accessing a regular EI claim if they should happen to go on EI or need to go on EI shortly afterwards and they lose their hours and they go back and forth.

I do not know if the minister have been apprized of that concern over the last number of months. I know it was drawn to my attention, and I know it is a federal issue, but if the minister is able to indicate whether or not this matter has been brought to her attention before, and whether, in fact, it has been resolved at the federal level. It was a concern that was raised, that if women, in particular, access this provision that they lost their EI claim for regular benefits or they ended up having to go back and start again in terms of getting the number of hours that they needed. It was a significant impediment to the use of this provision, particularly for seasonal workers in rural Newfoundland, people in the fishing industry, for example, who rely very heavily on the pain and the correct number hours to get EI. That if they use this particular EI provision for a family illness they would then have difficulty accessing regular EI because their claim period or their benefit period would have to start again. I do not know if the minister has the answer. If she does, that would be, I am sure, of great interest to people of the Province if she is able to enlighten us on that matter.

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

MS BURKE: I just want to address the question put forward about the EI and how a person qualifies for EI after their claim. I have been aware that there have been some issues, and I hate to put off the issue but it is a federal issue. They do set the standards for qualifications and it is not something that, as a Province, we can do. The intent of this amendment was to ensure that the workers of this Province have the right to compassionate care leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS BURKE: Well, the right to have the leave. The right to able to return without any form of discrimination but, again, the issues and any entitlement falls under federal jurisdiction. I hate to put it off like we are not addressing it but, really, that is the fact of the matter.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have one question for the minister. I waited until now because it is not with the principle. We are certainly in favour and in support of the bill itself.

I am just wondering though, under the - and I understand we will not be cluing this up today, so I thought I would ask the question today to give the minister some time to seek out an answer maybe. That is the reference in section 43.13(a), the definition of cohabiting partner. I am wondering if that will include same-sex partners?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS BURKE: That is a very important question. Yes, it will include same-sex partners. The legislation is written so that it does not specify that a woman has to be with a male or vice versa, so that the cohabiting partner gender is not specified nor is it an issue.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for somewhat of the confusion that has been presented to you, but the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans asked a question of the minister. I think the minister has an answer to your question. If it is satisfactory - which I think it will be - then we will be able to proceed according to the original plan, I say to my colleague, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

MS BURKE: I would like to address the question that was put forth by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans which was obviously a very good question, an important question. After the twenty-six week period is up, a person can reapply, the same as under the federal legislation. The eight weeks leave and the medical practitioner's note is for a particular twenty-six week period. If the condition of the person improved - as we said, it could be compassionate care leave as a result of a very serious accident - then in the next twenty-six weeks or a year or eighteen months later the person develops another condition or the same condition, because it could be a condition something like Leukemia that has been treated, and although the person's prognosis is very poor they survive, but down the road there is another period where they become very ill, within the twenty-six week period that is it for that particular leave. They can reapply again in the next twenty-six weeks or thereafter.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 38, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 38 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 38 without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise and report significant progress, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 38 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 38, An Act to Amend The Labour Standards Act, passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently by leave.

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

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

I move that, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, Bill 38 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 38 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, " An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 38).

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

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

Before moving the adjournment motion, I do wish to move that the evidence adduced by the Standing Committee of Public Accounts during the Fourth and Fifth Sessions of the Forty-Fourth General Assembly be referred to the current Committee and that all decisions made by the Standing Committee of Public Accounts of the last General Assembly relating to their deliberations during the Fourth and Fifth Sessions be deemed adopted by the Standing Committee of Public Accounts of the Forty-Fifth General Assembly.

With that, Mr. Speaker, it now being 5:27 p.m. I want to thank my colleagues for a fairly significant piece of work that was done this week I am looking forward to the continued cooperation over the next two, and I wish everyone a pleasant weekend.

I do now move that the House adjourn, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we adjourn, we need to put the question.

The Government House Leader moved the motion that the evidence adduced by the Standing Committee of Public Accounts during the Fourth and Fifth Sessions of the Forty-fourth General Assembly be referred to the current Committee and that all decisions made by the Standing Committee of Public Accounts of the last General Assembly relating to their deliberations during the Fourth and Fifth Sessions be deemed adopted by the Standing Committee of Public Accounts of the Forty-Fifth General Assembly.

We ask if it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: With that, we now have a motion to adjourn.

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded.

Motion carried.

This House stands adjourned until Monday, December 6, at 1:30 of the clock.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.