December 2, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. X LIV

No. 44

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will give notice today of my intention to

table a new bill entitled an Adoption Act which will replace the existing

Adoption of Children Act.

The Adoption Act represents a significant shift in how adoption services are

provided in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is consistent with the principles of

the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act by focusing on the best interests

of children, and giving birth parents and children greater input into the

adoption process.

The Adoption Act provides for a variety of options in the deliver of adoption

services, and includes the following provisions: children under age 12 years

will have an input into their adoption; children will be able to maintain

contact with their birth family following the finalization of their adoption;

infants can be directly placed with prospective adoptive parents chosen by the

birth parents and approved by the Provincial Director of Child Welfare; the

ability for one or two adults jointly to apply to adopt a child; an easier

process for relative and step parent adoptions; the delegation of authority to

Directors of Adoption employed by Regional Health and Community Services and

Integrated Health Boards; licensing of adoption agencies to process adoption

applications and provide pre- and post-placement support to children, birth

families and adoptive parents; the establishment of an open records system for

future adoptions; the use of a disclosure veto and /or no contact declaration to

protect the privacy of those parties to adoptions which were finalized prior to

the proclamation of this Act; the ability to access medical records for minor

adoptees, adoptive parents, and birth parents where approved by the Provincial

Director and/or Court; and, the ratification of the Hague Convention on Inter

Country Adoption.

Our boards will have the responsibility in each region of the Province to

administer this Act and provide services to children, youth and their families.

Delivering services through community boards will provide opportunities for

establishing partnerships with community groups and allow services to be

provided within individual communities.

As I have outlined, this legislation is a departure from our existing 50-year

old legislation. It provides for a new and a much more open approach to adoption

services and enables persons involved in adoption to choose their service

providers, while at the same time respecting past promises of confidentiality

for adoptions occurring prior to the passage of the new act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's West.

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

Thank you to the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement. This

bill on the surface certainly appears to be child centered and that is really

important. Any legislation that we bring to this Chamber surrounding children

should keep uppermost in our minds the affairs and the interests of children.

I am glad to see that children will have an input into the process that will

affect them for the rest of their lives, such as contact with their birth

family. The ability to access medical records should be a right and not a

privilege, because the accessing of medical records is and could be very

detrimental to the life of the person, of the adoptee.

The licensing of adoption agencies, I would have to see the legislation

around that before I can rubber stamp it, but all in all this looks like it is a

good bill. I think it is important that we not only get it on the floor here to

be passed but also, once it is passed, that it be proclaimed as soon as

possible.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of her statement in advance. I agree too,

this is a progressive step forward when it comes to the adoption process in the

Province. I guess we have all been familiar with people who tried to adopt

children and the difficulties they encountered, and the red tape and the waiting

that they had to go through.

I think it is important also that this recognizes that children will have a

right to have input into their adoption process. More important than most things

in this act is the right of access to medical information which we have heard a

lot about in recent years. It is finally good to see that people who have become

adopted will -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - have important information regarding their medical

history.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join today with Mr. Harvey Mott, who is the President of

Newfoundland Transshipment Limited, in praising the work of two local

engineering firms: Sheppard Green Engineering (SGE) Group and Newfoundland

Design Associates Limited (NDAL).

These firms recently completed engineering work on time and significantly

under budget for an expansion to Newfoundland Transshipment Limited's Whiffen

Head facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, this expansion of the facility will accommodate

production from the Terra Nova oil field, along with the current production from

the Hibernia platform. The expansion, valued at $65 million and employing over

170 people in the construction and design, was announced by the Premier and Mr.

Mott at a news conference in January this year. It involves design and

construction of new docking and loading facilities and two new 500,000 barrels

storage tanks at the Whiffen Head facility. While the engineering work is

largely complete, the expansion will be completed in October 2000.

When time came to begin work on the Terra Nova expansion, Newfoundland

Transshipment looked to Sheppard Green Engineering and Newfoundland Design

Associates, both of which worked on the original Whiffen Head project. Both

groups quickly took the lead, formed a cohesive team comprising their own

employees, Newfoundland Transshipment Limited staff, and a mechanical

engineering services firm, Acres International.

The two groups, SGE and Newfoundland Design Associates, together provided

effective communications and a no-surprises work environment that is credited

with the success. To give a sense of that success, I will point out that a

design project originally estimated to take 18,000 person hours was delivered in

about half that time.

Local firms can deliver complex projects on a competitive basis. Work like

this adds to the Province's reputation in all sectors of the economy but

particularly in the oil and gas sector. It makes the Province more attractive

for investment and it means that more work will be done here in the future.

Congratulations are in order to the SGE Group president, Mr. Allan Green, and

to the Newfoundland Design Associates Limited president, Mr. Reg Babstock, for a

job extremely well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On this side of the House, we obviously join in congratulating the local

companies that have been referred to in this statement, namely Sheppard Green

Engineering Group and Newfoundland Design Associates Limited with respect to

their work at Whiffen Head in the production of the Terra Nova field.

What is important is to again always remember that this particular

development, our offshore industry, will only reach full potential when it is

our local Newfoundland companies such as these, and local Newfoundland workers,

contributing to this development. When we can say that all of our people who

want the opportunity and the option to participate in the industry can do so,

that is when we have reached full potential.

Again, I recognize these individuals and I recognize these particular

entities for their work, and I congratulate them on their success. Once again,

we see us moving towards what was so wisely envisaged and predicted by the great

Progressive Conservative governments both federally and provincially in the

1980s.

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.

It is very heartening to see, once again, that Newfoundland firms on the

offshore perform on time, under time, under budget, which is very different than

what we see with work done in Korea or in Italy which is delayed and overrun and

flawed. It is time that we started demanding and become more aggressive in

offshore work and insist that we have a designated proportion of the work and

not just be involved in international competitive bidding which ends up costing

us jobs and costing us work in this Province. It is time we started being more

aggressive and more demanding and more insistant.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, with Christmas approaching, many people start

to think of traditions they have followed over the years and what preparations

they need to make for the coming holiday season.

Here at the Confederation Building, we began a Christmas tradition in 1987

that is still going strong today. Like many others, the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation has been busy making preparations.

At 7:00 this evening in front of the Confederation Building's East Block,

we will host the Christmas Lights Across Canada tree lighting ceremony for the

13 th year.

Mr. Speaker, the National Capital Commission has collaborated with provincial

and territorial capitals to mark the beginning of the Christmas season in a

special way. Newfoundland and Labrador is glad to once again participate in this

nation-wide ceremony by displaying lights along the Prince Philip Parkway.

Several other groups in the city have joined our Christmas lighting efforts

this year. The College of the North Atlantic, Memorial University, the Health

Sciences Centre and Heritage Canada at Signal Hill will turn on their Christmas

lights at approximately the same time we turn on our lights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Our combined efforts will result in 1999 being the year

with the most lights ever placed along the Parkway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: This year's

event is even more special for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Throughout the year, we have held many events to commemorate the Province's 50 th

Anniversary in Confederation. As this year draws to a close, it is very

appropriate that we participate in an event that directly links us with the rest

of the country. Mr. Speaker, not only are we signaling the beginning of

Christmas at tonight's event, but we are also celebrating national unity. It

is something we should all be proud to be involved in.

The Salvation Army St. John's Citadel Band and the Mary Queen of Peace Glee

Club will provide entertainment for this special event, and refreshments will be

served.

Over 700 people attended the event last year and I am hoping that we can

count on the public's participation again this year. I also encourage Members

of the House of Assembly and the media to take time to celebrate the holiday

season and national unity by attending tonight's ceremony. I look forward to

seeing you there.

Signed: Santa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank Santa for his statement before the House opened today.

First of all, the first thing I notice is that in 1999, being the year with

the most lights ever placed on the Parkway, all I can think about is last year

when the Member for Cape St. Francis was worried that a DC9 might land on the

Parkway. This year we are going to worry if the shuttle is going to land on the

Parkway.

We are certainly going to be there at any time to celebrate such festivities

across the country and across our Province, especially this year as we look into

the new millennium, and of course Canadian unity, as we talk about this country

of ours and how great it is, being the number one country in the world. It is a

significant time in our history and we will certainly be there to celebrate it.

I would also say that we should also keep in mind, as we talk about in this

House many times, without being a humbug, that there are many people at this

time of year in time of need that we remember locally - in our own communities

throughout the Province when people are looking for work, I say to the minister

- and also people across the country who have greater needs than ours. For that

I would say yes, we will be there to celebrate with the minister, but also keep

in mind the people who need help throughout the (inaudible).

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

When I got off the elevator this afternoon I really thought they were in the

Christmas spirit when I saw the table set up. I thought they were going to feed

the protesters.

Having said that, I think it is a great occasion to celebrate as we enter a

new millennium. I think it is important that we enter it in conjunction with the

rest of the country, and we look forward to being there this evening to

celebrate as well. I would also say that it is nice at this point in ime, at

this time of the year, to remember others who are less fortunate and lend a

helping hand wherever we can when we get the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I realize I have already been outshone by Santa, but in the interest of

informing the House I will tell members this.

As hon. members are aware, a

section of the water supply system in Eastport

was contaminated on Tuesday, November 30, causing the town council to declare a

state of emergency. At this time I wish to provide the Legislature with a report

on this incident and to indicate the corrective measures which are currently

underway.

At the outset, I want to say that officials of the Departments of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs, Government Services and Lands and Environment and Labour

are all cooperating with the town and that government has given its assurance

that it will provide whatever assistance is required to correct this unfortunate

situation as quickly as possible.

The source of the contamination has been traced to an underground gasoline

storage tank at an abandoned service station. It was first noticed by homeowners

when water service on this particular

section of the line was restored after a

brief shutdown by Hydro for maintenance.

There was a break in a

section of the waterline near this abandoned tank

which corresponded with a break in the tank. This contributed to the tank

becoming filled with water, allowing the small amount of gas left in the tank to

float to the surface and overflow into the ground, thereby contaminating the

soil. When the power was turned off for maintenance purposes, the lack of water

in the pipe caused a suction to be created in the service line, and the

contaminated ground water entered the system through the break in the service

line.

Approximately fifty-seven households are impacted and a small number of

businesses. The town has implemented a number of temporary solutions to provide

water to residents until this

section of the system can be restored.

With the assistance of the various government departments mentioned, the

council is now proposing a flushing system, possibly using a phosphate free

detergent, in the hope that this will correct the situation. It may be that a

more permanent solution will be necessary. A team of government officials is

working closely with the town and will be advising me with regard to success or

otherwise of this flushing method or as to what other methods may be necessary

to correct this situation.

My senior officials have been in contact with the mayor and I believe the

town council is pleased with the level of support and cooperation which they are

receiving from government. In closing, I wish to assure all residents of the

town of Eastport that government will do all that is possible within our means

to correct this unfortunate situation at the earliest possible time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for his statement before the House sat.

The minister said ...that government has given its assurance that it will

provide whatever assistance that is required... I do not have a lot of faith

in this government's assurance of anything with the mess it created with the

forty-nine municipalities and the toxins in their water. They are still trying

to flush themselves out from underneath that one.

Listen to this. The minister says they are ...proposing a flushing

system... It may be that a more permanent solution will be necessary... and

that the town will be advising him with regard to success or otherwise of

this flushing method or as to what other methods that will be necessary to

correct the situation.

I ask the minister: Does your department have a clue what it is doing? With

that, obviously with a minister who would rather talk than perform, it does not.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not have an advance copy of the statement, but the measures the

minister has announced being undertaken by the town certainly seem to be a

serious attempt to resolve the problem.

What I am concerned about is that this is an abandoned service station with a

tank. Obviously there was some failure on the part of either government or

someone - we do not know how long ago it was abandoned - to, in fact, ensure

that this tank was not a hazard to the environment and to the very important

water supply of the town of Eastport.

I would like to know whether the Minister of Environment or someone can

advise the House as to why this abandoned gas tank was allowed to stay in the

state that it was and cause this problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. On January 6,

1997, Voisey's Bay Nickel company announced that SNC-Lavalin Inc., with its

Newfoundland division BAE Newplan, had been awarded the construction management

contract and engineering contract to construct the smelter-refinery complex in

Argentia. My understanding is that that company is still the company on record

that will be doing it.

The question I have for the minister is this. Will the construction of the

proposed hydrometallurgic plant be built in this Province, or will it take the

shape of what was done in Goro, New Caledonia, where the fully integrated

hydormetallurgic pilot plant was constructed from modules built elsewhere or

built in Canada and assembled in Newfoundland and Labrador? So the direct

question is: Has Inco proposed that the construction of the hydrometallurgic

plant, test plant, or pilot plant, along with proposing that, will that be built

here or will it be built elsewhere and assembled here?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see now that the Leader of the Opposition has gone back to a

line of questioning about what might be in proposal that we might receive. I can

honestly answer that I do not know what Inco will put into a formal proposal for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I'm a little surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting

again that there might be some suggestion that some of this might happen

elsewhere. What we announced last week is that Inco has concurred with the

government that there will be full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador. It

will use a hydrometallurgic process and the end product will be nickel. I have

no idea, none whatsoever, as to whether or not Voisey's Bay Nickel or Inco has

contracted an engineering firm to do any work wit h respect

to constructing a hydrometallurgic plant. I do not know that information, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister this. Are you leading

this House to believe that last Monday, when you went to meet with Inco to talk

about whether it was a smelter-refinery or a hydrometallurgic power plant that

they were proposing - in your general release, and in the media, you talked

about the scope of the project in terms of construction jobs over twenty to

twenty-five years - that you did not ask the question that a hydrometallurgic

plant, if that is what on the table, if it was going to be constructed here? Is

that what you are saying, minister?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to lead the House to believe

anything. I am trying to answer a question.

Again, I enjoyed the comment here this morning on a local radio station about

words are important, because they are. Clearly, the question was asked: Do I

know, as the minister, whether SNC-Lavalin Inc. is contracted now as they were a

couple of years ago? I do not know that. We have not gotten to an issue of

saying: Will certain things be built in Newfoundland and Labrador? Because we do

not know at this point exactly what is going to be proposed in terms of time

lines, time frames. That is what we are hoping to find out soon.

Obviously, if the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that the government

would not try to secure full and fair benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador

with respect to Inco, as we have done in every other case - full and fair

benefits in all of its aspects means: if something can be done here, it should

be done here.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there are many great Newfoundland expressions

that aptly describe people, and my grandmother had one of them that aptly

describes this minister: This minister has enough lip for three rows of teeth!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: He has not answered anything in the House.

Let me ask him this: In the 1997 Throne Speech -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: My grandmother was never unparliamentary in her life, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: In the 1997 Throne Speech, government clearly outlined that

the construction of the mine/mill in Labrador, together with the construction of

the smelter/refinery complex in Argentia, will provide 3,500 jobs.

My question to the minister is this: With the proposed hydrometallurgic plant

- and, Minister, I know you know this because you speculated about construction

jobs publicly in a press conference - with the proposed hydrometallurgic

process, how many construction jobs will there be compared to the

smelter/refinery complex?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was having such great difficultly dealing with the personal attack that I

almost didn't pay close attention to the question. I am working on improving

my wardrobe as a result of attack earlier in the week. I really don't know

what I can do about my lips, one way or another. I will have to check, maybe,

like other members in the House when they go for interviews and the last thing

they do before they go on camera is ask if their lipstick is okay, and see if

those things happen, but I really don't kn ow what to do

about my lips other than carry on.

The notion of the 3,500 jobs that were talked about a couple of years back

were in the whole context that there would be a major construction job in

Labrador to prepare an open pit mine, to build a mill that would change the ore,

the rock, into a concentrate; that there would also be major construction jobs

on the Island at Argentia to build a smelter and a refinery, and that in fact

altogether there would be about 3,500 jobs in construction.

How many jobs there will be in construction this time will be known only when

we get the proposal in terms of what it is they are going to build, when they

are going to build it. We have tried to talk as much as we can about those

issues in a general way without disclosing anything that we have even discussed

informally, and without starting to speculate about anything that might be

coming forward in a full-fledged formal proposal from the company. So we really

cannot comment on job numbers until there is some project - a twenty-five to

thirty year project - defined that we expect to get a proposal for.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: This minister knows nothing, if you want to take his word.

I will ask him another question. Directly associated with the construction of

a smelter/refinery complex in Argentia, Inco and government suggested that 800

to 900 construction jobs would be associated with the building of that. I will

ask the minister this question: How many construction jobs will be associated

with the construction of the hydrometallurgic proposed plant for somewhere in

the Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we are not going to spend very much

time analyzing in the Province for any extend period what might have happened

three or four years ago. Everybody understands that it is past history now;

that, when the discovery was made, Inco themselves - that company, that

corporation - came forward and laid out a plan as to how they would look forward

to developing this particular project in Newfoundland and Labrador. It included

a smelter and a refinery for 270 million pounds of nickel a year.

We went through an Environment Assessment Review Panel that recommended that,

that kind of production was way too big, and it recommended that it be cut way

down in size, and that it be much less production for a much longer period.

Everybody - I thought the record was clear - in terms of the Aboriginal

community, the government and Inco, have all agreed with the recommendation of

the Environmental Assessment Review Panel that we build a smaller production

type of facility and operation that will last twenty-five and thirty years

instead of completely utilizing and using all of the resource in eight or ten

years.

I don't know, then, how you can compare something that was speculated about

three or four years ago versus something that everybody has now agreed to go

forward and do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: There will be a major construction job in Labrador if the

project proceeds. There will be a major -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - construction job somewhere on the Island if the project

proceeds. We look forward to getting a proposal so that we can talk about how

many jobs there will be and what the benefit levels will be, because it will be

in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to

assure him, Mr. Speaker, that my grandmother's saying was not meant to be

taken negatively by the minister. It is another old saying that: If the shoe

fits, you should wear it. Obviously, the minister should wear it.

I would like to ask him this question. The Premier recently indicated that

the mine/mill smelter/refinery and the development of Voisey's Bay - that it

was government's policy that all of that must occur concurrently, that it must

all begin. I would like to ask him this question: How has that policy,

government's stated policy by the Premier, in your discussions on behalf of

government, been impacted or affected, if at all, with the proposal of a new

hydrometallurgic power - pilot test plant for Arge ntia?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do accept the apology given by the Leader of

the Opposition for the remark about my lips. I understand that is as close as he

can come to coming right out and apologizing.

It is unfortunate, and I hope that very soon we will be in a position to be

able to discuss fully and publicly what it is that Inco will propose to do in

the Province. To suggest that something has changed - because the Leader of the

Opposition would try to make people believe that he has been in a room someplace

actually doing these discussions instead of me, because he talks about something

as if it is a fait accompli, that a certain proposal has been made.

Let me again state, as I did in a Ministerial Statement last week: We have

not received a formal proposal from Inco. We do not have a deal with Inco. We

would like to have one. I am sure that the Opposition joins with us in hoping

that we do find a way to go forward with this project rather than have it not

happen, because the choices are these: To find a manner in which we can proceed

with full processing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - get full and fair benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador;

or, as the government has said it will do, leave the ore in the ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I am sure that the Opposition would hope that we can find a

way to get full and fair benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, do full

processing, and proceed rather than have to leave the ore in the ground.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to take his seat.

A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker,

our position is clear. What is becoming a bit fuzzy is government's position.

That is the reality of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary.

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

The minister stated publicly, recently, again in a press conference, about

the tax holiday, about the ten-year tax holiday associated with the agreement.

He talked about, while that ten-year tax holiday exists there, that government

has clearly told Inco that they would have to operate outside of existing law.

Has Inco agreed with operating outside the ten-year tax holiday? If so, what

sort of tax regime is being envisioned?

I know, Minister, that you have talked about that. All I am asking today is,

if you can commit to some principles about what sort of tax regime is being

discussed with your informal approach to Inco, and if you can enlighten the

House to any extent today on what that eventually will be?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I really would like to provide some more

enlightenment but the difficulty again is that maybe the hon. member and the

Leader of the Opposition has not done any informal discussions and has not done

many negotiations. We are hoping to get to a formal negotiation.

What occurs - and maybe again it is from lack of experience in having done

any of this in the past - while you discuss many issues, everybody understands

that when you are trying to come to a final arrangement, while you may have

discussed certain options that you have come to tentative agreement on, nothing

is agreed until the whole package is agreed. That is the process that everybody

in the public service and everybody that does all kinds of bargaining on a

business sense does. So, have we let Inco clearly know - again I am glad to see

that he is raising the point that really is the property of the Leader of the

NDP, who has raised this issue for about four years. His first question, when

this was raised four years ago: Was Inco, with this great deposit in Labrador,

going to get a ten-year tax holiday?

The answer given in this Legislature at that time was that no, they were no.

From the very first day that Inco bought the rights to the Voisey's Bay

property, they were told by this government that the current law which is on the

books, that the mining sector very much appreciates and that smaller marginal

operations need in order to function in Newfoundland and Labrador, would not

apply to Voisey's Bay and to Inco.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to finish his answer.

MR. GRIMES: They know it, they have known it from day one, and how and

what the changes will be will only be known when we come to a conclusion and

finalize an arrangement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier, concerning the vital question of safety in

the offshore. The death of Shawn Hatcher of Burgeo last April on the Nordic

Apollo was investigated by the Nova Scotia Department of Labor who wanted to

prosecute for violation of safety regulations but could not because the

jurisdiction of the Atlantic Accord is in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore

Petroleum Board, who have a policy of no prosecution, even in fatalities, and

operate with draft regulations.

Will the government admit that the C-NOPB and the Newfoundland Offshore has

the same policy and ten-year-old draft regulations without the force of law?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the whole notion that everybody

understands in operating in the offshore is that while the federal and

provincial governments, through the joint board process, have been looking at

ways to give more definite and definitive legislative impact to offshore health

and safety regulations, that the law of Canada with respect to offshore

occupational health and safety, and the law of Newfoundland and Labrador as it

exists today with respect to occupational health and safety, is being enforced

in offshore jurisdictions on behalf of both governments by the

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board to its full extent.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, there are two issues here. One, as determined by

the Westray inquiry, the agency which licences a project ought not to have the

responsibility for safety of projects as well. That was one of their

conclusions.

The second issue is this: Will this government support the position taken by

the Nova Scotia government in a letter to Prime Minister Chrtien on November

25 in which they say, based on their legal advice, that the provisions of the

Atlantic Accord undermine their ability to provide an enforceable regulatory

regime comparable to that found both in the Canada Labour Code and the

provincial level for other industries. They are expressing grave concerns about

the ability to have an enforceable regime in t he offshore

of Nova Scotia. Does this also apply to Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. HARRIS: Will this government acknowledge that this problem has to

solved and addressed if we are going to have confidence in offshore safety?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the hon. member has been referencing outside the Legislature as well

as here today in the whole idea of a possible conflict, because in one instance

you promote the offshore as a place to explore, to do business and operate, and

in the meantime you are the regulator.

Mr. Speaker, the main promoter of the offshore for Newfoundland and Labrador

is the government itself, through the Department of Mines and Energy and through

the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology. The Canada-Newfoundland

Offshore Petroleum Board does very little, if any, promotion. They are

regulators. So there is no conflict with respect the actions of the

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.

As I indicated in answer to the first question, because it is the same issue,

the two governments - in this case Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador - are

looking at mechanisms whereby we may be able to give greater legislative

certainty to the full application of Canadian and Newfoundland safety laws

offshore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: But since the very inception, every law and regulation for

Canada, and every law and regulation for Newfoundland and Labrador, with respect

to safety, has been enforced in the offshore by the board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister not acknowledge that the regulations cannot be followed and

enforced if, in fact, they are only draft regulations, don't have the force of

law, and the C-NOPB has a policy of not enforcing but rather working with

industry to improve standards. Mr. Speaker, we need enforceable regulations in

the offshore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. HARRIS: Will the minister not acknowledge that is a problem?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The board itself in Newfoundland has the greatest enforcement tool of all. In

fact, if any operator in the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador is found to

be in violation and does not comply with orders from C-NOPB to get back into

compliance with health and safety laws, then under the Atlantic Accord, under

that particular piece of legislation, the board has the right to withdraw and

suspend or cancel their license to operate. So the greatest and total sanction

of all is in the hands of the C-NOPB and it does use that threat of that

sanction to make sure there is compliance for health and safety in the offshore.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Government Services and

Lands. In April of 1995, Mr. Minister, Government Services and Lands became

responsible for food premises inspection and licensing activity formerly done by

the Department of Health. Mr. Minister, what real advantage was this when your

department had fewer food premises inspections than were done by the Department

of Health for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997, and what is being done to correct

this problem?

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the food inspections that were transferred from the Department of

Health to the Department of Government Services and Lands, it was all done in

the interest of accommodating all the inspection services within the one

department. As far as impacting on the food establishments, we continue to

inspect on a regular basis and an as-needed basis. We do not see any negative

impact on the food establishments at all.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Minister, why were some food premises not inspected for the

full year? Why were a number of food premises operating without a valid license

during the time that the Auditor General did her report? What is being done to

correct this very serious and potentially dangerous problem?

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the food establishments that he mentions were not inspected for a

year, and those operating without licenses, that has been investigated by the

department. I would have to certainly go back to the department and see what the

results of that inspection were because I do not have it in front of me here.

We have taken the Auditor General's report very seriously and gone back,

inspected and looked at all of the ways that inspections are done for the

purpose of improving the service. It is always the responsibility of this

department to ensure that food establishments are operating in the best

interests of the Province and in a safety manner at all times, not only when the

Auditor General goes in and looks at the books.

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

Francis.

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

The minister just admitted, by the way, that he does not know what is going

on in his department.

MR. McLEAN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, you did.

I ask the minister: Why is it, in light of the fact that the federal Auditor

General reported the necessity of regular inspections after some 800 people

contracted salmonella poisoning, that follow-up inspections to correct

previously identified health hazards are not always being carried out by your

department?

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the response to the first part of his question - if you want to

call it a question - food inspections are always done not only on a needed basis

but on a regular basis, and this department has always done follow-ups all the

time on inspections that we have done throughout the food establishments.

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

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

My questions are to the acting Minister of Finance, or the acting Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation, or the acting, acting, whatever it might be.

Mr. Speaker, the government refers to the Marble Mountain facility as a jewel

in the crown of the tourism industry. Could the minister inform the House today

how many millions this jewel has cost the taxpayers, and why is it necessary for

government to continue to offer loan guarantees to cover current account

expenditures in addition to the millions of dollars already committed by way of

capital liabilities?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I missed the first sentence in his problem. I am not sure what jewel he is

talking about, because one of my colleagues here was causing my hearing to be a

little impaired. If you would clarify the jewel, I would be happy to -

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

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

For the benefit of the minister, the Marble Mountain facility has been

referred by government as the jewel in the crown of the tourism industry. My

questions are relative to two things: The millions of dollars in capital money

put forward - how much money - and why is it necessary to continue to offer loan

guarantees for current account expenditures?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for not hearing the question as originally put, but I actually

did not hear the reference or the entity to which he was making reference.

I can only say to the hon. member that while we have been, for many years,

supporting the Marble Mountain enterprise, the Marble Mountain Corporation, with

funding and with loan guarantees where it has been appropriate, we have done it

on the basis of what we have deemed it to be, and that is a good tourist

potential revenue generator.

It is a facility that has attracted much attention not only provincially but

nationally in terms of the customer base that it attracts when it comes to the

mountain. While we do not necessarily subscribe to the concept, as in many, many

other enterprises that need government support for tourism purposes and for

development purposes, we do not always subscribe to the fact - in fact, we

acknowledge in many cases that these things do not always make money as a

particular entity - we do say this: The accumulative effect economically of the

benefits that enterprises like Marble Mountain brings is worth the effort and

investment that we have put in to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

The minister should have said that they have put in excess of $20 million in

capital funds. He should have said they have just offered $300,000 by way of

current account. He should have also told us why.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.

MR. H. HODDER: I ask him a question. The question is: In September of

1996, the government transferred the day-to-day operations of Marble to a crown

agency called Marble Mountain Corporation. Since then, the Marble Mountain

Corporation has not filed a single financial statement in the House of Assembly.

When can the weary taxpayers of this Province expect to have a financial

statement tabled in this House that shows that their investment of over $20

million is justified?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure when the last statements were filed. I am not sure to what

extent the statements are needed to be filed, but let me say this to the hon.

member: I will take it under advisement and, in the fullness of time, we will

ensure that there will be an appropriate level of filing of whatever statements

are required not only by Marble Mountain Corporation but by any other entity out

there that is required to report, by way of statements, to government. If it is

a requirement of the Legislature that they be tabled in the House, then they

will be tabled in the House when we get them, if we do not have them; and, if we

have them, we will table them as soon as we can get our hands on them.

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

Valley.

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

I say to the minister that up until about three years ago the responsibility

for this facility was with the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Then

it got switched to the Minister of Finance. We want to know: Why is the Minister

of Finance able to use Marble Mountain as his personnel fiefdom, you might say,

and why is it that most of the people who are employed at Marble Mountain indeed

are former campaign workers (inaudible) the Minister of Finance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is now apparent that the question that is being posed on third

supplementary by the hon. member really has very little to do with his desire to

obtain legitimate information with respect to the operation of Marble Mountain.

When he gets to the proposition of proposing by way of a question: Why is it the

personal fiefdom of the Minister of Finance, and why is it that his campaign

workers are all employed there?

I would have to say, number one, that it is not the personal fiefdom of

anybody. It is an investment that has been made by the people of the Province,

on behalf of the people of the Province, to benefit the economy of the Province;

and to the extent that it benefits people who work in the Western region of the

Province, I think that is most appropriate and sensible. If it were on the East

Coast of the Province, naturally people on the East Coast would be probably the

predominant employees who work there.

I am not aware that the proposition he makes has any basis, and I would say

to the hon. member, in fairness to the people who work there, in fairness to the

volunteers who have put a lot of time and effort to make it happen out there,

and in fairness to the Minister of Finance in his absence, if you have evidence

to collaborate or to substantiate your allegation, I would suggest you bring it

forward and let the list be examined for what it is worth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Act Respecting Adoptions. (Bill 45)

Petitions

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

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

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition, and I will read the prayer

of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador;

WHEREAS dialysis services are not available to the smaller health care

centers; and

WHEREAS patients have to travel three to four hours, or relocate to access

dialysis services; and

WHEREAS workable dialysis equipment is being sent from this Province to other

countries;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, do hereby call upon the

House to ask government to review the situation regarding dialysis equipment

throughout this Province, and to provide funding for dialysis equipment in the

smaller health care centers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present this petition today sent in to

me from people in my district who some two years ago in this very same House,

with the Member for Lewisporte, we presented a petition on their behalf asking

the same thing. Today I am reporting to this House that things have not changed.

If anything, they have gotten worse.

The families who are putting forward this issue have a situation. They said I

could use their names here in this House - the Dempsey family from Fleur de Lys,

a man who worked all his life and now has to turn to this machine. They have to

travel three hours to Grand Falls over some pretty rough roads any time of the

year but especially during the winter time. There has been an enormous amount of

stress on the family, both financially and emotionally. I have sat in the

kitchen with Mr. and Mrs. Dempsey and talked about their situation. It is very

similar to the situation described by my colleague from Bonavista South and my

colleague for Ferryland who described similar situations throughout this

Province.

I am sure that today here in this House there are members, especially in the

rural areas, who have sat down with people in their districts who describe the

same situation. It is a reality. It is not something we are fabricating; it is

not something we are making up. When you take the time to sit down and quietly

discuss it with these people face to face, you can see the pain in their faces

and the stress on these families.

Another gentleman from my district in La Scie who had it so hard - that is

some three-and-a-half hours to the closes dialysis machine - he had to actually,

in order to accommodate himself, buy a small cabin near Badger Lake so he could

stay there in the winter time so it was not so bad to travel over.

That is how bad the situation has gotten. These are not made-up stories; they

are not fabricated. This is what is happening to people in rural parts of

Newfoundland and Labrador who are trying to access dialysis machines. It is

growing. The numbers are growing. Every single day in my districts and around

the Province we hear of the numbers growing. This government has to very

seriously reconsider the location of dialysis machines throughout this Province

to alleviate this problem that is getting worse by the day.

It is families like this who have worked all their lives and were unfortunate

enough to come onto this situation of having to use dialysis machines. They

should not have to put up with this agony. It should not be there. As taxpayers

and as people who worked all their lives, like I have said earlier. These people

should be able to access this service by not having to drive for three or four

hours and put their family through this misery. These people are the real people

of Newfoundland and Labrador who deserve that break. Last year when I mentioned

this in the House of Assembly the Premier was in his seat. He is not here today,

unfortunately, but he did nod and make a remark to me afterwards that maybe we

should at least, in the interim, consider some kind of financial compensation

for the people who have to do this enormous amount of travel to access this

service. I think that is the least thing we can do, but it is not the solution.

It may help them a little bit in their financial stress, but emotionally it is

still hard on the families to have to travel such a long distance over

treacherous roads to access this machine.

I think if the government really took heart to this and listened to it with

their heart and soul they would know this is a situation that is for real. It is

a situation in this Province that is growing every single day. It is a situation

in this Province where people are finally getting to the end of their rope when

it comes to stress in the families. I have sat and talked with Mrs. Dempsey, and

I continue to talk to her on a daily basis almost, and she is very concerned

about this. It is playing havoc with the entire family. Really, to get down to

it, these people deserve something more decent than what they are getting, and

that is simply that they have access to a dialysis machine.

It is not fair, it should never be in this Province, and I am asking the

government today, I would even beg the government today, to bring it to Cabinet

and look at this very seriously, and ask the Premier. He was certainly

considering what he acknowledged last year to me, that he would consider some

kind of financial compensation for the interim while people traveled to these

places. They have to stay overnight. They have to have, of course, gas money and

so on, all of those things. At least it would be something to show people in

this Province that they are being taken seriously.

This issue has to be dealt with and has to be dealt with as soon as possible.

I'm going to continue to raise it in this House of Assembly until we do see

some action on it on behalf of people in my district, but not only that, for

anybody in this Province who is experiencing the same thing. It is a sad day

when we cannot help these people through such a difficult experience.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: I hope that the government will change their mind as soon as

possible and get some changes done to this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just stand today in support of the petition that was so capably put forward

by the Member for Baie Verte. Where I hear him bring forward the needs of the

people in his district, the needs of people who need to access this particular

treatment, living three, three-and-a-half hours away from the treatment center,

it reminds me of the petitions I've brought forward in this House.

The plea has been going up again, now from the Baie Verte area. I have

brought forward concerns from the District of Bonavista South where people have

had to travel the three-and-a-half miles and come in to St. John's to stay

here for the whole week. They have to go and rent an apartment, or have to be

the residents of the hostel over at the Health Science Complex. They take their

clothes and food on Monday morning, put them aboard their vehicle, and come into

St. John's to stay here all week. They have to come to St. John's not only

by themselves, but this particular gentleman who I am referring to, his wife

travels with him as well. He needs his wife's support. In fact, she is the one

who has to take the clothes and take the food from his truck up to the room in

order for them to be able to stay here, because he is in such a condition with

other operations that he has had, and other medical problems, that he is unable

to lift anything that weighs any more than two or three pounds.

The plea has gone up. Sometimes, I suppose, when we are all healthy

ourselves, and we do not have to access some of those treatments that are not

readily available, we kind of pass it off lightly. I suppose if you never ever

get sick then it does not matter if you close the hospitals or if all the

doctors leave because you have no need for them. It is when you are reminded of

this particular need, or when it strikes you personally, that you realize how

important such a treatment facility is, and how important it is to allow those

individuals to be able to access this kind of medical care within a reasonable

distance. Nobody expects dialysis units to be put in every community or in every

hospital. There is a great need for them to be located strategically around the

Province so at least people can travel and return to their homes on a daily

basis.

I think when I refer to those particular cases it is a reminder of what

happens to almost everybody else who is not fortunate enough, I suppose if you

would, to be living close to Grand Falls, Corner Brook or St. John's. I have

one senior, and this particular senior, I think he is seventy-two or

seventy-three years old. I am not exactly sure but I know that he is in his

seventies. He has had to board up his home out in Bonavista South, come to St.

John's, rent an apartment, buy second-hand furniture, and almost spend his

whole life's savings in order to get this particular treatment. Had this

treatment been available in Clarenville or Bonavista, this gentleman would have

been able to remain at home with his wife and with his family. He did not mind

traveling for an hour or an hour-and-a-half and be able to return home at night

and receive some kind of a normal decent living.

You cannot expect those people to sell their homes and move into St. John's

because hopefully there will be a treatment for them somewhere down the road.

Many of those patients are on a waiting list for kidney transplants. Once that

happens, it is not uncommon for people to live a normal life after they have

been fortunate enough to receive a transplant. If they were to sell their homes

and move into St. John's, where would they find themselves after they have

been fortunate enough to have become num ber one on the

list and receive a transplant? Where would they go from there? Selling their

house out in Baie Verte, La Scie, Melrose, or Open Hall in Bonavista Bay, is not

an option for them. They need and they ask to have this treatment made available

somewhere within a reasonable distance where they can commute to and from their

homes.

Just the other night I was driving somewhere and I heard this call to an open

line show. Here was a gentleman from my own district who had been up to the

Health Sciences Complex, at the hostel there now for over four years. He called

and very forcibly put his argument and plea forward to government saying: I hope

somebody out there would listen and realize what I am going through, what my

family is going through. After that call there were at least three other calls

in the short period of time before I left my car that came in and referred to

the gentleman who had called in up at the hostel receiving dialysis treatment. I

can assure you that there is a lot of support out there, and the support is

building in order for us to look at this particular need and have the Minister

of Health respond to it.

When we hear the government opposite talking about how wonderful we are

doing, how the economy is moving along, and that we are now saving a few dollars

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that this particular

need be attended to.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

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

I have another petition on the water export issue. The Government House

Leader can have his opportunity to speak on this petition after I finish

presenting it. The prayer of the petition reads:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of

Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of

water from this Province. Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that

has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of

benefits going outside the Province. It is time we demand our full and fair

share. With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the

opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spin off, secondary

processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled

and processed in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is telling me

that it is ridiculous to be presenting petitions on behalf of the people of this

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is what you are saying. Mr. Speaker, we have

thousands of names on this petition, and when this bill is passed and voted on

by the members of this House there will not any need to present the rest of the

petitions. Although I will present them all in one entire stack at that

particular time because each and every person in this Province that signs a

petition has a right to have his or her voice heard in the House of Assembly.

MR. TULK: Yes! (Inaudible), you stunned thing.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, is the Government House Leader being

parliamentary here? I would like to have a ruling on that. He called me a

stunned thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his petition.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am glad to see he is taking it back.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. It is an very valuable resource to

the people of this Province and we have to ensure that we do it right. I am glad

to see we have legislation before the House and I am looking forward to debating

it.

The Government House Leader is absolutely correct. Tomorrow, after this is

voted on and passed, I will present the entire stack of petitions at one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can do them now!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know you would like to see that done. You would like to

circumvent the voice of the people of the Province, but, Mr. Speaker, that is

not going to happen. Because, while the government refuses to listen to the

voice of the people of the Province, we on this side of the House want to ensure

that the voice of the people of this Province is heard. They have spoken loud

and clear on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

We want to see water that is removed from the water basins in this Province

bottled and processed here. I am sure that is what the Government House Leader

wants as well. We want to see that the labels, bottles and packaging, if at all

possible, are processed in this Province. I am sure the Government House Leader

would like to see that as well.

MR. TULK: It is unbelievable that (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: See, he would. Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader

is saying that it is unbelievable that I am here asking for these things, that I

am here presenting a petition on behalf of the people of the Province to request

these things. He is saying that it is unbelievable that we are presenting this

petition.

I am going to say something. If anybody in this House can believe what any of

the members on that side of the House say, or if the people in this Province

believed what the members on that side of the House were going to say, maybe

they would not be presenting so many petitions and having so many rallies and

getting so tormented with what government are saying.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present the petitions to this

House of Assembly on this particular issue.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might very well get a

chance to vote and see his dream come true that there be no bulk water, as is

the dream of all of us, exported from this Province.

Order 3, Committee of the Whole on a Bill,

An Act To Provide For The

Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The

Province, Bill 31.

I would move that this House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to

fulfill the hon. gentleman's dreams so he does not have to stand up here and

act so stunned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

Bill 31,

An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And

Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province.

Clause 1.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Government House Leader is absolutely right, we are about to see my dream

come true. This legislation is about to be passed and furthermore, signs of my

dream coming true are very visible because not only are we going to ban the

export of water in bulk, but we are going to demand the export of Liberals in

bulk. It is just about to happen. Their seats are half empty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are the seats half empty or half full?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Of the seats that are full, the people who are in them

are probably half empty.

Mr. Chairman, we are going to present some amendments to this legislation.

Let me say at the start of this that I agree with the majority of this

legislation. I agree 100 per cent with the intent of this legislation. I agree

with the proposal to ban the bulk export of water from this Province. So I'm

honored to stand here and say that I will be supporting this legislation.

However, we will be asking for some amendments to be accepted by the government.

The amendments we are going to present are going to address a couple of

issues. Let me just explain why we want to present these.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) copy of the amendments?

MR. T. OSBORNE: We are going to send them over, yes.

The most significant flaws within this legislation involve clause 7, which

seeks to prohibit compensation claims from those who feel that they have been

harmed by the ban of bulk water exports. The Opposition's amendment will

ensure that compensation in the

section -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Relax, I say to the Government House Leader. Sit back and

enjoy the foreplay and you will enjoy the rest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Opposition's amendment will ensure that the compensation subsection

comes into effect immediately after the federal ban comes into force, thereby

removing the Province from possible financial burden. The amendment also

stipulates that if Ottawa does not enact the ban within one year that this

subsection will come back to the floor of the Legislature for debate.

If the Premier, who initially raised the issue of compensation, is so

concerned about the compensation issue, then I'm sure he will have absolutely

no problem accepting and supporting our amendments to this legislation.

It is ironic that the very legislation that is being introduced in this House

by government may threaten this Province financially if there were compensation

claims levied against the federal government, and it is the Premier himself who

initially raised the issue of compensation.

While I have no problem in seeing passage of legislation to prohibit the bulk

removal of water from this Province, I believe that it is necessary to ensure

that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are protected by amending this

legislation, in particular clauses 5.(

c) and 5.(

d) and subsection 7 as well, to

ensure that the Province does not have to shoulder any responsibility

financially if there was a claim levied against the federal government under

NAFTA.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments that I am going to introduce once we get into

clause-by-clause, I will go through them briefly. We are going to ask that

non-commercial is defined, and we are also going to ask that clause 5.(

c) be

amended, and clause 5.(

d) be amended. Part of the reason we are going to ask for

these amendments is to close a loophole by ensuring that water exported in bulk

for non-commercial purposes is not at any time to be sold for profit, and to

close another loophole by ensuring that water exported in bulk to transport food

or an industrial product is limited to the minimum amount required for those

purposes, and also to ensure that the entire Cabinet, and not just the Minister

of Environment, decides when water can be exported in bulk for safety or

humanitarian purposes.

Mr. Chairman, we feel that these amendments are justified. We had a NAFTA

expert, an individual who has acted as counsel on every NAFTA claim to the

federal government in this country, who has written books on NAFTA and free

trade, who has advised the Mexican government and American governments and

companies and corporations on NAFTA legislation. We feel that this individual

has made very valid points regarding the legislation being proposed in this

Province. We feel that this individual has raised some very valid concerns.

The only reason we are proposing these amendments is because we want to

protect not only our water resources in this Province, but to protect the

Province from any financial jeopardy. We realize that government as well have

brought in their experts, and their experts refute what our expert has said, but

that in itself tells us that there is disagreement amongst experts on the NAFTA

legislation, and the possible implications to this Province under NAFTA

legislation.

Mr. Chairman, if there is disagreement, if there is uncertainty - and I

believe that the expert who has advised us is correct, but maybe government's

are correct.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue, on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, for clarification purposes.

This expert - I am very interested in this bill, I am very interested in the

amendment, and I am very interested in whether I am going to vote for it or not.

Therefore, I would like to know where the advice came from. This lawyer that you

brought in, was he associated with the Council of Canadians? Was he associated

with the Maude Barlow group?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to do what you are told.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, I am very serious about this. I want to know if this

lawyer that they brought in, if he was associated with the Council of Canadians

and the Maude Barlow group?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I cannot hear you, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry.

CHAIR: The Chair has

recognized the hon. Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the member who is so interested in a response - he is walking away

there now - that if he had listened, I gave a very ample introduction to the

gentleman that I am referring to.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that there is disagreement and uncertainty between

experts on this should mean that this Legislature, that the Members of this

House of Assembly should take a very cautious approach to this legislation. We

should very seriously consider the amendments that we are about to propose on

this legislation.

If there is uncertainty between experts - and I am not going to do what

members on the other side of the House have done to the person we had brought

in, who I believe is an eminent expert on NAFTA. I am not going to try to

discredit that individual. I am going to say that perhaps government's experts

were just that: that they were experts as well, and that they were just as

eminent as our expert. I am not going to try to discredit them in any way, shape

or form. What I am saying is, if there is unc ertainty

amongst experts, if there is uncertainty amongst the people who know the NAFTA

legislation best, then it is just that; there is uncertainty. The fact that

there is uncertainty about the legislation and the possible implications to this

Province as a result of free trade agreements, nationally or internationally, a

possible retaliation under GATT or the World Trade Organization, then we should

take a very cautious approach to the amendments and what we are about to do in

this House of Assembly this afternoon.

If there is uncertainty, if there is even the slightest possibility of risk

that this Province may be on the hook financially, then it is imperative that we

do what we can to protect this Province. If there is any possibility of risk in

any way, shape or form that this Province may be on the hook financially, then I

am sure that in the best interest of protecting this Province, instead of

saying, we feel, or our experts feel, that the legislation is fine as it is, if

there is uncertainty, if there is doubt, then the amendments should be accepted

in the best interest of the people of this Province.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down and allow another member of the House

to respond to this act.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: No, I am not closing the debate. I am just responding to

some of the things that Tom said.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the member opposite that we have said

from the beginning, and will continue to say, that this is an environmental

bill, Bill 31. In fact, after being at the Ministers Conference in Alberta this

past week, there were a number of provinces that felt the same way as we did and

there are a couple of them that need clarification.

One of the interesting remarks made - and this is why, in a sense, people are

saying this is an environmental bill. They were talking about the Great Lakes.

They were saying that because of the change in climate, climate change, that it

is a possibility within five years, ten at the maximum, there would be about a

1.5 metre lower level in the Great Lakes than it is now. If that became a

reality, it would mean that Montreal could not become a major shipping port like

it is now because of the amount of water that would not be going down the St.

Lawrence Seaway. So they basically see this as an environmental problem. That is

why Tony Clement, the minister who represented Ontario, really signed onto the

accord and basically saw it from an environmental perspective the same as we do.

If, for some reason, there is a challenge under the trade legislation, NAFTA,

whatever, then it is our understanding - and that is basically most of the

ministers that I talked to on the weekend as well, and the advice that we have

given here - if there is a challenge under NAFTA then it is a challenge to the

federal government. Canada, United States and Mexico were signatures to NAFTA,

not the provinces. Basically, if there is charge brought on this particular case

here then, as I said, it would be the

federal government's responsibility.

Regarding the amendment that the hon. member made in - for example, clause 7

- in saying for us not to pass the legislation or enact clause 7 until such time

as the federal government does that, it is not the way that we believe. We

believe it is irrelevant. It does not really manner if it is signed before or

after. There is no cause here. One of the people that we brought in, for

example, Professor McRae, said the same thing, that whether it is brought into

effect before or after export legislation by federal government is certainly

irrelevant. Therefore, in this particular case, we do not agree with the member

opposite and for clause 7 we will not accept any amendments on this side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: Also, Mr.

Chairman, the other day the member was speaking about clause 5(c), the water

is used to transport food or an industrial product out of the province...,

and he wanted some explanation for that.

Basically, if we were to look at some of the fresh fish fillets and so on

that leave the Province right now, a lot of it in the transport trucks, some of

it does have large quantities of ice that is the equivalent, probably, of using

water if it were melted to be able to send it out in bulk form, so that does not

matter. Therefore, that is an exception that we are talking about here.

Also, if we were to have some of the other fish sent out - for example, as

lobster in holding tanks or whatever - any water of that particular nature would

also be covered here. It is an industrial product, but certainly not in the

sense to export for anybody to make money on in that particular situation right

here.

We see nothing wrong with clause 5(

c) as we have it, and we see nothing wrong

either for clause 5(d), which states very clearly: the water is removed for a

non-commercial purpose - it is stated very clearly - approved by the

minister, including for safety or humanitarian purposes. We think that is

very clear as it is. In that sense we are not willing to make an exception to

that or an amendment as well. I think that was the other one.

There was one other I think where the group also wanted not the minister, but

the Cabinet, to have a say into it. I think that is what the other one was. It

is our opinion here that we will not accept that amendment either and we will go

with the bill as it was written.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 2.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to present an amendment to clause 2. I believe the Government

House Leader has a copy of my amendment.

MR. TULK: Yes, I do.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you. It reads:

To move the following amendment to Bill 31,

An Act To Provide For The

Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The

Province:

That clause 2 be amended by renaming paragraphs (

a) and (

b) as paragraphs (

b) and (

c) respectively and by inserting immediately preceding the renamed

paragraph (

b) the following paragraph:

(

a) non-commercial means a transaction that does not involve any

profit-making activity at the time of its distribution or at the time of its

alienation;.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that this is seconded by the Member for Waterford

Valley.

CHAIR: Is there any discussion on the amendment?

All those in favor of the amendment?

The Chair has called for speakers on the amendment and no one has risen to be

recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Yes, the Chair has already called for speakers to the amendment.

That is fine.

The Chair will recognize the hon. Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just a very brief comment on this, Mr. Chairman. Again,

this is a very straightforward amendment. It is there to protect the people of

the Province. It is there to ensure that non-commercial means a not for

profit-making activity.

I believe that if we are all sincere in this House about protecting our

Province, protecting the people of the Province and protecting our resource,

that this amendment will have absolutely no problem being accepted by the other

side. I implore the members of the other side to accept this.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman,

clause 5(

d) says: the water is removed for a non-commercial purpose approved

by the minister... I find it somewhat difficult to understand anything other

than what non-commercial means. Non-commercial means non-commercial. That is

contained in clause 5(d). If it is non-commercial, it is non-commercial. The

amendment is, in my opinion, unnecessary.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member

for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 5(

d) does not define non-commercial. All this is doing is defining

non-commercial. This agrees with the intent and the spirit of this legislation.

This amendment agrees with the entire intent of this legislation. It is just

defining non-commercial. Non-commercial is not defined anywhere else in the

legislation other than to say that it is at the discretion of the minister.

We are simply asking that non-commercial be defined. I have seen, and I am

sure the Government House Leader in his many years as a parliamentarian in this

Legislature has seen many acts being introduced to this House where there are

definitions that clearly define phrases, words, and so on that are contained

within

an act. That is all we are seeking to do here, to define what

non-commercial means.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman,

something is either commercial or it is non-commercial. There is no ambiguity in

those two words. The amendment says: `non-commercial' means a transaction

that does not involve any profit-making activity at the time of its distribution

or at the time of its alienation;. That is clause 5(d). The only way

something could be non-commercial is if it is non-commercial. The minister can

only approve it if it is non-commercial. I can't see it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While the Government House Leader indicated in clause 5 it does say ...

non-commercial purpose..., I do not see any problems with making a specific

reference for the purpose of this act that non-commercial be interpreted as also

being non-profit. Because if you are going to move it or transport it with a

profit margin in there, while it might be interpreted, if there is profit

margin, to be commercial, and if it is not it might be interpreted as

non-commercial, defining it specifically in the act lea ves

no shadow of a doubt as to the

interpretation of that and it makes it more

specific. That is the purpose that is proposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: That is exactly

what - the amendment says: that it does not involve any profit-making

activity... There is nobody in the world that would say: Alright, something

is commercial and there is something else in between that and non-commercial. It

is either one or the other. That is exactly what non-commercial means. It means

non-profit, that you aren't making any profit. The amendment is totally

unnecessary.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: All we are

asking here is this. The act does not define non-commercial, and we are asking

that the act add that to its

definitions. It defines water and water resources,

and makes reference in clause 5 to non-commercial. We are just asking that it

make specific reference to non-commercial to something that does not involve the

taking of profits. It can't do any damage to the current act. It only secures

and leaves no shadow of a doubt as what we mean by non-commercial, and does not

open it for fur ther

interpretation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member

for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, it certainly seems to me that based on what

the Government House Leader is saying - he is saying there is no need for this

amendment because it agrees with what is in the act, but yet water resources is

defined in the act. We all know what water is. That is clearly defined in

definitions at the beginning of the act. Non-commercial can be left up to

interpretation by NAFTA lawyers as to what it may or may not mean. All we are

asking the Government House Leader to do here is this. If h e

agrees that this has no problem being put into the act, that it is already

there, then let's be safe. Let's protect -

AN HON. MEMBER: We are safe (inaudible)!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Perfect. We will accept the amendment, I take it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to make a couple of comments, particularly with

regards to this amendment. The legislation is distinct and says that the water

cannot be exported for commercial purposes, only non-commercial.

I want to go back and look at the logic that the Opposition had right from

the start in terms of this whole vision of water export. Their argument was

there was great concern about the environment. It was an environmental issue. We

were afraid that we would have no water left in Newfoundland, we would have no

water to drink, no water left to use. They were concerned about the environment.

You know the real reason why they are against this? They are afraid that some

person is going to make a profit. It really came out in the debate right now.

They are terrified that somebody will make a profit. That is the kind of

attitude that is displayed by that side of the House. That is why for seventeen

years there was no development in this Province because they drove everybody out

of the Province. The only development they had was the Sprung Greenhouse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise because of the comments just made by the Member for Bellevue. When we

want to have non-commercial defined properly, we are only following the

precedent that is most of the other acts, where in the first clause you will

find all kinds of

definitions that are there. Our intent is really to define it.

When I listened to the Member for Bellevue when he was saying that we are

against making a profit, that certainly gives me concern that we better define

what non-commercial is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: That is the whole logic of it. The Member for Bellevue has

just confirmed and has supported why we on this side want to have non-commercial

defined. Because he looks over here and says: What, are you people afraid that

you might make a profit? That is not what we are talking about at all. We simply

want to have it defined because it is the right thing to do. The Member for

Bellevue confirms the logic of what we are trying to put forward on this side of

the House.

I say to all hon. members, let's be very clear. We are not against making a

profit on this side. All we are saying is, let's make sure the

definitions are

clear and consistent, as is done in every other piece of legislation. We call

upon the government, for the good of the legislation.

We on this side support its thrust, but let's do it right and let's avoid

any misinterpretations like the one just made by the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just as a point there - if fact, I have asked the Clerk if he could find

something to the effect whereby the word commercial or non-commercial is defined

in any other act. If the Government House Leader knows of any other act where

commercial is defined, or non-commercial is defined, and it includes something

satisfactory, that they are not-for-profit, then we would not need this

amendment there.

I have not been able to find something that specifically defines it. That is

the very question, I think, that was raised by the Member for Bellevue that

raises that possibility. Is there a concern that there could be some

profit-taking incurred in the transaction? If the Government House Leader can

provide to me that it is defined, we would be quite content with that, but we

have not seen that.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Let me ask the hon. gentleman one question. The act says, as it

is written.... Commercial and non-commercial are two opposite words, obviously.

Non-commercial is the opposite of commercial.

Let me ask him a question. Can he find a word, can he find any meaning in the

language between those two words? Can you find any room for

interpretation in

between those two words?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Government House Leader, we have found a

definition of non-commercial and we have added that it is not-for-profit; we

determined it to be. I ask the Government House Leader: Is there anything in any

act, or anything that we could apply, that would define commercial and

non-commercial? If it is in any act, we will take it as gospel, but -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, and that it is the very issue raised, indicating that

in the lack of a definition it is open for

interpretation, in the lack of a

defined definition under the act it removes the

interpretation and therefore

allows someone to proceed then under a specific restriction. Otherwise it is

open for the very

interpretation - the Member for Bellevue indicated the reason

you do not want to see something go out of here for profit - that is why we do

not want it there. Well, the converse of that is, there must be an avenue to

make it profit-taking or commercial if it is in the definition.

If that is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier's right

interpretation of it - I do not know if it is government's official

interpretation but that was his

interpretation of it, and that is the very

reason why we would like it defined.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

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

I am a little bit perplexed here today. I find that the government is

splitting hairs over putting in a definition for non-commercial in Bill 21, yet

in Bill 28 we have lessee defined. Why do we have lessee -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, do I have the floor or not?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. John's West.

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

I cannot understand and I would like an explanation for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, I am going to give the Member for Bay of

Islands -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Do you want to get up and talk?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Well, it is either going to be you or I, but not both of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Now, it is either going to be you or me, but not both.

MR. JOYCE: Go ahead.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Now, what I would like an answer -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Go ahead.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: It is either you or I.

What I would like an answer to here today is: Why, in Bill 28, which is, An

Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province, we find it

necessary to define lessee?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, but why are we splitting hairs? Is Bill 31 not as

important to you? Is the protection of the resources of water not as important

to you? Is this what you are telling us? You are over there and you are

pretending to be concerned. Is it that you are too stubborn to give in? Is it

that we determined that there was something left out that should have been

amended? Well, explain why you have lessee defined. Anybody dealing in property

knows what lessee is, but you have gone through the trouble of defining lessee.

Mineral is defined here. Minister is defined. Now many of us could give

definitions of what a minister is, but in Bill 28 we found it necessary to

define what is a minister is. We found it necessary to define what a project is.

We found it necessary to define what rehabilitate is. The Opposition wants an

amendment in defining non-commercial, and the government is disputing our

motives.

MR. GRIMES: No, we are saying we are not going to do it.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, you are saying you are not going to do it, which

leads me to believe that you are not really serious about whether profits are

made legitimately or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) make a profit?

MS S. OSBORNE: No, but the thing I would like answered here today is, why

in one bill we find it necessary to give all these

definitions and in another

bill we are splitting hairs over whether non-commercial should or should not be

put in there for the protection of this resource and for the people of our

Province.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved, by the Member for St. John's South, that clause 2 be amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against,

nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 5.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two amendments that I want to make to clause 5. We want to make an

amendment to clause 5.(c) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have recognized the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr.

Chairman, I find it amazing that the Member for Bellevue will sit back in his

place and ask us if we are going to define water. No, we don't have to do

that; your government already did it in this act. Did you read the act? No, I

know you did not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make two amendments to clause 5.

I move the following amendment to Bill 31,

An Act To Provide For The

Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The

Province,:

That clause 5 be amended at paragraph (

c) by adding immediately following the

words, the water is used to transport food or an industrial product out of

the Province, the words, and is limited to the minimal amount of water

required to manufacture, process or transport the food or the industrial product.

As well, I wish to make an amendment to clause 5, paragraph (

d) to read:

That clause 5 be amended at paragraph (

d) by deleting the word minister

in the sentence, the water is removed for a non-commercial purpose approved

by the minister, including for safety or humanitarian purposes and

substituting therefore the words, Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

I understand that these amendments are seconded by the Member for Waterford

Valley.

CHAIR: I declare the amendments to be in order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I will just to speak briefly to the proposed

amendments, beginning with the issue with respect to a process in the first

instance of replacing ministerial authority with that of the Cabinet. What we

are looking at is, again, some attempt, as we see it, to try to make this issue

bigger than it is. The bill gives effect to the fact that there will not be bulk

export, which is the critical issue in the Province.

There are some fundamentals with respect to other circumstances where it is

appropriate for some water that is not in a container of twenty-two, twenty-five

litres or less to be used for different purposes. Again, I guess it is probably

the inexperience of the hon. member opposite, never having been in government,

never having to actually administer a piece of legislation, to suggest that the

full entire Cabinet should be seized of an issue as to whether or not an

exclusion for some sane sensible reason is warranted.

Everybody understands that the minister is not given the authority to allow

for bulk exports. He is allowed to provide for the use of water in bulk form for

designated purposes under the act. It would be absolutely unthinkable that the

only time that approval could be given would be if the full Cabinet were to be

called together and to debate what would be a housekeeping administrative item.

The minister can do that with his staff on a daily and timely basis so that

people who are operating a business and need some bulk water to run the business

- not for export, not for sale, not for commercial use, but just so that they

can run their business. It needs to be done on a timely basis and that it would

be absolutely unthinkable.

He should probably check with some members of the PC party - some of them are

pretty old now - that used to be in a government. He would understand that the

suggestion that he is making is totally unworkable, and would be decried by

industry and by people out there that need access to some quantities of bulk

water. It would be foolhardy to think that you would occupy the time of a

Cabinet with an administrative issue. Cabinet is supposed to deal with major

policy issues. They will deal and have dealt with the issue of banning bulk

export. It is done.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing again, is the idea of trying to be cute, to be

seen to be a little more meticulous in detail than the government has been in

proposing the bill, to add on another part to a clause that already covers the

issue. We do not see either of them as being warranted or serving any particular

purpose at this point.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member

for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I am very surprised that the very government that said the reason they

could not release information only a couple of weeks ago because it was Cabinet

material - and later we find out that the Premier and the ministers did not even

hear about it, that in fact it was not a Cabinet document -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, what we are saying here is that instead of

leaving it at the discretion of one individual that it is at the discretion of

Cabinet. We are asking that it be at the discretion of Cabinet. I see nothing

wrong with that. It is still the same government, but it is taking the

responsibility out of the hands of one individual on this vital resource of

importance.

Let's review for a moment why we want it to be Cabinet as opposed to one

individual. Because if you had one individual and they were to make a mistake

and it were to trigger implications under NAFTA, it is a lot easier to pick up

on such a mistake with a group of people, a Cabinet, the people that are in

charge of making all of the important policy decisions in the Province.

We would much rather see that it go to the entire Cabinet where it can be

hashed out, discussed, perhaps even debated, as opposed to having one individual

make a decision that could negatively affect our water resource. That is the

reason we wish to see it by Cabinet. We are not saying to bring it to the House.

We agree that would perhaps be unreasonable. We are saying bring it to Cabinet

as opposed to one individual.

On the other issue where we say that water is to be limited to the minimal

amount of water required to manufacture, process or transport the food or the

industrial product, British Columbia has similar wording in their legislation

in a very similar clause to say: let's limit to the minimal amount that is

required. That is all we are asking for here. How can one legislature should as

British Columbia be so far off the wall on this particular clause -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) NDP (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Exactly. Maybe they are not.

This clause that we are asking for here is again for the protection of the

people of this Province, for the protection of our resource. We are simply

asking for an amendment to protect. That is what we are asking for.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down and

don't talk so foolishly, boy!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Did you want the floor?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I don't!

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, I know

you don't, because you haven't got anything worth saying on this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I recognized the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, while the Minister of Mines and Energy

fails to see through rose-colored glasses, I thank his Premier for thanking me

for all of the good work I have done on this, and other members on the

government side as well.

Mr. Chairman, I think these amendments are very worthwhile and I think they

are there for the protection of the people of this Province, and I ask

government to very seriously consider these amendments as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, there is nobody who disputes that this hon.

gentleman has pursued this issue, but I have to say to him that he is pursuing

it to death. The Premier was right, and the Minister of Mines and Energy was

right a minute ago when he said that the hon. gentleman has done great work on

this. He has worked very hard at it. I am sure he will get whatever credit is

due him in history or wherever else we give any credit. I want to tell him it is

hard to become an historical figure unless you do it by age like me. The only

thing that I will ever have, maybe, is somebody will say, if I stay here for

another ten years, that: He was one of the longest serving members in the House.

Then you are forgotten.

You have done great work, but you are beating a dead horse.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who are you talking about?

MR. TULK: I am talking about

you. You have done great work on this. Now, let's pass the bill and get it

out. Because the truth of the matter is that what this bill says is that you can

only use water to transport food or an industrial product out of the Province.

Now he wants us to set a minimal, he wants to set a maximum. The extra words,

used to transport food, means exactly what it says. If you have any more

there than you need to do that, then you are into it. British Columbia may have

a certain wor ding, I suspect you would find one somewhere

else in the world, but this does the job that it is intended to do.

I say this to him, that if a government decides -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is the only one in the House actually on (inaudible)

issue.

MR. TULK: The whip, and one of the upcoming leadership candidates in the

year 2007 or 2008, is up there misbehaving. Would you look after him?

Mr. Chairman, the truth is that this is a piece of legislation. If some

government - it might even be a PC government in the year 2015, or 2050 -

decided they wanted to set out regulations which say: All right, here is the

minimum and here is the maximum you can use to transport a bit of ice cream, or

whatever you use water for, floating fish or whatever, then I suppose they will

set about that through regulation. The legislation sets out the intent of what

is supposed to be done and there is no need for either amendment.

You have done great work on this, I say to him. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member

for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Government House Leader and to members on the Government's

side that we are not hesitating in passing this legislation today. In fact, I am

telling you that we are going to vote on and approve this legislation this

afternoon. I think on such an important issue that it deserves discussion and we

are not unduly holding up this legislation. When it was introduced we told you

that we would give it to you in a speedy fashion. We are not going to filibuster

on this, ring the bells, or anythin g else. We just want

proper and informed debate on both sides of the House.

The way the legislation is written at present, it simply states under clause

5(c): the water is used to transport food or an industrial product out of the

province... It does not give a minimal amount. If somebody were to take that

to court and say: I needed ten cubic meters of water to ship out one block of

cod -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, it is up for debate. I am not going to

presume what the outcome of that debate will be, but it is up for debate because

it is not clearly defined. All we are asking for, with these amendments, is that

we give due consideration to protecting this resource and the people of the

Province.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved by the Member for St. John's South that clause 5(

c) be amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: All those against,

nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

It has been moved by the Member for St. John's South that clause 5(

d) be

amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: All those against,

nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 5 and 6, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to introduce an amendment here which reads as follows:

To move the following amendment to Bill 31,

An Act To Provide For The

Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The

Province:

That clause 7 be amended by adding immediately following subsection (2) the

following subsections:

(3) Subsection (2) shall be proclaimed into force by the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council on a date immediately after Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

brings into force legislation or regulations which create a permanent ban on the

bulk removal of fresh water from the territory of Canada.

(4) If Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada has not, within one year of

the coming into force of this Act, brought into force legislation or regulations

which create a permanent ban on the bulk removal of fresh water from the

territory of Canada, then

section 7 shall be brought back to the House of

Assembly for debate.

I realize that this is, perhaps, the most controversial amendment that we

have made to this Act in this legislation, Mr. Chairman. This is the one that we

have had considerable discussion on from the person who we brought in as an

expert on NAFTA and the people who the government have brought in. There is

obviously disagreement, there is obviously confusion, on whether or not this

amendment is needed, whether or not this amendment will protect the Province. I

think it is agreed by all that it would protect the Province, but the government

experts say that they do not believe it is necessary.

Whether it is necessary or not, and if there is confusion and if there is

debate, then that only brings into reason why we need an amendment on this

particular bill. If there is confusion, then let's protect ourselves.

What we are saying here, Mr. Chairman, is that if there is a risk, even the

slightest risk, then let's put the protection in the legislation. If it is not

needed, great, but if it is needed, if there is a risk, then at least we have

protected ourselves. I am asking that this amendment be accepted. It is seconded

again by the Member for Waterford Valley.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It has been moved by the Member for St. John's South that clause 7 be

amended.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: All those against,

nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 7, carried.

CHAIR: Does clause 8 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 8 of this bill is about an issue that is very important to this

Province for all of its natural resources. Clause 8 is about royalties.

Royalties is a matter of very great importance in this Province. In fact, it has

been of very great importance for about 150 years, ever since we started

developing our natural resources, our mines, our forests, and other activities

in this Province. One of the ongoing debates, I say to the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo, has been the extent to which the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador benefit from the exploitation of our resources.

Again and again, government after government has made arrangements and deals,

agreements, contracts, with private industry to develop natural resources, in

the process of which they have negotiated what is known as economic rent. What

are the benefits that are going to accrue to the people of Newfoundland through

its government and in other ways from resource development?

We have today, having listened to the Minister of Mines and Energy talk about

the Voisey's Bay project, the government telling Inco that the law of the land

will not apply to them. The law of the land is not going to apply to Inco.

Special provision is going to be made for Inco. They are not going to be given

the tax holiday that is set out in the amendment to the Mineral Tax Act that was

passed in this House in December 1994.

I am glad it is not, because that would give a tax holiday on royalties to

the Inco developers of Voisey's Bay nickel. The Minister of Mines and Energy

keeps telling us that is not going to happen. Every time I ask the question he

tells us that is not going to happen, but we have yet to see passed in this

House, aside from second reading of a bill in December of 1995 that died on the

Order Paper, any changes to the mineral tax regime for the mineral development

in this Province.

So the law is not going to apply to Inco. What is going to apply to Inco is

whatever deal is made by the Minister of Mines and Energy, or has already been

made but he has not told us about it, whatever deal is made by the minister, by

the government with Inco. That is going to be agreed to, then he is going to

tell us about it. Then he is going to maybe allow it to be debated in the House

of Assembly, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, who elected members to

this House, will not have a say in whether that deal is approved or not.

Now we have had many deals with corporations, special legislation for example

for the Iron Ore Company of Canada made in 1938, I'm reliably informed by the

Member for Labrador West, my colleague. In 1938 there was special legislation,

special deals, special provisions made for the Iron Ore Company of Canada, made

through legislation now in 1938.

In 1938 the government did not have to trouble themselves with going into the

House of Assembly, I say. They did not have to trouble themselves in going into

the House of Assembly in 1938. Do you know why? Because there wasn't a House

of Assembly. There was no House of Assembly. The government could do exactly

what they wanted. The Commission of Government could do exactly what they

wanted! They could pass whatever laws they wanted, make whatever deals they

wanted, and the people be damned! That's much the same as what this government

wants to do now with Inco! They do not need the House of Assembly. They are like

the Commission of Government. They can make special rules with Inco. They can

make special deals with Inco.

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: On a point of order. I have to tell the hon. gentleman that he

is starting to sound like one of the most conservative, right-wing people that

we know in this Province that spoke yesterday at the Board of Trade. Will you

stop sounding like Crosbie?

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you said, there is no point of order. The member was just trying to stop

me from reminding the people of this House and the people of the Province that

this government acts the very same as the Commission of Government acted in 1938

when they passed laws without having a House of Assembly to refer to, because

they did not have any obligation under law. The same words, I think, that the

minister used in the House yesterday: Every law that we have to follow we will

follow. The Commission of Government followed every law that they had to follow.

They did not have to call together a House of Assembly. They did not have to

consult with the people. They did not have any elected representatives to worry

about! I say that the Minister of Mines and Energy and his government over there

think that the people of Newfoundland are as complacent today as they were in

1938 during the Depression and Commission of Government.

I have news for them. The people of Newfoundland are not happy to be run by a

modern day Commission of Government. They want to participate in the future of

this Province. They want to be involved in decisions that affect their future.

They want to examine what this government is doing and they want to have their

say.

Now I would like to move an amendment to the bill before the House, to move

an amendment to clause 8, for the purpose of having the House, for the first

time in this government's lifetime, have some say in royalty regimes for our

natural resources. Now, this might not be the most important resource in terms

of the amount of revenue to be obtained from natural resources. I know if you

listen to the new Liberal Member for Burin St. George's, I think it was $5

million a week. The new Liberal Member for Burin St. George's told us that the

royalty revenues from Gisborne Lake were going to be $5 million a week, and that

by banning the bulk export of water we were throwing away this opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: They could have been (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister now says that they could have been and they

might be. They might be yet, I suppose.

I'm moving an amendment. Clause 8(2) says: The Lieutenant-Governor in

Council may make regulations (

a) prescribing the amount of a royalty on water

resources. I want to move an amendment to add after the word regulations

in 8(2) of the bill the words: as may be approved by resolution of the House of

Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, I ask first of all for a ruling whether this amendment is

deemed to be in order by the Chair.

CHAIR: The amendment is in order.

MR. HARRIS: The amendment is in order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is there a seconder for that amendment?

MR. HARRIS: My understanding of the rules, Mr. Chairman, is that there

need not be a seconder for an amendment in Committee. I am sure I can find one

if there is a need for one.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I think the hon. gentleman is right, but it would be

interesting to see if the other half of his caucus agrees with him.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, if need be, seconded by the Member for Labrador

West.

There is a very great interest in the issue of royalties, and how they affect

the ability of this Province to meet its constitutional obligations and other

obligations to its citizens in all sorts of areas which it is failing to do to

date, particularly the areas of education, health care, social services for our

citizens, and in the area of nutrition and child health and welfare, making sure

that we have healthy children who are able to learn in our schools.

Right here today we should start a process that would require royalty regimes

for natural resources of the Province be brought before this Legislature for a

full debate. I am quite happy to see the Minister of Mines and Energy or the

Minister of Environment and Labour - although I do not know what responsibility,

frankly, the Minister of Environment and Labour has over royalty regimes for

natural resources, although the bill is in his name. I would expect that the

Cabinet is certainly capable of arranging for the drafting of regulations. I

certainly think they are capable of coming up with some rationale to support

them.

What this resolution would say do is say that after you have done your work,

after you have decided what you think is best as a government for the people of

Newfoundland, that it is brought before this Legislature, and the people have a

say through their Legislature in determining whether the royalty regime is

appropriate.

What I heard the Premier say here was that they were going to consult with

industry and decide on an appropriate regime for bottled water exports for

royalties. Consult with industry. That is typical of this government. We are

going to consult with only one party, and that is industry, to determine what

level of royalties they are prepared or willing to pay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I see the Minister of Mines and Energy agrees with me. He

says that is a brilliant analysis of what happens when this government - we see

the minister himself beating a path to Inco. We see the minister himself beating

a path back and forth to Toronto to talk with the people in Inco, to consult

with industry on what appropriate regimes there might be by way of taxes and

benefits. When Inco tells them the maximum amount they are prepared to pay, then

we might have a deal and he will approve it, and then sometime down the road

will tell the people in Newfoundland what they in their wisdom have done.

I am not happy with that any more then I am happy with this government

unilaterally, without recourse to the House of Assembly, passing royalty

regimes. We do have a problem in this country with royalty regimes for bottled

water. I would be the first one to acknowledge it. In fact, the only royalty

regimes for bottled water in the country are that of the New Democratic

government in British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to say that they are

adequate, not at all, but at least they have them. Ontario, Alberta, Nova

Scotia, Prince Edward Island do not. I could go on. Nobody else does, except the

Government of British Columbia and the -

AN HON. MEMBER: I bet you

they didn't put them in, too, by having them approved in the legislature like

you are proposal.

MR. HARRIS: I would imagine they did, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) better check it out, Jack. Go check it out

(inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the

resource royalty revenue that the British Columbia government has from its

resources in this Province compared to what this Province gets in royalty

revenues from its natural resources on the whole. If we achieve that, we might

be able t