November 30, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 42

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we get to the routine proceedings of the day, the Chair would like to

welcome to the House of Assembly today, in the Speaker's gallery - and I want

to welcome these people on behalf of all members - Mr. Jean Pierre Kingsley, the

Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, accompanied by Mr. Robert Jenkins, the Chief

Electoral Officer for Newfoundland and Labrador; Mr. Paul Landry, Elections

Canada; and Ms Isabelle Collins, Director of Elections Operations for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of privilege. On Friday morning in this House, I

asked some very serious questions about a very tragic fire in Come By Chance,

only to find out that several hours later the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs had issued a press release. In the press release, the

minister states, ...it is inaccurate, erroneous and misleading' for

Opposition Member Bob French to suggest that families of victims of the Come By

Change oil refinery fire/explosion have not been given any information since the

incident occurred of March of 1998.

Mr. Speaker, on my point of privilege I would like to inform this hon. House

and the minister that not twenty minutes ago I spoke to Mrs. Joan Kieley in

Holyrood who assures me that she has received absolutely nothing since her

husband was killed in this very tragic fire. I will refrain from telling the

minister what she told me that I probably should say. I find this press release

to be very offensive towards me, not factual.

The minister goes on to say, I can only conclude that this is nothing

other than an attempt to grab a headline at the expense of victims of this very

tragic event.

I would like to say to you, Minister, that this lady happens to be a very

dear, personal friend of mine, and I find that remark to be very insulting to

me. I would like for that remark to be withdrawn because it is certainly not

true. It is certainly inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect. I would wish also,

Mr. Speaker, that there would be an apology made to me.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I actually reflected long and hard over the weekend with my officials and

indeed had come to the conclusion that I needed to read into the record a

statement yesterday in the House, but I refused to do so, asking the hon.

member, in fact, to offer an apology to this House and to me for what was in my

judgement and in the judgement of the officials both in my office and in

collaboration with what was recorded in Hansard to the press release that he

issued.

I will refrain from trying to quote directly until I get both my press

release and his press release in my hand, but my recollection - and Hansard has

recorded what I said in answer to his question in the House on Friday. What I

said was that there is a level of information available to the families and/or

their representatives. I stand by that statement as of March 3, by virtue of

court order on March 2. There was, by court direction and with court

restrictions in place, a level of information appropriately available to both

the families and/or their representatives.

For further certainty, I can tell the hon. member that I checked on the

weekend, discussed this issue with the Department of Justice officials and my

officials, and asked that for great certainty we ensure that in the event - in

the unlikely event, but in the event - that families or their representatives

were not aware that level of information was available to them, that they would

be make aware that there is a level of information available from the Fire

Commissioner's report with respect to that inc ident.

This government, and I as minister, have no interest in suppressing,

withholding, or otherwise deferring the release of information to the

unfortunate families who were so tragically affected by this explosion in Come

By Chance. Having said that, we are at the direction of the Department of

Justice and to some extent at the mercy of the courts in terms of what

information is available, the level of that information, and the format in which

it can be made available.

I can tell the hon. member that there was no intention on my part, in my

statement to the press, to do anything other than to correct the actual and the

factual record as stated by me in my answer to his question in the House on

Friday morning past.

If there is anything that appears in my statement that is worthy of an

apology, or requires further consideration, I will be the first in this House to

so make that available to the hon. member. I have no intention, particularly in

the context of this very, very serious matter, to in any way play anything by

way of politics by way of anything on this issue. It is too serious a matter for

that. Two lives were lost, two families will be affected for the rest of their

lives because of that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to finish up his point.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Others were injured. I will say this to the hon. member. I will take under

advisement his statement today and I will clarify the issue at the earliest

possible moment, either in the House today or certainly not later than tomorrow

at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point that the hon. member raised under advisement.

Statements by Ministers

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I

am happy to rise before the House today to give an update on the Department of

Human Resources and Employment's Single Parent Employment Support Program.

As you may recall, this employment support program is a joint initiative

between the Department of Human Resources and Employment and the Single Parent

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. The pilot program helps single parents

on income support obtain full-time employment and work toward becoming

financially independent.

When the department began this pilot program in the fall of 1998 we promised

to keep everyone updated on the success of the program. The early results are

very exciting. In just one year, 124 single parents completed the classroom and

job search components of this program. Seventy-nine of these participants are

employed in either full- or part-time work. That is 64 per cent of the

participants who entered the program who are now employed. In addition, six of

these participants have completely eliminated their reliance on income support

and an additional two participants are very close to self-reliance.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to addressing the

issue of child poverty and promoting a healthy and productive lifestyle for all

families in the Province. The Single Parent Employment Support Program has

proven to be an asset in addressing issues and concerns that are unique to

single parent families. This project's success is due to important community

partnerships that offer resources which meet the needs of today's family.

These resources include regular income support throughout the six week

program, child care allowance, extended drug card coverage and an earned income

supplement. All of these components together helps single parents discover they

are truly better off when they become less reliant on income support. It is also

important to point out that these program components would not be possible if it

were not for the combined resources of the Department of Human Resources and

Employment and the Single Parent Association. This is a great indication that

community partnerships really do work.

The next task for this project is to consider how we may expand the program.

The Single Parent Association is currently preparing an overall evaluation of

the pilot. This evaluation will inform all community partners on the

applicability of the pilot program model to other geographic localities, other

client groups and other sponsoring agencies. The evaluation will also include

cost benefit analysis of the current program as well as examine the potential

implications of program expansion.

We are all very proud of the accomplishments we and our clients have made

with the Single Parent Employment Support Program. I have shared various

statistics and details about what the program offers. However, the true success

of the program can be demonstrated in the feedback we have received from many of

the participants. When a client says a program has improved and changed her life

forever, it is a solid indication that government, along with community support,

is moving in the right direction in supporting families in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I'm sure all members of the House of Assembly will share in my continued

enthusiasm over the Single Parent Employment Support Program. I look forward to

keeping people updated on future accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I regret that we on this side did not receive a copy of the statement in time

for the House. However, I do note that it may have inadvertently been delivered

to the member's office for the District of St. John's West.

We want to say to the government that this particular initiative is a

positive initiative. We want to say that when we help single parents make that

transition from dependency to independency then we have made a very positive

move not only in the child's life, but in the parent's life and in the

extended family. We know that child poverty is a real thing, it is a daily

thing. We know that 25,000 children go to school every day in this Province

without adequate nutrition. We say to the minister that this kind of pilot

should also be available in other parts of the Province. It is now available, as

I understand it, predominantly in the St. John's region, but of course people

in rural Newfoundland also have a need for help to make the transition from

dependency to independency. We ask the minister if she would consider extending

the program so that it is available equally throughout the Province to all of

the single parents. Again, we say to the minister that this is a positive

initiative. We wan t to see it expanded even further to

make sure all families and all single parents have equal opportunity to

participate.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also did not receive the statement in advance but I understand the

minister is going to do something about it.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that regular income

support, child care, extended drug card and an earned income supplement will

help a single parent to be part of the workforce. This is the second time the

minister has reported on this pilot project. A pilot sets out the direction.

What this policy needs is a captain to ensure that the ship gets to port. If

this program works, as we know it did, it ought to be available to all single

parents in the Province who want to avail of it. Because we do want single

parents to have the support that they need to be able to provide properly for

their families and to ensure that whatever problems that family has can be

resolved through the parent being able to work.

I ask the minister to immediately adopt a procedure of having this policy in

effect for all single parents in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to announce the

development of a Prescription Drug Monitoring Pilot Program which will help us

to identify and address prescription drug abuse and misuse in our Province.

This new program is the result of a collaboration of government, physicians,

pharmacists and other related health care professionals. Government has

committed $600,000 over the next two years for this pilot project.

Despite efforts to contain the abuse and misuse of prescription drugs almost

all sectors of society are now affected in some way as health care and

regulatory officials try to contain the problem.

Medications are accessed both through legal and illegal means. For example,

medications have been accessed through break and entry and armed robbery,

fraudulent prescriptions, multiple doctoring, and excessive or inappropriate

prescribing by physicians.

Medication abuse and misuse is of great concern, not only because of the

health care costs increase, but of far greater consequence is the number of

people whose lives are negatively impacted from such abuse. Prescription drug

abuse and misuse can have a significant impact on many areas of daily living

including parenting, school attendance and performance, employee attendance and

performance, domestic relationships, and a person's overall health status.

The new Program will provide a means of monitoring the purchases of certain

classes of medications with a potential for abuse and misuse. The program will

be operated by the Newfoundland Medical Board, NMB, along with an advisory board

consisting of other health care professionals. The Newfoundland Medical Board

will have the authority to act on the resulting information and/or inform the

appropriate parties when a situation is identified.

I would like to emphasize that this program will be operated by health care

professionals who are already very familiar with the importance of patient

confidentiality. A number of safeguards have been put in place. Only the

Newfoundland Medical Board will have access to patient identifying information.

The advisory board, while not privy to this information, will advise the

Newfoundland Medical Board of the types of circumstances which may require

followup by other organizations such as the RNC.

This monitoring initiative will help us to identify and address areas of

concern, be it individual patients in need of treatment services, or the need to

educate health care professionals in areas of appropriate drug use and

identification of signs of abuse and misuse.

Legitimate use of prescription drugs will not be affected. In fact, we are

focusing on three main groups: narcotics, benzodiazepines which include Valium

and Librium, and also controlled drugs such as Ritalin. What we will be

targeting is the abuse and misuse which often results when medications are used

inappropriately, either not for the intended purpose or for longer periods or at

higher doses than recommended. It is important to note as well that other

medications like heart medications, antibiotics and other drugs are not included

in this prescription monitoring program.

Government is pleased to be able to collaborate with all of our partners on

this initiative. Working together with them and our advisory board, I am certain

that we can help address these issues, for the betterment of the health and

safety of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The pilot project, over the two years, will give us an opportunity to

actually be able to evaluate, to use good, solid evidence, before we make any

permanent commitment to funding and utilization of our resources.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We on this side of the House, Madam Minister, welcome this initiative and

your announcement. We note the participation of physicians, pharmacists, nurses

and other health professionals. I would assume as well, when it comes to the

Ritalin, that we will be interacting with the school system to make sure that we

can have potential problems identified and dealt with.

Madam Minister, again we welcome the opportunity that you are providing to

have these problems properly identified. We note your commitment to

confidentiality and your statements that legitimate use of all prescription

drugs will not be in any way affected. There is a level of comfort there; people

who are using their drugs properly need not have any concern whatsoever with

this monitoring program.

We say as well that we should be offering counseling services. We should be

well aware that many of these problems arise because there aren't resources

available in the community. We should note as well that family resource centres,

other counseling programs and sites would be a welcome initiative on behalf of

the department as well.

Madam Minister, we on this side support your initiative and we give you

credit for bringing it forward at this particular time, because we want to see

this problem addressed thoroughly and completely in our Province and try to rid

our streets and our communities of the negative affects caused by the unwise use

and abuse of all kinds of drugs.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

that there is need for greater control and access to prescription or

non-prescription drugs over the counter. It creates a lot of havoc in society

and I would say, from reports and things you read in the paper, it is probably

more serious a problem than probably alcohol even. I think it is important that

we create a system whereby tighter control can be exercised.

I would also like to say to the minister that the most important part of

this, once it is identified, is getting proper help in place for the people who

are addicted to the drugs and people who are abusing them. I think that speaks

well to the point that addiction counseling and agencies in this Province should

be funded greater than they are now to allow the people who do have addictions

access in their communities to agencies that will help them fight their

addiction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The supply management system for eggs in Canada is one of the best that

exists today. It is the envy of many producers in other parts of the world. The

system ensures consumers of a fresh and healthy product, at reasonable prices,

through its high standards and constant inspections. All provinces of Canada and

the Northwest Territories are part of the system through federal-provincial

agreements.

The national system sets the egg production quota in Canada and in turn, it

is allocated between the provinces and territories. As in the case for fish, we

have to operate within the quota limits that are set for the Province. In

dealing with eggs, we are imposed a penalty if the Province exceeds the quota

that was established.

The egg production in Newfoundland and Labrador has a positive impact on the

economy, with eggs being produced in all regions of the Province and providing

much needed employment to the rural areas.

In our Province today we have fifteen farms producing approximately 6.7

million dozen eggs. The total egg industry is worth $8.5 million to the

Province. Approximately 28,000 weeks of work are supplied on farms in the

Province through this management system.

With improved production technology and declining population, Newfoundland

and Labrador produced more eggs than were required for the market. Our surplus

rose to over 30 per cent so our Province, under several programs offered by the

Canadian Egg Market Agency, reduced the allocation by approximately 100,000

hens. As a result, the Newfoundland and Labrador allocation was reduced by

approximately 310,000 layers. Today we are still producing more eggs than is

required for our local market and as a result, we ship out approximately 2

million dozen eggs to plants Ontario and Quebec. Even though we reduced our

production, we are still in a surplus situation.

Traditionally, under the supply market system, eggs move freely between

provinces, therefore, some businesses market their product in our Province.

Since 1992, ten quotas have been sold within the Province. The present market

value for quota is between $25 and $40 per unit, depending if it is strictly

quota or quota plus farm assets. When you consider the cost paid by registered

producers, or new entrants for quota, anyone who operates outside the system has

a very big advantage compared to the rest of the farmers operating within.

The total levy being paid by our producers to maintain the provincial and

national system is twenty-one point four cents per dozen. This gives an

unregulated person a big advantage to compete in the marketplace. Since the

price is set by a national cost of production, an unregulated producers can use

the system to his or her advantage and price their eggs accordingly.

In 1992, the Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board, as did many boards across

Canada, reduced unregulated production from 499 to one hundred layers per

producer. In addition, it is prohibited to house multiple flocks under one roof.

A public notice was posted by the Egg Marketing Board. Anyone who could supply

proof that they owned up to 499 layers prior to June 1992 had their flock size

verified and were grandfathered into the system. The producer who has been in

the media has recently stated that he was in production for many years before

1992. He was aware of the grandfathering clause and never requested to be

grandfathered into the system until this past summer.

The egg, like the dairy industry, is important to this Province. Each

operates under a supply management system, whether it is national or provincial.

The systems were developed to stop the price wars and to institute and maintain

stability in the industries. The present system gives the producers confidence

when investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into their farms that they can

expect to repay their debts and make a living for their families.

The Newfoundland Egg Marketing Board is totally funded by the egg producers

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in consultation with our officials, we also have a new Egg

Marketing Scheme that we will be bring further to the House of Assembly, and we

are also going to be appointing a Consumer Representative to the Egg Marketing

Board in the next few weeks.

Further, given all of that, I have asked the Egg Marketing Board in the next

couple of days that they will be meeting to review the matter of the producer

who has been three times unfortunately legally convicted of producing. I have

asked them to review the matter to see whether or not there is a way to deal

with it. I wanted to make sure that we understood what the Egg Marketing Board

does and also how it operates within the Canadian system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for forwarding over a copy of his

statement.

This is admitting that our farming industry is facing a lot of problems in

the near future, and in the long-term future in this Province. Because of

declining populations, the inability of our government to keep people in

Newfoundland employed and keep them here in the Province, and the inability of

this government to come up with better ideas and better ways to use our

resources, to come up with new ways to use our new processing techniques using

eggs, I think we will need some good news when it comes to our farming industry

in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I do recognize the quota system in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and also the problems with people who are not covered

under the quota system.

I think, in the near future, we are going to have to sit back and look at

this industry in a different light, and I think this government and the

department are going to have to address some of these problems concerning the

out-migration that affects a lot of industries in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we are going to maintain our industries and maintain a good quality of

working conditions, and a good workforce in this Province, then we have to

address the out-migration problem. This is only one incident where it is having

a devastating effect on that industry.

I would just like to say that maybe in the near future the minister will

consider an overview and probably a new way of looking at the Egg Marketing

Board to see if there is any other way we can address some of these existing

problems today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. In the statement,

the minister kind of begs the question when he starts off by saying that the

supply management system for eggs is one of the best that exists today, and then

at the end says he has rewritten the policy; and he has not told us why.

Perhaps he can enlighten us further of what his new policy is and what is

really wrong with the system. I do agree - and I want to say first of all that

we support the supply marketing system in this Province for eggs and for other

items, unlike the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs before he was a

minister.

Mr. Speaker, there is a problem that Mr. Williams in the Goulds, who has been

fined a couple of times recently, has indicated publicly that he was unaware of

these rules, and provisions should be made that if, in fact, he can establish

that before 1992 he was producing eggs, he should be grandfathered in even at

this late date.

I look forward to what the minister plans to do to improve the system that he

already regards as among the best that exist today.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Yesterday in

Question Period, I asked him directly: Would government make a commitment to

debate any proposed arrangement with Inco that the government may enter into on

behalf of the people of the Province, that before they entered into that debate

- or once the agreement was done, sorry - that the opportunity for this

Legislature would be provided to debate it in this Legislature.

In response to the question, the minister said no. Yet, on May 18 of this

year, when the question was asked to the Minister of Mines and Energy about any

proposal for Inco, and mining and processing of ore from Voisey's Bay, would

it be debated in the Legislature, he said: We are going to do what is right for

Newfoundland and Labrador at the appropriate time. It will be fully debated and

discussed, I am sure, in this Legislature. He said, on May 18, 1999, that it

would be fully discussed and debated in this Legislature -

any proposal would be, not agreement. Yet, yesterday he said that it would not.

I would ask the minister today: Does your commitment of May 18 in this

Legislature, ensuring to the people of the Province that any proposal and

tentative agreement or agreement in principle that may be reached - does it

stand that before it is signed and binding on the people of the Province, that

this Legislature will have the opportunity to fully debate it and discuss it -

all of it - from A to Z?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess, in trying to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition and the hon.

Member for Conception Bay South, maybe I will try to answer the question a

little more fully today; because apparently they were quite taken aback by the

fact that I could give an answer in one word. They were a little surprised and

shocked by that.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope as well that my answers today - I dressed

differently. I hope I do not get any insults about my attire today. Actually, as

a result of yesterday, I can inform the House that my wife took my suit to the

cleaners in hopes that it is going to look a bit different or a bit better than

it did yesterday.

In any event, having been so disappointed and upset yesterday by the personal

attack, I did want to point out that maybe I misunderstood the question

yesterday. The question, as I understood it yesterday, was that the Leader of

the Opposition was suggesting that if there is going to be an arrangement with

Inco for the development of the Voisey's Bay project, that it needed the

consent of this Legislature. I understood that to be his question. I understood

his question was, if there is going to be a d eal, is it

going to be brought here so that it can be voted on in this Legislature, and

that it would actually require a vote. My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is no,

because it does not require a vote of this Legislature. The Legislature, as I

understand it - and I am always willing to learn, having only been here ten

years - my understanding is that the Legislature is designed to facilitate the

debate and discussion of issues, but primarily -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- primarily a place to debate any necessary change to legislation. We do not

contemplate any changes to legislation being required to facilitate and

accommodate a Voisey's Bay deal, so we do not expect there will be need for a

full debate in the Legislature of any legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is nice to see that the Minister

of Mines and Energy is back to his true form today.

Let me be clear,. There was no suggestion, no suggestion on my part yesterday

whatsoever, in the question I was asking. He failed to answer the question again

today so I will ask it again. On May 18, 1999, you made a commitment that any

proposed deal would be fully debated in this Legislature. That is clear.

Yesterday I asked you, in view of the fact that you could issue a mining lease

without coming to the Legislature, would you make a commitment that any proposed

deal, before it is signed and final and binding upon the people of the Province,

that it would be debated, fully debated and disclosed in the Legislature? The

record said that you said no.

I will ask you again: Will you make the commitment that if you reach an

agreement with Inco over the development of Voisey's Bay, that this

Legislature, and the people who are elected in this Legislature, can do the job

that they were elected to do, to fully debate such a major resource deal on

behalf of the people of the Province? The people expect no less. Will you make

the commitment right now today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: - to ensure that we get that opportunity to do it right

here?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again let me try to answer the question as fully

and completely as I can.

I understand - maybe again I can ask a question to the Leader of the

Opposition. Is he suggesting that he understands, believes, or would propose,

that there should be a full debate with a vote in this Legislature, by all

Parties, before any deal is struck with Inco with respect to the development of

the Voisey's Bay project? Because that is the crux of the matter of the

question.

If, in fact, there is any part of an agreement with Inco with respect to the

Voisey's Bay project development that requires a change of a piece of

legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador, it will, of necessity, have to be

fully debated in this Legislature and any required changes will have to go to a

vote in this Legislature. If there is absolutely nothing in any arrangement that

requires a change of the law, which is what this Legislature is for, is the

Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the on ly way that

there can be a full debate about any issue in Newfoundland and Labrador is if it

gets discussed in the Legislature when there is no requirement for legislative

action?

Mr. Speaker, maybe he would suggest, then, that during the last election,

while the Legislature was not open, that there was no public debate of issues in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I thought many issues were publicly debated -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - fully in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Legislature was not

open. I would like to know exactly what he is proposing with the questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

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

The government can go out across the Province on consultations on the

provincial ferry service; yes, it is important. The Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation goes out across the Province on the Gulf ferry service on

consultation; we support it. The government goes out across the Province this

fall with respect to consultations on jobs in the economy; we support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I am asking

the minister, is this what you are saying: that this issue is not nearly as

important as those others that you cannot take the time to debate it in this

House, to fully disclose in the people's House this most important deal? Is

that what you are saying, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

I am trying to ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask a more specific question

because, as I have indicated on Friday morning past, words are very important.

If I am going to answer a question - I answered no yesterday because there is no

legislation contemplated surrounding the Voisey's Bay project and any

potential deal with Inco. If there are legislative changes required, it must, of

necessity, come to the Legislature.

This government would not put itself in a position to be like the members

opposite when they were the government, with two examples that I bring to mind.

The Atlantic Accord, which is the framework for all of the developments in the

offshore, was signed outside the Legislature with no debate in the Province by

Legislature, one of the biggest issues about resource development ever in

Newfoundland and Labrador - and the government of the day saw no need to bring

it to the Legislature. We would not do those kinds of things.

What I answered yesterday is that if the Legislature is open, and if there is

a requirement for some part of the deal, it will be dealt with in the

Legislature the same as I said last spring. If the deal is finished in January

or February and the Legislature is not seated, everybody in the Province will

know what is in the deal -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - whether the Legislature is open or not. If there is

anything that requires the approval of the Legislature, it will be done in this

Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: On May 19,

1999, I asked the Premier, in Question Period, At what point do you see

yourself being in a position to fully inform the people of the Province what the

status of these negotiations are? To which the Premier indicated, during

Question Period: When we have a proposal that we think meets the objectives

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to full and fair benefits from the

value of our own resources, I would not have any hesitation at that point...

in discussing the proposal.

I would like to ask the minister today: In discussing the proposal, why is it

that this government is intent on circumventing the House of Assembly when it

comes to important major public policy issues? Will you stand by the commitment

that you made and your leader made to fully disclose and debate this proposed

arrangement or this proposed deal before you actually sign it and make it final

and binding upon the people of the Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe again I am seeking clarification as to what the understanding of the

Leader of the Opposition is as to the function of this Legislature. Is he

suggesting that matters of important public policy in the Province can only be

properly debated if it is done in the Legislature, even though absolutely no

requirement or vote is required in the Legislature for any part of it? Is he

suggesting that in the formal discussions that we hope to have soon with Inco,

that maybe I should take him along as a co-negotiator, and invite the Leader of

the NDP, and bring some other members of the public so that we can decide to say

to Inco: You are only going to have a deal if not only the government agrees,

but the Official Opposition must agree with every part of it and the New

Democratic Party must agree with every part of it.

I am sure, just like any other thing that has happened - like the Sprung

Greenhouse, for example, which never, ever saw the inside of this Legislature.

Not once, not one iota or word was ever verified, debated or sanctioned in this

Legislature about that arrangement until after the fact, when the people of the

Province were trying to find out what happened to their $23 million, done by the

government of the day. Maybe it is because they made such a mess of that kind of

thing themselves that they are suggesting that we cannot be trusted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - to make a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador without coming in and talking about it here first. We are going to talk

about it everywhere. Now he is saying, if you do not talk about it here you

cannot do the deal. What does he want of this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: For the

record, the Minister of Mines and Energy just asked me: Are you sure now? Does

that clarify it? I am not sure. As a matter of fact, I know it doesn't.

I will ask him this question. Earlier this year, the Premier stood up and

said: Never again should a government of the Province make long-term agreements

of the resource sector of our resources based on short-term political

considerations.

If you are committed to the principles that you have outlined one these

negotiations, and if what you have asked of Inco and demanded of Inco you are

going to get, and if, at the end of the day, you are going to get it, then why

won't you debate it here? What are you afraid of, that you will not bring it

before this Legislature for everybody to see? I ask the minister: What is it

that causes you to have an allergic reaction to the House of Assembly and

debating fully this proposed deal with Inco?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again, just for the record, because I continue

to point out that words are going to be critically important in this debate,

there is no proposal from Inco. There is not a proposal from Inco. Hopefully,

there will be a proposal from Inco some time soon.

Again, I ask the Leader of the Opposition: What is the role of the

Legislature that if, in a proposed deal, there is no vote required of this

Legislature?

Unlike things like the Churchill Falls deal, in which a brand new law was

being brought into place - and, by the way, just for the historical record, the

Opposition of the day, the Progressive Conservative Opposition of the day, voted

for the Churchill Falls deal in the Legislature because it was required, because

there was new law that had to be established in the Province at the time in

order for the deal to occur. The law with respect to negotiating an arrangement

with Inco was debated in this Legislature last year at this time when the new

Minerals Act and the new

section 31, with the support of the Opposition, was

fully endorsed in this Legislature - unanimous - that the Cabinet - here is what

the law says, not the Legislature. It says: The Cabinet is given the right to

put processing restrictions on any new mining development in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to -

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition did not ask that the Legislature be given the right, or that

it come to the Legislature for approval. They agreed that the Cabinet should

have the right, and the Cabinet will exercise the right in the best interest of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker,

my questions today are for the Minister of Education. Madam minister, presently

the students involved in the K-12 system in this Province face a curriculum,

certainly denuded of Newfoundland and Labrador's rich history. Minister, why

has your department eliminated courses from the provincial curriculum which deal

directly with our rich history and culture?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question

because I certainly agree with him on the relevance of Newfoundland history and

the importance of ensuring that it is part of the curriculum in our K-12 system.

There is a significant amount of Newfoundland history in our curriculum today

at various grade levels throughout the K-12 system; however, I agree that we

really need to focus much more extensively on Newfoundland history and it is a

discussion that we have underway presently with interest groups and stakeholders

throughout the Province. I thank him for his question and recognize that it is

of concern to all of us that we try and make sure that we have more relevance in

our curriculum with respect to Newfoundland history.

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

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Madam minister, again it is good to see that you are on

line because the children of this Province who are going through the curriculum

in our schools know a lot about probably the Fraser River in British Columbia,

but when it comes to our own rich history, our own culture, they are coming out

of the system with very little in the way of knowledge with regard to it. Again,

many people have expressed concerns.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; he ought to get to his question.

MR. HEDDERSON: Specifically, what are you doing to address it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at this very closely as a

department, but we are not just limiting it to the people within the department.

We recognize that there are a lot of people out there who can make a significant

contribution in this area, which is why we have been meeting with all of the

stakeholders and the interest groups. In fact, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Heritage Society came in and met with us. Various artists, including people like

Anita Best, have e-mailed me to pass along their support for developing this

type of program.

We are consulting and we are having discussions with stakeholders, again

because we want to include them in the development of any curriculum. It is not

something we want to do solely within the department because we think there is a

lot of experience and expertise out there that we can avail of, and that is

exactly what we are going to do.

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

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, isn't

the real problem here that we no longer have a provincial curriculum? Isn't it

true that the curriculum used in our schools is an Atlantic Provinces

curriculum? Isn't that why you cannot prescribe courses on this Province's

history in our schools?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, there is a broad focus in our curriculum in terms

of a focus on history, but there are aspects of the curriculum today that focus

on different events within our history. So they look at communities in our

Province and look at putting them in a historical context. I would agree with

the member opposite that we need more in our curriculum with respect to

Newfoundland history. Is there enough? No, there is not. Is there some there?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing is that we have very creative teachers in our system who make

sure that even though it may not be in the curriculum they do ensure that our

students have a broad range of topics covered when it comes to Newfoundland

history. Our teachers are very good and yes, the teachers take a lead role in

this, but what we are going to do as a department is look much more closely at a

more comprehensive history program in our curriculum.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Acting Minister of Justice or Acting Attorney

General of the Province. A number of weeks ago the results of inquiry

surrounding the death of Eugene Rose at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth

Centre were released. The presiding judge was limited and restricted in his

recommendations by virtue of the very legislation ordering the inquiry into this

young person's death. Specifically,

Section 49(3) of the Provincial Offences

Act states: The findings of the judge shall not contain findings of legal

responsibility or a conclusion of law.

My question to the acting minister is: Of what benefit is an inquiry to the

family of the deceased person when the judge's hands are tied in this fashion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Justice is away on Her Majesty's business. I believe he is at a

ministerial conference of ministers of justice and attorneys general across the

country, so I will take the question as notice and pass it on.

MR. SPEAKER: A

supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take the opportunity to pose a second question and await the response

from the hon. minister upon the minister's return.

Not only are the findings and conclusions important to the family, but they

can serve as guidelines to all other similar facilities, and indeed the public

at large. Will this government take the necessary steps and changes to our

legislation to ensure that such findings and conclusions, when presented, can

offer assistance to our facilities and the public at large in preventing other

similar tragedies from occurring?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, again, we will take that question under

advisement and pass it on to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

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

My questions are for the Minister of Health. Minister, the residents of the

area of the Grace Hospital have complained of the soot ash problem in that area

for years. The problem has not gotten any better. In fact, the residents have

had many complaints over the past number of weeks. My question is this. Will the

Health Care Corporation pay the residents of the Grace Hospital area

compensation for damage to their property, vehicles and so on?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the member opposite

ask the Health Care Corporation what their plans are with respect to that or any

other issue around the Grace Hospital.

MR. SPEAKER: A

supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, the residents of Holyrood have experienced

damage to their vehicles. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro have compensated -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The residents of Holyrood have experienced damage to their vehicles and so

on. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro have compensated the residents of Holyrood.

The residents of the Grace Hospital area have gone to the Health Care

Corporation asking of this very same issue and they have said no. I am asking

the Minister of Health today, why make chalk of one and cheese of the other?

Will you step in and ensure that the residents of the Grace Hospital area are

compensated for the serious damage that has occurred to their property, vehicles

and so on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

As the member opposite knows, the Health Care Corporation have met with the

residents in that area to discuss the issue. They changed from a different type,

I believe, from a Bunker C to a different grade of oil to burn, particularly

during the warm months. You also know that the plan is to close the Grace

Hospital very soon, which I understand is part of the long-term plans with

respect to not doing anything at this point in time. As you know, that is slated

for the year 2000. So other than that, as I said to the member opposite, you

know - and maybe the Minister of Mines and Energy could shed more light on the

issue between Hydro and those people and the Health Care Corporation. Mr.

Speaker, you have the information as I have it.

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal. As we

watched in the last few days the developments on the Northern Peninsula, I can

tell this House that myself and other rural members have had the same types of

calls, same type of reactions in our district. There has been a lot of confusion

about what is going to happen in the next few days to get to that issue. I would

like to ask the minister: What is in place now for the Northern Peninsula to

resolve this particular issue as it relates to jobs in that area?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let

me say to the hon. gentleman, if he can keep his friend down there from

Placentia & St. Mary's, that this government recognizes that there are

still problems in this Province left over from the downturn in the groundfish

moratorium. Let me say to him also that there has been a great deal of recovery

in certain parts of this Province, and I will not go on and list that off. I

would be afraid that I would be accused of bragging about the fact that there is

economic recovery taking plac e in the Province.

Let me say to him that we know there are areas - and we are working with the

members responsible for that area to try and alleviate as much of the hardship

as there is on the Northern Peninsula, as well as in other areas in this

Province. There are some other areas in this Province that have some problems as

well. Let me also say to him that if he gets calls of that nature, the nature

that he is telling us that he gets, we would appreciate hearing from him. I

would, certainly as a minister, to see if there is something that can be done to

help alleviate the suffering while the economic recovery is going on.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker,

first of all, I'm sure if the minister stood and started to give us a list of

the good news review that the list on the other side of the coin would be a lot

longer, I will say to the minister.

There are things to react to it. I would like to ask the minister again to

answer the first question. What is in place now for the Northern Peninsula to

act immediately on the situation on the Northern Peninsula? The second question

is this. Can you tell the people of this Province, who are very confused on

ministers from Ottawa and ministers from this Province, when will the work - and

you can list it anyway you want; they are make-work projects, a lot of them are

- be up and running? Will it be before Christmas? I would ask the minister that.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that perhaps it

is a question that he should more appropriately address to the federal member

for the area. Let me also say to him that last week I think the Premier and the

Member for St. Barbe, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, announced

in this House approximately $1 million, maybe slightly over or slightly under,

for projects that while they are of necessity important to the tourism

infrastructure in this Province are also important from a job creation point of

view. I understand that work is starting on them today.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, here is the last question I will ask today,

then. Many people are asking this in my district today, on both the Green Bay

and White Bay side, and Bonavista. I have gotten calls from other parts of the

Province, on the West Coast, and so one. Could the minister tell us, with your

collaboration with the federal government on the FRAM-ED and FRAM, when can we

see action on those?

Because a lot of people are confused when we have our federal minister

telling communities that they are going to be starting up next week. We had one

situation in my district where the federal minister told them within two weeks.

That was two months ago, I say to the minister. There is a lot of confusion out

there. What you saw yesterday on the Northern Peninsula is indicative of what is

happening around the Province. It is starting to boil over. People want to know

exactly when they can start to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that I know that

he would love for -

that is not true, I should not say that. I will not say he would love for it

because that is not true. It probably might suit some political purpose. Let me

just say to him that we have already announced under the FRAM-ED program some

$16 million to $17 million worth of projects in conjunction with the federal

government. If his attempt is in any way designed to see that indeed there is a

split between the cooperation that presently exists between the federal minister

and this government, then I have to say to him that he is not going to succeed.

We will do whatever is possible, let me say to the hon. gentleman, to take

care of the people of this Province. I think this government has proven this

time and time again, in whatever is within our fiscal capacity to do to see that

the suffering of our people is alleviated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture & Recreation.

Would the minister confirm for the House that the concert producer, Wayne

Guzzwell, was paid a salary of $35,000 to produced the five week Soiree 99

concerts throughout the Province this past summer, and that he will be paid

$30,000 to produce Debut 2000, the New Year's Eve celebrations at the St. John's

Waterfront, a one night celebration?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact figures but Mr. Guzzwell

has a world-class representation. He helped produced the Olympics in Montreal.

He produced a number of significant events across the country. He is responsible

in the main for that wonderful gala that was produced for the Confederation

series here at the stadium that was carried all across the country. He is, with

his team, responsible for Debut 2000. It looks like already he has signed up

some fifty-seven television stations which will give us $90 million worth of

publicity, so every cent we are paying him is worth every single cent.

MR. SPEAKER: One quick

supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Guzzwell also produced the Liberal ads during the last

provincial election.

I would like to ask the minister why any of this work was not tendered, why

any of the work was not advertised, and why your only criteria seems to be that

you were part of the Liberal campaign?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I never heard such foolishness in all my life. He

had absolutely zero to do with producing ads for the Liberal Party. In fact, the

Premier produced a lot of them in concert with some professional people, much

like I would assume the Leader of the Opposition had quite a hand in the

production and the design of ads that were required.

Anything that goes to the special celebrations office, the hon. member would

know, as a corporation, does not require public tender. It goes out for

expressions of interest. For example, Great Big Sea, we did not tender to have

them come and play for us on the waterfront, but they will be playing for us on

the waterfront. The wonderful group, Kim Stockwood Band, we did not tender for

the Kim Stockwood Band, but she will be here and she will be playing. That

marvelous group from Deer Lake, The CATCH, the three brothers, they will be

playing - Timber and others. We do not go to tender because it is a special

celebrations corporation and it is not required to do so under the tender act,

but they do go for expressions of interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: I know the hon. member cannot handle all the good news, but

tourism has grown 31 per cent in the last three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Somebody somewhere in those offices is doing something

correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I hereby table the Annual Report for the

Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women for the Province for the

fiscal year 1998-1999.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

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

I have a petition today on the water export issue.

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

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

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

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

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

share.

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

opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff, secondary

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

and processed in this Province.

We have many of these petitions that have come back to us, and letters of

support by mayors of municipalities, by councillors. We have a number of letters

of support for the position that we have taken on this, and we know there is

legislation that is proposed to this House of Assembly. We have made amendments

to that legislation that has been proposed to the House. The legislation, for

some reason, has not been brought in for third reading or for Committee at this

point. We also know that the Minister of Environment is at a meeting in Alberta

where he is meeting with other provincial environment ministers as well as

federal officials. We understand that there are a number of provinces, including

British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and so on, that have some concerns and

reservations with the national accord that the federal government are proposing,

saying that there are weaknesses in that accord and that it has to be

strengthened. The Minister of Environment from British Columbia has actually

sent out a news statement and criticized the federal government for not making

their report stronger. She fears that it may shift some of the focus back on the

provinces.

We have no problem on this side of the House with a national accord. We

support the idea of a national accord. We support the idea, on this side of the

House, of legislation that will ban the export of bulk water from this Province,

but we want to ensure that in that legislation there are measures taken to

ensure that this Province will not be liable for any compensation if there are

challenges to the federal government through the NAFTA agreement or any other

such trade agreements. We want to ensure that any challenges that are presented

to the federal government, that the federal government of this country face on

trade issues related to bulk water, will not have any cost borne to this

Province at all, in any way, shape or form.

We support this petition. There are thousands of signatures on the petitions

that we have received on the bulk water issue. We support the petition and we

will continue to present these petitions in the House of Assembly until such

legislation has been passed by the House of Assembly to ensure that bulk water

is restricted from being removed or exported from this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for

St. John's South. This member has put forward a great number of petitions on

this particular topic and the petitions continue to arrive from all parts of the

Province on a daily basis. I can say to the hon. members that we on this side

will continue to present these petitions as long as the people of this Province

do not get a clear answer from this particular government.

We on this side have said that we are generally in agreement with the intent

of Bill 31. During the debate on second reading, nearly every member on this

side spoke on this particular piece of legislation. However, as the Member for

St. John's South has just said, we have certain problems with the varying

interpretations of certain clauses, particularly clause 7.

We know that the legal advice that has been given to our Party indicates that

there might be some potential liability to the Province, some significant

liability to the Province. We also note that the legal advice given to the

government indicates that this legal liability might not be as great as

indicated by the legal advice given to the Progressive Conservative Party.

What we are asking for, what the petition is seeking, is a clear statement

from the federal government that they will not, in any way, hold this Province

liable if this particular piece of legislation does not do what it is intended

to do; in other words, to relieve Newfoundland of its liability and to state

unequivocally that we will not be adversely affected by the passage of this

particular piece of legislation.

That is what the people of this Province want. They want a clear statement.

They do not want any possibility. While we can have different lawyers make

different statements, we believe the legal advice given to our Party is sound.

It is contrary to the advice given to the government by its legal advisors.

There is only one way to address this, and that is if the federal government

accepts its responsibility and tells the people of this Province very clearly,

in written correspondence, that the people of this Province will not have to

bear the responsibility for any adverse effects emanating from the legislation

that we have before this House for consideration; which has already passed

second reading and which is now ready to go to Committee but has not been

recalled by the Government House Leader in the last several days.

When this House opened two weeks ago, we were in a rush to get Bill 31 under

consideration almost immediately. After a great deal of debate on second

reading, it eventually passed in the second reading stage. It has not been

called in the Committee stage. Is that an indication, we ask the Government

House Leader, that the government is not now at all certain as to whether or not

it is -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: The answer is no.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: I interpret the Government House Leader to have said that

they are not certain as to whether or not this particular piece of legislation

can stand up to the rigorous tests that it might have to stand up to if it is

challenged and if Newfoundland will, shall we say, hopefully find itself never

in a position to have to accept liability for any adverse effects; but certainly

there is a difference in legal advice.

We can probably interpret the hesitancy to bring it forward for Committee

stage on the fact that there is some genuine concern. The only way to address

understand the nature of the legislation, they understand the intent that we

have expressed in this House, but that the federal government has not, to my

knowledge, at this stage, given any commitment that they would accept any

responsibility for anything that might happen because of the passage of this

particular piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: In other words, we want Newfoundland to be exonerated from

any responsibility in the way of compensation to those multinational companies.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not see the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The

hon. member wishes to respond.

MR. MANNING: I shall return.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, sorry.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I

wanted to certainly speak to the petition that has been put forward by the

Member for St. John's South.

I want to say first of all that it is very important that the people have an

opportunity to communicate to the House their preference on legislation,

especially through petitions. I also want to point out that we do presently have

legislation before the House that deals with this particular issue. It is

certainly a good piece of legislation that outlines government's position and

that reflected in the wishes of the people of this Province in terms of the bulk

export of water.

I realize the efforts that have been put into this issue by the member

opposite, and the great deal of work that he has done to solicit public opinion

and views on this, but there is legislation before the House and I think that we

should use that opportunity to debate and discuss the content of the bill to

make opinions known, to certainly put forward any information or additions that

we feel need to be done during the debate of this legislation.

Having said that, I also want to point out a couple of things. One in

particular is that this piece of legislation certainly demonstrates the

commitment that this government has to the protection of resources and the

development of resources in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: When we look at stopping the bulk export of water out of our

Province, we do so for the protection of the resource, for the protection of the

people, for the protection of the communities in terms of the long-term

development that can occur for many of us.

We use that same prudent, that same responsible manner in dealing with all

resources in this Province. We talked about Voisey's Bay, and we will use that

same responsible way and means of dealing with the resources in mining, in the

fishery, in forestry, as we have in dealing with the bulk water in this

Province. I look forward to the debate over the legislation. I think it is a

good piece. I certainly think that we should reserve our comments to debate the

legislation. It is rather unnecessary, I think, to

continue with the petitions in the House at this time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sorry the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair thinks it is

unnecessary, but I also have a petition. The petition deals with bulk water

exports also. Because we, on this side of the House, are wondering what happened

to Bill 31? Last week, it was all a go on Bill 31 and then there was a little

bit of concern raised on that side of the House, from what I understand. They

are not sure if we can be held liable or not now. Their so-called legal experts

are not 100 per cent sure. Therefore, we ha ve to take Bill

31 -

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I wonder would the hon. gentleman consent to calling the

Committee and passing the bill right now?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, right on the spot government wants to make

policy on the back of an envelope.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now, I say to the Government House Leader. Hold

your horses. One second. You do not own this place. You are not going to take it

on your back. It is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say, first of all, that if you want to put it in

Committee stage right now we will pass every clause of that with the exception

of the compensation issue. When you produce a letter from the federal government

then you can have that too! It is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman

wants to stand over there to accuse me of wanting to take this place on my back.

All I'm trying to do to the hon. gentleman is accommodate the wishes of his

colleagues. If they want to put this bill in Committee, we will put it in

Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All the Government House Leader is doing is trying to take up time on a very

important debate that I am trying to raise here with this petition, I say. We

are wondering what happened to Bill 31. I only asked what happened to Bill 31.

We were all discussing it last week and then there were concerns raised about

the liability. We have asked that you - that side of the House, the government

of the day - produce a letter from the federal government that they will be

liable. We cannot get that letter. Do

you know why we cannot get that letter? Because they cannot get the letter.

Because if they had it they would be waving it. The Government House Leader

would be on his feet reading the letter from the federal government, but he does

not have it to read. That is why he can't get on his feet and why Bill 31 is

on the back burner for the present time.

Our leader just stated that time that we will pass the legislation except for

the clause that has to do -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: No, Mr. Speaker, I am raising this issue. He can have every

part or

section of the legislation of Bill 31 except the

section that deals with

liability. The reason we raise that issue is because we believe, on this side of

the House, that the people of this Province can be held liable for compensation.

Until we see the government produce a letter from the federal government saying

that they are solely responsible, we are not willing to pass this bill, except

for the clause that deals with compensation. That is just a question that we

asked. That is why I asked: Where is Bill 31? Because I know that the government

are trying to get that letter from the federal government. They are trying to

get that commitment from the federal government to say that they are

responsible, but the federal government is not forthcoming with the letter that

deals with compensation as it relates to Bill 31.

There is the situation that we just went through with the McCurdy group that

we are not sure of yet, who is responsible for compensation. We do not have a

letter from the federal government stating they are solely responsible for

compensation, therefore we have Bill 31 put on the back burner. The purpose of

the petition today is just to raise the concern once again in the Legislature

and the Province that this is a very important piece of legislation, maybe one

of the most important pieces of legislation in the House during this sitting, I

say. It is very important and it is something that needs to be debated. It needs

to be debated, it needs to be discussed (inaudible), and I am very pleased to

stand and present the petition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: It is very important that I had the opportunity to stand and

present the petition on behalf of the people of the Province.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he supporting the petition now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very important that we support something we believe in, and we believe

on this side that this legislation does have a flaw in clause 7. I believe no

matter how many petitions we present in this House, it is our responsibility and

obligation to get up here and support it when we believe in it. I certainly have

no problem in supporting the cancellation of bulk water exports, because I truly

believe in Newfoundland and Labrador today that this resource that we have is

far greater and far better in our future than we realize.

I can see this first hand, particularly in my district in Green Bay, in South

Brook there with the True North bottling plant. I believe that if we had a bulk

water export policy that allowed for bulk exporting that plant would be closed

today. I believe there were attempts made by people that - I am not sure exactly

who - tried to make that plant look not viable and make it look like bottling

water is not going to be successful in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I believe it is so important to me in my district I have no problem to stand

here and support this legislation, if we have these clauses amended. I think

that if this government is concerned and true to what they are saying about it,

then why don't we have a letter from the federal government that protects us

from any compensation that would come about because of other companies coming in

here and saying that they should have the right to bulk export? I think that it

is important in this Legislature t hat we protect our

resources. Water is certainly a precious resource in Newfoundland, and everybody

who is here today can see when they travel around this Province how important

water is to all of us. It is important to not only us, for ourselves to consume,

but for our wildlife and the habitat for our wildlife.

We have to protect it every way we can. The purest of the water is probably

coming from underneath the ground, which is in the True North bottling plant in

South Brook. This water is in a very pure state. We cannot allow any possibility

of anybody taking any advantage of this resource and bulk exporting this water.

About a year ago I heard there were a couple of companies interested in setting

up bulk export from the Green Bay area, and I am very glad that did not happen.

If that happened today, we would not have that bottling plant in South Brook.

I'm sure that our bottling plants and other facilities that could use up

our water locally would be a great success in our future. This water that we

have is so good and so precious that we can be very proud knowing that if a lot

of places in this world today only had this resource how glad they would be, and

how prosperous they would be if they could utilize that resource for their own

consumption in parts of the world today where they do not have that privilege.

Gisborne Lake is probably one of the precious areas in Newfoundland that we

also recognize as containing pure water and good water. If that water was

allowed to be exported out in bulk, I think in the long term we would have been

looking back and saying we did go wrong. This was a wrong move and we should not

have done it. I think if the government is serious about passing this

legislation then maybe we could have this amendment today and we could probably

pass this legislation, excluding this clause 7 and amending it.

I think that the members on the other side also recognize the importance of

us not approving this bill. I think if they only tell the truth that they would

recognize that we do have a legitimate case.

AN HON. MEMBER: If we would only tell the truth?

MR. HUNTER: If you would only recognize the truth and the importance of

this bill, Mr. Speaker. I am just proud to stand and speak on behalf of the

presenter, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, obviously, by our very actions have fully supported the petition, which

is the whole point. There are a few comments I would like to make.

The petitioners - who are people who do not normally have access to this

Legislature; probably not people who can come to St. John's and sit in the

gallery and hear the debate and those kinds of things - sincerely pleaded with

the government, through petitions, to deal with the issue of bulk export. The

reality is we now see the Opposition up to its usual tricks. They talk about

wanting to debate issues in the Legislature. This debate, fundamentally, is over

in the Province. The government has heard the people, the

government has listened to the people, the government has already, with the

approval of the Opposition parties, passed second reading, which is approval in

principle, on the whole issue that is outlined in the petition, that water is

not to leave this Province in bulk for export. That issue is dealt with.

Here is the group that were crying today to have another issue dealt with in

the Legislature, suggesting the only place you could have a proper debate is in

this Legislature, even though there is no vote to be held. They are not

suggesting there should be a vote held on something but suggesting that there

might not be a full debate. There is going to be a vote held on this bill. All

of a sudden the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's gets up and suggests

that now the government was in a rush with the b ill last

week and where is the bill this week. We are willing to pass the bill this

afternoon. We are quite ready to pass the bill this afternoon.

The other thing that has already been exposed to the public - because nobody

who sends in a petition expects that members of the Legislature use the

presentations of petitions to debate a clause in a bill which has a place on the

Order Paper for full debate in a Committee - is that the paid lobbyist that the

party opposite brought here from Toronto to argue a certain point of view about

compensation, the paid lobbyist -

MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The paid lobbyist, P-A-I-D lobbyist, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all, the minister has obviously been misinformed.

The person who was here was here on a voluntary way. He was not paid at all for

any of his services unlike, I suppose, the lawyers that were brought in by

government. He was not paid at all by anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not by anybody. (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: To my knowledge, he came here to -

AN HON. MEMBER: To your knowledge.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I'm

just trying to correct some information.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are doubting your word.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is their right, to doubt it, I suppose. The people of

the Province bore no financial commitment or responsibility for Mr. Appleton,

the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador bore no financial commitment, other

than the fact that they paid for his plane ticket to come down here. That was

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't pay

his services (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No services, no contract for services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order that the minister has

raised, if the Government House Leader wants to call Bill 31 there is nothing -

the only thing that is exposed here is that government controls the Orders of

the Day. They decide what legislation they are going to call for debate. We were

told this morning it is Bill 28 so we are prepared to debate that. If the

Government House Leader on behalf of the government wishes to introduce Bill 31

we will pass -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: One second, now. Will you let me finish? The Minister of

Mines and Energy has indicated that we are trying to in some way hold it up.

That is not true. We have passed second reading. We have indicated -

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: One second, I say to the Government House Leader. If you

would like to hear me out, fair enough. If you are not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.

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

If government wants to call Bill 31 and move directly to Committee we will

pass every clause with the exception of clause 5(

c) and (d) -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, will you let me finish? One second. Will you let

me finish please? As well, clause 7(2), so that we can properly debate those

clauses and make the necessary amendments that we want to make. If government

does not believe in those amendments they have the opportunity to vote them

down. It is as simple as that. If the government are prepared to do that, fair

enough, we will do it right now. Right now, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: So we can put forward amendments that we feel are in the

public interest, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. E. BYRNE: What more should the government want or ask for?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated, the issue has been approved in principle. He stated

clearly that they are not willing to pass the bill today, that they are still

going to hang on by their fingernails to some supposed problem with the

particular bill, some assumed problem that has already been exposed in the

public as being non-existent. It is shameful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that they are abusing the

petitioners to enter into this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been asked by residents of the town of Fogo to present a petition on

their behalf to this hon. House but it has created a bit of a dilemma. In

talking to the Clerk today about the prayer of the petition, or the Clerk's

Office, I was advised that it was out of order on two counts. Number one is that

the language of the petition was out of order and that it was inflammatory. The

second

part is that I was notified that I would have to sign the petition in

order to present it to the House. I do n ot feel I can sign

a petition that I do not totally agree with - with the wording - but, however,

my constituents have asked that I present this petition and I understand the

only way I can do this is ask leave of the House. So I am requesting that on

behalf of my constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. REID: Thank you. It reads:

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

parliament assembled, the Petition of the undersigned residents of Fogo,

Newfoundland, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus

to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that

your hon. House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly showeth;

WHEREAS the existing decision to remove the hospital from Fogo is unfounded,

fundamentally erred against all professional advice and opinion, and has caused

the effective destruction of an exceptional health care system on Fogo Island;

and

WHEREAS the proposed new location will cause taxpayers hundreds of thousands

of additional dollars, have inadequate and inferior fire protection, be removed

from water and sewer services, be located out of a community and residential

setting and jeopardize other health care services constructed to be adjacent to

the hospital; and

WHEREAS the decision will have a drastic and negative social and economic

impact on the Town of Fogo without compensatory measures and are contrary to the

long-term financial commitments of the community; and

WHEREAS the decision has the potential of eliminating the remaining amounts

of cooperation and unity on the Island of Fogo;

WHEREFORE, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to place the decision to remove the hospital from Fogo on hold

to allow another assessment of the sites so that a decision may be rendered by a

three-person, independent, unbiased commission.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments to

speak to the petition. I said many times before that there are issues that come

before the House that are obviously partisan in nature and we get the

opportunity in the thrust and throe of debate to debate alternate points of

view.

We have met with the group from Fogo, as I know the member has. This is a

difficult position for the member, I understand that. I want to be clear on

that. I understand the dilemma that you are facing. Our party was on record last

October - based upon the consultant's report that we viewed, that was done

from New Brunswick - of taking a position, clearly. We articulated it during

last October, and have up until this time, with respect to the situation on the

Fogo Island Hospital. It is clear that what has taken

place as well has divided the community, has divided the island. It is

unfortunate what has taken place there. It is a difficult position. People in

the rest of the Province, both on the Island and in Labrador, may not have an

acute understanding of what life is like on Fogo Island, or what hospital

system, the type of health care system they had, prior to this debate.

It is ironic when a member can stand in the House after a budget speech and

deliver such a commitment to part of his district that the ensuing events that

have occurred could not be forecast. I don't think anyone in this House would

have been able to forecast what has taken place.

Just for the record as well, we met with the representatives this morning

from the Health Care Committee, who, I understand, are probably in the gallery

somewhere. They met with our caucus to go through some of the concerns they have

laid out. I have been clear with members of the committee what our party's

policy have been. They have presented us information this morning. I guess the

commitment that we made as a party is that we could revisit, have a second look

based upon it, but we made no furth er commitment. I want

to be clear on that. This is an issue, I think, that all members of the

Legislature have a responsibility, to the extent that we can, to resolve to the

extent that we can, to ensure that the type of system ultimately that is

delivered on Fogo Island is the best that it can be.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having the opportunity to respond to

the petition presented by the member.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to present a petition on a topic that has been covered

already in earlier petitions. I have been asked to present a petition with

respect to the issue of bulk export of water. I will read the petition into the

record:

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

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

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

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

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

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

opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff from secondary

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

and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has continued and certainly was alive and well

during the summer months and in the early fall of this year where there was

significant debate, certainly in the communities on the Burin Peninsula, in

particular in the community of Grand Le Pierre. It was a debate that was joined

by many hundreds, indeed thousands, of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who had

some say and wanted to have some say, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy,

with respect to this issue of bulk export of water.

It is interesting to note that we do have precedents and we do have examples

of where this issue is contentious, not only in this Province, but indeed

throughout this country and the United States as well. In fact, we have

newspaper articles from The Wall Street Journal , The Financial Times ,

and the Canadian Report on Business referring to examples where the issue

of compensation is both addressed and debated by academics who raised concern.

The point therefore is that we must always be cautious as to what the

potential liability and exposure of this particular issue may be in view of what

government's obligation may be to any party or interest that is forthcoming.

When it is government, Mr. Speaker, and on behalf of this government, I say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, simply relax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy that if he wishes to take

part

in the discussion on the petition there will be an opportunity for him to do

that. If he wishes to discuss issues with members on either side of the House,

he ought to do that outside the Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister continues in the fashion he has, he will not have the energy

to participate in this debate. So I say to the minister, relax. As Mr. Speaker

indicated, he will have this opportunity.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in any sort of debate, in any argument, there are two

sides to the argument. There are two sides to this discussion. Obviously the

minister, the government generally, has brought in individuals who speak to a

certain side and to a certain argument representing their position. However,

what has been presented by members on this side of the House is an argument and

a position that should suggest to members opposite that there is a concern,

there is a doubt, there is a debate, there is a issue which has to be fully

addressed and debated in this House, and that is what government must take

seriously. It must take seriously the very real possibility that there is an

issue here with respect to compensation and with respect to the possibility of

liability and exposure that ought to be taken seriously. I would suggest that

all government do is read a decision in the matter of the North America Free

Trade Agreement, a case known as The Sun Belt Water, Inc. Arbitration.

It is a claim with facts that are similar to the situation that we are now

facing; and, if government were serious in protecting the interests of the

people of this Province, it would take heed as to what is happening in other

jurisdictions and revisit and rethink the legislation that is now before the

House. We, as a Party, and we, as members on this side of the House, look

forward to debating our amendments and proposing our amendments with respect to

Bill 31 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - so that we can show members opposite the seriousness

of this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my colleague with

regard to the petition that he has put forth. Again, it is a good opportunity

for me to get up and to, I guess, continue the debate with regard to water

export in this Province. Again, water export being a very crucial issue that has

been ongoing now for a number of years and finally, in the House, legislation

brought forth that will decide the issue.

The legislation, again, I support to some degree - except, of course, for the

sections that have already been mentioned.

When these people signed this petition, they signed it with the expectation

that their concerns would be brought to this particular House. I stand today in

support of these people, and I say people because it is very important that we

understand what the people are saying out there, that we listen, and not only do

we listen but we act. In this particular case, I am very proud to see that today

many of my colleagues brought forth these petitions.

With regard to continuing, we have to make sure that the people of this

Province are certainly represented in many different ways, and this is one of

the ways. If a petition comes in, we have to put it forth, and we will continue.

With regard to the legislation, again it came forth in a rush but sort of

slowed down. Again, as we have indicated on this side of the House, there are

certain problems with the legislation. These problems have to be addressed, and

they are addressed with the proposed amendments to the bill. Water is such a

precious resource and it is very important, when we pass this legislation, that

we are assured that this Province, that the people of the Province, the people

who signed these petitions, are not going to held liable.

With regard to the amendments as well, the expectation is that somehow or

another our federal government will send along that particular letter that will

alleviate any fears that we might have with regard to the liability that could

be incurred. I say could be incurred, but the possibility is there. We must make

sure that we do not have a situation whereby this Province is going to be held

liable for the actions, or lack of action, of the government in question.

Again, I am very pleased to see that this legislation will be coming forth. I

cannot say when. There is obviously some dispute as to when it will come forth,

but I am looking forward to debating, especially with regard to the amendments,

to make sure that the concerns of the people of this Province are put forth, and

that these people whom we represent get a fair return with regard to not only

the water resources but any resources to which we are referring.

Again, I stood in support of my colleague. I would encourage others to stand,

to make sure that the point has gotten across that, with regard to water export,

it is a very, very, I suppose, delicate issue, one that has to be dealt with in

a very thorough manner, and a thorough manner in which we make sure that the

debate that goes on here is an open debate, that you can get up and, whether it

be on a petition or an amendment, that the members here on both sides feel

comfortable in getting up and debating this particular legislation.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful opportunity to rise, to support

- again I say support - the legislation. I am not getting up and saying that I

am not going to support it. I am getting up and saying: Yes, with those

amendments we will support it. You can get support from both sides of the House.

The petitions that are coming forward, I hope that more come forward because

the more we have, obviously, the more opportunity we have to let this House know

how the people of Newfoundland and Labrador feel with regard to this particular

issue.

I look forward to the debate. I am certain that both sides - members on both

sides of the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I again make a few quite comments about this particular petition, I

apologize for my outburst earlier. I was really so upset with seeing that people

on the opposite side, for whom I have so much respect, standing up and

suggesting that they support something that I know they do not support. That is

always distressing to me. It threw me off that much that I uncharacteristically

blurted out a couple of things that I know I should not have. I appreciate being

admonished appropriately by the Chair.

The issue is this, as I have indicated: The petitioners, obviously, being

very serious-minded Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are very pleased today

that in fact this whole Legislature, without a single dissenting voice - not

one, not a single dissenting voice - has already agreed in principle with the

prayer of their petition that water in Newfoundland and Labrador should not be

available for export in bulk. Their prayer of the petition has been answered in

full.

Now, if the Opposition is suggesting that for some reason there is another

group of petitions around saying that clause 7, proposed by the government, that

talks about compensation, there is something really wrong with it and we want

you to go to the House and get it fixed - there is not a single soul out there

talking about that, not one, not a single soul, because it only exists as an

issue in the brilliant, brilliant mind of the export expert from St. John's

South who has now acknowledged that he is not the export

expert, and that in fact there is a paid lobbyist who speaks on their behalf for

The Council of Canadians.

My good friend, the lawyer from St. John's East, I would bet any money that

he would not sign his name to an opinion given, as a lawyer, that he would to

take to court, that supports the position that is put forward to suggest that

there is liability for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in this

issue. He would not argue that case in court, which is why I am surprised that

he stood up and suggested that he has concerns over the petition.

We have another lawyer in the Legislature, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi, who would not - I would bet dollars to donuts - take the case. They would

not sign on for the case to try and win that in court because they know there is

no substance to it. But, for political purposes, it makes for a half-decent

speech and allows them to waste some more time of the Legislature when they are

demanding that we must get in here to debate the pertinent, pressing issues of

the day.

This issue has been resolved in the minds and hearts of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and they know - because it has already been exposed - another

lawyer, who also happens to be the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General

for the Province, backed by other experts in the field, and backed by Canadian

government experts, has said that this is a non-issue that they are chasing

again - chasing, like dogs chasing after the school bus. The only thing I can

imagine is that some day the dog will catch the bus, and what is the dog going

to do with the bus? It will probably be like the IRA, I suppose, the fellow who

burned his lips trying to blow up the bus. It will be the same kind of thing. It

will be the same kind of situation.

They are so desperate to try to hang on to and create an issue that does

exist, they are even abusing the good-natured people of the Province who, in all

honesty and sincerity, sent in a petition with a serious plea that we ban the

bulk export of water.

We have acceded to the request, but because they so want to deal with the

issues of the day, like the bill we were debating yesterday - the first income

tax cut in the history of the Province. Did they want to get back to it and

debate it again today? No, they want to abuse the petitioners by suggesting that

there might be some fabricated problem with the legislation that bans the bulk

export of water.

In fact, they should be totally ashamed of themselves. I am ashamed that I

had an outburst, that I could not control myself earlier. I pledge myself to

better conduct in the Legislature, provided the Opposition will get serious

about debating the issues of the day and not provoke me into misbehaving to the

point that I have to be admonished and put in my place by the Chair of this

Legislature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Are we on Orders of the Day yet?

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order10, Bill 28.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 10, An

Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province.

Motion, second reading of a bill, An Respecting The Operation Of Mines And

Mills In The Province. (Bill 28)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it a great pleasure today to rise and, for the House, introduce for second

reading a significant piece of legislation, Bill 28, and to read into the record

the title of the bill,

An Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In

The Province. I guess the short term, in the parlance and normal speak, it

will be referred to as the new Mining Act.

This marks again a significant step forward in a major sector of the economy

in Newfoundland and Labrador. Just as a reminder, in this year past exploration

alone in the mining sector reached some $40 million worth of activity. The full

export value of the mining sector in the year past was in the range of $800

million - a significant contributor to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A year or so ago, the mining exports and mineral exports actually reached $1

billion, and it is expected to reach $1 billion and exceed it next year.

The main reason it is down to $800 million this year is because, as all hon.

members would know, the prices of commodities such as iron ore out of Labrador

West and so on, and nickel in the future, which we hope to export in its purest

form from Newfoundland and Labrador, the prices have been depressed through this

particular year, the markets have been down, so the value to the Province has

decreased marginally this year. But, again, we are talking about $1 billion

regular contributor to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at in the introduction of Bill 28 is the

maturing and the moving of the whole mining sector into its next and growing

phases of responsible and environmentally friendly mining activity in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are a number of significant components to the bill. I know that the

Leader of the Opposition has indicated that they expected Bill 28 to be called

today and that they have studied it in depth and in detail and are ready to go

through the whole of the bill clause-by-clause if they needed to today. We

certainly do not expect that today. We expect the debate in principle, because

again it is a significant piece of legislation, but I would understand that all

members opposite - because I am sure if they all wanted to speak to something

such as the Coat of Arms legislation, if that was significant enough to bring

them all to their feet with impassioned speeches for fifteen or twenty minutes,

I am sure they are going to take their full half hour allocation, each and every

one of them, to speak to such a significant piece of legislation as Bill 28, the

new Mining Act. I look forward to the debate and I know we will have some

further detail in Committee.

By way of introduction, there are a number of features of Bill 28,

An Act

Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province, that I would like

to bring to the attention of the Legislature. I do know for a fact that now,

with information technology advanced to the state that it is in Newfoundland and

Labrador, we have Hansard basically pretty well on line for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not have to wait for hard copies. There are

people, I understand, who access the actual events and the recording of what

happens in this Legislature on almost a daily basis. There are many who are

involved in and interested in the mining sector who might like to check in and

find out what is being said about this significant piece of legislation as it is

introduced today.

This new Mining Act will define procedures for mineral resource management,

for management of the resource, for rehabilitation - a major issue with respect

to mining - that, when the mining ceases, what about rehabiliting the mining

site and trying to bring it back as close as possible and as near as possible to

its natural state? Also, it provides financial assurances - for the first time,

by law, in the history of this Province - agreed to and openly and fully

participated in by the mining sector and by operators in the mining sector. I

want to point that out for the record, that the representatives of the Chamber

of Mineral Resources for Newfoundland and Labrador have been intricately

involved in the development of this particular piece of legislation and they are

delighted that they are going to be able to tell people that they are involved

in the sector of Newfoundland and Labrador, and people in the sector in the rest

of Canada, North America and the world, that we have very responsible, leading

edge, new wave, legislation here in Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be

financial assurances to provide for these rehabilitation plans when mining and

milling operations cease, and there will also be provisions providing for the

return of mining leases to the Crown if, in fact, some operator finds himself in

violation of this new legislation.

The new legislation will apply to anybody who is a lessee, who has rights

under the Mineral Act or under the Quarry Materials Act. There are many smaller

quarries in Newfoundland and Labrador that have not had coverage under a

particular piece of legislation; not to say that the operations have not been

well run and have not been according to the laws of the land, but the provisions

for rehabilitation and the requirement to put financial insurances in place have

been lacking up to now, and they will apply to any leases under the Mineral Act

or the Quarry Materials Act.

The holders of any rights to minerals issued under other instruments or

grants, such as the Labrador Iron operations, will also have to comply with this

particular bill. Any surface lease holder or the operator of a mill license will

have to come into compliance with this particular piece of legislation.

Let me take a couple of minutes, if I could, to point out the main

requirements of the new act. There are several of them, five that I will

highlight in particular. I will not reference the particular clauses at this

point in time because I know that the Opposition has done the clause-by-clause

and they know exactly where these particular components are.

The main features and the main requirements: First and foremost, the new act

calls for a mine development proposal from any operator of a new mine coming

into existence and into production in Newfoundland and Labrador, upon applying

for a lease to operate and permits to actually extract ore or extract particular

quantities and aggregates from quarries and the like for any new mine coming

into production, specific information on the planned project is required as a

part of a mine development proposal - s o,

before the lease is issued in the first instance. Mr. Speaker, this will apply

to Voisey's Bay if we are successful in having that particular project come on

stream as well.

In providing the lease, the new law will state that, before the lease is

issued, the proponent, the company that wants to do that, will have to lay out a

development plan that suggests exactly how they are going to operate the mine,

if there is to be a mill associated with it, what their production plans are to

be, and so on. A full development plant will be known before the lease is

issued, rather than just the tradition of past years, which was that companies

would get a twenty or twenty-five year lease and then from time to time they

would come to the government providing information about possible changes in

their production plans, their production schedules, their rates of operation and

so on. So a detailed plan for development is required with the application for

the lease in the first instance and it is required by law under this new piece

of legislation.

Also, there will be a requirement in this particular Bill 28 for operational

reporting on an annual basis. This will address a request to operators for such

information again as mine plans and production rate, because currently that kind

of information is only gathered informally. While the government asks for it,

mines can sometimes, much like the Freedom of Information Act in government and

so, suggest that some of their production plans and output limits and so on are

sensitive for purposes of competition in the marketplace. While they have not

refused to give the government the information, they were not compelled to

provide the information. So the new legislation addresses requests to operators

for such information on an annual basis and will have to be provided as a matter

of law rather than as a matter of deciding to have a good working relationship

with the government.

There are two other very important pieces along with the financial issue.

Progressive rehabilitation. This piece of legislation lays out by law that in

the development plan, if a mine moves from one

section to another section, and a

particular

section that has been abandoned or left is not in the future plans of

the mine, that if they have depleted what they have wanted and have moved on to

some other

section - whether it be in an open pit, a quarry or underground -

this particular legislation says that the company, the proponent, the operator,

must rehabilitate those abandoned sections as they go, rather than leave the

total rehabilitation effort for the end of the project when the mine closes. So

the notion is that as we move along rehabilitation and reclamation of the site

will be a work in progress by law, and that we will not have a circumstance in

the Province again whereby we could have a mine and a mill operation abandoned,

such as the unfortunate circumstance in Hope Brook, where at the end of the

piece an un-reclaimed, uncleaned up site is left, the company is gone, no part

of it has been reclaimed, none of the restoration has been done.

This particular legislation says you do not leave the whole operation to the

end. When it is determined in your plan that a particular

section or portion of

that operation has been depleted and you are finished with it and it no longer

is part of your future plans, the reclamation for that

part is to begin at that

point in time, and to be part of your overall development and operating plan.

With respect to rehabilitation generally, this particular piece of

legislation brings in the overall legislative requirement that every holder of a

lease on which mining has taken place will be required to prepare a detailed

plan of how the property in its entirety will be rehabilitated when mining has

terminated. So there will have to be a final reclamation plan as well submitted

to the government, to the Department of Mines and Energy, to the officials in

the department in the mines

section when they are seeking a lease. They have to

lay out what the plan is for reclamation when the operation will cease.

Because there is one thing that is certain about mining operations when you

are dealing with a nonrenewable resource. The certainty - and we have several

examples of it in Newfoundland and Labrador - is at some point the only thing

guaranteed about the operation is that it will stop. You will deplete the

nonrenewable resource. It will no longer be economically or technically feasible

or viable to continue the mining extraction operation. So the operation when it

starts is one day closer to its end, much like many of us when we are born. The

only thing about it, you are one day closer to the day when you will leave the

earth than the day before you were born.

It is the exact same thing with respect to mining operations. When there is a

plan that comes forward to say: We want to do a mining operation, because we

know that it will end, when the plan is put forward, the mine development

proposal, before the lease is issued again, part of the plan has to be: How do

you plan to try to do the best possible job of restoring the site to as close to

its original environmental condition as will be humanly and feasiblely possible

at the time?

All of those four components are brand new features of this piece of

legislation. Finally, to make sure that companies and proponents just do not

make those commitments and are not forced to actually live up to them, there is

a

section on financial assurances that I'm sure the whole of the group will

want to look at. It is

section 10, which is on pages 8 and 9 of the bill. There

which the proponent, the company, the proposed operator,

must also lay out a plan that has the approval of the Department of Mines and

Energy as to where and how they are going to put aside the financial capability

to live up to the plans they have registered. If they register a plan that says

they are going to return a particular site to its green field state - which is

not likely that it will go back exactly the way it was - but they will register

a plan saying: We will return it to this condition when we are finished and it

will take this much work and this much effort to do so. In most cases, that then

requires some money, some dedicated effort and some actual financial backing to

make sure that it gets done.

We have had unfortunate experiences only once or twice before in the past.

There have been very good reclamation of sites in Newfoundland and Labrador, at

St. Lawrence, at Daniel's Harbour and so on, but we do have circumstances like

Hope Brook where the company is now bankrupt. The company has no money. There

was a reclamation plan and it is not done. So now you have a company that

promised to do something but they have filed for bankruptcy. They are gone. They

are in a receivership. There may o r may not be some money

realized from that to actually do the reclamation plan. So to make sure that

that never happens again there is a financial assurance section,

section 10,

which most provinces currently have put in place in the last few years. There is

no such legislative authority currently in this Province but it will be here,

assuming that the Legislature sees fit to pass this particular bill in this

particular session of the Legislature. Hopefully that will be successful in

convincing the Opposition that this particular piece of legislation has merit,

deserves to be supported, and that it will be a positive step forward for the

mining sector and the mining industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and will

better protect our assets, our land and our property than legislation did

previously.

The assurances are there that a range of options are given. Either the

company will be asked to post an amount of cash before they ever start - so that

the cash is put there in a fund to be used by anybody, whether it be the

company, hopefully by the company because they will stay there and finish their

commitments, but if not that the cash would be there - or the government might

see fit that a bond might be more appropriate to be posted, much as we do with

other kinds of institutions and facilities in the Province. We ask them to post

a bond which then the bank pays on their behalf rather than have to put up cash

at the beginning. Other kinds of security and collateral will be available and

required so that we can have a guarantee that the money will be there at the end

to actually deal with the reclamation plan.

The provision of the financial assurance is an essential component basically

to ensure that the Province does not become liable for site reclamation upon

mine closure, either planned or unplanned. So whether the closure of the mine is

a planned event or whether the closure is unplanned because of downturn in

commodity prices or things of that nature, we want to make sure that the money

is in place, that the financial assurance and security is in place, to make sure

that the reclamation can proceed with or without the company still being

present.

The environmental issues which must be addressed at the Hope Brook mine, for

example, could be substantial. I spoke to the press outside the Legislature