May 16,

1997 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 27

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to inform

my hon. colleagues of a new community-based competition called Tidy Towns. This

initiative encourages cities and communities throughout the Province to compete

for the distinction of being named the best Tidy Town in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Through the spirit of healthy competition, this program is

intended to motivate residents to preserve their built heritage, take pride in

their community, and clean up streets, parks, open spaces, buildings, homes and

gardens. This is a province-wide effort intended to improve upon the Province's

overall aesthetic appeal for the benefit of all residents and the tens of

thousands of additional tourists who will be coming to the Province in 1997 for

our Cabot 500th Anniversary Celebrations. Modeled from the Tidy Towns program in

Ireland, this new initiative is intended to evolve into an annual competition.

This program is a joint initiative of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Women's Institute and the Newfoundland and Labrador Parks and

Recreation Association, with support provided by the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation. As well, a corporate sponsorship agreement with a

leading Atlantic Canadian business is currently being negotiated and will soon

be announced. Tidy Towns builds on the recent success of the national program

entitled Communities in Bloom.

This competition will place the greatest emphasis on

originality, maximizing your area's natural assets, and the community effort,

rather than on spending scarce community funds. I am confident that this type of

program will work to maximize our tourism potential in 1997 and beyond.

I call on all members of the House of Assembly to encourage

their communities within their districts to participate in this great program.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Finally, great news

from the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I have to commend the

minister on this initiative for Tidy Towns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have positive news from the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I think that this is a good

initiative, especially during the Cabot 500 year, and I think that it will

create healthy competition through many municipalities throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is a tidy announcement from the minister to tidy

up the end of the session and tidy up her department and I hope it tides up the

towns in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, since becoming Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, I have reviewed departmental plans to undertake a pilot project

to privatize highway maintenance and snow-clearing operations on the Avalon

Peninsula next winter. As a result, I am pleased to announce today that the

department, in conjunction with the Newfoundland Association of Public

Employees, will take a new direction with respect to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I met with Mr. David Curtis

of NAPE and explored with him the main thrust of the pilot project. Following

that meeting, I submitted a new proposal to NAPE which offered to cease any

further work on privatizing our highways operations in favour of an alternate

pilot project. This alternate project will see a joint management-employee

committee work together to identify a reasonable degree of substantive savings

in the form of productivity and service improvements in our operations. Our

position has always been to provide our highway maintenance services in the most

cost-effective manner possible, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Curtis has confirmed that this

is NAPE's position as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Mr. Curtis has accepted this

alternate pilot proposal and the department is looking forward to working with

NAPE to provide this service in the most effective and efficient way possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the minister is in the (inaudible) and listened to

the advice I gave him in Question Period on Wednesday, and as I said last night

in the House, I can expect his statement today to announce that privatization is

off; I did not have the full contents of the statement I say to the minister and

if you had done the research and background on it and followed the example in

BC, you would never have announced privatization in the beginning and the reason

it is coming now, is because Rex statements in Ferryland were lambasted in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lambasted.

MR. SULLIVAN: - lambasted, no, he was blasted,

He was verbally assaulted that he would not get a vote in the

district, he came back and he told people he would go back and talk to the

people in Cabinet and get something done about it. I can tell you they are

desperate attempts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Came crying on the Premiers shoulder.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Boys you fellows don't have a leak over

there, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know this whole issue arose when the former minister told

the employees about the program review initiative and the requirements of it.

So, I am delighted to hear that the disastrous directive from Decker has been

derailed and dumped by the new minister and that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - and that the public sector workers in

Works, Services and Transportation do not have to worry about what is going to

happen now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

I ask the Premier, does he have any news yet for the people

in Central Newfoundland and other regions of the Province that are out lobbying

for a copper smelter in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the Premier is well behind the times, the co-discoverer

of Voisey's Bay is out calling for it, Opposition is calling for it, the towns

in the Province are lobbying for it, and the Premier and Inco are the only ones

not out now looking for a copper smelter in this Province.

I would like to ask the Premier a question: Does he have a

deal on royalties, or do we expect to see legislation here so we can stop that

ten-year tax give-away? When can we expect that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could the Premier inform the House of the

status of negotiations, and what percentage he is negotiating for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to

negotiate; we are going to tell Inco what share we are going to take, and it is

going to be a rather large share for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: We are not going to take the advice of the

Leader of the Opposition who, if he had half a chance, would sit down and

negotiate away the benefit for the Province. We are going to insist upon a full

and fair share, and we will bring legislation to this House, and we will use our

majority to pass the legislation for a full share.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They took our advice on the air ambulance, we just heard, in

the midst of an election. They took our advice on the privatization of highways.

They took our advice... I ask, Why are you not going to take our advice on this

one? You probably will before it is over, I say to the Premier.

A couple of weeks ago, the Premier said in this House: `We do

not have an energy plan because you do not want to limit your choices.' I ask

the Premier: Whose choices are you limiting by not having a plan, by not having

royalty legislation, and by not letting us get a return on our resources?

I ask the Premier: When you were talking about not limiting

choices, were you talking about not limiting your choices or were you talking

about not limiting the choices of Inco?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader

of the Opposition has done the same kind of preparation for Question Period

today as he did in finding a candidate for the Conservative Party in the

district of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Can you imagine, he must have gotten on

the Internet and said, `Candidate required'.

The Leader of the Opposition came to the conclusion that at

least one PC was going back to Ottawa after the next election, and that is the

one who came from Ottawa by way of the Internet to be the candidate in the

District of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Imagine, Mr. Speaker, nothing but recycled

candidates: Charlie Power, Norm Doyle - what is the other fellow's name - Bill

Matthews, and now a recycled defeated candidate from Ottawa down here in

Labrador saying, `I am here because too many jobs are going to outsiders.' Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition - not to go outside to find candidates!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a lot better recycling candidates than sending them out

and getting recycled ones back here, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Premier, an SOS went out some

time a year ago, went out to the Grand Banks. I say to him: after you have

achieved your 200 megawatts from damming rivers on the Island, annihilating

tourism, ruining salmon rivers, ignoring environmental concerns, I mean, what

choices do we have for energy then? Now, is it not true that entering into

long-term contracts with small private producers is going to eliminate or

seriously diminish the possibility of developing the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect

to the Leader of the Opposition, the only thing that is true is that the Leader

of the Opposition does not have a clue what he is talking about here today.

There is a process in place to determine the way in which to

proceed with respect to the provision of power for industrial sites like that

envisaged at Argentia. It is an appropriate process. There has been a call by

Hydro. Proposals are coming forward. Those will be assessed. As for the actual

source of power itself, VBN, Voisey's Bay Nickel has not even made a decision

yet on which source of power they are going to look for, nor have all of the

proposals by Hydro been assessed. I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Why would

you want to be up saying to the people of Argentia today that the project is at

risk; saying to the people in Placentia, who are making investments today for

the future, that they should stop making investments; say to the people who are

developing industrial sites in Argentia that they should stop development? Why

is he saying to the people who put their heart and their soul and their hope

into the development of this smelter site that all of that should come crashing

down because the Leader of the Opposition is predicting Armageddon for the

Province because we are going to have 3,000 or 4,000 industrial jobs paying high

industrial wage? Why is the Leader of the Opposition so opposed to development?

Why is he so looking forward to failure? Why can he not recognize there is a bit

of sunshine today in this spring weather in Newfoundland and Labrador and quit

frightening the life out of the people of the Placentia area?

Let me tell him something, Mr. Speaker: the people of

Placentia know they have somebody who understands this project -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - somebody who authored this project, in

Rex Gibbons as their next MP, and thank God, they do not have to listen to the

bleatings of the Leader of the Opposition on this important subject!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see that the highly-paid consultant they brought in in

January to tell them they have to move their arms more - the Cabinet ministers -

`you have to get out there more'; how to manufacture news you brought down at

public expense. I can see it is starting to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Premier: We want to see

security there for the thousands of jobs that can be developed in the future by

having a wise energy plan in the Province.

I ask the Premier: When we had a smelting refinery here that

the Premier boasts about, a transshipment facility, when we were close to having

the 500 megawatts of power that would have made the Lower Churchill domestically

viable, why did you jeopardize that in the long term by running minimal energy

projects around the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am hoping for two things:

one, that the federal election will be over soon so that we may soon get again

some sensible questions from other members on the other side, and two, that a

single megawatt of enlightenment will visit itself upon the Leader of the

Opposition.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Why did he eliminate Labrador's choices

and diminish its possibility of developing by choosing not to develop one of the

large energy projects in Labrador? Reliable and cheap energy is one of the

greatest assets to establishing business anywhere in the world. I ask him: Why

have you minimized Labrador's opportunities and potential energy development for

the entire Province? Because once these rivers are developed here, Premier,

where do we look then? The energy is gone. So why are you jeopardizing long-term

development for some shortsighted decisions by this government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are not jeopardizing

Labrador's potential, and number two, there are far more than 400 megawatts of

power to be developed in Labrador, not the 400 megawatts the Leader of the

Opposition has talked about. He is wrong, and I would invite him to come have a

briefing on the subject before he starts to ask questions about it. Number

three, we are very much focused on the positive development of Labrador. That is

why we have been able to attract actual Labradorians, real, living, breathing

Labradorians, to be members of this party, because they want to have some say in

the policy development of Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Now, we know the Leader of the Opposition

spent a few days last week travelling with General Paten up in Labrador and we

know he got his marching orders to come back here and lead the assault for

Labrador from the great mind-set that dreamed up the cause of Labrador on the

banks of the Napean River. That being said, Mr. Speaker, I have members like

Wally Andersen, born, bred and raised in the roughest of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I have members like Perry Canning, Ernie

McLean, the great minister, great big Ernie. These fellows actually spent a full

season, any one of four, living in Labrador and, Mr. Speaker, they tell me, we

are on the right track. So I say to the Leader of the Opposition and General

Paten, your misery will be over on June 2nd, and you will all be able to go

home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier does not listen very well, the Premier does not

listen well at all. I said 500 megawatts would make it domestically viable. I

know there are 3,100 megawatts and I will debate the Premier on this issue any

day, or any issue he wants to publicly debate with me. I extend that invitation.

He has always denied it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell him this, Mike Paten will be

going back to Ottawa after the election - that is more than I can say for Roger

Simmons and some others, I can assure you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier: When we have a Hydro

corporation, that is run competently, I might add, why did we not follow the

recommendations of Hydro themselves, year after year, and pursue the development

of the Lower Churchill? I ask the Premier: Is it your plan to jeopardize that

and to give away the copper to Quebec, also?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to

jeopardize anything, we intend to, in an intelligent way, through proper

analysis, through proper development of policy proposals to see that we maximize

all of the natural resource benefits of Newfoundland and Labrador. And I say

again to the Leader of the Opposition, if he has some proposals which are

thoughtful and well considered to put forward, we would be glad to consider

them, but I say to him, a flying visit with a neophyte from the Napean during a

couple of days in Labrador is not the basis of sound policy development for the

people of Labrador.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Why, in the best interest of long-term

development in this Province, do you not follow the plans of Hydro in their

long-term energy plan? We have tabled an energy policy consultation paper that

sets out the long-term energy plan and the framework. I ask: Why does this

Province not prepare for the future? Why do you not follow your own Hydro

Corporation's plan for energy in the Province? Why is the Province void of an

energy plan? I ask the Premier, and why do you not follow Hydro's

recommendations? You are jeopardizing our future and future jobs. I ask the

Premier: Will you do it now and proceed with a plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I could make head or tail

of what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, I would probably consider

it. I would ask him to put his proposals in writing and we will consider them.

Frankly, I have to say to him with the greatest of respect, I know there is an

election on, it will be over in a couple of weeks, then we can go back to some

reasoned questions about issues that are important to the Province, here in the

Province. But the Leader of the Opposition trying to have a debate, mixing up

the presence of a smelter refinery complex at Argentia, the power requirements

of that complex, with the power requirements of an ovoid mine site, plus an

underground mine site with the long-term power requirements of VBN in Labrador

with the possibilities, for example, of a silica smelter development in Labrador

West, mixing that up with the possibility of export power, with the negotiations

now going on between Hydro Quebec and Hydro Newfoundland, mixing all those

things up and demanding an instant answer because General Paten needs help in

Labrador, is not responsible policy-making and I will not pretend to respond to

it in a serious manner.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It disturbs me that the Premier does not understand the

importance of having an energy plan for our Province. In light of that, I want

to ask the Premier, will he do the honourable thing and appoint a minister to

represent energy in this Province in mines, who will be competent and interested

enough to look at a plan for this Province? Will he do that now and have a very

important portfolio in this Province, at a very important time in our history,

represented by somebody who is going to devote full time to it and who can do

the job?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

In view of the fact of the large industrial development, some

of which the Premier talked about this morning, and the emerging of an exciting

offshore and gas industry, I would like to ask the Minister of Education, with

respect to identifying training opportunities and employment opportunities, has

his department, over the last couple of weeks - I asked this question one time

before - has the department begun identifying -

MR. FUREY: You have already asked the question.

MR. E. BYRNE: I did not get an answer last week, I say to

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and I am going to keep asking

the question until I get an answer.

Is the department going to begin to develop a registry, so we

can understand and fully know where we have qualified people, where they can go

to work, where we do not, that we begin training for those positions and take

advantage of the employment opportunities that will emerge as a result of the

industrial activity in this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I hope I heard the question

correctly. I think it was: Are we going to begin to do it? The answer is no. The

work has been ongoing for some time, Mr. Speaker, and I thought I tried to give

that answer a couple of weeks ago. As a matter of fact, the seeds for the work

that is very important - and I do appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member

is quite serious in his question and has always been in terms of his,

continuous, repeated concern that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians be given the

first opportunity for jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, a concern shared by

everybody in this Legislature, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, and he should

give some credit to predecessors of his who sat in the government benches for

the Conservative Party.

I know it is almost ten years ago now and people have almost

forgotten about it, it is that long ago. But in fact, over ten years ago, when

their Party was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Education and

Training Minister of the day started the process, Mr. Speaker, because there had

been so much hope about the future of offshore oil and gas and jobs related to

that. There was a full training program that went on for ten years. I thought,

Mr. Speaker, I had answered in the House a week or so ago when the same question

was answered, that there are fully subscribed programs today in the campuses of

the provincial college, the College of the North Atlantic, in the Marine

Institute, and also students who are taking courses at Memorial University

because they have been given directions, Mr. Speaker, as to the types of job

opportunities that are likely to be available in the offshore. because the

onshore construction phase for Hibernia at least has been completed and we hope

to repeat some of that now for Terra Nova, Whiterose and other projects in the

future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The registry, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: The registry, in particular, is an issue that

was discussed, certainly with me, a year or so ago when I took this particular

portfolio, largely with the members of the unionized workers in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and everybody agreed it is a good idea and there has been work

progressing on a more detailed registry as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the

Minister of Education is either not fully aware or not fully committed to taking

advantage of every employment opportunity that we can.

I would like to say to the minister that yes, there has been

good work done by the Department of Education recently and even up to ten years

ago, but that does not mean that we have to stop now. There are employment

opportunities being lost today. There are divers who have been brought in from

outside the country; there are industrial electricians who have been brought in

from outside the country and outside the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask the minister: In view of that and in

view of the fact that we do have a technically advanced workforce which could be

more technically advanced, does he not see the merit in developing a registry

for both union and non-union, for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, to

identify one thing: Where there are skill shortages and where we have people who

do not have the background or education, that we can give it to them, and

foresightful training initiatives be put in place so that we can take advantages

of those opportunities? Certainly, the minister would agree that that is an

ongoing process and not something that begins now and ends today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and while it is

unfortunate, no matter how well we try to prepare all our workers, there will

continue to be circumstances where a few of the workers in any one sector would

be from outside Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, with that kind

of thing, there are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who take much more

advantage of that, Mr. Speaker, by providing and filling needs in other parts of

Canada and around the world. So it isn't that in any location or jurisdiction

100 per cent of the workers come from the local area.

The notion of the registry I thought I answered again in the

first question. It is not that something has stopped or started. It started

years ago, it is continuing as we speak, and we understand that this will be a

continuing, growing, developing industry, and that everybody's concern is that

the maximum opportunities be there for the advantage of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. That is why, as I said in answer to the first question, that the

courses that are available are fully subscribed at the campuses in Newfoundland

and Labrador. These workers are preparing themselves so that they will at least

have the training and qualifications. Then if they don't get the jobs it might

be because they might be lacking in a little bit of experience.

The good news is we have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - hundreds of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians -

MR. SPEAKER: Again I ask the hon. minister to conclude

his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have hundreds of already

trained Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working in the offshore now, in the

Gulf, in the North Sea, and so on, who would then have experience as well, so

that they might very well be the workforce for the offshore operations off the

coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, all I'm saying to the Minister

of Education is that you haven't developed a registry. You can't say that one

exists when one does not exist, Minister. There are people and companies in the

Province that have brought workers in because the skills do not exist. I would

agree with the minister, I have no problem with people coming in from outside

the Province where skills don't exist, as long as they are going to teach the

people in this Province those skills so that we in turn can go to other places

and sell that technology.

All I'm looking for from the minister is one simple

commitment: to develop a registry, to take a few people within the Department of

Education to work with stakeholders in the industry, whether they be union,

contractors, or non-union groups, set them at the table, and develop a registry

that would identify where the skill shortages are and how we can take advantage

of them. Can he commit to that today?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe neither of us is

communicating that well with each other. I thought again I answered that that

issue had been brought to my attention a year or so ago. We had meetings that

involved largely representatives of the unionized workforce of the Province.

They, along with officials from the Department of Education, and also other

departments of government that are interested - Mines and Energy at the time,

Natural Resources and others - everybody committed and agreed that it was in the

best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have a registry. I don't

know if it is exactly the kind of registry that the hon. member is describing.

But everybody has agreed that there should be a registry. We

should know what the likely jobs and opportunities are. We should have a data

bank that indicates what the skill level of Newfoundland and Labrador workers

are today, and that they would then be able to make a match and a fit when there

is a training need required and when there is a job opportunity available. That

to my understanding is ongoing as a matter of course, and not something that was

done as a one-time project or should have a start or end date.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. The initial information that

the minister provided to me under the Freedom of Information request had an

oversight of $20,000 on a figure on Jonathan's Pond. The minister has since

provided me with updated information on Jonathan's Pond and the provincial parks

overall under that same request for Freedom of Information. Is the minister now

prepared to stand by that information? Can she tell us that this information is

no longer misleading?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would be only too pleased to

answer the question. We have been communicating with the hon. member's office

since he asked the question to bring some clarity, and we have been asking him

where he got his information, and what his detail was. He has been very

reluctant to give it to us. We have provided the information to him that yes,

$20,000 was provided to the regional manager of parks in the central region, and

that yes, in four different allotments - I don't remember the exact amounts; I

think they were two that were a little over $5,000 each and two over $4,000 each

- were provided for siding, for a generator, for repairs, to the park's cabins

in Jonathan's Pond Park. The information that we have been providing is not

misleading. The information in the questions that have been asked has been very

misleading.

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister is the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. She should be able to tell me about

the $20,000, not me tell her. She confirmed the information.

Mr. Speaker, the minister stood by the information that she

provided to the people who requested tendering packages on the provincial parks

that are up for privatization. She said that the information that was provided

was not misleading. Does the minister still stand by that statement?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Of course I stand by my statements.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister stated that the reason she decided to privatize

provincial parks was because they cost the provincial taxpayers last year $1.8

million. Does the minister still stand by this statement?

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speak, this question is unbelievable. The

parks did not cost us $1.8 million last year. We had forty-eight parks. The

savings that will accrue every year from here on in will be $1.8 million. That

was very clearly stated in all of the press releases and to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a

final supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, that statement alone is

misleading. They did not cost the taxpayer $1.8 million but they are going to

save $1.8 million. It is amazing.

Mr. Speaker, the information that the minister provided to

the people who requested tendering packages, and the information that the

minister provided to me under the Freedom of Information request, suggests that

the parks cost the taxpayers - to operate the provincial parks last year - less

than $600,000. I ask the minister: Was the information that she provided to

myself and the people who requested tendering packages misleading, or was the

figure of $1.8 million misleading?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the information that was provided

stated very clearly that the cost savings in privatizing twenty-one parks would

be $1.8 million. The information that has been provided to the various

entrepreneurs who have been bidding on these parks has been very carefully given

to them. We have worked very closely with any proponents or businesses that were

interested in bidding on these parks on a one-for-one basis. We have done

interviews with all of the short-listed proponents, and we are very pleased to

date with the quality of the proponents, and we have already announced nine of

the twenty-one parks that are to be privatized, and they will be open this

weekend.

There are more campsites open this weekend than ever before

on the May 24th long weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The minister announced the funds to assist municipalities

regarding their debt load, which was a good idea and welcomed by many of the

towns. Can the minister tell the House how many towns have been assisted this

year, and if the program will be in place next year? Those are the funds to

assist the towns.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea how many

communities we are going to be able to help refinance, straighten out. We have

set a target of ten a month. It is a long process. We did one in the Central

Newfoundland area last week, and it took us a full week - one person a full week

- to do. I don't have ample staff to be able to go out and look after everyone,

so what we plan to do is take the most serious ones first and work our way back

down through.

All of the members of the House also realize - and I have

given the hon. member the opportunity; in fact, I mentioned it to him yesterday

- if you have a town in your district that you think is serious enough for us to

do early, to move up on the list, just give me the name of the town and I will

certainly do what I can and instruct my employees to go out and try to do that

town as quickly as possible.

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

supplementary.

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

Mr. Minister, the Town of Flatrock has been looking for

assistance with its debt load the past two to three years. They are paying

$35,000 a year, as you know, and have no houses serviced. Works, Services and

Transportation are negotiating with the town now to take over five kilometres of

road, which they really cannot afford but they want to do. When can the Town of

Flatrock expect to hear officially with respect to this program? I know you have

been working on it for some time.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Flatrock, because of the situation where

Works, Services and Transportation is trying to do a deal down there with a town

to take over Works, Services and Transportation roads, and the fact that we have

talked about Flatrock for a number of years now I suppose. We are moving on

Flatrock almost immediately. Flatrock will probably have somebody in there in

the next couple of weeks and actually start the process. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I

have recommended to Works, Services and Transportation that when we do the deal

for them that that be part of the overall financial package. So we take the

whole thing, the whole picture and look at it. I am hoping in the next couple of

weeks I will be able to tell the hon. member that we are going to do Flatrock.

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

time for one quick question.

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

Mr. Minister, the town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove

has decided to go ahead with a volunteer fire department. The town has requested

approval to borrow $450,000 to set up the volunteer department and they have

received approval, from what I gather. In a letter dated April 3, to yourself,

they requested a government guarantee to get a better interest rate on the

borrowing. Can the minister comment on their request?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the

request. I believe the request has been made but I have not been briefed on the

request to get a government guarantee. It will be very irregular if government

provides a government guarantee for a fire truck. We don't do that.

MR. J. BYRNE: More than a fire truck.

MR. A. REID: - and a fire hall. We don't normally provide

government guarantees for that type of a loan but I will certainly look at it. I

have not had a chance to do it yet but I will certainly look at it and I will

get back to the hon. member on it.

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

Before we proceed with routine business I would like to

welcome to the galleries today twenty-eight Grade VII students from Mount Pearl

Junior High in the district of Waterford Valley, accompanied by their teachers;

Gordon Hicks, John Newell and chaperon Mrs. Edwina Baldwin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Shops

Closing Act."

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion, the hon. the

Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Labour

Relations Act."

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Teachers

Association Act."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table answers to questions from the hon. Member for

Cape St. Francis from last week.

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege today to present 1,896 names on a petition

to go along with between 15,000 and 16,000 that were presented earlier here in

the House. I will read the prayer of the petition, it says;

We the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department

of Education to legislate a paid bus monitor program for all school buses in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We find that students are presently being

unsupervised and they are at risk in their safety going to and from schools on

school buses. The safety of our children is being compromised. We ask the hon.

minister and his government to show compassion, leadership and understanding to

ensure the safe transportation of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have to emphasize the importance, in

this House, of having safe transportation of school children. I served as a

teacher in the school system for over twenty years and fortunately there were no

serious accidents in my area but we had the misfortune recently last year of a

young boy in Paradise at Holy Family School, who suffered a tragic accident in

his area. It is very important that, in particular, Mr. Speaker, that young

kids, five, six, seven and eight year old kids to be going on a bus without

supervision can be very, very dangerous at any time of year, not only in the

wintertime but also in the summertime. I think we have a responsibility to

ensure that the safe transportation of these kids should be paramount upon our

minds. It is very important. You cannot reverse the clock on a tragic accident

unfortunately but we can do something to ensure that it does not happen again.

We have seen commitments given by this government to reinvest

dollars into education in this Province. They did it in written form to

householders. When I went to Ottawa the Premier took a package to Ottawa that he

said one of the reasons to amend the Terms of Union basically on education in

this Province, Term 17, was to be able to reinvest money back into the

educational system of our Province. We have seen this year, Mr. Speaker, $35

million taken out of education. We have seen $50 million taken out in the last

two years. With the change - and the former Minister of Education told us we

spending $10 million being wasted on buses in the Province. This new revamping,

restructuring or reforming of the educational system is going to save millions

and millions of dollars. Well all we are asking is to reinvest a portion of that

money back into safe transportation for our kids. That is not too much to ask,

Mr. Speaker, when almost 18,000 people around this Province put their name on a

petition asking the House of Assembly here and asking this government to do the

honourable thing and safeguard the rights of children that are entrusted on

those buses. It is difficult for a bus driver to transport sixty or seventy kids

and to look out to the safety of each and every one.

Anybody who has kids, or have had young kids, knows that when

you have seven or eight around the household that alone, in itself, is a major

task. But when you have seventy kids being transported, sometimes in very

difficult conditions, from their home to the school and return, it is a great

responsibility entrusted to individuals, and we and this department should take

the steps necessary to ensure they get home safely from a day's work at school.

I know the Minister of Education has turned a deaf ear to it.

He hasn't acknowledged the importance of safeguarding the rights of kids, and

the Government House Leader is a member of that very Cabinet and very government

that refused to recognize and live up to their commitment, to put dollars back

into education and the safe transportation of people to and from school.

It is a very serious matter. It is no laughing matter. It is

very serious, and I feel this government should act and do something before we

have another tragic accident here in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by the Leader of

the Opposition relative to the prayer of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, that the Department of Education and government institute a paid adult

bus monitor program.

Mr. Speaker, we all in this House know the history of buses

and accidents on buses on this Province. We know that from time to time

accidents have occurred, and the prayer of the petition... It comes from all

across the Province. The signatures I am holding here now are from the West

Coast of the Province, from Port Saunders and the Port au Choix area, the Great

Northern Peninsula, and the hundreds of people who have signed this petition

represent, shall we say, a mosaic of all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and say to the

Minister of Education that this is not an isolated concern. It is not for one

region of the Province. All parents in the Province are saying: We want the

Minister of Education to do more to promote school bus safety.

Unfortunately, as I said here one time before, I know what it

is like. I was at Mount Pearl Central High School some years ago when a young

Grade VII boy was run over by a school bus on the parking lot, so I know what

tragedy can do to a school. I have been there, and I can tell you that it takes

years and years for a school to be able to recover from that kind of tragic

event.

Mr. Speaker, we say to the Minister of Education, when you

are reinvesting funds... As we have said here in this House, the savings from

education should be put back into the educational system, but the Province has

not decided to do that. This government has said no to that, and they have put

forward their reasons, in spite of the fact that was the whole premise upon

which the reforms in education were sold to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we want to say to the Minister of Education

again today, based on the prayer of this petition and the wishes of the

parents... Of course, as we say here, this is what the people want. They have a

right to petition the government. So I ask the Minister of Education if he would

begin to address, in a positive manner, the whole issue of school bus safety so

we can look forward to a time when our school buses aren't the ones that are

brought in from other provinces; because in Newfoundland and Labrador you are

allowed to use the buses longer than you are in some other provinces.

We also want to direct the attention of the minister

responsible for bus inspections to make sure that buses are inspected properly

and frequently so that we have the whole issue of school bus safety addressed

from a number of perspectives. Also keeping in mind that if we are going to

close another sixty or seventy schools in the next year, by this September - if

we are going to have sixty or seventy schools close - then we are going to have

more bus transportation, not less bus transportation, so there are going to be

more and more buses on the road. You cannot close schools without saying we have

to bus more children, so I say to the hon. members opposite this is an issue

that is of great importance to parents. They aren't satisfied with the

initiatives of this government relative to bus safety. They want more action.

Their suggestion is that the Province support a paid adult bus monitor system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm hoping that some minister over

there will care enough to be able to get up and give a response.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand this

morning to present a petition on behalf of approximately 3,000 residents of the

area of Carbonear, Harbour Grace and Riverhead. These particular parents have

asked that I make representation in the House of Assembly on their behalf in the

presentation of this petition which deals with respect and in response to the

designation of schools.

What is happening in this area is that the high school in

Harbour Grace, St. Francis High School, is now being designated as a school for

grades VIII and IX only in this area. It is the belief of these 3,000

petitioners that the communities of Harbour Grace and Carbonear can both have

viable school systems, and therefore it is the belief of these 3,000 petitioners

that Harbour Grace itself, as a school system, can be established to accommodate

students from kindergarten to Level III.

Some of the points that have been raised, for example, in

their presentation to their local school board indicated that their position

will show the savings of tax dollars, it will avoid the enhancement and

construction of schools, and it will not require the necessity of additional

busing. All of these features are obviously important when we are looking at the

dollar value. In addition to that, a proposal was forwarded to the Avalon West

School Board, but as has often been the case, and I may say particularly with

respect to this school board, the petitions seem to go on deaf ears. There is no

response being given, there is no responsible response being given by this

board, to not only, now, the residents of Harbour Grace, Carbonear, Riverhead

area, but we see other examples in Brigus, Brownsdale, Bay de Verde, just to

mention a few.

The people of this area require a response. They require an

answer. They need somebody who will respond to them and show an interest in

their concerns. Three thousand people is a significant number. To get 3,000

names on petitions of individuals in the Carbonear, Harbour Grace, Riverhead

area who obviously are sensitive to the decisions which are being made by this

school board is obviously something which this particular board, the Avalon West

board, has to turn its mind and attention.

I will provide these petitions to the Clerk. I would ask that

members opposite - the member for the area - ought to take seriously the

representations that are being made by these people in this area. Indeed, the

Minister of Education has a responsibility, I would say a legal responsibility,

not to just shove off to the school boards, as he has done in the past, these

appointed boards. The minister keeps saying: I will wash my hands of any

decisions affecting education and the future of our children in our Province.

The boards are there in place, let the boards deal with it.

That is not good enough. What happens when the board says: We

will not deal with it, we will not review a decision? It is then, and it is

essential, that the Minister of Education take an active role in decision

making. As I've stated before in this House, we are approaching a time which is

critical. These decisions are going to be permanent. They are going to be

long-lasting. The educational interests of our children are going to be affected

for a long time.

The minister must take an active role, and he must listen to

the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want to be heard on

educational issues. Here today we have an example of 3,000 people from the

Conception Bay North area who want to be heard with respect to educational

change and reform.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by the Member for

St. John's East.

Mr. Speaker, in the whole process of education reform we

talked about consultation, and the government of the day has committed to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador there would be lots of consultation and we

admit that there has been some consultation relative to leading and up to, I

guess, the new reforms brought about as a result of the changing number of

school boards from twenty-seven down to ten, but the parents of Newfoundland and

Labrador, on the school designations feel that there have not been adequate

consultation with them, and in certain parts of the Province, parents believe

that if there had been, to solve it more adequately, different decisions might

have been arrived at and decisions which probably would have been to the

betterment of the whole educational system.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are not surprised that the parents of the

Avalon West School District would indeed be petitioning the government to hear

their plea and to have a new look at the designation of Harbour Grace High

School as a Junior High School and these parents believe that the best interest

of their children are not being served and that the communities best interests

are being served. They are talking here of Harbour Grace, Carbonear and Victoria

and they are saying that they would like to see the Harbour Grace and Carbonear

areas retain their respective school system which would incorporate Kindergarten

to Level IV in community-based schools.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we cannot fault the people in Harbour Grace

and Carbonear and Victoria who want to have their schools maintain a community

focus, because many people in that area of the Province believe that the school

itself is part of their whole community structure and, Mr. Speaker, we say to

the government that before we finalize the closing of another sixty or seventy

schools next year, we should have a process of more open dialogue, more adequate

consultation and recognize that parents are a very important part of the

educational system.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition signed by approximately

125 people from Memorial University. They are members of an organization called

Enviromun, Mr. Speaker, which is composed of students, faculty and staff of the

university who are particularly concerned about environmental issues and their

petition concerns the proposed smelter for the Argentia area.

The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, outlines the

concerns that the residents have -

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, could you repeat (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Environmun.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The concerns expressed by these members of

Enviromun read as follows:

WHEREAS the impact of the various proposed power generation

projects to supply energy to the proposed nickel smelter at Argentia (over

thirty of which have been registered with the Department of Environment and

Labour in the first three months of 1997) are being assessed separately from the

impact of the actual smelter itself;

WHEREAS the time frame for the environmental impact process

(215 days from registration to decision) is too short to allow for sufficient

public input;

WHEREAS as the precursor of acid rain and the poorly buffered

lakes of the Avalon Peninsula are already showing signs of acidification;

WHEREAS the effects of emissions from the smelter on the

flora and fauna of the Avalon Peninsula have not been sufficiently investigated:

WHEREAS the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, in its public

documents, does not clearly state the anticipated composition of smelter

effluent, focussing solely on sulphur dioxide;

WHEREAS Premier Tobin has publicly stated that the best

available emission control technology will be used for the Argentia smelter;

WHEREAS the major population centres of the Province are

downwind from the proposed smelter site:

WHEREAS issues of slag disposal remain unresolved;

WHEREAS the proposed site for the smelter is presently

contaminated and the environmental impact of the requisite cleanup is yet to be

determined; - I will give the minister a copy of this so he can read it while I

am speaking -

WHEREAS issues of slag disposal remain unresolved;

WHEREAS the proposed site for the smelter is presently

contaminated and the environmental impact of the requisite for cleanup is yet to

be determined;

WHEREFORE we urge that firstly, the provincial mandate using

legislation as necessary, that the proponent, Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, use

the best technology available worldwide for emission control. They want the

Province to mandate that;

Secondly, the Province extend the time frame for the

environmental impact process to allow for sufficient public input at every

stage;

Thirdly, that the proponent's environmental impact statement

be required to include an assessment of the environmental impacts of generating

all the power needed for the project;

and fourthly, the proponent's environmental impact statement

be required to address all the specific concerns outlined above.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very distinguished group of residents,

faculty members at Memorial University, students at Memorial University and

technical staff at Memorial University who are concerned about environmental

issues. One of the most important concerns that they have expressed is how the

wording of the Environmental Terms of Reference is being put forth, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a lot of talk about emission control and at one point the Inco

officials were saying that the emission standards or the effluent from the

project here in Newfoundland would be 1 per cent or less than 1 per cent of the

emissions at the Sudbury smelter. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not the best

emission standards that are available because the most efficient smelter

technology in the world also, I think, owned by Inco has emission standards that

one-tenth of 1 per cent of the effluent currently at Inco. One per cent is still

10,000 tons of SO 2 , 10,000 tons of sulphur dioxide to be released

into the atmosphere, starting at Argentia but covering everything down wind from

Argentia which is a severe potential for acidification problems and a very

serious impact.

Mr. Speaker, the individuals quote the Environmental Impact

Terms of Reference as indicating a lesser standard than the best available

technology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the concern is that the wording

used by the proponent is not the best available technology. The wording that

they are now using is, `..leading edge technologies are to be used `where

technically and economically feasible.' They are not talking about leading edge,

they are not talking about the best available technology. It says, `...where

technically and economically feasible.' The petitioners, Mr. Speaker, are very

concerned that this will amount to them being used only where financially

expedient for the proponent. Now I know, Mr. Speaker, that these individuals are

not opposed to the smelter development. They are not opposed to it because they

know it is economically necessary for the Province and the jobs are going to be

very important but they are very concerned about the process.

Mr. Speaker, I will end by talking about the three main

issues, the main points that these petitioners are asking the government to deal

with. Number one, to hold the component to its commitment of the best possible

emission control technology, the best possible standards, not some wording that

is going to allow them to get out if they think it is economically expedient to

do so with something less than that. Number two, to allow sufficient time for

public commentary and input at every step of the process which requires a longer

time frame, Mr. Speaker, then that allowed. Thirdly, to ensure that the

environmental impact statement discusses all the effects direct and indirect of

the project on this Province which means including those from the increased

power demand, whether it is proposed by Voisey's Bay itself in their own

activity at Argentia or whether through purchase of power through other

processes. So these are the three main points that the petitioners are concerned

about. It is a very, very serious issue, Mr. Speaker. We cannot, just because we

are desirous of having these jobs, proceed without proper determination and

insist, we have the right to insist, Mr. Speaker, that Inco, in the development

of this smelter, use the best available technology in the world.

The Premier is on record as saying that, but the proponents

are using some little phrase that say, `where economically and technically

feasible'. That is what they say in their documentation. They have to be

challenged on that at the highest level. Government has to mandate that the best

available technology be used. The lakes and streams and waterways on the Avalon

Peninsula in particular will be at risk if 10,000 tons of SO 2 per

year, and other effluents, are allowed to come out of that stack at Argentia.

The lakes that are there now, that are already under threat, are going to be far

more threatened and perhaps killed from the emissions coming from the Voisey's

Bay smelter at Argentia. This has to be addressed, and it has to be addressed

now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to support the petition

presented by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi on behalf of the people at

MUN, the professors, the students, and whoever.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the environment. Yes, it is very important for us to

create jobs in this Province, but we should not create jobs at the cost of our

environment, which is the future for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The member spoke of the best available technology and, of

course, we should demand that with respect to the smelter going into Argentia.

We should demand nothing less than the best available technology.

I suppose all I can do, really, at this point in time, is

reiterate what the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi has said in his

statements in supporting this petition; but one of the concerns I have, of

course, is the rivers. It seems here that there have been thirty projects

registered with the Department of Environment and Labour to support the power

supply for the smelter at Argentia. Many of those projects, of course, are the

damming of our rivers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Come By Chance?

MR. J. BYRNE: What I support is the development of the

Lower Churchill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Reduce the emissions at Come By Chance.

Well, you know, what I say to that is that for every project that we put on the

Island with respect to the damming of the rivers, it reduces the potential to

develop the Lower Churchill. That is what we should be looking at, and now we

are getting into a panic to get the energy projects on the Island put in place

to service the Argentia smelter.

We cannot forego any restrictions with respect to the

environment. We cannot forego or try to speed up -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) offshore oil and gas

development project by the hon. Member for Kilbride. I strongly recommend it. It

is much better than that old (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

I could refer to the policy put out for the Member for

Kilbride with respect to the energy on this Island, but getting back to the very

important environmental issues on this Island today... Another major factor, and

I don't mind saying it may have a major impact upon the Avalon Peninsula, is

that the population downwind from the smelter site... Preferably, and I don't

mind saying it publicly, I would have liked to see the smelter go in Labrador,

but we have to deal with the situation at hand now. What we have to do is ensure

that all of the available technology is put in place to handle the smog or -

what is the proper word you would use from the smelter?

AN HON. MEMBER: The effluent.

MR. J. BYRNE: The effluent from the smelter.

AN HON. MEMBER: The emissions.

MR. J. BYRNE: The emissions, that is the word I am

looking for. We saw what went on out there in that area with respect to Come By

Chance. You drive by and you have all of the emissions coming from that site.

There was pressure put on the House of Assembly to the government to get that

area cleaned up. It has been cleaned up somewhat, but not nearly enough I would

say.

This petition makes some very, very good points. They need to

be addressed, and if this government has any sense of responsibility to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador they will certainly adhere and try to follow

the recommendations put forward in this petition that has been presented here

today by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First off, I welcome the petition from the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi and the comments also from the Opposition critic for the

environment, and it is a very responsible petition put forward by people who are

interested in this subject, Mr. Speaker, a subject that is very serious, one

that we are taking extremely seriously with the environment assessment of the

smelter refinery complex.

There is a whole range of issues that have to be taken into

account for the development of this large industrial complex, probably one of

the largest smelters on the planet. As part of the evaluation, a whole range of

issues has been identified through the Environmental Assessment Act. Included

are air emissions, and a range of issues dealing with waste at the site, that

they produce. A whole range of other issues have been identified through the

environmental assessment process.

The project was registered. It is going through, now, a joint

federal-provincial environmental assessment process. The Federal Government's

environmental assessment is also being used here, and the different departments

that have concerns, including the Coast Guard and others about different

impacts, Environment Canada, wildlife, the different departments, also have

their concerns listed and being addressed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am not going to quote the hon. member

because I do not want to get him in trouble.

The thing is, we are doing a very intensified environmental

assessment process for this project. It will be one of the most detailed

environmental assessments that has ever been done, anywhere. I remind members

opposite, who are always getting up and saying, the environment is always

secondary in this Province - I have to remind some people: Long Harbour was left

to this government to clean it up and to put the process in place. ERCO was

there for a number of years and we had an environmental nightmare on our hands

out at that site. We took five years to do the assessment of what the problems

were, then we put in place a clean-up effort and we have the funds set aside

from the company; and that is because this government decided we were going to

ensure that that site was cleaned up.

It was left because there was no Environmental Assessment Act

thirty years ago or twenty-five years ago. If there had been, we would not have

what we had out there that we are still trying to live with and clean up and

make a proper site.

There are a number of other sites around the Province with

which we have been doing the same thing. They are left, they became orphan sites

and we have had to go out and find public money in other places to try to clean

them up.

Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Assessment Act, even through

it gets beaten up lately by some people out there, this Act allows for public

input all along the way.

When a project is registered, the document is public, it

gives a description of a project, whatever it will be, and that project is then

described and the proponent will tell you what they propose to do, the

environmental implication and how they propose to deal with it. The Department

of Environment and Labour looks at that project and then we send it out to all

the different government agencies and also the public. Our government agencies

that are responsible for different aspects, be it DFO federally, be it wildlife

provincially, be it anybody else, our own environment officials, water

resources, all of those officials get a chance to look at that document and to

give their commentary, along with the public. Anybody in the public can give

their commentary and when they do, the government then has to decide on what we

will do for further assessment.

In this case, this project is complex and it is large, and a

very much intensive environmental assessment is being carried out and it will be

carried out and deal with the issues that we are talking about here, that they

have identified.

The power supply for the smelter has to be decided; it has

not been decided yet. A number of proposals have been put forward by proponents

out there, Mr. Speaker. Each one of them has to go through the Environmental

Assessment Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am getting to that, just give me a

chance now. There are a few issues here, but I will get to that.

So, Mr. Speaker, all of the different power proposals,

despite what some people say, are all going to go through the environmental

assessment processes. So, when some people say: that is not being given the

proper due course - well, it is. Every proposal has to go through an

Environmental Assessment Act, it has to clear the Act, it has to clear the

process. And all of our proposals - every proposal that has come in is given due

consideration. That is occurring now, and the power source that is decided on,

if that power source is decided on the Avalon Peninsula, then the impacts for

that, along with what is going to be constructed at Argentia, have to be taken

into account.

As part of the environmental assessment of the smelter and

mine, one of the considerations that is being evaluated is the air quality

component for the Avalon, with the Come by Chance refinery -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be like the

Minister of Education in giving my answers, but this requires a bit of detail.

We are going through the environmental assessment process on power proposals.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am answering a question, Mr. Speaker. I

have a serious petition on my hands here and I am trying to deal with it. I am

not very good at thinking on my feet, so stop that, please.

Anyway, as I was saying so eloquently, where the air quality

component is under evaluation through environmental assessment, the impacts of

the smelter and the SO 2 emissions will be taken into account. The

power source, if it is built on the Avalon, if that is what is agreed to, will

have to be taken into account. We will be looking at that issue, and that is

being looked at in the environmental assessment. There are at least 250 days,

which is ten or twelve months, of a process for evaluation, and it could be more

for the evaluation. It depends on what issues arise throughout.

The other point that was raised here in this petition is the

fact that at Argentia there is already an environmental clean-up under way.

There is a specific $17 point-odd million expected to be spent now, this year,

on the clean-up at that site. We are going to be visiting the site in the next

couple of weeks to have a look and see exactly what progress is being made and

to have a detailed briefing further on those issues. We are also going to be

visiting Sudbury, to look at the smelter in that area and to get an idea again

about the impact. We have had our officials up there already, but we are also

going to have a look ourselves.

The point here is that every concern that has been put

forward by the public is going to be addressed as best it can be. The best

available technology is going to be required for that facility, because it is a

multi-hundred-million dollar facility, and we want to have the best

environmental technology, and I will be speaking to the company about that when

we get further into the environmental assessment process.

The other point is this: The power sources that we are

seeking as a province, all of those sources of power have to go through an

intensive environmental assessment if it is due and if the problems identified

need to be evaluated. The Environmental Assessment Act is working quite well,

and it is quite to the contrary of what some people say out there, that the

environment does not get taken into account. As a matter of fact, these days,

that is the biggest issue for a company when they are going to do anything

anywhere in Canada. Our environmental law in Canada is as strong as anywhere

else on the planet. The first consideration now for companies when they are

going to look to do anything is how much they are going to have to spend on

environmental protection, and that is a good thing; it is about time, and it is

good to see.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to

Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills, starting with Order No. 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mr. P. Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of

Justice, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has agreed to steer his

bills through. He is unavoidably absent. The first is Order No. 2, "An Act To

Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act," Bill 8.

CHAIR: Bill 8.

On motion, clause 1, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 2.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 2 in Bill 8, states that the the share for an employee

or agent of the sheriff is not personally liable for an error or omission in

respect of the discharge or purported discharge of a duty or function under this

Act.

During second reading, Mr. Chairman, this clause was debated

to some limited extent and I understood from the minister at that time that

there would be some attempt made to clarify what was meant by purported

discharge of a duty or function under the Act.

I have not had a response from the minister as to his

explanation or clarification on that. All I will say, Mr. Chairman, is that the

reason I express some concern on this issue is that one has to question what is

meant by `purported discharge'. It is certainly acceptable that there not be

personal liability with respect to the sheriff or an employee or agent of the

sheriff's office when he is carrying out his responsibility in acting in the

capacity as sheriff. However, when we see wording like, `purported discharge of

duty', one has to question exactly what is the

interpretation of purported

discharge. When does one draw the line between the actual carrying out of ones

responsibilities compared to the purported discharge? Does that mean the alleged

discharge of responsibility, an assumed discharge of responsibility? I believe

maybe the Minister of Finance is going to respond to this, and that was

essentially the nature of the question that was raised the other day.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to the hon. member's questions, I guess one might

say, a number of comments, one is that legislative people who draft these things

tend to draw them as widely and as liberally as they can in order not to miss

any particular matters that might not satisfy the strict

definitions of conducts

in this case or lack of conduct that you are trying to, in this case, ensure

against.

It appears to me, and as I interpret it, of course, we as

legislators pass laws and judge (inaudible) interpretive. But, as I understand

it, this gives a protection to the sheriff and the sheriff's officials for a

number of things; one is errors or omissions. So, one is acts, as the hon.

member knows, and the others are failures to act in respect of the discharge. So

you might very well act in carrying out your duty, or you might omit to act in

carrying out your duty. The other, I guess, to come to the point, or the

purported discharge of a duty or a function. I read that to mean where the

sheriff or his/her officials assume that they are carrying out a function that

they are entitled to carry out in the discharge of their duty, and later it

turns out that this was not one of their duties. So the purported discharge

seems to me to speak to the mistake on the sheriff's part or his/her officials

of an action that should properly be within the scope of duties entrusted to

them.

Now, we do have one of our legislative draftspeople here who

can perhaps shed a little more clarification on it, but that is my

interpretation of it. It appears to me to be one of these insurance-type of

legislative wordings that are thrown in to make sure we do not miss any

particular action or omission that should be covered in carrying out the general

intention.

If I can just say, the intention, and I think what the

section speaks to, is that the sheriff or his/her officials will not personally

be liable, and that speaks of good faith. If it were done maliciously, of

course, they would be liable, but if an official of the sheriff's office

honestly believes that he/she are carrying out their duties, even though they

may be under an honest mistake, that they are not personally liable for it. Of

course, the government, on the other hand, may be liable and that is more to the

issue of public protection. But in terms of the person, him/herself, if they

honestly make an error - and I had it happen when I was Minister of Justice - I

do not think they should be personally liable.

The sheriff at that time went ahead and sold something and

did not realize that he should have gone through the Public Tender Act. I

suppose he might have had that authority, but in my view he probably should

have. The question was raised here in the House and I basically said, well, yes,

I agree the sheriff made a mistake and what are you going to do about it? Well,

nothing could be done because it had been already sold in a way that bound the

government. There was not any evidence of malice or dishonesty, so the sheriff,

like other people and other public officials and as we do ourselves from time to

time, made an honest mistake, and I think in that case he should not have been

personally liable. That is the intent and thrust of the section.

The wording as to how these things get before the House

sometimes causes us concern, but I do not see that there is any danger of

misunderstanding the intent of the section. As I said, I think it speaks to an

honest mistake in how one might discharge a duty as well.

On motion, clauses 2 through 24, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order No. 3, "An Act To Amend The

City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Municipal Elections Act".

Are there any amendments to be proposed to this? If there are

not, I will just call it; Order No. 3.

CHAIR: Order No. 3, "An Act To Amend The City Of St.

John's Act And The St. John's Municipal Elections Act".

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I have just a few comments on clause 1. This Act basically

now is going to require that a deputy mayor be elected separately in the City of

St. John's. That was not the case in the past - the deputy mayor was elected

from within the council itself.

I remember bringing this up before the amendments to the City

of St. John's Act went through last fall and I requested, because there were a

number of people in the area who wanted a separate election for Mayor, that this

be done last fall; but the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs gave me

his word that he would bring it in at this spring sitting of the House and, true

to his word, he has done that.

I think this is a good move that is going to benefit not only

the council itself but the people of the city, who will have a direct say in

electing the Deputy Mayor of the City of St. John's.

That is basically all I have to say on that clause, Mr.

Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 through 14 carry?

MR. J. BYRNE: No.

Are we doing this clause-by-clause, or the whole lot?

CHAIR: Okay. Shall clause 2 carry?

On motion, clauses 1 through 3, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Clause 4, the hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

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

Clause 4 of the bill would amend the Act to allow councillors

to elect from within the council either a voted mayor and/or deputy mayor in the

event that no one was nominated to run for that position. So basically this bill

now says, if the council had a slate of candidates run and there was no one

nominated for mayor and deputy mayor, then the council themselves could elect a

deputy mayor and/or council from within.

Again, that is just housekeeping, I suppose, for the City of

St. John's. We certainly have no problem with that and we support that also, Mr.

Chairman.

On motion, clauses 4 through 5, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Clause 6, the hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: With respect to Clause 6, Mr. Chairman,

again this clause would - basically, if there were a vacancy of the mayor or

deputy mayor within two years of the election, then there would be a new

election to elect a mayor and/or deputy mayor, depending on which or both

resigned or for whatever reason decided to leave that position, but after two

years had gone by - less than two years prior to a new election - the council

themselves could let the position of mayor and/or deputy be filled from within

the council itself. Again, that is really common sense and housekeeping so we

have no problem supporting that also.

On motion, clauses 6 through 14, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I think there is some discussion

going on with regard to an amendment to the small claims Act with the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board. I will move to "An Act Respecting The Good Faith

Donation And Distribution Of Food," Order No. 6.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I will leave it until he is finished, because

he is the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board as well. "An Act Respecting The

Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of Food."

CHAIR: Bill 12.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3, carried.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And

Distribution Of Food." (Bill No. 12)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 4.

CHAIR: Order No. 4, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims

Act," Bill 1.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 6. There is some amendment.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We propose an amendment to

clause 6 of the bill by striking out in the proposed subsection 10(2) the words,

and I quote, "non-compliance hearing, or by contempt. I so move that amendment,

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment carry?

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have not had a

chance to read the two amendments being proposed, but I do not see the words "or

by contempt" in the proposed clause 10(2) of Bill 1. The proposed subclause to

subsection 10(2) reads: "

(2) Judgements and orders of a judge may be enforced by

orders for payment, including payment schedules, and by payment hearings and

non-compliance hearings, in accordance with the rules." The amendment proposes

striking out the words "non-compliance hearing, or by contempt." The words "or

by contempt" do not appear in the proposed subsection 10(2) of the Act.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

MR. DICKS: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, our

legislative draftspeople go to great lengths to ensure that they cover

everything, in some cases striking out words that are not even -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: There seems to be a difficulty with the

wording of the proposed amendment that is now before you. It refers to striking

out from the proposed

section 10(2) the words "non-compliance hearing, or by

contempt," and the proposed 10(2) does not contain the words "or by contempt."

So there appears to be some drafting issue that needs to be

addressed a little further before we proceed with this amendment. Perhaps, if we

could stand this bill down for a few minutes and allow people to read the

proposed amendments and see how they interact with the existing bill that is now

before the Committee. I think that the Legislative Council -

MR. TULK: Sit down until I say yes.

MR. HARRIS: I understand that the Government House Leader

is going to do that and -

MR. TULK: Do not take so long.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, what we would like to do here is

leave this in advance for a while and come back to it, so we stand down for a

moment. We will move to another order by consent. Lets move to another order and

come back to the whole bill.

Order No. 5, "An Act To Amend the Tax Agreement Act" (Bill

No. 3).

CHAIR: Shall Clause one carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday, I did raise a concern with reference to Bill No.3.

The concern I had was that regulations made under this subsection maybe dealt

with retroactive effect and I felt that that applied to the whole

section and

referred to all of subsection (1). There are five parts to that (a), (b), (c),

(

d) and (

e) and the intent of this bill or the principle was that it would

provide for the retroactively for the rebate to people of Labrador.

So, I had an amendment prepared, with the finance minister I

discussed and showed him a copy and I will pass this copy to the Clerk, it is

pretty straightforward, I will read it into the record. It says that: I move the

following amendment as seconded by my colleague for Cape St. Francis that Bill

No. 3, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement Act" which is now before the House of

Assembly, be amended by deleting the words and number, regulations made under

subsection (1) and substituting therefore the words and number, regulation made

under subsection (1) regarding the issuance of rebates for building materials in

Labrador and that would then enable the flexibility within the act that if there

is a part of another

section that might impact on that it would narrow it down

and effectible be able to function and do that.

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Regarding regulations made under subsection

(1), regarding the issuance of rebates for building materials in Labrador.

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I know the Minister of Finance wants to

have a comment, so the intent as I said, is that the principle and the intent of

this is to allow for the rebates to kick in because of the change of course from

our RST and the GST into a one harmonized tax and to be able to apply the

provisions of the act and there were two sections. I do not have the act in

front of me, but

section (

b) dealt with I think the RST and

section (

c) dealt

with the Excise Tax Act and I felt that this would not limit sections (

a) and

(

d) or (

e) if there were some other provisions that might impinge on this here

that might affect it. Maybe the minister will want to comment on that.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It comes down to a matter of drafting, the hon. member had

some concerns. Our intent in this is to ensure that we are able to cover a

situation now where there is no provision for rebate on building materials in

Labrador. We want to make it effective as of April 1, but the problem would be

that, the regulations, unless they are expressly permitted to retroactive could

only be prospective and therefore people who bought building materials in the

last several months or until the regulations are enacted would not be able to

claim the rebate and I do not think that was, certainly was not our intention

and I am sure the hon. members do not wish to deprive the residents of Labrador

that.

So, I do not have any problem with he hon. members intention,

the only think is, I know he has an amendment, but I would like to have a

sub-amendment because all we need to do to make it clear, I have two issues. One

is that, I think what we need to do is to amend the proposed new subsection (2),

so after the word subsection (1), we would have, regarding the rebates for

building materials in Labrador and what I have done is two things, one is I

think you deleted words that need not be defected, all we need to do is add

those words and I think you had said regarding the issuance of rebates, we may

need it to be a little broader because we would have to define what materials

might be eligible and so on. So, if we had a little broader -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, because if we make regulations regarding

the rebates that covers everything including the issuance, what is eligible and

what is not eligible and so on.

So, I agree with your amendment, but let's not confine it to

the issuance solely and what I would suggest we could do if you do not mind a

sub-amendment and I am sure my hon. colleague the Minister of Education would

second this, he is following the debate closely as always, we could just add

after subsection (1), regarding the rebates for building materials in Labrador

and if you are satisfied with that I would certainly consent to the amendment as

proposed. Agreed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

CHAIR: Before the Chair puts the motion - I want to

clarify something.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if we could get

together with the draftsman so that we could - I could hold this bill in advance

somewhat. We could get together with the draftsman because I seem to recall that

had this kind of thing last spring and there was a word stuck in whereby we had

to come back and change some legislation again, but maybe we can get together

with the draftsman in the next little while. I think we have come to an

agreement and it is just a matter of putting in the correct technical words.

Could we do that and leave this in abeyance until that time?

CHAIR: Yes. The Chair was going to say that we would not

consider the amendment until it was typed so that we could have a look at it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I do have a typed amendment

and the only deletion from this amendment and I can certainly pass this on where

I have moved it and there might be a sub-amendment which you may want to delete.

I spoke to the minister previously and I think there is a general agreement of

the intent of what I am trying to put through and I think it is an

acknowledgement on the minister's part. So I would leave that and he might want

to work from that particular draft by deleting three words. I think we would get

the answer because, one of the concerns I have is that, with the retroactivity,

applying it to the whole

section and I guess, no more than the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board's idle stated in the House here before retroactivity

and the former Premier said: I really think that any Legislature should avoid

retroactivity like the plague; and I have a concern with making it retroactive

to the whole section, just enough retroactivity to allow Labradorians to get

their rebate without a problem and that is the intent of it. Okay? So -

AN HON. MEMBER: No problem.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Could we leave it in abeyance until we get the

correct -I think we have two bills now, and move on, Mr. Chairman, to Order No.

CHAIR: "An Act To Amend The Residential Tenancies Act",

(Bill No. 15).

On motion, clauses 1 and 2, carried without amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I was just wondering if you referred to

clauses 4 and 5?

CHAIR: Okay, we are on the title so you can -

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

CHAIR: We are on the title so -

MR. J. BYRNE: Well I was up when you said that, through

CHAIR: Well, we revert to clauses 3 and 4. I did not see

him.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, just a couple of quick points

that's all.

With respect to

section 4. (1), it says:

Section 11 of the

Act is amended by deleting the words "the court" and "a judge" wherever they

appear and replacing them with the words "the director".

Well on second reading, Mr. Chairman, I spoke to this and I

do have concerns about that because I think that the situation may occur,

although the intent of the Act is to speed up the conflicts or complaints that

people may have, but I think in actual fact it could actually prolong that

because if a person has been complaining and he takes it to court and he has a

decision, it is likely that he may accept the decision, but if in fact it goes

to the director who is a political appointee, who could be biased for whatever

reason, Mr. Chairman, then in actual fact he may end up having to go through

that process and then going through the court process anyway. So what the

minister is trying to do here to maybe speed up the process, could, in actual

fact defeat the very purpose.

With respect to

Section 5, it is amended by deleting the

words "Trial Division" and the word "court" wherever they appear and replacing

them with the word "director", and the same argument applies, Mr. Chairman, that

I have concerns with that and I just want to make it known and reiterate what I

had said at second reading. That is about it, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clauses 5 through 18, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order No. 8, "An Act To Amend The

Collections Act", (Bill No. 16).

On motion, clauses 1 through 14, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Collections Act." (Bill No. 16)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 9, "An Act To Amend The Direct

Sellers Act," Bill 17.

CHAIR: Bill 17.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Direct Sellers Act." (Bill No.

17)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 10, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act,

1996," Bill 14.

CHAIR: Bill 14.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1996." (Bill No.

14)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the

draughtsman are ready yet with either one of those two amendments that are

proposed. If not, then maybe we could take a five minute or ten minute - I don't

want to rise the Committee and bring the Committee back again. Maybe what we

could do is take a five minute or ten minute recess and get the two amendments

put in order by the draughtsman and come back and do Committee.

CHAIR: We will take a brief recess. We can reconvene in

ten minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Eleven o'clock a.m.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

Bill No. 3.

MR. TULK: Well, we can do Order No. 5, Bill No. 3, first.

CHAIR: Okay, we have an amendment to clause 6. I think

all the other clauses were approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Oh, clause 6, okay.

MR. DICKS: One clause.

CHAIR: One clause, okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The Chair, like everyone else, is confused.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to clarify, there was an amendment. I was

proposing a sub-amendment that we now have drafted, which reads as follows:

Clause 1 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the figures "(1),"

in the proposed 6.(2), the following, and I quote, "respecting a rebate for

building materials in Labrador", and I think that is acceptable to the hon.

member who proposed the original amendment.

CHAIR: So that is a sub-amendment, is it?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is certainly satisfactory and it fulfils the intent, I

think, that the minister laid out in the beginning.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 1, as amended, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order No. 4, "An Act To Amend The

Small Claims Act", (Bill No. 1). I think we had that in abeyance as well and

there were some amendments that were being done by the draughtsmen.

CHAIR: Bill No. 1. We had approved clauses 1 through to

5; I think we are on clause 6.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: There seems to be some difficulty with what is

happening here, so I would move that the Committee rise and report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: This bill has been deferred until the next day.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to them referred, and wishes me to report having passed

Bill Nos. 8, 13, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 14 without amendment, and Bill No. 3 with

amendment, and request leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: On motion, report received and adopted,

Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

On motion, amendments to Bill No. 3 read a first and second

time, ordered read a third time presently.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the second

reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law,"

Bill 9...

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9 be now

read a second time. Are we into second reading, or has...?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

Second reading of the bill.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of

the House want to say that we have some concern with the particular bill. The

concern we have is that some of the clauses here are far beyond the realm of

anomalies and errors. While we recognize that every time we have a piece of

legislation like this, which is represented by Bill 9, "An Act To Remove

Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," this occurs from time to time, but

this year there appears to have been an awful lot of errors, or there is an

awful lot of anomalies. Because it is forty-seven pages long, and I can't

believe that there would be these many anomalies in Statue Law to occupy

forty-seven pages and certainly the Government House Leader would not want to

admit that there are forty-seven pages of errors in Statute Law. Mr. Speaker, so

this year this whole process is in and of itself, an anomaly. I want to be a

little more precise and say that some clauses here are quite okay. There is

something like seventy-eight pieces of legislation that we are affecting here

and that's a lot. That is a lot of legislation to have errors or omissions or

anomalies in. Nearly eighty pieces of legislation are covered here.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at clause No. 70, you will find that

there may be a host of other regulations that might be affected as well. So

because of that we do have some particular concerns. Mr. Speaker, there are some

clauses of this bill that are in the realm of typographical errors or I should

say that they represent changes in practices regarding fees and forms and other

apparently, what we will call, non-contentious matters. In particular, for

example, clauses 8, 11, 19, 20, 35, 38, 48, 54, 71 and 75, these clauses

represent only changes in typos. So we have no difficulty with that. These

clauses that I just named; 8, 11, 19, 20, 35, 38, 48, 54, 71 and 75, we are

saying these are all okay because obviously from time to time there will be

typographical errors made and we recognize that.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No, we did not say that. We said we

totally support the corrections of these particular clauses. Then there are some

other clauses that represent changes in fees and forms or these kinds of

procedures and they are okay too. In particular I want to refer to the following

clauses and I will list them out but we have no difficulty with the following

clauses; 2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 39, 47, 49,

50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 60, 61, 64, 66, 68, 69 and 73. Now on these particular

clauses we have examined them and believe that these represent, for the most

part - the minister will probably be able to comment on this a little later on -

they represent for the most part, only changes -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The ones with typos only?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Okay. The ones with typos only, we read them

as clause No. 8?

MR. TULK: Clause 8.

MR. HODDER: Eleven?

MR. TULK: Eleven.

MR. HODDER: Nineteen?

MR. TULK: There is a pattern right here.

MR. HODDER: Twenty?

MR. TULK: Twenty.

MR. HODDER: Thirty-five?

MR. TULK: Thirty-five.

MR. HODDER: Thirty-eight?

MR. TULK: Thirty-eight.

MR. H. HODDER: Forty-eight?

MR. TULK: Forty-eight.

MR. H. HODDER: Fifty-four?

MR. TULK: Fifty-four.

MR. H. HODDER: Seventy-one and seventy-five?

We believe that there is some reason to these changes. In

other words, these represent typos and the list I gave to the Government House

Leader a few seconds ago on changes in fees and form matters and we have no

difficulty with these changes; and then we wanted to deal with the matter of

retroactivity.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we remind the honourable House of a

statement made by the former Premier, Clyde Wells in this House on June 29,

1989, and I want to read the statement into the record because, at that

particular time, the government was introducing a bill where there was some

retroactivity being provided for in the bill, and the Premier of that day said:

"I really think that any Legislature should avoid retroactivity like the

plague." and he apologized to the House for bringing in retroactive legislation,

however as a parliamentarian, we respected his viewpoint, we did not always

agree with his views but in this particular matter we respect him as a

parliamentarian.

Mr. Speaker, what we see here of course is a lot of

retroactivity being applied.

MR. SULLIVAN: You agreed with him sometimes, I guess.

MR. H. HODDER: Perhaps in this matter we agree with him a

lot more than some members in the government of the day. You know, he is persona

non grata in some aspects of the Legislature now.

Now, there are some other, more contentious sections I say to

the minister and they deal with retroactivity and we have these listed as

clauses No.5, 21, 26 -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) 26? where did you get 26 from, that

is another anomaly.

MR. H. HODDER: That is the other anomaly - 32,

MR. TULK: Isn't 26, there?

MR. H. HODDER: No, 26 is not there; 32, 33 -

MR. TULK: What about 29, do you have a problem with that?

MR. H. HODDER: No, we will get there in a few seconds.

MR. TULK: Thirty-three?

MR. H. HODDER: Thirty-three, 41 -

MR. TULK: No 41, Harvey.

MR. H. HODDER: Another anomaly. I do not have the bill in

front of me here; 43? Okay, 26 and 41, 43, 45, 56, 58, 62, 63, 67, 70, 72, 74

and 76. These particular clauses of the act vary in terms of the (inaudible) of

the retroactivity. Some of them even we would admit might make some sense, and

obviously some of them do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: It is a case of where, I say to the hon.

minister, that in the process of legislation if it is a minor thing then we

aren't going to oppose that. But take for example, let's have a look at one of

them. Clause 45.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I wouldn't expect the Member for Topsail

to be able to follow the dialogue, but the Government House Leader can, and the

minister is paying very great attention over there. Let's have a look at clause

AN HON. MEMBER: The legal beagle can't follow it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now listen, you were warned about that

before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: In clause 45 here what we are doing is we

are amending subsection 13(1) of the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, and it

is "amended by striking out the comma and substituting the words `prescribed by

the minister and in the.'" Mr. Speaker, if you look at subsection 3 -

MR. WISEMAN: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The Member for Topsail on a point

of order.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cape St. Francis

has a few times been advised that he is not allowed to refer to any Member of

the House other than the hon. member. He continues to do so, so I would ask the

Speaker to remind the member.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not aware of any comments that

were uttered. I would be glad to check Hansard in the morning of the next

parliamentary day.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty we have with

clause 45 is because of the retroactivity that is proposed in

section 3 and then

subsection (3), where it says: "`

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), regulations

made under subsection (1) and gazetted on or before July 1, 1997 may be made

with retroactive effect to a date stated in the regulations of more than 12

months before their date of publication in the Gazette but in no case

shall those regulations be retroactive to before January 1, 1995.'."

We have difficulty with that, because in the Explanatory

Notes that come with the bill to clause 45 that completes that as well, it says

on page 7: "Subclauses (1) and (3) of this clause of the Bill would amend the

Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act by removing from the Act the requirement to

establish forms under the regulations and adding a proposed

section 34.1 which

would allow the minister to prescribe forms."

That isn't what it is about at all. In our opinion this

particular clause is not about that altogether. In fact, we should probably

ignore the explanatory note altogether because that is not what it is doing. We

have great difficulty here because this will allow the government to make

regulations until July 1 1997 that would be retroactive to January 1 1995. We

ask the basic question: Why? Why would you want to do that? Why would you want

from now until July 1 to make regulations and then say: Yes, but now these are

retroactive back to January 1 1995. In effect what we are saying is that that is

two and a half years.

So why would any government say we are going to take a

regulation and make it anytime between this date, today, if this bill were

passed, and July 1, and what we are going to say to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador is that we are going to make that retroactive back two-and-a-half

years. There must be some other motivation here. There has to be something else

to this, and we want to ask the minister: What else is going on here?

The clause, the Explanatory Note, doesn't say anything. The

Explanatory Note would have us believe that this is just a minor adjustment.

After all, the bill is errors and omissions. Now, the error might be that you

should have made the regulations back on January 1, 1995. In fact, that might be

the error; but it is certainly not an anomaly because an anomaly would have us

believe that there are minor conflicts between what one bill is saying and what

another bill is saying. That is not the case. There are no anomalies here. What

we have is an attempt by the government to do something now that it should have

done, and it knows it should have done, some time ago. In this particular case

we are saying that we want the right to make a regulation in the latter part of

the first half of 1997, that is going to come into effect on July 1, and we want

that to go back two-and-a-half years. We want to say to the minister, we would

welcome if the minister would stand and give us the rationale for that, because

we don't see the rationale here.

Since this affects the mining tax, clause 45, if I can just

switch over to it again, it affects the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act. It

says here it makes it a bill that is affecting...

Our difficulty is that government should tell the people what

it wants to do here. Tell us what you intend, and why. Give us an explanation of

why you want to amend the regulations under this particular act to make it

retroactive that far back.

Certainly, I know I have an hour to carry on this debate, but

I wanted to see if I could ask - well, the Minister of Justice is the sponsoring

minister, but I am sure that somebody on the other side has a rationale - if

maybe one of the other ministers, in place of the Minister of Justice, could

rise in his or her place and give us a rationale for doing it. Maybe the

rationale would be totally acceptable to us.

We don't read into subclause (2) the rationale that the

minister may intend, so I say to the hon. Minister of Government Services and

Lands - the minister of (inaudible) - that he should probably consider rising

and explaining the position of the government on this particular matter.

Basically, we ask three or four questions. I will make a

statement first. The government should tell the people what it is trying to do

by this amendment. We should have precisely laid out what regulations you intend

to try to bring in, what you are proposing. We want to ask the very basic

question: Is this an attempt by the government to cover up the loophole that has

occurred in the royalty holiday that Inco now enjoys? Since it is under the

Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, we have to ask ourselves a very direct

question. Is it the intent here to eliminate the tax holiday - the potential tax

holiday - that Inco now enjoys relative to the royalty regime that they are

trying to negotiate with the government, is that the intent? If that is the

intent, then we can address that.

So, maybe if the minister, who seems to be following the

dialogue, would you like to rise and state on the record what you think the

intent is and I certainly give you my time to give us the explanation.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the Opposition House Leader, I would suggest

that the reasoning for the retroactivity in terms of the regulation under clause

45 which he refers to, is to bring the regulations in line with the date that

the act itself was enacted, subclause (2) there indicates that. Now, in terms of

the interaction with the tax holiday for Voisey's Bay, I do not see this as

having a part to play in this because there will be legislation brought forward

in the fall in terms of the whole Voisey's Bay situation.

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

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

I am a little clearer as to what the governments intent is,

but not very much because he has not told us what regulatory changes the

government proposes and the whole purpose here is that, if you are going to make

it retroactive to January 1, 1995, we wanted to say to the government what

retroactive changes are you talking about? Precisely tell us what it is you are

trying to achieve. I do not hear the Minister of Government Services and Lands

coming forward and saying, here is precisely what we would like to achieve. So,

Mr. Speaker, failing that, we have some difficulty with the ministers answer.

Also, I wanted to draw reference to clause 70, again it

refers to the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolation Act and again we

have what seems to be more of a blanket approach to correcting a problem which

has been created by earlier blanket legislation, you might say. So, we do not

have a list of all of the subordinate legislation that is affected by clause 70,

I say to the minister. So, we do not know what impacts the various subclauses

are going to have. How can we go and say to the Legislature that we can agree

with passing clause no. 70, but we have no idea what the government proposed to

introduce by way of changes and again we have no listing of the subordinate

legislation, we have no listing of the various subclauses that would be affected

here and again we are giving a blanket thing to the government without any

precision. So, we do not know, I say to the minister -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Well, it is a case where if we are going

to be affecting certain clauses, I say to the Government House Leader, and you

want to make changes, then I think it is up to the government to say to the

House precisely -

MR. TULK: We already told you, it is something you

(inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: We have to respond to the proposed

legislation, I say to the Government House Leader and when you have a blanket

kind of statement like that we can only assume that there must be some kind of a

hidden agenda. So, we say to the Government House Leader, who is now

interjecting rather profusely, we say to him that if we knew exactly what the

pieces of legislation he wanted to change were then we might be able to react to

it in a more positive manner.

I will just look at the explanatory note because that does

not give us any great comfort either. If you read the explanatory note, again it

does not give us any great comfort because again we, as I said before, do not

have a listing of all of the subordinate legislation that would be impacted by

the various subclauses that are listed there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, but you have not given us a listing

of these, I say to the minister. With all the acts that are there it would seem

reasonable that we would have some kind of a more precise statement from the

government.

Mr. Speaker, I know that we can't dig it all up but the point

in digging it all up is that if we got this bill a few days ago, we have been

rather rushed in going through it to try to sort out those particular clauses

that causes difficulty and we have identified two of them. Clause No. 45 and

clause No. 70, these are the two clauses that cause us great difficulty and, Mr.

Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I can't hear the minister. Maybe the

minister can address that when he gets up in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, because of the rush here - we only got this act

a few days ago and - yes, it has forty-seven pages -

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

The hon. gentleman should know that -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. TULK: - this particular act has been in the House for

a week, at least a week.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it again now that you are recognized,

say it again.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. gentleman,

I raise a point of order and tell him that he is giving misinformation to the

House. I know he does not intend to but this act has been around for at least a

week in this House, at least.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would need three weeks to examine

that.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my point being made is that

when you have a piece of legislation that even the Government House Leader

admits has only been here for seven days, a week and here we have amendments to

seventy-eight pieces of legislation, forty-seven pages -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. Opposition House Leader responding to the point

of order raised by the Government House Leader?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes I am, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying,

when I use the word a few days - my definition of a few days would be up to and

including the number seven.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It is a matter

of a difference of opinion between two hon. members.

MR. J. BYRNE: As usual no point of order from the

Government House Leader, as usual.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, I want to read something into

the record. It is a matter of personal privilege and I read from yesterday's

Hansard from the hon. Member for Waterford Valley. He said this into the record,

"I cannot believe what I have been hearing in the last few minutes. First of

all, the Member for Labrador West says that he is against reductions in the

payroll tax. He thinks that is a great tax. Therefore, what he is saying is that

this is an appropriate tax to be charging on business firms in Labrador West."

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I actually said was this, "Mr. Speaker, the payroll tax

provides $70 million or $80 million a year to provide opportunity for the people

of this Province through the services we provide, whether it is health care or

education. The fact of the matter is, there is not a soul in this House who

agrees with the payroll tax, if we had revenue that could offset it, but I agree

more with providing health and education services to our people, that is

appropriate and able to do the job that our people need, before we get rid of

payroll tax.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the

comments he attributed to me yesterday.

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

point of order.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: What the Member for Labrador West said

yesterday was that: (

a) He wanted the $70 million, and he said the payroll ta