December 8, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 54


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my distinct pleasure to stand in this hon. House this afternoon and bring greetings to a very special lady. One-hundred and one years ago today, December 8, 1903, Catherine Young was born to James and Mary Bridget Young in the small Cape Shore community of St. Bride's, Placentia Bay.

Catherine later married Patrick Mahoney, also of St. Bride's, and today Mrs. Catherine Mahoney is celebrating an incredible milestone, that of her 101st birthday.

Mrs. Katie, as she is affectionately known, has lived a long and dedicated life, dedicated to her family, her church and her community. Her presence at the garden parties and fall fair tables is a pleasant memory of the way things used to be in our hometown. Mrs. Katie is a lady of faith, walking to church in all types of weather up to just a few years ago.

Mrs. Katie is a true example that hard work does not harm you. She was always busy and active around her home and her community. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, at the age of ninety-eight Mrs. Mahoney underwent major surgery and returned home after just a few short days.

As a young boy growing up in St. Bride's, Mrs. Katie was my next door neighbour, and I was always amazed at her energy and enthusiasm for life. Just think for a moment, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Katie lived through World War I, World War II, the Korean conflict, the Great Depression and the days when Newfoundland was still a country unto itself.

Mrs. Katie was a few years short of becoming a senior citizen before electricity was introduced to the Cape Shore area during Christmas of 1965. She grew up in a world without telephones, computers or electronic mail. She grew up in a world, Mr. Speaker, where close-knit families, strong friendships and solid traditions and values ruled the day.

A wonderful lady who has enjoyed a long and wonderful life and I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me today in wishing happy 101st birthday to Mrs. Catherine Mahoney of St. Bride's.

Happy Birthday, Mrs. Katie.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a native of Point Leamington in Exploits district who has recently been honoured with a most prestigious award.

In a ceremony at the Arts and Culture Centre here in St. John's on September 21, 2004, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Betty Andrews was awarded the prestigious Public Service Award of Excellence for 2003 in recognition of her work at Government House.

The Public Service Awards of Excellence have been presented annually for the past three years to individuals and teams of people who, as government employees working in the public service, have made exemplary contributions to their area of work and who have positively impacted their work environment in some way.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Andrews won this award as a result of her outstanding contribution and dedicated service to Government House, here in the Capital City, where she has worked for the last thirty years.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Betty Andrews has served many prestigious individuals over the years at Government House, from Queen Elizabeth to Prince Charles and Princess Diana, to many Prime Ministers and Premiers, to Governor Generals and Lieutenant-Governors, Mrs. Andrews service has been nothing short of excellent for the whole period of time.

Personally, Mr. Speaker, during my many years in Cabinet and as Premier, I frequently met Mrs. Betty Andrews at Government House and found her always to be upbeat, professional, and completely and totally courteous and friendly.

I congratulate her today on receiving the Public Service Award of Excellence, Mr. Speaker, and I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in extending congratulations to her as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a group from the District of Grand Bank whose service to their community has been exemplary.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Lions Club in Grand Bank were recognized recently for their tremendous contribution to their club and to the people they serve as a community-minded organization.

Brothers Bruce Buffett and Allister Buffett received presidential certificates of appreciation from the President of the International Association of Lions for forty-four years and forty-three years of service to their club respectively.

Two other members - Lion George Walters and Lion Lance Blackmore - were presented with the highest honour bestowed by the Lions Foundation of Canada, the Judge Brian Stevenson Fellowship Award. Also, Mr. Speaker, Lions Charles Savoury, George Walters, James Tessier, and Howard Bonnell received service pins for years of service to Lionism, to the community and to the world.

Mr. Speaker, there were eleven Lions granted Life Membership Awards in the Lions Foundation of Canada. These members were: Norm Fizzard, Charles Savoury, Bob Hunt, Ruby Walters, Lance Blackmore, Harriet Savoury, Clyde Anstey, Voilet Payne, Lloyd Hines, Georgina Hines, and John Turpin.

Mr. Speaker, at this ceremony, the Lions Club of Grand Bank donated $400 to the John Burke High School Scholarship Fund, and provided $500 for two students to attend the Terry Fox Center in Ottawa. Another $200 was donated to the SeaHawks, a group in the area involved with young challenged individuals in sport.

Mr. Speaker, service to the community like that of service groups such as the Lions Club is certainly worthy of recognition.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending congratulations to all Lions Club members throughout the Province for their hard work and dedication and determination to make a difference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute and celebrate the life and contribution of Almon Thomas Dale, who died in St. John's on Monday, December 6.

Al, as he was known, worked as an employee of CN Telecommunications, but it was in his retirement that he made the contribution for which he is known and respected in many parts of the world.

Having served as a deputy returning officer with the Province's Electoral Office, he took his experience to the world. Al carried out seventeen missions in international election monitoring and as a peace verification officer under UN sponsorship in Southern Africa, Southeast Asia, the former Yugoslavia, and in Afghanistan.

At seventy-two, he was ready to embark on a further last mission despite his battle with cancer, but it was not to be. Al died Monday in the presence of his family.

A most unassuming and compassionate man, he sought no special recognition, but enjoyed the opportunity to serve in this way. Al Dale was very fortunate to be able to make this international humanitarian contribution, and we share the pride of his family in the work that he has done to help advance democracy and peace in many parts of the world where both are needed.

I ask hon. members to join in offering condolence to his wife, Betty, his children and extended family, and his many friends on their loss.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair calls Statements by Ministers, it has come to the Chair's attention that we have a former colleague in the gallery, Mary Hodder, former Deputy Mayor of Marystown, former Deputy Speaker of this House, and former MHA for Burin-Placentia West.

Welcome back to our Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this House that my department will begin using the Canadian Financial Services Ombudsnetwork as part of its consumer complaint system starting in the new year.

This network is another tool in solving complaints consumers may have with financial service providers. It will enable us to deal with complaints more quickly, and it provides another avenue for consumers to have their complaints heard without having to go to court.

Mr. Speaker, a joint forum of financial market regulators has worked with the insurance, securities and banking industries over the past years to create this network. My department is a member of the steering committee.

The first step in the process is for the consumer to try to resolve their complaint with the company. If the consumer is still not satisfied, the complaint can then be referred to the Ombudsnetwork.

Mr. Speaker, the network has the ability to ask the company to provide redress to the consumer if it is determined the company acted improperly. The company is not bound by the suggested course of action; however, the network will publish the name of any company not complying with its request.

My department will continue to deal with complaints involving violations of our legislation and regulations. The network is just another tool we have in assisting consumers in resolving their complaints.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this network will be a valuable mechanism for consumers in dealing with complaints they may have in the financial services sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her advanced copy of her statement. I certainly would have liked to have a little bit more information about this Ombudsnetwork but I guess anything that you strive to do, Minister, to help provide more information about this initiative would be a benefit to the consumer. Anything that does make it - especially this part of the industry, with the financial services in our country - more friendly to consumers is certainly a positive thing.

You know, considering in the past twelve months, I think we have had an increase in the number of complaints in this sector, in this Province, and in the country as a whole, because of our electronic services that we presently work under, financial services. I know the calls to my office have certainly increased over the past twelve months. We look at what happened in Ontario in the past little while, where information regarding bank accounts was being faxed to a fax machine in Arizona, down to a junkyard. That was something, I guess, and hopefully this thing here will help to curtail some of those things.

Minister, I guess most of all I hope that this service and the government's subscription to this service does not result in a loss of jobs to any of our public sector employees.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In making this announcement, I hope this is not a reflection that the minister's departmental officials and staff are insufficient to deal with the complaints that are coming forward. Perhaps the answer, Mr. Speaker, is that she should have an increased staff to deal more vigorously with the kind of complaints that are coming forward. I know they are increasing in the insurance industry, Mr. Speaker, where people are dissatisfied with the kind of treatment that they have been receiving and the kind of rates they are being charged. Perhaps the minister would be better served by adding staff to her department.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform you of truly inspiring events that speak to the generosity of spirit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that is so important as we move into the Christmas season.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, this past September there was a fire at Amos Comenius Memorial school in Hopedale, Labrador. There was considerable damage to the gym and surrounding areas, including the home economics room and industrial arts room. The lobby, administration suite and faculty room received smoke and water damage, and the classroom wing received some smoke damage. This represented a great and tragic loss for the community, as it was not just a school but was very much the community centre in Hopedale.

However, following the fire, the Faculty of Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland, recognizing what a great loss this was for the community, established a Sharing Hope with Hopedale Campaign in October of this year. The purpose of the campaign, Mr. Speaker, was to provide support for the K-12 school community within Hopedale.

The Education Society, a mostly undergraduate organization within the Faculty of Education, participated actively in the project, raising funds through various initiatives and collecting donations.

Drop-off locations for the initiative were established in the Office of the Dean of Education and the Curriculum Materials Centre, in the Hickman Building at the St. John's campus of the university.

Throughout the campaign, individuals from many university and community organizations donated both school related materials and cash contributions. The list of participants included: the Queen Elizabeth II Library; the Curriculum Materials Centre, the School of Nursing, the Faculty of Education, Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts, Newfoundland, and 99.1 Hits FM.

In total, the Faculty of Education collected twenty-seven boxes of school materials. The donated items, Mr. Speaker, included science books, encyclopedias, children's books, novels, geography books, nature books, geometry sets, calculators, pens, pencils, crayons and coloring books, puzzles, games, flash cards, glue, paper and scissors.

Cash donations were collected to the amount of $510. Of this, $350 was collected during a bake sale held by the Education Society.

Memorial University's Facilities Management Department assisted with the transportation of the boxes from the Faculty to Provincial Airlines. Provincial Airlines, Mr. Speaker, then shipped the twenty-seven boxes weighing approximately 350 kilos free of charge for delivery to Hopedale.

I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, to report that the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs at the request of our colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, provided a $2,500 donation to the school to assist with the purchase of emergency school supplies. In doing so, we were matching an earlier contribution made by our colleague, the Minister of Education, bringing the total contribution to $5,000.

Mr. Speaker, as a former school teacher and vice-principal myself, I know very well how important a school is to its students and its community. Having visited Hopedale this past August, as Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, I know how important this school was to the Community of Hopedale.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank President Dr. Axel Meisen of the University. It was Dr. Meisen who approached my colleague, the then Minister of Education, and myself, in my role as Aboriginal Affairs Minister, asking how the university could help out in this project shortly after the fire at the school. I would like to thank Memorial University of Newfoundland's Faculty of Education, the Education Society, and all those who contributed to the success of the Sharing Hope with Hopedale Campaign.

Once again, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have exemplified what a generous and giving people we truly are.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that for the people of Hopedale, and the students, it was a sad day when we learned about the fire. I arrived in Hopedale, Mr. Speaker, shortly after and I can tell you that the whole Town of Hopedale was devastated.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great contribution by Memorial University, there is no question about that. Again, with the airlines, Mr. Speaker. What people do not know is the contribution that Provincial Airlines and Air Labrador make to the people on the North Coast by flying in stuff free of charge is an asset.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to the former Minister for Education, the Member from St. John's East, who I believe was in a Cabinet meeting or on the way, and took my call immediately, responded and gave me the assurance to tell the people in Hopedale that they would do everything possible; to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for what he did, the Minister of Labrador Affairs and to the current minister, who travelled into Hopedale with me.

Mr. Speaker, today we talk of people, but at the end of the day when the school is restored there is a story that needs to be told, of how it unfolded and how we put the school back together, and probably not a story about the natives but a story about a whole lot of good people who worked to give the children of Hopedale back a school that they deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this was indeed a tragic day for the Community of Hopedale and for the students of Hopedale when their school was affected by that fire. I think it bodes well for us, as a people of this Province, that we are known throughout the country and the world, indeed, for the generosity that we extend, not only to each other but to people from anywhere in their time of need and that is well documented, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to offer our congratulations and thanks to the many people who were mentioned by the minister as taking part in the initiative to improve the school in Hopedale. A school in many small communities, Mr. Speaker, is indeed the heart and soul of the community.

As the Member for Torngat mentioned when he thanked Provincial Airlines for their work, I think it needs to be acknowledged the work that Provincial Airlines does in this Province, in all aspects in communities where they operate.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, this will turn out good. Hopefully, things will improve as the year goes forward and further renovations and work is being done. Again, I say to the minister, this is a reflection of who we are as a people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

Before we begin Oral Questions, it has been brought to the Speaker's attention that we have some other visitors in our gallery today, Stelman Flynn, President of the Cruise Ship Authority of Newfoundland and Labrador and Mayor of Forteau, Labrador; with him is Yvonne Power, Executive Director of the Cruise Ship Authority of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We welcome these visitors to our gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier. The Premier stated yesterday that if FPI were to continue with the sale of its American assets the Premier has asked them to give the people of this Province some very, very important concessions. That is what he said in the House yesterday, that he asked for very, very important concessions from FPI.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier that he, himself, has given FPI some very important concessions, the jobs of the people of Harbour Breton and the jobs of the people of Fortune. I ask the Premier now, will he tell us what concessions he has asked of FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said in this House on many occasions over the past couple of weeks, and as the Premier has articulated also, we have had some extensive discussions with Fishery Products International on their proposed income trust transaction. We have been asking for some substantial undertakings from them over the past six or seven months, I guess it has now been. We have not concluded those discussions. When we have concluded those discussions, if they are concluded and concluded satisfactorily, then the undertakings that we sought will be provided to this House and to the people of the Province to see.

Mr. Speaker, to connect what is happening with the income trust transaction with what is happening in Harbour Breton or Fortune, or elsewhere in our fishing industry, is nothing short of political rhetoric and does a disservice to the people of the Province and the seafood industry that they work in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister and the Premier continue to say that they are on top of this file, I wish the people of the areas like Harbour Breton and Fortune could believe that.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in discussing FPI yesterday, also stated that he was only interested in protecting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the Premier: What did he do to protect the people of Harbour Breton? I ask the Premier: What is he doing to protect the people of Fortune? I ask the Premier: If he continues to procrastinate, who is going to be left to protect?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said before, and as we pointed out yesterday, we are working with the people of Harbour Breton to try and secure their future. FPI have made their decision as it relates to Harbour Breton. The people of Harbour Breton understand that and the government understands that. The people of Harbour Breton understand that there are things that the government can do and there are things that the government cannot do.

Mr. Speaker, we have said to the people of Harbour Breton, quite clearly to them again yesterday, when I met with about 150 people in front the hotel in Harbour Breton and when I met with a committee of the community, that we are very much going to work with those people to try and find a solution for them. But, Mr. Speaker, I will not jump for the bait that the member is throwing out there and engage in the political rhetoric that he so often wants to engage in. The people of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador deserve a lot better and, certainly, the people of Harbour Breton deserve a lot better than he is offering.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I am not throwing you any bait. I am asking you what you are going to do for those people that you have let loose on the South Coast of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, a very serious question, one that the Premier did not answer yesterday. In reading Hansard from yesterday, it is obvious that the Premier did not understand the question I asked him regarding the sale of FPI's American assets. So, I will ask again: Will the Premier commit to having a free vote in this House of Assembly before the sale of these assets - that being the American assets of FPI - goes through? Will he have a vote in this House of Assembly before that happens? A simple answer, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have said time and again over the past couple of months on this issue, that we are engaged in a discussion with FPI and we are seeking undertakings as it relates to their income trust transaction to try and make sure that the interest of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, the seafood industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, are protected. If we succeed in that negotiation, which we have been engaged in, that information will be brought before the House and there will be a free vote that will be allowed. That is what the Premier has said time and again. That was our position over the past couple of weeks and it remains our position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for going down to Harbour Breton yesterday. My question is to the minister. Yesterday when the minister was in Harbour Breton he witnessed the desperation of the workers first-hand and he heard from the mayor, the union reps and the business representatives of the overwhelming responsibility they feel to find short-term employment for over 200 people. Neither the mayor nor the local committee feel they have the resources to cope with the crisis situation. I ask the minister if he or the government will take the lead in putting together a plan to deal with this immediate short-term employment problem?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said to the people of Harbour Breton yesterday, and I believe I said it in this House previously, the provincial government will engage, to the extent of our abilities, to assist the people in Harbour Breton both in the short term and in developing a long-term vision and a way forward.

Mr. Speaker, there is an onus on government to assist here, I believe there is an onus on the company to assist here, in the short term and the long term as well, but, Mr. Speaker, as we had our discussion yesterday I think the community also recognize that they have a role in identifying some things that can be done in the short term.

I can tell the member that I have not had an opportunity to update Cabinet yet. We probably will be meeting tomorrow or the next day - it is uncertain yet as to when we will meet - but I will give my Cabinet colleagues a full briefing as to what happened in Harbour Breton yesterday.

I can also tell the member that I have, since coming back from Harbour Breton, had a discussion with the company on what I think they should be doing and how we can all work together to try to find a short-term solution and also to position the people of Harbour Breton for the long term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second question is to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. I am asking the minister if she would commit to provide the community with personnel from her department's Bay d'Espoir office to take the lead and put a plan in place in co-operation with the Harbour Breton committee that can be up and running in a matter of weeks so that the people can go back to work in the short term.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to assure the member that our department will do everything we can in this circumstance to help the people of Harbour Breton in the short term as well as in the medium and long term. You will have our full co-operation in everything that we can do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question is for the Minister of Fisheries.

It is my understanding that the federal Minister of Fisheries will be in St. John's on Monday. I ask the minister: Does he have plans to meet with him? If he does, would he begin discussions on a community quota for the Town of Harbour Breton?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, it is my understanding also that the minister will be here on Monday. I do plan on meeting with the federal minister on either Sunday evening or Monday. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that there will be a discussion around quotas. There will be a discussion around community quotas and, Mr. Speaker, how that will turn out I cannot say right now; however, we will have a discussion about quotas and we will have a discussion about Harbour Breton, and how we might be able to secure quotas for the future of that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, FPI issued a press release to correct what it called rumours and inaccuracies concerning the fish plant in Fortune. I quote from that press release: FPI has no intention of closing its plant in Fortune.

Today we learn that just the opposite is true, as FPI dealt another deadly blow to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Is it any wonder the workforce is confused?

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: When did you know of FPI's true intentions, and where is the protection from FPI's callous actions for those people who work at the fish plant in Fortune?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I answered that question last week, or the week before, here in this House. I certainly answered it outside of the House in a scrum, when the same question was asked to me about Fortune.

It is my understanding, as I said here in this House last week, straight from the horse's mouth, straight from FPI's mouth, in front of myself, the Premier and the President of the FFAW, that they have discussed two options with the people of Fortune, with the plant workers of Fortune. They have had discussions on this for a period of time. How long a period of time? They are in a better position to answer that. I know it has been for some time.

I was informed of the options that they had presented to them several weeks ago, was informed in front of the Premier and the FFAW last Monday night as to the two options. The two options are what the people of Fortune know. FPI will maintain the operation in Fortune on locally-sourced product - that is one option - or they will take the operation in Fortune, the people who work in the operation in Fortune, and accommodate them either between the Burin operation and the Marystown operation, in those operations, with the product that they would be prepared to move there. Those are the two options that have been presented to the people down there.

That, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, because before I came to this House I talked to FPI again today, as I told the previous member, on Harbour Breton. I also asked them what they talked about recently on Fortune, and it was told to me again that those were the two options that were presented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, make no wonder there is confusion here. The minister obviously is not being told the truth, if what he is saying to us in the House today is, in fact, what he has been told.

As late as an hour ago, I was told by the union leader, Mr. Speaker, that there is no plan by FPI to do any product in Fortune. In fact, they are closing Fortune. All of the product will now be done in Marystown.

Clearly, Minister, you are being lied to, and I am asking you: Why are you not taking FPI up on this and dealing with what FPI is telling you, and protect the workforce in this Province, especially today, the workforce in Fortune?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member's question was. The member asked me, previously, what I knew about the options that were presented to Fortune. I told her my awareness of the issues that were presented to Fortune.

Before I came into the House today, I had a chat with Mr. Graham Roome, the Chief Operations Officer with FPI, to ensure that what I had understood previously was still the case. I was told that was still the case. I understand that Mr. Bill Mullins from the FFAW local in Fortune has been on, saying that FPI only wants to keep ten or twenty-five people in Fortune on some type of salt fish operation, I believe he said. My understanding -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I never said I do not believe him, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the Opposition would be quiet for a little while and stop trying to play politics with this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member has asked a serious question - all questions are serious questions, the Speaker would say - but we are having difficulty hearing the member's answer. I ask him if would conclude his answer rather quickly.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the two options were to maintain an operation at Fortune on locally-sourced product. My understanding of that scenario is that there will be a hundred-some people who would get some type of work, and then the other people would obviously not have much work.

The other option would be that the people would be accommodated between Marystown and Burin and they would basically be able to look after the vast majority, if not all, of the workforce between those two operations.

Those are the scenarios that were presented to me, and those are the scenarios that were presented to the FFAW President and the Premier up in the Premier's boardroom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, to hear the minister responsible for the fishery in rural Newfoundland and Labrador get on in the manner that he has in this House is truly troubling, and it is certainly disconcerting for people who work in Fortune and in Harbour Breton, by the way.

I can tell you, if you took the time to call Mr. Graham Roome, why didn't you call Bill Mullins personally? The twenty-some odd jobs they are talking about are to maintain the storage facility in Fortune and to keep a number of engineers there, not to produce any raw materials, so there will be no production taking place in Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: You know, this is astonishing, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Fisheries would get on with what he is getting on with today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All members know that the supplementary questions should be rather short and brief, and I would ask the member now if she would pose her question immediately.

The hon. the Member of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: If it wasn't such a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, the preamble would be shorter, but today we have two fish plants closing as a result of FPI's decision, and this government doing absolutely nothing to try and ensure they stay open.

Minister, when are you going to take this seriously and protect those people who make a living off the fishery in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there are two options that have been presented to the people of Fortune. One of them includes ten to twenty-five people maintaining the cold storage and the operation at Fortune, with the rest of the people being accommodated between Burin and Marystown. The other option is to leave Fortune open and to operate on locally-sourced product.

 

Mr. Speaker, the President of the FFAW, Earle McCurdy, myself, the Premier, Graham Roome and Derrick Rowe sat in the Premier's boardroom last Monday night when that was said by Derrick Rowe and by Graham Roome. It was not challenged by the President of the FFAW. I am not saying he agreed with it or disagreed with it, but he did agree that those were the options that were presented.

Mr. Speaker, it is between the union and the company to work out which option they want to pursue. I, unfortunately - I wish I did have 10,000 or 20,000 tons of fish to push through some of those plants, but I do not. We are taking a responsible (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will have to recess the House if the Chair is not being recognized when order is called. All of us are parliamentarians and all of us have a responsibility to respect the institution of parliament. Therefore, all of us have that goal and we should always be cognizant of it. I ask members, when the Chair calls for order that the Chair be recognized immediately.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Yesterday, he announced an important public health measure for adults by banning tobacco smoke from bars and bingo halls in the Province. Given that our Province has the highest rate of childhood obesity and child poverty in the country, will he announce today a similar, significant public health program for our Province's children?

Mr. Speaker, what is needed is a comprehensive program to ban junk food in our schools, to provide a nutrition program, to provide a significant increase in physical education activity and guarantee that all of our Province's children have a universal school meal program. Will the minister announce that kind of program for our Province's children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raises, obviously, an important question. It is an issue that - in my previous portfolio and in discussions with my colleague, the present Minister of Education, these are issues that are ongoing. They are issues of wellness. They are issues that, again, Mr. Speaker, deal with the full continuum of health care, particularly as it relates to young people, particularly as it relates to preschool age children.

I say to the hon. member, the issue is an important one and will continue to be raised in consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Education, as we move forward on general overall wellness principles for the young children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today we heard that the Department of Education is considering a ban of vending machines that peddle only junk food. Mr. Speaker, obviously that is not going to solve the problem; a significant public health problem that we have of childhood obesity.

There is a comprehensive program that is available by banning junk food, by increasing nutritional education, by increasing physical activity and by having a school meal program that everyone can take advantage of. Will he not do that, Mr. Speaker, instead of saying we are going to do something some time down the road?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: In response to the reference to the schools, I have to say that I am certainly proud to be partnering with the Health and Community Services in initiatives that are addressing this very serious problem.

When we talk about collaboration, we are talking about certainly looking at developing new nutrition guidelines for schools. The government has committed $250,000 to a "Healthy Children-Healthy Schools" initiative that is concentrating on healthy eating, physical activity and a healthy self-image. Now, that is a program that we are involved in right now. We are moving forward and we expect to see results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that only 15 per cent of the school children in this Province have access to a school meal program and that many students get only - their whole meals for the day come through meals in school. Will the minister look at increasing and having a universal school meal program so that every child could take advantage of this opportunity to get a decent meal, at least one per day?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, we are involved in the Kids Eat Smart Program. There are funds being put into that program and we are looking to developing an overall strategy to deal with, not only in the schools but in society in general. When we talk about healthy eating, healthy eating is about attitude and that is what we are working on in our curriculum, in making sure that we are promoting what you are talking about. We are moving along, we are getting there but it is going to take some time. I say to the hon. member, we are seeing results and I would hope that the strategies that are in place will bring about great dividends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a series of questions related to the process that was used to end the VON strike in Corner Brook, which resulted in the resignation of a former minister and the sudden and unexpected dismissal, I say to you, of a senior civil servant, and I asked the minister a very simple question. So, I ask him again today, will he either table the request for proposals that was received in his department or will he admit that there is no proposal, none exist?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize that the question is identical to yesterday and I have to state on record, Mr. Speaker, that the answer will be identical to yesterday. Essentially, as the hon. member knows, the details with respect to the terms of reference of the program to which she alludes were completely enunciated and expressed in a press release given during the third week of November, 2004. I have a copy of the press release and, Mr. Speaker, I will be more than pleased and honoured to provide her a copy of it at her request.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, several times in this House, in this session, I have seen a question posed to the minister opposite and he answers a different question.

Mr. Speaker, I asked him about a proposal from the VON. I asked him to table a copy of the proposal in the Legislature, or tell us, is there a proposal that actually exists. I did not ask you about the Terms of Reference, Minister.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Does not exist.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement that is put in place between the Western Health Care Corporation, Community Services Western, with the Victorian Order of Nurses, in partnership with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficult hearing the hon. the minister. I ask the hon. minister if he could complete his answer now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The arrangement that is in place between all those groups and associations leading towards, I might add, a program that deals with the very sensitive and important and critical issue in health care known as palliative care, that particular arrangement is in place, the details of which are fully explained and expressed in a press release dated November 19, 2004. It is there for the hon. member to see clearly. Again, I would be more than honoured to provide a copy of same to the hon. member.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, I have a copy of the press release. You do not have to provide it to me. I have read it over and over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the minister to table in the House of Assembly the Terms of Reference, and he misled this House by saying it was outlined in a proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I caution members using certain words in terms of Parliament. We have to be very careful. When we say the words a minister misled, we are directly then saying the minister had knowledge but did not share it. I ask the member if she would be more careful and if she would be kind enough to withdraw that particular allegation now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if the language -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if the language I used in reference to the minister was unparliamentary, I do withdraw, but what I will say is that government did mislead this House yesterday when I asked a question with regard to the Terms of Reference. The answer implied that the Terms of Reference were outlined in a press release. Well, that is not the case. There are several points outlined in a press release.

I ask the minister again today if he will table the Terms of Reference, the full Terms of Reference, in the House of Assembly? I also want to ask the minister, because, with regard to the amounts of money -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - paid out to VON to settle the strike - we know that there was an amount of money that was paid out, Mr. Speaker, from newspaper articles (inaudible).

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

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am totally perplexed and puzzled by the hon. member's question. The release, to now - and she now acknowledges that she has it - quite clearly states that the Terms of Reference are expressed, and they include a needs assessment, a learning module, a teaching module, leading to a report that will be finalized on or before April, 2005. These are clearly the Terms of Reference. These are the guidelines with which this program will move forward. I say to the hon. member, all she has to do, simply, is reread; not read, but reread the release.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for a very short and brief question from the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and an equally brief answer from the government.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that there is no proposal that exists from VON. It is obvious that there are no Terms of Reference that the minister is prepared to table in the House of Assembly; nor is he prepared to give us the details on the funding. There is so much secrecy surrounding this file.

Mr. Speaker, my question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, a minister has resigned, a senior civil servant is gone. I ask the minister: What is going to happen on April 1, next year, when the money runs out for the VON workers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, time for a very brief response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, there is no secrecy. There has been total disclosure. The cost is $120,000. It is in the release, and the report will be tabled during the month of April, 2005.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I am having difficulty -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask members for their co-operation. In Question Period, it is a spontaneous event and we often have some shouting across the floor. We have now moved to another part in our routine proceedings, and I ask the members for their co-operation.

The Chair has recognized the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, who is presenting a report.

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

I wish to table the annual reports of the Department of Justice, the Legal Aid Commission, and the Public Utilities Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further reports?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credits (Bill 58), and I do so on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice, according to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, and give further notice that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition on behalf of constituents in the District of Exploits, from the communities of Botwood, Bishop's Falls, Peterview, Northern Arm and surrounding areas with respect to the snowmobiling legislation in the Legislature. I will read the petition into the record.

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is currently debating An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act, Bill 45; and

WHEREAS the provincial government underwent no public consultation before bringing these changes to the Legislature; and

WHEREAS the fees that are being enacted by this legislation represent a taxation of our culture as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS we feel that we are being discriminated against by having to pay a fee to use groomed snowmobile trails that we have been using long before the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation started grooming these trails;

WHEREUPON we call upon the provincial government to withdraw this legislation until public consultation has been held.

As in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.

Mr. Speaker, these are the words of the petition from the constituents in Exploits District, which people would recognize is in the very heart and center of some pretty good snowmobiling terrain on the Island of Newfoundland, here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is - I will just tell one particular incident of one of the petitioners that I have spoken to directly, and who has contacted me. This is a petitioner, Mr. Speaker, who indicates that he is one of the founding members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Trinity North would take it a bit seriously, I follow the rules of the House all the time. I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents. He might do the same, at some point in time, instead of sitting in his seat, refusing to stand to be recognized, and taking the issue seriously.

Mr. Speaker, the petitioner says: I am one of the original founding members of the Exploits Snowmobile Association. We believe in groomed trails, and we worked to get groomed trails, but our understanding always was that the groomed trails in the central part of the Province were there - because there are a lot of woods roads and a lot of other access and a lot of other territory and turf that they have used for years - they formed that Association in Central Newfoundland so that they could groom the trailway. That is why they established themselves. They wanted to be able to use the old railway bed and use it as a groomed trail. They did not want to groom the abandoned woods roads. They did not particularly want to groom other trails up through the country to their cottages and cabins where they have been going all of their lives, ever since snowmobiles had been invented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, here is a person who believes in the cause but is saying that he believes now that it is gone too far because they started grooming abandoned woods roads to go up to people's cabins and now they have to pay when they are going to their cabin, when some of them are voluntarily - many of them are voluntarily - paying to keep up the grooming on the trailways.

Mr. Speaker, that is the nature of what is there. All they are saying is, come out and consult with us some more. Make sure we all understand this. Make sure we get it right so that we can support it, because this is a supporter of groom trails sending me and this Legislature a petition saying: Please pull the bill until we have some more consultation and get it done right the first time around.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

We have one minute.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the students in Labrador, regarding the request for an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area. Today, I present it on behalf of the students in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, when the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was speaking, he said we put our money where our mouth was. Mr. Speaker, that may be true, but I would say to the minister today, because it is his department who will play a key role in this, I would say to you: Christmas is around the corner. A whole new year is approaching. Give the children in all of Labrador some hope for their auditorium.

Minister, I call upon you and your government today to do the right and honourable thing. Give the children in Labrador a Christmas present. Give them what they deserve. Send your Member for Lake Melville back to break the news to them. He deserves the credit for this too.

Minister, I say again, do the right thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ANDERSEN: I call upon your government to do the right thing and announce, before Christmas, an auditorium for the children (inaudible).

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I do understand today we have a private member's motion by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

I do understand that, in order to facilitate an event of the House later in the afternoon, there is an agreement in the House that members who wish to speak will speak for a maximum of twelve minutes, and that the Chair will call the question at approximately 4:40 p.m. or thereabout.

Is that the agreement among all hon. members?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair hears agreement, and calls upon the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to present this motion to the House, which calls for the establishment of a select committee to inquire into the system of public automobile insurance that would be more suitable to the House. I will read the resolution, Mr. Speaker, because it outlines the nature of the argument being put forth here today. It starts off:

WHEREAS fair, affordable and accessible automobile insurance is a concern for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS public automobile insurance has been suggested as a model that could bring relief for Newfoundland and Labrador drivers, and may be a necessity in the event private insurers discontinue their operations in the Province; and

WHEREAS there are many models of public insurance that contain numerous options and in the interest of an informed debate these models and options should be explored in the Newfoundland and Labrador context; and

WHEREAS the Province should be ready to operate a public automobile system that has been developed to satisfy the needs and desires of the people of the Province with a practical plan for implementation and delivery;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT this House appoint a Select Committee on Public Automobile Insurance to examine into and inquire on the most suitable form of public insurance system for Newfoundland and Labrador should the Province conclude that a public system is required;

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

1. The most suitable model of public automobile insurance to ensure fair, affordable and accessible public automobile insurance including: (a) the type of public automobile system to be recommended; (b) the types of coverage and benefits to be offered; (c) a proper risk rating system for establishing premiums; (d) the method of distribution; (e) the types of insurers;

2. The start-up costs for establishing the proposed model, including infrastructure, office equipment, payroll, initial provision for losses, etc.;

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

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

(5) The downstream impact of the proposed model on the legal community, the physiotherapists and other therapists, as well as the brokers, independent adjusters, automotive repair shops and trades or professions;

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

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Select Committee be provided with sufficient resources to conduct an adequate public consultation process and engage consultants to advise on matters required to fulfill its mandate.

Mr. Speaker, that is a rather comprehensive motion, because it is expected that a select committee would have such a mandate to make a comprehensive inquiry and consult with the public on the kind of system that would be reasonable for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons for asking for a public automobile system are reasonably well known in the Province. It has been argued by me and by many others over the last year or so, that a public system would provide some relief to consumers, and that is based not on ideology, Mr. Speaker, but on factual analysis of what has happened in other provinces.

We have, for example, Statistics Canada reports demonstrating that for the period from 1992 to the year 2003 there has been, in this Province, a 227 per cent increase in the cost of automobile insurance. That is a very significant change and is much higher than anywhere else in the country, save in Ontario, where the rate of increase was 241 per cent. Now, what we see when we compare the provinces with public auto systems versus the private systems that we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the annual increases have been the smallest in those provinces with public auto systems.

British Columbia, for example, since 1992, have had an annual increase of 3.8 per cent; Saskatchewan with the public system, 3.8 per cent; Manitoba with the public system, 4 per cent while Newfoundland and Labrador has had 11.6 per cent annual increase in premiums since 1992. Only Ontario was higher, with 12.8 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of comment about this from the insurance industry, particularly by one of their chief spokespersons, Don Forgeron, who is the Vice-President for the Atlantic Insurance Bureau of Canada. He has been speaking on behalf of insurance companies on these issues for a number of years but many of the things that he says are actually, totally misleading. He wrote a letter to the editor a couple of weeks ago in The Telegram in which he says: It has been proven time and again that government-run auto insurance systems do not work for consumers. That is what he says in bold, black and white letters. It has been proven time and again that government-run auto insurance systems do not work for consumers. It is time to put this idea to bed. Well, exactly the opposite is true.

A review of automobile insurance rates in Canada, done by the Consumers' Association of Canada in September, 2003, studied automobile insurance rates in forty cities in Canada. All of the lowest rates for cities in Canada were in provinces with public automobile insurance systems. It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the exact opposite is true. The lowest auto insurance rates in the country are in those provinces with public auto insurance systems.

So, Mr. Forgeron, for his own reasons, because he works for and represents the insurance industry, is producing this kind of statement in our public newspaper and this needs to be answered. The evidence, in fact, of what is happening in the insurance industry is very clear. In 2003, for the first nine months, the insurance industry in Canada made $1.8 billion in profit; twice as much as what they made in that same period last year. Twice as much, and that is for all property and casualty insurance. That includes fire insurance, auto insurance and commercial insurance. So, the insurance industry is doing extremely well, Mr. Speaker, on the backs of consumers, and the consumers are the ones who are suffering.

We have a model that we promoted in the last election, a model of the British Columbia system, which maintains our tort benefits and maintains the system that we have now. In fact, a model which actually gives and continues to give the business to independent brokers, private brokers to sell insurance for the British Columbia system, ICBC, it is called - Insurance Corporation of British Columbia - and they get a commission on that. They support the system and they have supported it when it was under attack in the last year or two. That system provides some of the lowest rates in this country and the private insurers are still operating; they have products that they sell too. There is a monopoly of ICBC, only on the public liability insurance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will have a chance to say a few words at the end of this debate and respond to some of the comments that may be made by members opposite, but I will just say, there are four principal reasons why public auto is actually cheaper than the private system. Number one, there is no profit. It is a not-for-profit system; cost-recovery system that relies on recovering the costs that are expenditure, and that profit can run anywhere between 10 per cent to 12 per cent-plus. I have been told that the plus is where it is really at when it comes to private insurance in this country, and I have been told that by people in the business.

The second reason is that there is lower overhead. I can quote the Chair of the ICBC in British Columbia, who was with the Jimmy Pattison Group, a big private entrepreneurial group. He went in and said that he discovered that ICBC had been holding its light under a bushel and that many good things were happening. He was the one who said that the overhead rates in the private sector were anywhere between 27 per cent plus, whereas their overhead rates were around 12 per cent. That is a savings of about 15 per cent, Mr. Speaker, as well as the savings on profit.

The third reason is that there are fewer uninsured drivers. The national average is between 10 per cent and 15 per cent uninsured drivers, driving the roads, not paying into the system, causing accidents, causing premiums to go up. In fact, the insurance premiums in this Province for uninsured drivers are $25. Each consumer must pay $25 to cover people who are not insured themselves.

A fourth reason, Mr. Speaker, is that the insurance corporation, the public insurance corporations, actually pay for safety improvements in the Province and cut down the number of accidents.

Mr. Speaker, there was a similar study in New Brunswick in the last couple of years. They produced some very positive findings, that government revenues would go up, that it was doable even in a market like New Brunswick, a small market like ours. They designed a program that would work for them based on what they heard, and we should do the same thing here, Mr. Speaker. Members on both sides of the House, all sides of the House, should participate in a select committee that would hear from consumers, that would help to design a system that could work here so that we would have that as an alternative that people would understand, know about, be transparent and understand the issues, and not be tempted to be badgered one way or the other by people who have an axe to grind, such as the insurance industry itself. Listen to the public, get independent advice, get proper studies done, and come up with something that we think would work for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are asking, because if we need to have an option, and I think we will, because what is going on with the Public Utilities Board is not going to study public auto insurance. It is only looking at the kind of tinkering that has been done in the four Atlantic Provinces, that has not resulted in significant decreases in rates and has not solved the problems of discrimination against young people on the basis of age or gender. We need to see a public auto insurance system, fully explored and discussed in a sensible way by people with experience - people in this House who know, who can sift the evidence and can listen to the experts and come to some conclusion.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that members support this resolution because it is supportive of a petition that I presented in the House the first week the House was open, from 7,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from over 200 communities, that was presented to me by the Advocates for Fair Automobile Insurance. I think they want an independent study. We think that a study done by an select committee of this House would provide adequate answers for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to endorse the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on his motion for public insurance. There is a wide debate across this country as to which insurance is the best for the people. Public insurance is working in other jurisdictions, but so is private insurance. Government needs more information, I say to the minister, and to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to decide which is the best fit for the market of Newfoundland and Labrador. Government must also decide what type of insurance the people of this Province want.

Back in August 2003, there were three proposals submitted by the three different parties in this Province. The first one - I was the minister of the day - I brought forward the choice system. The choice system, basically, was: You either keep your current coverage or you choose to give up the right to sue for minor pain and suffering, and for that you would achieve 30 per cent savings and you would eliminate the age, sex and marital discrimination.

The PC Party, at the time, proposed a $2,500 cap on the payouts for minor injuries, for a savings of 20 per cent. They also, as part of their policy, pledged the elimination of age, sex and marital discrimination. Leading into an election, I can see that because they were trying to keep up with the government of the day.

The NDP proposed a full tort insurance system similar to the one in British Columbia - very similar to the current system expect that it is publicly delivered with the elimination of age, sex and marital discrimination.

The problem we had with all of that, and unfortunately what happened is what the PC Party promised at the time and what the present PC government delivered are light-years apart.

MR. J. BYRNE: At least we delivered.

MR. SWEENEY: No, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, you did not deliver, because what you promised -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Getting elected, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, means honouring your commitments. If you promise something to the people and go to the polls, honour those commitments.

Let's see what you did. You backed out of the $2,500 cap and went to a $2,500 deductible. You promised to eliminate rating discrimination based on age, sex and martial status. Guess what? It did not happen. Most appalling of all, I have to say, was that the government's promise was to do all of those things within 120 days - that is four months - of taking office. Guess what? We are nowhere close to our 20 per cent savings. The average saving right now is around 9 per cent to 12 per cent, depending upon what company you are insured with.

A person came to me the other day, he showed me his refund cheque, and it was for $32 for the whole year. That is a far cry from the 20 per cent that was promised in this Province. The government has broken all three promises that they made in their Blue Book, all three promises.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I am not for picking one system over the other. I am not for doing that. I am not going to say that the public system is the best way to go. I won't say that the private system is the only option, but tort reform of the current system is certainly the easiest method to pursue. It is the easiest method right now, without establishing a whole new system to realize savings for the people of this Province when it comes to insurance.

If government is going to continue to study the insurance industry, it should certainly take a look at the benefits of public insurance for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why I am speaking in agreement to this motion this afternoon.

One of the things that we realize is that the cost of living is increasing on a daily basis. Insurance has gone - even in the twelve month period that it took the government to get itself straightened out around the meager savings that it tried to give the people. Many people do not realize it, but a $2,500 deductible - guess where that $2,500 comes out of? If a person has a $20,000 claim for minor pain and suffering, the first thing that is going to happen is they are going to lose approximately 35 per cent in legal fees. That is $7,000. The next thing they are going to have to pay is a $2,500 deductible. That is $9,500 off their $20,000 claim settlement. So, what is the person left with? Ten thousand dollars. At the end of the day, with the increased costs of the insurance that has taken place in the twelve months - because we did, in August, 2003, we told all the insurance companies in the Province that there was going to be reform for insurance in this Province. Now, it is taking a little bit longer for true reform to come because, as I said, a $2,500 deductible - that is not doing anything for the consumer. Most of all, I would say to the minister, that a 9 per cent reduction in costs for the consumer is not cutting it either. It is a far cry from the 20 per cent that your government promised.

There are a number of other things, I guess, that we can probably look at but I would wish to see a select committee because, minister, the Public Utilities Board is not the agency in this Province that makes legislation. They are not the lawmakers. They are the people who carry out the policies that this government, that this House of Assembly brings out of it. So, I want to see the members of this House on a select committee, even though I am concerned about the time frames because people were promised 120 days action, a notice to them to change their rates. They are still sitting down waiting. Most of the people in this Province have not realized any savings. As a matter of fact, they are still paying more for their insurance than they did in August, 2003. They are still paying.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should take our time, have a select committee of this House and hear from the people of the Province. Because one of the dangers of hearings is the people who make the money, the great beneficiaries of this - and insurance is supposed to be a benefit to the people, to protect the ordinary person out there who is purchasing it, but what happens with all of this is that the real stakeholders in the insurance business are the insurance providers and, of course, the legal community on the other end because there is a firm, I have been told, who made $23 million off the insurance claims part of this Province last year. That is $23 million. That is big stakes, and I witnessed some of that when I was minister because as I saw the people making the proposals to me, as minister, they were marching in. The big wallets were opening and people were being mobilized to come in to state their cases, but the ordinary consumer, the person out there who is paying to foot the bill for all of this, never got a fair hearing.

I applaud the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for this initiative, because looking at what has happened to the insurance industry in this Province and the insurance reform in this Province, it has not happened. The consumer is still paying more; in some cases probably getting less because many people are changing their deductibles now because it is cheaper to go with a higher deductible to get themselves a rate of insurance that they can afford to pay.

Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure of that government's path right now - and I know they are going to vote this motion down this afternoon. I know that because of their stubbornness and unwillingness with other things that complies with their openness and transparency in this Province. They talk a great game but they do very little to show they do what they mean.

One of the other things, if the government was really serious about doing something about insurance, they would jump on the willingness of the other provinces, what they have learned; Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island. They would follow their suit and initiate that $2,500 cap and give real deductions and real savings to the people of this Province.

In the spirit of this motion that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has done here, I think the people of this Province - and especially noting the fact that there was a petition brought to this House the first week we opened with 7,000 signatures on it; 7,000 taxpayers of this Province, 7,000 voters, 7,000 people with real blood running through their veins, have asked government to give a public insurance system a look. I think it is incumbent upon this hon. House to do just that.

So, I ask the government not to put on the hobnailed boots here now and step on this motion. I ask them to give it some serious thought, think about their own constituents, put them first. There is no reason why the ordinary person of this Province cannot receive a hearing and be given the opportunity to provide to them the very best in the options of insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I realize my time is coming to an end here. I say to the members opposite, take the time, use a little bit of compassion, give this some thought and provide the resources to back the member here in his plea to have a look at the public insurance system in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to be able to rise to make some comments with respect to the private member's resolution, but before I do I want to comment on a couple of statements made by the Member for Carbonear. He made a couple of comments about the election promises made by this party during last fall. He made the statement that we have not lived up to the commitment because we have not done everything. I just want to remind him of something: That party opposite was in power from 1989 until 2003 and did absolutely nothing. We have made a fundamental change.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, on a point of order.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, of all the people in this hon. House to remind me about when I was in government - he was part of the same government that did nothing only cry and lament upon the eighth floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh1

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, if there is a point of order, would you get to your point of order and the Chair will decide.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, just to continue: Because this gentleman has more face than a robber's horse. His government has done nothing. They promised in black and white four commitments, they honoured none.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, I recognized the mistake and I decided to do something about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I couldn't tolerate staying part of a government that was leading the people of this Province down the garden path.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I stand proudly in this House today, knowing I did what I did for the people of Trinity North and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Just to show me how much they appreciated what I did, last year they returned me with a resounding victory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, my victory last year was about four times that of the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I say to the member, before he starts criticizing what we have not done, just reflect on their time from 1989 to 2003.

Having said that, I will skip back to the member's statement. The Member from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, opposite, has made a real genuine effort here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, a little bit of protection here from the yahoos opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the motion itself because I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has made a real genuine effort to respond to what has been a real concern by the public of Newfoundland and Labrador about the rising costs of insurance, and their inability to be able to maintain basic insurance, liability protection, on their vehicles. I think it is a significant issue.

We realize, over the course of the last two years particularly, that this has become a significant problem for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we, as a government, are embarking on a process, a process that started with Bill 30, and it is ongoing as we speak today. The next leg of that process is the closed claim study that is undertaken right now, the results of which you will see some time shortly. As the Premier outlined in his press release in May, 2004, there is a series of other issues and other initiatives under review as we speak, some of them mentioned by the Member for Carbonear, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I think one of the things that we need to recognize here, before we run out ourselves in Newfoundland and Labrador and start putting together legislative committees and doing studies and spending a tremendous amount of taxpayers' money, let's reflect on what has happened in other jurisdictions; because the member made some reference to the kinds of things that have been done in other jurisdictions. I think one of things, at least in my bit of research that I have done, one of the most recent studies was done in Ontario. I think it followed a commitment by the former NDP Government in Ontario that they, in fact, were going to bring in public insurance. They campaigned on that platform, successfully campaigned on that platform. When they got in, they realized, this is not quite as simple as they thought during the election campaign, so they undertook and they commissioned a study. The study that was done was referred to as the Osborne Commission.

I just want to read something, Mr. Speaker, because it says, in this document that I am reading here now: The commission concluded that the taxpayer's dollars required from government for the start-up costs, et cetera, and the elimination of competition would not result in any significant, if any, financial benefit for consumers. In addition, the commission found no compelling social benefit or other non-economic justification to support the case for government-run automobile insurance. In fact, the report concluded that the elimination of consumer freedom of choice, employment dislocation and other factors reinforced the case against public monopoly.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I see some of the merits in the arguments put forward by the hon. member opposite as he made his motion here today, and I have had conversations with him in the past about public insurance and there is some merit in the argument, but what I say to the hon. member is, it is a matter of timing here. He is calling upon the House today to rush out and put together a committee and to do this quickly, to spend a lot of taxpayers' money to go down a road of looking at public insurance. At some point in time in the future it may well become necessary - I really do not know - but, today, look at where we are today. As a Province, we heard recently the Minister of Finance say we have an $11.5 billion accumulated debt. We are dealing with a significant cash deficit in this fiscal year. We have a significant accrued deficit in this fiscal year, so we are dealing with some significant financial challenges. To run out and start doing a major study on the insurance industry, you have to make sure you are going to give that some very serious consideration before you start spending taxpayers' money frivolously.

As I said earlier, we are embarking on a process. We made a commitment last year leading into the election of 2003. We introduced Bill 30. We are getting a closed-claim study done today. There are other initiatives that are being considered, many of them that have been referenced earlier. Just to make a reference to some of them, we are talking about penalties for claimants who provide false testimony or evidence, preventing claims for impaired drivers and uninsured motorists, prohibiting insurance companies from rating based on age, gender, martial status, and permitting group ratings, just a number of the things that are currently being evaluated.

I say to the members opposite, and anyone else who is considering their views on this particular resolution, to look at where we are in a point in time. Is it appropriate to be doing this today? Is it something that we should be doing, maybe down the road in six, eight, ten or twelve months from now when we have gone through an initiative that we have outlined?

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, just twelve short months ago, gave us a mandate as a new government to lead this Province into a new direction. A part of the platform that we campaigned on was insurance reform, and we are delivering on that. We have started down the road with Bill 30, as I have said earlier, and the other initiatives that are in the works right now, today. These are major changes. The insurance industry is a very complex industry. It affects every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and we need to be very careful of how we are proceeding with this. Before we start going out and going down a road - because the request in this motion clearly says, let's study one particular form of insurance, publicly-funded insurance.

We already have a study in Ontario, in the late 1980's, which is not that long ago, not that long ago at all, Mr. Speaker. I think there is some relevance to that study in today's setting in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other thing, just to talk to the merits of the issue, because I think fundamentally, I say to the member opposite - and I respect his motion. As I said, there is some merit in some of the points he has raised over the past number of months, but I think his timing is off. I think if, in twelve months time or eighteen months time, as a Province, we haven't been able to resolve the significant issues facing the people with respect to insurance in this Province, maybe it is time, at that point, to start having this discussion, but I do not believe today.

One of the other things, I think, just to the merits of the motion made by the hon. member in terms of publicly-funded insurance, and how that might look and whether it is worth looking at, there are a couple of - not publicly-funded, publicly-administered is the terminology, publicly-administered insurance program - a couple of things. Again, with the limited amount of research I have done in this area, looking at it, this is the year 2005. The other jurisdictions of B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan that have a public insurance program, they were established twenty-five, thirty years ago. The amount of investment that we would need today, as a Province, to invest in establishing of a public insurance program has been billed somewhere in the range of - depending on who you talk to - as low as $180 million to $190 million, to somewhere upward closer to $300 million, depending on who you talk to. There are some who have suggested it might only be $60 million or $80 million. That is an extremely low figure, particularly when you consider, when B.C. established theirs in the early 1970s, the first couple of years of operation, they had to go out and invest what I understand to be somewhere in the range of $180 million. In the early 1970s, they had to go out and invest $180 million of additional public money just several years after the program started, and that was in mid-1970s dollars. Today, in 2005, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, we need to, before we go down this kind of road as offered by the hon. member, recognize that, if we were to do such a study, and to realize that maybe it had some merit, we still have the significant problem of, where do we come up with several hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the establishment of the program. The very initial issue is, we are going to take over some twenty-odd thousand in claims that are going to be filed annually. We need to have an immediate contingency fund for the claims that we would experience in the first twelve or eighteen months, I say.

I recognize the time, and my time is running out, but I do want to make just one summary comment. I give credit to the member for the merits of his motion that he brings forward. Unfortunately, I say, Mr. Speaker, the timing is wrong. If we were to be debating this in eighteen months time I may have a different view, but today, in 2005, I cannot see myself supporting the motion as put forward by the hon. member, despite some of the merits and the arguments he is making. I thank him for introducing it today but, unfortunately, he will not get my support today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted today to stand in support of the member's motion, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. He is not asking for change to the current insurance program. He is asking this House to appoint a select committee on public automobile insurance to examine into and inquire on the most suitable form of public insurance system for Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what he is asking. He is asking that the government undertake to appoint a committee and study the merits of a public insurance system. We know that was not done in the beginning, when Bill 30 was introduced to this House.

It is interesting, it was last June when we were in high flight, I guess, talking about insurance in this House, and the Minister of Government Services and Lands at that time - it was one of the Question Periods during the time the bill was tabled in this House. I remember it well. It was June 3 and the time was 1:59 p.m. The Minister of Government Services and Lands said: this government has a mandate to mandate insurance. Now, really! This government has a mandate to mandate insurance. Is that what you want to do, ram something down the throats of the people of this Province and not consult them? Is that what this government is all about?

She also said: this is a starting point and she was very proud of the package. I wonder, would the member like to call at random the people of this Province and ask the ones who have received their rebate cheque in the mail this fall, were they satisfied with the rebate cheque they got? They were promised anywhere from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. What did they get? About 9 per cent.

The Premier had a day when he decided to give a report card, November 6, 2003 to November 3, 2004. He was really proud of the insurance plan that his government had delivered to the people of the Province. One of the things he said was that the PUB review and public hearings will form the basis of the future direction of insurance in this Province. That is what this government did. Instead of dealing with it themselves they sloughed it off to the PUB. They would get rid of it and they would not have to answer any more questions about insurance in this Province. They did not get elected on sloughing it off to the PUB. They got elected saying that they would have a cap on insurance. That is what they said. What did they have when it was all said and done? They had a $2,500 deductible on insurance.

Who do you think was the first one to put an ad on VOCM Open Line talk show as soon as the bill was passed through the House? Who do you think had the first ad on radio that morning? Confused about what Bill 30 will do to your auto insurance, $2,500 deductible, your right to sue, know this: the average personal injury settlement without a lawyer, guess what? It is $3,500. With a lawyer it is over $25,000. I am (inaudible) Roebothan Mckay and Marshall, the Province's leading personal injury lawyer practice. Call us and we will walk you through Bill 30 and your right to compensation. It costs you nothing. Roebothan Mckay and Marshall, who will fight for you.

Now, what did you do with Bill 30? One thing you did do, you lined the pockets of all the lawyers in this Province. That is one thing you did because it has been clearly stated that if you have a $2,500 deductible on insurance you know that is going on the claim. You know yourself that is going on the claim.

In fact, it was only two days ago that the Government House Leader introduced in this House of Assembly a bill on accountability and transparency for to hold up as a model of this government, a new step forward. They are going to be accountable and transparent.

It was only August 27, 2003 that the current Premier, who was Leader of the Opposition at that time, said: as a lawyer with thirty years experience in the insurance industry, I believe I have much to offer in presenting a realistic and workable solution on how to deal with a problem that has been essentially ignored by the previous Administration. This is what I promise you if you will elect me, a cap of $2,500 on minor soft tissue injury claims. Is that accountable and transparent? Say one thing, get elected and throw that to the wind.

Even his Parliamentary Assistant believed in the Leader of the Opposition, who is now Premier, so much at that time he came out on the same thing on Wednesday, August 27. French said: the Tory plan will also contain some kind of cap on soft tissue injuries. He believed what the Premier said - his own colleague, I suppose - well, not in the Cabinet but definitely in the caucus room. The current Member for Conception Bay South believed what the Premier said, and look what you got. Look what you got!

The Member for Trinity North stood up and said his reason for not going along with the select committee on reviewing and examining the possibilities of public insurance was the cost to the taxpayers of this Province. For that reason, there would be not need to spend that money frivolously right now and undertake that process.

The latest buzz word of the Tory caucus is process. Every question that is answered in Question Period begins with: We are in a process. I wish you would get out of that process so we could see what you are going to do, but we know what you have done with insurance.

The Member for Trinity North said that he could not justify, being a member of the government, to spend money going around this Province just checking and asking people about insurance. He could not justify that. I would like for him to ask his Premier if his Premier can justify some of this waste of the taxpayers money: replacing senior civil servants without cause; destroying careers, professional careers; forcing people to leave their place of work prematurely; and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money unnecessarily.

What the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is asking - he is not asking this government to agree to public insurance - he is asking this government to go out and appoint a select committee, which they promised in their Blue Book, that any policy that is brought forward that is of interest and of concern to the public in general, before legislation and regulation is brought to this House of Assembly and passed, consultation will take place.

It has not taken place with insurance. It has not taken place with the bill before us now on snowmobiling in this Province. That is the reason why the minister is experiencing so much debate in this House. He has not done his homework.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) relevant to the debate.

MS THISTLE: It is all relevant, I would say to the Minister of Transportation and Works. Anything that is concerning spending the taxpayers' money in this Province is relevant. What your priorities are, and the priorities of this government - we know what the priorities of this government are, because the Finance Minister, on his feet, November 30, in Question Period, at 2:09 in the afternoon, said it was his duty to assure that the priorities established - by whom? - not the government, but the Premier, were done. That is his priority and that is your priority. There is lots of relevance. Whenever you are talking about spending people's money, everything is relevant.

Let me remind you of what you promised to the people of this Province on insurance, and delivered nothing. That is what you delivered. You talked about a savings of 20 per cent to 30 per cent. What did you deliver? Nothing. What is going to happen when that freeze is over next spring? What is going to happen then?

You promised you would eliminate rate discrimination based on age, sex or martial status. What did you do with this? Nothing. You would not even entertain the thought of discussing it. That is what you did. What did you do with the PUB? You replaced the Consumer Advocate, who was completely up to date. The next thing you did, you sloughed it off so they would go and do their review. What is their review going to be? What is the Public Utilities Board going to do about insurance in this Province? They are supposed to be a non-partial board. They have not - this was June, this bill was passed. We are into December, we are into almost a new year. There has been no date set for consultations by the PUB, no review done, absolutely nothing, so what you have done is the minimum. You have brought this bill to the House, which meant nothing to the public at large. You have not reduced their insurance rates. You ask anybody who is out there today and has a young person who wants to drive. How about a senior citizen, when they are up for renewal, what is going to happen to them? How about insurance on commercial establishments in this Province? You have not looked at that. Some people are having to close up their business because they cannot afford to insure their property. You have promised a lot and delivered nothing. That is what the matter before us is today.

Talking about insurance, you said you would consult with the people and now what you are doing is consulting with the PUB. You are telling them what to do. You look at the fact that the legal community themselves - look at the lobby that they put forward to influence the government when they came to passing this legislation. Look at the lobby that was put forward by the legal community. Who is benefitting right now from the $2,500 deductible? Is it the ordinary man and woman in the street? I don't think so.

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

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

MS THISTLE: Well, I would like to thank this House. I am disgusted that you have only allowed twelve minutes, but thank you for the opportunity and I will sit down.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure here today to say a few words on this private motion.

First of all, before I go into saying a few words, I would just like to address a couple of the things that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has said. She just said that we absolutely did nothing. Madam Speaker, I have been driving on the roads for about twelve years and in October of this year, in our household alone for two people, we did receive a rebate of $600. In all the time that I have been driving I have never, ever received a cheque or a rebate or a reduction in insurance rates in the fourteen years that they were there. So, I tell you, that is something that we did.

It was also mentioned that there was only a savings of 9 per cent. Madam Speaker, 9 per cent was the minimum savings - that is the minimum savings on third party liability. The average savings overall was 15 per cent, I will have you to say. I also spoke to many people who in fact saved more than 15 per cent, because people who were in Facility Association before, they came out of Facility and they were wrote into the regular market.

This insurance problem is a decade old problem. It has been around for quite some time. We had a plan, we took action. Our first step was bringing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Our first step back on March 17 was introducing a wage freeze. Then following that - five months into it, we introduced a wage freeze on March 17- yes we did - which is much more than I can say for the other side in the time that they were there actually.

Then on August 1 we mandated changes, as I said, that brought reductions anywhere from 9 per cent to 20 per cent. Certainly, comments from my district and from all around the Province, the people are very thankful for the reductions they received and the cheque that they got in the mail. Better in their pockets, they say, than in the pockets of the insurance companies.

I certainly want to thank the minister, the Premier and the government for all their time and dedication on this file because for once people finally did see a reduction in rates. I will remind everybody, that this problem is not only a problem in this Province, it has been a problem across Canada. It has been a problem for ten or more years and this is the first time anything has been done about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Madam Speaker, that was just our very first step. As I said, we are not going to stop there.

As you know, coming up in the new year there will be a comprehensive hearing which, again, is the first time ever in this Province that people will have an opportunity to speak up on whatever it is they chose, whether it be an individual, an interest group, whether it be a company, an organization such as the Girl Guides, or whether it be you or I. Any member in this House can certainly have an opportunity to go there and speak. They can speak about whatever it is they wish on many things, such as the topics of deductibles, cap, whether or not you want a deductible or cap, whether or not how much that cap or deductible should be. I will be talking about rating territories. Certainly, the issue of ratings based on age, marital status, gender, that is all up for grabs at the hearing. You can talk about mandatory accident benefits -

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: I will tell the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans what we did do about age, marital status, and gender. What we did do this time in this legislation, not only did we reduce rates but we also changed some of the underwriting guidelines. As a result of debate in House, and our legislation that was passed, a company now can no longer refuse to write insurance to a person in the regular market based on their age, gender or their marital status.

Before this legislation, if a twenty-one year old wanted to get insurance they would be automatically sent to Facility Association. Because of this legislation that we introduced, first time something was done about it, they now have to be wrote in the regular market. I will say that the issue of rating based on age, marital status or gender will be put to the hearing and we certainly welcome all of your input on that.

It is a known fact that about less than 5 per cent of the population are drivers under the age of twenty-five, and it is also a known fact that these drivers do experience high accident rates. So we have to decide whether or not we want to subsidize those drivers. Certainly not all drivers under the age of twenty-five do have accidents, but that is a decision that has to be put forth to the people of this Province. Do people over the age of twenty-five want to subsidize it so that rates will be consistent and based on your driving record and your driving experience? That is something that, again, we welcome all of your input at the hearing on that.

There was a study done, if people over the age of twenty-five did pay approximately a 10 per cent increase in premiums then certainly people under the age of twenty-five could see reductions as high as up to 50 per cent. Again, that is something that we are doing something about. We have brought in the legislation that you cannot be refused based on it and further talks will be there to look at whether or not you can be rated on it.

Other things that can come up at the hearing is: What can be done to bring in more stringent regulations for drinking and driving, or what can be done for more stringent regulations for uninsured motorists? The list is endless. Whatever it is, a member or an industry, or an organization wants to talk about it, it is an open, comprehensive hearing; something that our government took action on, people wanted it. We did see the first steps, and we are off to continue on with that plan so that hopefully more reductions will be achieved.

Again, I do commend the member for bringing this private member's motion to the House. Certainly, public automobile insurance, the topic has been out there. Other provinces are looking into it, or, in fact, have implemented it. I certainly think that this an opportune time for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to take his time and use his time at that hearing to present his views. You know, we do not know what is going to come out of the hearing. We want to hear as much feedback as possible. We will do whatever is best for the people of this Province so that they have reasonable fair rates, and at the same time, maintain a level that if they choose to still sue for pain and suffering, that is there, that is an option. We are not sure what will come out of it but we will certainly do what is in their best interest.

Before that hearing is to take place, Madam Speaker, we also did say that a closed claim study will be done. My understanding is that this will be done soon, and that is an opportunity to provide for up-to-date information on the claims, frequency, severity and get a better picture of the accident claims and what not. I do know that it was brought up by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace and also the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, about the issue of perhaps there is discrimination there based on age, marital status, or gender. So, again, we will welcome that at the time of the hearing.

If after this hearing, after all the evidence is presented, people want to eliminate rating based on age and they are willing to subsidize that, then certainly that is what will happen. That is something which will have to go before the PUB, and if people in the Province are willing to pay a little extra so that people under the age of twenty-five will pay significantly less, then that will happen. We are not going to say it is not going to happen. We want to see what people's thoughts are on the issue. If people want public automobile insurance, if there is a strong outcry and a lot of information presented for that, well it is possible that that will happen. If people want to continue with the system that we have today, the $2,500 deductible, and still maintain the right to sue, then that is what will happen, or if they want the deductible increased or if they want a cap, nobody knows what will happen out of this. That is the whole point here. We are trying to be as open as we possibly can, and get as much feedback from all of the people in the Province so that the best decision can be made at the end of the day.

Certainly, we encourage full participation from all interested shareholders, industry, consumer groups, volunteer organizations. and certainly any member in this House will have ample opportunity at that time.

As a result of the legislation that was proclaimed on August 1, this government has saved the people of this Province $25 million annually while still maintaining their right to sue for pain and suffering. That is a significant amount of savings, Madam Speaker. The hope and the intent is that at the end of the comprehensive hearing there will be an opportunity for even further savings. Again, it depends on what the people of the Province want.

This private motion, Madam Speaker, I cannot support. I do not feel that there is a need for a select committee. The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace said that the people of the Province are still waiting to see reform in this Province, but then the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans gets up and says we should take our time. I am a little bit confused. I am not sure what it is. Do they want us to take our time, or do they want us to hurry up and get it in there? I think the plan that we had devised a year ago is a very good plan. There were many steps taken. We are on the right track, and the final step in that plan is to have this comprehensive hearing. Therefore, I see absolutely no need for a select committee at this time because, as I said, we are providing opportunity, ample opportunity, for people to speak out.

That is why I will not be supporting this private member's motion today. As I said earlier, insurance is a decade-old problem. It is something that needs to be looked at. People in the Province are very thankful for the rebate and the reductions that they have received to date. We have taken action. People have received rebates, anywhere from 9 per cent to 20 per cent, and we are not going to stop there.

There is no need for a select committee at this time. This government committed to reducing rates. That is exactly what this government did. We are very proud that we did that, and so are the people. As I said, the comprehensive hearing is the next step to our plan, which I invite all members of the House of Assembly to come and have their say, and member of the general public, because the final end result will be the one that is best for the people of the Province. It will provide them with the insurance coverages that they need at a reasonable rate. Therefore, I will not be supporting this private member's motion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion today. I cannot support the motion that is on the floor today. It is not appropriate to strike a select committee. There is already a committee, a hearing, in place, a process to hear the insurance concerns in this Province.

I would like to say that, back when we campaigned, we campaigned for affordable, accessible and reasonable rates for insurance in this Province, and today I stand here saying we are doing what we said we would do.

Madam Speaker, it is important to note that back in March we froze the insurance rates in this Province. We announced insurance reforms, and the people in this Province realized, on a average, 15 per cent savings on their premium. We introduced regulations and underwriting guidelines for everyone to have fair insurance in this Province.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, we commissioned a closed-claim study to give us some recent data on the claims. That study will be completed by the end of this month. From there, we are going to put in a process of public hearings. I say to my hon. colleague across the way, you will have ample opportunity to present the public insurance data at that hearing. The PUB will report back to the government the level of interest in a public insurance system and, if it warrants at that time to do an in-depth study, we will consider it. The cost of a detailed study would cost the taxpayers of this Province thousands and thousands of dollars, and we would want to be convinced that the current system is not working in this Province for the consumers.

I would like to say that I cannot emphasize or express how important it is for everyone to participate in those hearings coming up in the very early new year.

Madam Speaker, I know earlier that my colleague talked about, we did absolutely nothing. Well, I would like to say to my hon. colleague across the way, I thank her for all the reports that I found on a shelf. I dusted them off and read them, and I have quite a bit of knowledge on the insurance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Madam Speaker, I would also like to say that everyone in this Province is very concerned about issues of unfair insurance rates. I have looked at the industry reporting record number of profits. This government is concerned that the consumers have a reasonable and fair rate of insurance. This government is committed to achieving savings for the citizens of this Province.

The Public Utilities Board certainly does not have the expertise or the level of staff to do an in-depth study on the public insurance. Madam Speaker, over the course of the next few months, the hearings will be done by the Public Utilities Board and I want to emphasize to everyone who has a concern or an issue with insurance in this Province, please make representation there, because it will determine the future direction of where insurance is going in this Province. I say once again to my hon. colleague, please present at those hearings; it is important that all data be collected at those hearings.

On behalf of the government, we are committed to looking at reasonable, affordable and accessible rates for the consumers.

On that note, Madam Speaker, I conclude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I remind the hon. member, if he speaks now he will close debate.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to thank members who participated in the debate today, for offering their views on this important issue. I have to say, though, I am extremely disappointed to hear that members opposite are not interested in studying the kind of public auto insurance system that might work for Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have to understand that, you know, as a result of the announcements that they made, there were four insurance companies made an announcement that they were no longer going to sell insurance in the Province. The Premier said, well, if that happens we will have public automobile insurance.

Madam Speaker, the reason that this proposal was made in the first place, last spring, was to say to the people of the Province and to the government, that if we are going to have a genuine option of public automobile insurance we have to study the system, we have to have knowledge of the system, we have to understand how it could work in Newfoundland and Labrador, not why Ontario rejected it fifteen years ago. That is an entirely different province where all the head offices of all the companies are, with the jobs that would come back to Newfoundland and Labrador, if we had public auto, now reside. There are many reasons why Ontario rejected public automobile insurance fifteen yeas ago, Madam Speaker, one of which was the concern at the time about the free trade agreement, about NAFTA. It wasn't understood at that time that this was not going to prevent it from happening. There were many reason, Madam Speaker, one of which, as I say, was the fact that the head offices of all the insurance companies were in Ontario and they mounted a significant campaign to try to convince the government not to implement public auto.

I will say this, Madam Speaker, that there are three provinces that have a full public auto system and those systems have been in place for thirty and forty years. They were all introduced by NDP governments, I will acknowledge that. Madam Speaker, those governments were followed by Liberal governments, by Conservative governments, by Social Credit governments, and - guess what? - none of them changed it. None of them changed it because it worked for consumers, because consumers liked it.

If you remember, back during the election campaign when we raised the issue of public automobile insurance as an alternative, the public caught on to the idea and the party opposite, that was seeking government at the time, stopped talking about insurance: No, it wasn't important anymore. On the Open Line programs, Madam Speaker, people were calling in who said, I know about public auto insurance because I just lived in BC, and it cost me $500 to insure my car. I come back to Newfoundland and Labrador, with the same car, and it is costing me $1,800 or $2,000, for the same car, for the same coverage.

Madam Speaker, when we announced our policy on public automobile insurance, NTV did their own separate study, and one of the reporters phoned British Columbia and got a rate, phoned Manitoba and got a rate, phoned Saskatchewan and got a rate, and compared it to the rates for the same driver, same car, same policy, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and what did he find out? That the rates in British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan were significantly cheaper than they were here.

What did this government say? Oh, no, we do not want to study that. Let's wait. The Member for Trinity North is satisfied to wait another eighteen months, but we do not know what kind of chaos we will have by then. You know, we have four companies threatening to leave and we have no alternative in place. They have not studied it.

Madam Speaker, the Member for Trinity North talked about a study that was done fifteen years ago. Well, let me tell him about a study that was done six months ago in New Brunswick, a province closer in size of market to Newfoundland and Labrador; not fast Ontario, not British Columbia where the start-up costs might be totally different because the population is about ten times ours. In New Brunswick they did a study and they concluded that it was feasible in New Brunswick but the start-up cost would be $70 million or $80 million, and, not only that, there would be an increase in the GDP of New Brunswick as a result of having a public automobile insurance, that employment would increase, that provincial government revenues would increase, and that the system would be self-supporting. These were the conclusions that were reached by an all-party committee, all parties; Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, all agreed on a unanimous committee to that result.

Now, Madam Speaker, the minister said today that it was not necessary to have this study. She said last spring it was not necessary to have this study, too. What she said last spring - and the other government members said it as well, and the minister said it, including the Premier: It is not necessary to have an all-party committee because the PUB, the Public Utilities Board, is going to look into this and study it in the fall. Well, the fall has come and practically gone. Winter seems to be here, it is pretty chilly out, and the PUB has not even started their hearings. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? When you look at the Terms of Reference of the PUB study, it goes on for two pages about all the different things they are going to study; conduct closed claims, study review of the impact on the rates of this and that, review feasibility of this and that, accident benefits, policyholders, elimination of ages, et cetera. It goes on for two pages.

There are three words about public insurance. It says at the beginning - and they were at it because the minister, to give her credit, before the Terms of Reference were issued on a Friday afternoon at 4 o'clock, we were sent a copy of the Terms of Reference for comment by 9 o'clock Monday morning. Now, I happened to be in Edmonton at the time but I did manage to hear about it.

Here is what it said before (inaudible) common. What it said was: the Public Utilities Board shall undertake a review and report on the issues outlined below with respect to automobile, homeowner, commercial and marine insurance in the Province and in addition, shall detail other issues of concern raised by stakeholders participating in the review. That is what it said. Well, guess what happened after I made my comments, Mr. Speaker? They added three words: including public insurance.

In other words, if somebody wants to go there and mention public auto insurance, and say: Yes, we think we would like that. Well then, what I have been told is that the Public Utilities Board will report that back to the minister, that somebody came and said they wanted public insurance. That is all! They are not going to study it. They are not going to do the kind of thing that was done in New Brunswick , Mr. Speaker, with the select committee, which produced a report in April, 2004, which went on for page after page; detailed study, the cost.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, they said after that study was that it would work in New Brunswick, that it would increase the GDP of New Brunswick, that it would increase the revenues to the government, that it would provide a sensible system without discrimination against people based on age. They did that, Mr. Speaker. They did that with an all-party committee of the House and then they said: What happened? What happened, Mr. Speaker, was that the insurance company made a deal with the government. Do not bring in public auto and we will lower the rates a little bit for now. We will lower the rates a little bit for now because they were afraid, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Forgeron and his patriots in the auto insurance industry which, as part of the insurance industry, just doubled their profit last year in the first nine months. They do not want to see New Brunswick have public auto because they are afraid that if New Brunswick has public auto, so will Nova Scotia, so will Newfoundland and Labrador. We will all want it, Mr. Speaker, because it has been shown by the Consumers' Association of Canada, in their studies, and all studies over the last twenty-five years that public auto insurance produces the lowest and fairest rates for consumers.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Why do we not want a study? The minister says: Well, it costs a lot of money to study this thing. We cannot afford to study it. That is what he basically said. We cannot afford to study it. We can afford to spend $350,000 to study about whether or not there should be a fixed link. We can afford that, Mr. Speaker. Once you get your fixed link there is no road to get from one place to another but we can study that for $350,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would be nice to have the report though.

MR. HARRIS: Well, it might be nice to have the report, but that is a different matter. This is something that hundreds of millions of dollars of consumers money is spent every year on automobile insurance in this Province, and they are saying: We cannot afford to study it. We cannot afford to have a committee of the House. Members are already paid. The members are paid a salary. Let's give them something to do. No extra pay for this, Mr. Speaker. No extra pay for members to study public auto insurance. They are going to get paid anyway, whether they study it or not.

I say to the Member for Trinity North, you can be on the committee, no extra pay, I am sorry. It will not cost the people anything because you will not get paid any extra money to study public auto insurance, I say to the member. If you want extra money for it, I do not agree that you should get it. I do not agree that you should get extra money for studying public auto insurance as part of a select committee.

Mr. Speaker, it might cost a few dollars to travel. It might cost a few dollars to get someone to write a report, but we are not talking about the kinds of hundreds of millions of dollars that consumers pay every year in auto insurance, and pay too much. If we can have a study that is going to find out how they can pay less and get a good product, and increase our GDP, and do all the other things that the New Brunswick committee found they could do in New Brunswick, what are they afraid of? That is what I want to know. What are they afraid of? Perhaps, the wise thing to do - if we are really wise, we will do the two studies at once.

I say to the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, she has some knowledge of this. She is able to talk about the different issues of rate setting and all of that. The PUB is going to study that. Good for them. Let them study. Let them come up with the numbers that deal with the tinkering issues that we are talking about that they have done in other provinces which have not effectively lowered rates. Let's have this House study the alternative that has proven to work elsewhere.

We talk about this rate freeze. We did not have a rate freeze, Mr. Speaker. We had a freeze on the authorization to increase rates. The authorizations that has already taken place up to March 17 of last year. Those authorizations all went into effect. They all went into effect. Everything that had been approved, every rate increase that had been approved to February 17 last year went into effect over the last twelve months. As of March 17 they can go ahead and increase them again because there is no freeze anymore. So there has been no real freeze in rates and there has been no real advantage to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, I say, Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that everyone is entitled to their point of view on this issue, that the members opposite and the members of this House should not be afraid to study an issue which has caused so much concern and caused so many problems to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in having to pay for something that this government, and every government in the country insists that people have, which is public liability automobile insurance. We should do something to ensure that people get the lowest and the fairest rates and the best system, and studying public auto will give them a way to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Is the House now ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution put forward by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Ring the bells.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready for the division?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Ready.

Those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Butler; Mr. Langdon; Ms Jones; Ms Thistle; Mr. Reid; Mr. Andersen; Ms Foote; Mr. Joyce; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Edward Byrne; Ms Dunderdale; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms Sheila Osborne; Ms Burke; Mr. Tom Osborne; Ms Whalen; Mr. Manning; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. O'Brien; Mr. Young, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Ridgley.

Mr. Speaker, twelve ayes and twenty-two nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution lost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This afternoon we have a very special ceremony, very shortly in the House, and for the benefit of members of the House and those who are watching by television, we will be unveiling the official portrait of former Speaker, Lloyd Snow. I want to invite members to come back to the House. We will have a very brief recess, the bells will ring in about ten minutes, and we should be back in the House at about 4:35. I again advise all hon. members that the ceremony will take about fifteen or twenty minutes and we look forward to that very special event.

The House is now in recess.

Recess

 

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Unveiling of the Portrait of

Former Speaker Lloyd Snow

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon is a very special event in the history of the Parliament of Newfoundland and Labrador. This afternoon, all hon. members have gathered to unveil the official portrait of former Speaker Lloyd Snow.

For the benefit of our television audience, this is a tradition of our House, that, after a Speaker has been in office for some time and is no longer occupying the Chair, the Speaker's portrait is brought to the House of Assembly and is officially hung. Therefore, you see around our House, the portraits of all the Speakers going back to 1832, with one exception, that of Thomas Bennett, our second Speaker.

This afternoon, we have some very special guests. In the Speaker's gallery we have the following persons that the Speaker would like to recognize. We have former Speaker Lloyd Snow, and his wife Linda.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Their daughter, Kimberley Moore, and her husband Rob Moore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have their son, Adam.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have former Speaker Tom Lush, and his wife Lily.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have my wife, Pearl, and the Clerk's wife, Ruth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the other gallery we have the former Executive Assistant to Speaker Lloyd Snow, Ray Tuck.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: His long-time secretary, Leona Laundry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The husband of the Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Ray Gallagher.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The former secretary to Speaker Snow, Karen Morgan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Special family friends, Boyd Underhay and Elaine Underhay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, two brothers of Speaker Snow, Mr. Don Snow and Mr. Ed Snow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: In the galleries, we have some other guests, especially the members of the team in Hansard, who are so special to our House. We would like to welcome them as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: At this time, I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort Mr. and Mrs. Snow to the front of the Chamber.

[Sergeant-at-Arms escorts Mr. and Mrs. Snow to the front of the Chamber]

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would invite the Government House Leader to offer a few comments.

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

Before I get into my own remarks, I do wish to offer our congratulations to Mr. Lloyd Snow and his wife today. It is an important event. On behalf of the Premier who had to, unfortunately, go to Halifax dealing with provincial business, on his behalf, I do want to offer congratulations on behalf of the government.

In thinking about it, it might be entirely appropriate for me to make some comments, to be honest with you. I see former Speaker Snow laughing. It is not often that one in our system or in our House gets to participate in what is normally called a hanging of the Speaker. For those of you who do not know Mr. Snow very well, I will acknowledge he was elected in 1989, 1993, 1996 and 1999; by any measure, a very distinguished career.

First of all, I believe you were Deputy Speaker when I was elected first, and then appointed Speaker. I want to return to the hanging because, from my point of view, to participate in the hanging of Speaker Snow is entirely appropriate, because I know there were many occasions when Speaker Snow almost hung me. He may be able to speak to that himself.

In terms of, I guess, the gentleman we are here to honour today, it is by any measure, I think, the most difficult job in the House of Assembly, to manage the forty-eight of us, to get a sense of what the mood is, to try to be balanced, to try to be fair, to try to, on one hand, extinguish your colleagues or the people you were elected with, in terms of the rules, and keep them confined, and, at the same time, trying to keep on the parliamentary path but providing latitude, particularly on important and sensitive public issues that may need a little more latitude at times, according to the rules. I can attest personally to the job that Speaker Snow did over his time.

He presided over an interesting time in Newfoundland politics, a changing time, a time that felt the impacts of the collapse of the ground fishery that led to some very raucous, emotional and important debates in the House of Assembly. He presided over important debates like the privatization of Hydro, for example. He presided over a young fellow one time who would not leave the House. How he navigated that, looking back on it, somebody who was new and green - I recall hearing stories afterwards that when he consulted parliaments in Canada about what the precedent may have been for that, he did not find one. He may be able to speak to that. When he consulted the mother of all parliaments, the British Parliament, I think there was some reference back to 1700 or something like that. To be frank about it, he allowed me the opportunity to set myself right, as well as Speaker Lush. Points being made, there are times in this House, not at times, at all times the rules in this House must prevail because the option is really anarchy.

It is with a great deal of respect and fond members, I say to Speaker Snow and his wife and his family, that it is indeed a privilege for me today, on behalf of the government and in the absence of the Premier, to participate in this function, to recognize a very distinguished career, and to recognize, in my view, a very distinguished Speaker. I think that his judgements will speak for that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Former Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you back in the precincts that were so familiar to you for such a long period of time. I can say - I believe I was speaking to the Clerk of the Table, the Clerk of the House, earlier - in the capacity, as the Government House Leader has pointed out, as either a Deputy Speaker or a Speaker, for a full parliamentary career that began when we came to the House together in 1989 right up until leaving the Legislature in 1993, the full fourteen years - he is being hung today - he has been hanging around that Chair as Deputy Speaker or Speaker. It might be some kind of record actually, in terms of modern parliamentary democracies, for a person to be involved that closely to the precincts of the Chair of a House of Assembly, of a Legislature, of a Parliament, on that consistent a basis. I think it might be historic, there might be some kind of a record. The group in Hansard are good at that, they will certainly check it out. They have had much enjoyment, I think, in working with Speaker Snow over the years in the various capacities.

It is getting to be such a big event. If I am not mistaken as well, I believe the first time that this particular ceremony was held in the Legislature that a former Premier, the Member for Lewisporte, was involved, back in 1989. I think that was the first time it was actually done in an open session in the Legislature. We have a Speaker here that we are honoring today, a former Speaker, who has actually been in the Chair when six of the nine people who have held the office of Premier actually participated in this House of Assembly, which is quite a record again, probably a record that might stand for some time. The experiences, I know, are myriad and numerous, and I am sure it has been a tremendous time that the former Speaker will relish for a long time.

I know there were some interesting times when he was the Deputy Speaker. A member of Parliament now, Mr. Hearn, had the famous day, about the boy stood on the burning deck racked with indecision, because someone in the government had done something wrong, and it was left again to a Deputy Speaker, with Speaker Lush out of the Chair, to try to sort of straighten it out, so that we did not have a parliamentary disaster in the early days of a new government. There are many of us who do remember that as well. A very interesting time!

I can tell you one thing, this Speaker, like others before him, like Speaker Lush and others, respected the role, respected the traditions of Parliament, respected this place, respected the great honour that it is to be given to become a member here, and particularly, then, to be the one who gets to try to keep the rest of the members in some kind of order on a regular basis.

From a former teacher background, as well, I think I can say, another thing that happened during the time he was involved with the Chair in this Legislature was that his class size went from fifty-two down to forty-eight, but I do not think the job got much easier in terms of the four different and fewer members who were here. Maybe that is going to happen again before too long, in terms of the size of this Legislature. For the current Speaker those things will happen.

He left a hallmark, as a Speaker, that I think will stand as a tribute to him for a long time, of fairness and impartiality. I didn't particularly like it, because I was on the government side and it rings in my ears to this day how many times he said, will you please conclude your answer, and here I was just trying to deal with the preamble from the lengthy questions I was being asked by the Opposition. I thought he was carrying impartiality and fairness to a different level, more so than I wanted to experience, but that is the very nature of the role.

I can say this, Mr. Speaker, in terms of paying tribute to a good friend, as well as a great contributor to this House of Assembly from 1989 to 1993, that he was a gentleman. I say this for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that we have been having a bit of fun over language in the last couple of days. There is a phrase, I think, that is known in Newfoundland and Labrador about, not one spoonful, and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has been trying to convince me now, for three days, that that is four words. There is some confusion about spoonful, as to whether it is one or two words. Let me finish my tribute to our former Speaker by saying, he will be remembered in here with friends who will last a lifetime from all sides and all parties, because he was a gentleman, but also a gentle man, one being one word, the other being two words.

Congratulations, Sir, for a very distinguished contribution to public life in Newfoundland and Labrador and, most particularly, a great contribution to the Speaker's Chair in this House of Assembly. It is good to see you again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will say, at the outset, that I know Speaker Snow had his hands full - and that is two words - in dealing with the loquaciousness of the Leader of the Opposition in responding to questions in Question Period, because he is very good and stickhandling and lengthening his answers to eat up the time.

I am very pleased to participate in this, I guess, my third hanging of a Speaker, having been here for former Speaker Lush and former Speaker Dicks, unveiling of their portraits. I am pleased to be able to be here today to say a few words upon the unveiling of Speaker Snow's portrait here today. We haven't had a sneak preview, Speaker Snow, so we are all going to be as surprised, I guess, as you are, or maybe you had a sneak preview yourself.

It is a very great distinction to be a Speaker of a Legislature, as I am sure hon. members here know. It is a very long tradition of a role of Speaker of a House, whether the Speaker is elected as this Speaker has been or, yourself, as appointed. Although, I would remind you that when we brought the legislation in, Speaker Snow was still in the Chair and I made a suggestion that even though we were not going to wait until the next election, perhaps we should have an election in between sessions. I promised to vote for the Speaker, because I thought he did such a good job in being impartial and exercising his judgement in a fair way in our House.

Not only does the Speaker have a job to be - he is not just a referee, and I think that is important to note. The Speaker's role is not just to be a referee between both sides of the House. The Speaker has a very extremely important constitutional duty going way back through the centuries. He has a duty to safeguard the institutions of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. One very important role - and I know the current Speaker is quite mindful of this, as was Speaker Snow and the previous Speakers - one of the Speaker's jobs is to maintain the separation between the Executive Branch of government, which is the Cabinet and the Premier, and the Legislative Branch, because the Legislative Branch is a separate branch of government. It requires a Speaker to be ever mindful of that, in ensuring that the Executive Branch does not try to trample on the rights of the Legislature, whether it be financially, by setting down rules that are unfair, or otherwise. I think that is a very important thing to note. It elevates the importance of the role of Speaker.

I will say, on a personal note, that Speaker Snow did, as I say, exercised judgement and great fairness. It was to the Speaker that ultimately I had to appeal, on behalf of our party and our caucus in the House, to achieve what we have achieved, which is a regular daily place in Question Period.

A Rules Committee of this House was unwilling to, in my view, come up with a fair system. The Rules Committee left that behind when they reported back to the House. I made an appeal to the Speaker, based on precedents of other Parliaments across the country, to suggest that there ought to be a specific place, on a daily basis, where our caucus, even though we did not have "party status" under the rules, that there was a place for us to be recognized by the Chair each day, and it was Speaker Snow who made that ruling that carries on to today. I thank him for that, and acknowledge him for that.

I want to congratulate him on his years as Speaker of this House, and wish him and his wife, Linda, and their families well in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: At this time, I would invite former Speaker Snow to come to the podium for perhaps the last time speaking to this Legislature, unless he decides to run for public office again.

Former Speaker Snow, we would be delighted to hear a few words of wisdom from you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SNOW: I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to hear many words of wisdom from me today, because I think this is my opportunity now today to get back at some of the things that have happened over the years.

I came in here this evening, I came up here, and all of these microphones are here. I said: Gee, I must be walking into a CNN press conference or something. I see the Speaker has all new mikes installed. Well, that is a far cry from the little lapel microphone that I had when I was sitting in the Chair, and one that, on a couple of occasions, I forgot to turn off when I left the Chair in a bit of a hurry.

I do want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank you, as well as the Members of the House of Assembly, for inviting me and my wife here today, and members of my family, and friends. It is a great honour for me to be here and to participate in this ceremony.

The microphones are, of course, not the only changes that have taken place over the years. As I came in, I looked around and I could see, I think, on the Opposition side, just three members who were here in 1989 when I first came here, and one member on the government side, I believe, I could recognize from 1989. The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I believe, is the only member on the government side who was here in 1989.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Hodder was here.

MR. SNOW: Mr. Hodder? Yes, he was. He was here in 1989, so it is really five people left from the election of 1989.

Of course, the other changes - at that time we were upstairs on the ninth floor of the Confederation Building. During that time, we moved down here and moved into the new Chamber here, which is the third seat of government, or the Legislature, in Newfoundland since 1855.

The other change, a big change, I guess, that took place was the introduction of television to the Chamber. For the first time, about three years ago - I think it was the fall of 2001, if memory serves me correctly - we introduced televison and started to televise the House. That being so, in parliamentary circles today this is referred to as the hanging of the Speaker, so this is the first time we have had a televised hanging in the Province.

I enjoyed my role as the Speaker, and I contribute a lot of that to former Speaker Tom Lush. Mr. Lush and his wife are here today. They have become good friends of mine. I remember learning a lot, as Deputy Speaker, with Speaker Lush. He had introduced what the members of the House, at that time, started to call a Speaker's Corner. I do not know how many of you can remember the Speaker's Corner, but it took place during the private session of the House and the Speaker would discuss some of the rules of the House. From that, I think it was a benefit not only to me, but, of course to a lot of the members of the House who were new at the time.

Speaker Lush has had a long and distinguished career in politics, serving something like twenty-seven years in this Legislature, and he was known as the Dean of the House of Assembly. I want to thank him for the support that he has given me over the years. I really, really, appreciate it.

The Speaker's role, of course, is, as you and I have talked about, Mr. Speaker, and many of the members always said to us, it is the best role in the House, and certainly it is, in my view, but it could have been better. It could have been a bit better, had we accepted the parliamentary practices of Westminster. In Westminster, the Speaker is elected for life. He is unchallenged in an election and, when he is finished, if he decides to step down as Speaker, he goes to the Upper Chamber. Mr. Speaker, you and I can only dream about the Senate.

I made a note here about the time. We had a good timekeeper in the House, and we had a poor timekeeper. The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis, he was a good timekeeper; and, should you ever leave politics, I am sure there is a job somewhere for you keeping time. He was constantly reminding me that the time was up, time was up.

Whenever I reminded the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who was Premier at the time, that his time was up, he would say: No, Mr. Speaker, there is still a bit of time left.

I recall those instances where these members were always checking the time, and always keeping the time.

Mr. Speaker, I did my very best to be fair to all members. Whenever I made a ruling, and there were many occasions when I had to do so, as the hon. Government House Leader will recall, I always took time, of course, to analyze the situation and the circumstance and refer to the various parliamentary authorities, and on many occasions consulted other jurisdictions, and always consulted with and sought the advice of the Table officers. However, Mr. Speaker, no matter how fair and objective I tried to be in my ruling, there was always someone who was not satisfied. I know, Mr. Speaker, on several occasions you, yourself -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SNOW: - rose on a point of order for clarification. Now, I didn't mind it when you did that, really, because I knew that you had aspirations, and what you were doing was actually demonstrating to other members of the House how well versed you were in parliamentary procedure, so that, in case the day would come and you might have competition, you would have the edge.

One of the great benefits of being Speaker is that you become a member of an association called the CPA, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. You get an opportunity to meet all the Speakers across Canada, and many of the Speakers throughout the Commonwealth. All members of the House, of course, are members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I would encourage members to take an active role in that organization, because it can be very beneficial to members, not only in helping you to be better parliamentarians but also in helping you in your work in your constituencies. I found it to be very useful and very helpful, and Newfoundland itself, and Labrador, has been involved with the CPA right from its beginning. In 1911, it was one of the Commonwealth founding countries of the Parliamentary Association, and a former Speaker of this Legislature, the late Gerry Ottenheimer, Senator Ottenheimer, was Chair of that international organization for a three-year term. So, we do have a history of supporting that organization and I encourage all members to support it and to work with it, because it is a great organization. It has great benefits. My colleague, my friend from Bonavista South, and the Member for Bellevue, will know what kind of benefits and rewards can come from being part of that organization..

Mr. Speaker, the role of any Speaker is, at times, difficult, and it is always challenging. I was very fortunate - and I think the member, again, the Government House Leader, can attest to that. He referred to an incident earlier that he would like to forget, and I guess I would like to forget, too, because I do not think the way it was handled, or the way I handled it, will ever be referenced by parliamentary authorities throughout the Commonwealth.

Mr. Speaker, I was very fortunate because I had working with me, what I would say, the best in the business - the people in the Clerk's office, that is. It was their support, their advice, their guidance, that got me through many difficult situations, and I certainly want to thank Mr. Noel and Ms Murphy for their patience and tolerance.

I also want to express my sincere appreciation to all those who worked in the Clerk's office, as well as the dedicated and professional people in Hansard. The Hansard people had me hung long before this. I have a photograph at home with a picture of myself hanging just to the side, right here. They were impatient, I guess, they wanted to hang me long before the official hanging.

I want to thank the people in the Legislative Library and in the Media Centre as well. These people do a tremendous job in making the House of Assembly an efficient and effective operation. I also want to acknowledge the support that I have had from my former secretary and political assistant, Leona Laundry, who was with me for fifteen years. She did a tremendous job and was a tremendous asset.

My Executive Assistant, who was with me for the years that I was Speaker, Mr. Ray Tuck, I want to thank him as well for the great job that he has done, and my part-time secretary, Karen Morgan, who did a real good job.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the House for placing their confidence and trust in me on three different occasions when they elected me as Speaker of the House of Assembly. For me, it was a tremendous honour. It is one, Mr. Speaker, that I will cherish for a long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SNOW: It is one that I will be forever grateful to them for, for giving me the opportunity to serve as Speaker of the House and to serve the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in this Chamber.

I want to take this opportunity to wish all associated with the House of Assembly a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. To all the elected members, I wish you all the very best as you continue to serve the people of this great Province of ours, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker, but I have one caution for members before we leave, and that is: When we get to unveil the portrait, it may not be exactly what you are now looking at but it will not be any fault of the artist.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: At this time, I would invite the hon. Government House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition to come forward and to assist in the official unveiling.

[Unveiling of the portrait]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Members of the House, my fellow parliamentarians, former Speaker Snow, Mrs. Snow, former Speaker Lush and Mrs. Lush, visitors in the Speaker's gallery, visitors in the public galleries, and ladies and gentlemen watching by television.

It is always a great honour and a great privilege for me to join with others who have addressed the Assembly this afternoon on this very special occasion. I met former Speaker Snow when we were both attending university. It was a long time ago. The campus was still on Parade Street. As one member just said, we both, at that time, had black hair.

Later we both taught in the wonderful community of Botwood and, of course, we also share another little bit of commonality, we both have significant roots in the Burin Peninsula. I was born and raised in Creston and Speaker Snow spent most of his childhood in the community of St. Lawrence where his father worked with the United Towns Electrical Company at that time.

As the Government House Leader has said, Speaker Snow was first elected in 1989. For all of his fourteen years in the House, he presided as a presiding Officer, first as Deputy Speaker and then as Speaker. While his tenure in both positions, I would advise members, do not constitute a record, I think Speaker Clarke has, perhaps, the record. I haven't finished by research on that, but that seems to be the information that is coming forward.

This afternoon we recognize, with pride and thankfulness, Speaker Snow's contribution to our Parliament, but also I should advise members, his contributions to the Canadian Region of the Canadian Parliamentary Association and also for his significant service in promotional parliamentary practices in other Commonwealth countries.

Speaker Snow's name and his reputation for impartiality, good humour and absolutely, always genuine hospitality are well-known throughout the CPA. As a parliamentarian who attended some of the conferences, I can tell you that late in the evenings, when we would go back to our hotel, most of you may not it but Speaker Snow can sing very well and led many, many a delegation in many renditions of traditional Newfoundland folk songs. It helped spread the message throughout the world about the kind of Province Newfoundland and Labrador really is.

For your commitment, Sir, to the Westminister model of Parliament, and for the preservation of our parliamentary institutions, we today offer our sincere congratulations and tell you that we appreciate your service, not just to this House, but to the parliamentary system worldwide.

Members will note, and someone has said that Speaker Snow will now join all the other people who have been hung previous to him. It is not often, as the Government House Leader has said, you get a chance to go to a hanging, but we do so today. Speaker Snow actually will join thirty-four other Speakers; thirty five if we count Thomas Bennett, and we are looking for an official portrait of Thomas Bennett, the second Speaker. We are hoping to find an actual portrait of that gentleman in the near future.

Speaker Snow, your colleagues in this House and your fellow parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth offer our respect and collective recognition for your contributions to our Province, to our nation. I do understand that you now have more recreational time, some of it spent in the warmer climates, I understand. When I tried to call Speaker Snow a few days ago, the telephone was answered in Speaker Lush's accommodations in Florida. You never know where former Speakers are going to be found. However, I do know that this gives you an opportunity in your retirement to spend a little more time as well tending to your business interests.

We, in this House, on all sides of the House, offer to you, Sir, our profound congratulations and our best wishes for a very wonderful and happy retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: At this time I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms if she will escort Mr. and Mrs. Snow to the Speaker's gallery.

[Sergeant-at-Arms escorts Mr. and Mrs. Snow to the Speaker's gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: At this time I would invite the Government House Leader to offer the formal adjournment motion.

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

Before I move adjournment, I just want to conclude by saying this has been a rare occasion, but one that members should look forward to. I think I speak on behalf of all forty-eight members, that we are looking forward to the next hanging, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now adjourn until 1:30 tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Personally, before I put the question, I want to tell members that I intend to save my neck as long as I can and that I do not want to be in any rush.

I want to thank all people who have participated in this afternoon's event. Following this formal ceremony, I invite members to join Speaker Snow and all members of the House in a reception in the Government Caucus Room.

With that said, all those in favour of the adjournment motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

This House is now adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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