Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 22 November 1999 (44th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLIV No. 36)
1999-11-22
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 22, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 36
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we call the routine proceedings, the Chair would like to rule on several points
that were raised on Thursday and Friday, when we last sat.
On Thursday, November 18, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova raised a point of order
with respect to the way in which questions were being asked. The hon. member cited
Beauchesne, 409.(8) which states that a question previously answered must not be asked
again. The hon. the Member from Terra Nova goes on to remind hon. members that a minister
is not obliged to answer any question.
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova is, of course, quite correct in his comments, and I
refer hon. members to Beauchesne, 410.(9), "Questions should not repeat questions
already asked although this does not mean that other questions on the same point are out
of order.
It is possible that a member could ask several questions on a given subject which would
not necessarily be exactly the same; however, the Chair wants to remind all hon. members
that it is in everyone's best interest if members phrase their questions concisely,
and that ministers answer equally concisely, and a variety of topics in this case could be
covered. If, in the opinion of the member asking the question, the minister's
response is not satisfactory, then he or she may take advantage of the Late Show to
revisit the question.
On Friday, November 19, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy raised a point of
privilege with respect to certain questions asked by the hon. the Member for St.
for St. John's West stating in Hansard that certain officials have told her what
government policy is. The hon. the minister states that the hon. the member is
misrepresenting what government policy is.
It appears to the Chair, in fact, that there is a difference of opinion between two
hon. members about the
interpretation and the application of a
section of a statute.
Therefore, in the Chair's opinion, there is no breach of privilege and no prima facie
case has been established.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to inform my hon. colleagues that Standard and Poor's
has upgraded Newfoundland and Labrador's long-term issuer credit rating to A minus
from triple B plus.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: Standard and Poor's also upgraded its long-term senior debt ratings
on the Province and on Newfoundland Labrador Hydro to A minus. The agency went on to
affirm it's A-2 short-term credit ratings on the Province's treasury bill
program and it's A-2 short-term ratings on the commercial paper of Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro.
This is the first time since the collapse of the ground fishery, and the credit
downgrades which resulted, that this Province has held an A minus rating from any agency.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, until today, we were the only Province not to hold an A rating from
any of the major credit rating agencies.
I am pleased to say that this is the second time in twenty-five years that we have
received a credit rating upgrade, and that both upgrades have occurred during this
administration's time in office.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: The other came from Dominion Bond Rating Service in 1998, which upgraded
us from triple B(low) to triple B.
It is pleasing to see Standard and Poor's, one of the most influential credit
rating agencies in Norther America, echo our confidence in the economic growth of
Newfoundland and Labrador through this credit rating upgrade. They cite strong GDP growth
in the past two years, which is expected to continue into the medium term, as an important
rating consideration. They go on to say that the Province's, and I quote, "
...firm fiscal restraint has resulted in the stabilization of the provincial debt burden,
even including the direct debt incurred to make special pension contributions."
Mr. Speaker, Standard and Poor's also note that offshore oil production is a major
contributor to GDP growth, that employment gains are broadly based, and that consumer
confidence has been bolstered. I would point out that their analysis has taken into
account the impact of delays in the development of Voisey's Bay, as well as the
recent tax reductions announced by this government.
This upgrade is good news for Newfoundland and Labrador. It enhances the ability of the
Province, and its Crown corporations, to access the financial markets on more favourable
terms and at lower interest rates. It affirms what we have said about the economic status
of this Province, and is yet another positive third party endorsement of the success of
our plan for economic growth and development. Finally, both at home and abroad, these
third parties are reiterating what our Premier has been telling the world - in New York
last week, and in Toronto again today - that Newfoundland and Labrador is a good place in
which to invest.
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 join in congratulating the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: We are pleased when the credit rating for this Province is upgraded.
It means, of course, that we are seeing some success in the growth of our fishery, the oil
and gas, and the total market value of our retail business.
We know, of course, that lower interest rates will mean that there will be more money.
Less money paid by way of servicing our debt will mean there will be more money
potentially coming into the Province to service some of the social needs we have.
We still have difficulties with out-migration. We have health care expenditures and
education expenditures. We have a lot of people who have fallen through the economic net.
We look forward to measures being taken by this government to handle such things as high
student debt loads, and the work that we need done in assisting some of our seniors to be
able to live comfortably from day to day.
Mr. Speaker, we say to the government: This is good news.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: We look forward to improvements in the months and years ahead.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While we are pleased that the Province now has an A credit rating with Standard and
Poor's, I remind the government that it got a D from the world wildlife fund for the
protection of open space in this Province. By any scale, they would get an F for the
number of food banks in the Province and the fact that 6.6 per cent of the population goes
to food banks.
If the rating of the Province is dependent upon the recent unfair tax reductions and on
the proposal (inaudible) by the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: - to turn over public service to private investors, then I would rather
have a lower rating and have better services.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to inform my hon. colleagues on the
status of the activities of the Ministerial Panel on Educational Delivery in the
Classroom.
The hon. Premier and I announced the establishment of the Ministerial Panel in August
of this year. The panel is co-chaired by Doctors Ron Sparkes and Len Williams, esteemed
professionals in the education field.. The role of the panel is to review curriculum and
support to the K-12 education system and make recommendations as to teacher allocations
throughout the Province and the breadth and depth of the Province's curriculum.
When government initiated education reform in the mid-1990's our focus was on
governance and bringing efficiencies to the administration of our school system. This has
been achieved with the establishment of eleven elected school boards from twenty-seven
denominational boards. Now our focus is on the classroom.
The panel has been mandated to review how teachers are allocated and how they are
deployed throughout the system. The panel also will be looking at the course offerings in
the K-12 system to ensure a balanced program for our students, no matter where they live
in our Province, whether it is in a rural community or an urban centre.
The Ministerial Panel on Educational Delivery in the Classroom has conducted extensive
consultations to date with a wide variety of interested groups and individuals across the
Province.
Consultations have been held with students, schoolteachers, school councils and boards
and community groups on the Burin Peninsula, in Clarenville, Gander, Grand Falls,
Labrador, St. John's and Spaniard's Bay, and there are still more meetings to
come.
In addition, meetings have been held with about thirty other interest groups and
individuals including the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association staff and
executive, a Distance Education Group, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of School
Councils, the MUN Telemedicine/Telelearning Centre, and the Newfoundland and Labrador
School Boards Association.
The panel is hearing a great deal of opinion and many concrete ideas to ensure a high
quality education system continues in our Province in the next millennium while
recognizing the challenges of declining student enrolment and the vast geographic
dispersement of our population.
The establishment of this Ministerial Panel is a clear indication that the government
of this Province is listening to those concerned with education in our Province. We are
committed to doing everything possible to ensure that all children in this Province,
regardless of where they live, have access to a balanced and quality education.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the final report of the Ministerial Panel which is due
on February 28 in the year 2000, and the commencement of the implementation of the
panel's recommendations in the 2000-2001 school year.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Education reform, indeed, is an ongoing process that has gone on through the years. It
is very interesting today to hear from the Minister of Education that the focus now is
going to be on the classroom, when, indeed, the focus throughout all the year should be on
the classroom.
I say to you, minister, that you are saying in the mid-1990s it has begun. I say in the
early 1990s there was a report issued by Doctor Williams that clearly gave a blueprint of
where reform should have gone over the last seven years. Those recommendations have been
ignored as have other reports, one of which I brought up one of the last times I spoke,
regarding Doctor Canning. I say to the minister that certainly it is time to focus, but
the blueprint was there. In actual fact, all that the reform has been the last seven years
has been a restructuring with very little in the way of educational reform that is
absolutely needed. Again, Dr. Williams gave an excellent report in 1992. We are now in
1999, and where are the recommendations? Like the Canning report, they are on the shelf.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: I would suppose that you will probably say to Dr. Williams what you
said to Dr. Canning. Maybe Dr. Williams would be out to lunch as well.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I welcome the focus by the Department of Education on what goes on in the classroom,
and the principle of equitable access to balanced and high quality education for all of
our children is of course most important.
I hope during the course of this evaluation we will look at some curriculum issues that
have been alive in the Province lately, such as the installation of a Newfoundland history
course in our high schools. I would like to see also a revisiting of the whole issue of
public examinations as a way of, at the end of the day, certifying that we do have quality
education throughout our Province in both rural and urban areas.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to inform hon. Members of this House that later today, I
will be introducing a bill to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
This bill is designed to improve occupational health and safety in the Province, as
well as the effective administration of the existing legislation in a number of key areas.
This bill demonstrates a flexible approach to dealing with occupational health and
safety, while at the same time maintaining and enhancing the high standards of health and
safety required for the protection of workers in the Province. It reinforces
government's commitment to working in a balanced partnership with employers and
employees to build healthier and safer workplaces for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
This new legislation will, among other things: place greater emphasis on employers and
employees with respect to the safe operation of devices and equipment at the workplace;
make occupational health and safety committees mandatory for workplaces where ten or more
workers are employed; provide flexibility in obtaining the services of medical
practitioners with expertise in occupational medicine; significantly increase the fines
and penalties that can be imposed for violations of the legislation.
Health and safety on the job, Mr. Speaker, is everyone's responsibility. Employers
have a responsibility to ensure a safe and healthy workplace for all their employees.
Workers have a responsibility to ensure that they work safely for their protection and for
the protection of their fellow workers. Government must ensure that the proper regulations
are in place to ensure a safe workplace and that violators of these regulations are held
responsible for their actions.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a strange time to be introducing a bill. While I agree that there needs to be
much more done to protect people in the workplace, and to enhance occupational health and
safety, there also is a lot that has to be done to improve the way people are treated,
when they are injured, by workers compensation. As well, it is ironic to see the minister
talk about health and safety and his concern about people's health and safety when we
see the same minister, just last week, ignore the health of people in this Province by not
tabling information, from a report that he has in his possession, on our water.
It is one thing to stand and say nice things in the House of Assembly -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: - but it is another thing to show action, and actions speak louder
than words.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for a copy of his Ministerial Statement. There isn't anything
more important in the workplace than occupational health and safety. I know that the
Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council worked very hard over the past while
putting together their recommendations for the minister to act upon, and I am pleased to
see that some of them have been taken into consideration.
I do echo the last comments made by the Member for St. John's West, though, that
workers in this Province, when they do become injured, the support system for them is not
there in many ways.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to inform members about a recent
initiative that will give youth access to valuable career information.
The Department of Human Resources and Employment, in partnership with Human Resources
Development Canada, recently launched a new feature on our employment and career Web site,
the Newfoundland and Labrador Work Info Net (NLWIN).
"Career Information Profiles" provides our young people with access to over
150 occupational profiles. These profiles include provincial information on wage rates,
training availability, employment potential, and other information specific to an
occupation. These profiles were developed under the direction of the Federal/Provincial
Labour Market Information Committee with about $150,000 in funding from the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Agreement on Labour Market Development. Students hired by
my department and HRDC during the summer months gained valuable work experience as they
compiled this information.
Mr. Speaker, before this initiative, our youth would have to settle for career
statistics and background information that came from much larger centres such as Ontario
or Alberta. While this information was useful, it didn't reflect the unique
characteristics of our provincial labour market. Now, when a young person accesses
information through our Web site, either at home or in their schools, they will be reading
local labour market information. They also learn which provincial educational institutions
offer training for a particular career, where in the Province they can find employment,
and the current labour market status for a particular career.
Young people need detailed information on career and educational opportunities that
exist right here in our home Province. In addition, thanks to the labour market research,
our young people can see first-hand what job areas are currently on the rise in the
Province and how they can take advantage of current labour market trends.
"Career Information Profiles" benefits the entire Province. Besides being a
valuable resource of information for our youth, the profiles also promote local
educational institutions and local employers. Youth can discover that there are many
opportunities for them in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes the challenges our
youth face when preparing to enter the labour market. My department, together with other
government departments, has a variety of programs and resources to support our youth. This
latest initiative is another valuable resource to add to our ongoing programs and supports
that address youth employment.
I invite everyone to visit Newfoundland Labrador Work Info Net, which can be accessed
through the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's Homepage. Once you visit the
site, I think you will share my enthusiasm for this. This is the first time in the
Province that such a broad range of career information pertaining to our own Province has
been offered in such an easily accessible manner.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Initiatives that get out youth into the workforce are always great. What I find,
though, is that when youth come out of school their credentials don't always match
what the employers are looking for. Probably what is necessary, in addition to that, is a
committee made up of representatives of all the markets out there that are looking for
people when they come out of school, that they could probably present what they will be
looking for in youth and have those particular items added to the curriculums in the
schools.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly welcome the addition of this information to be available to young people
in the Province on a Web site. I hope that, in addition and in total connection with these
career information profiles made available on that same Web site, is the Minister of
Education's recent report on post-secondary outcomes, so students can also look at
what are the outcomes that they expect to receive from various courses in terms of wages,
in terms of the quality of the courses and programs, and in terms on their ability to get
jobs based on the various programs that are there.
If you are equally setting forth the various post-secondary education programs, I think
it would be unfair to students not to let them know what the outcomes have been from these
very different types of organizations as well.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I welcome the proposal, but I hope she expands it to include that
information.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask questions of the Minister of
Environment and Labour.
On Friday morning, outside the House, two public health officials stood before the
cameras - and through them to the public - to assure, in their words, the people of the
Province about the risks and the level of risk associated with what is contained in a
report that this government will not release.
I would like to ask the minister this: Wouldn't it have been more prudent,
Minister, upon completion of that report, that you, as the Minister of Environment and
Labour, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, at
the time that you received the release, to have those three ministers and those public
health officials three years ago stand before the people of the Province to release the
information in that report, and to advise the public then of what the risks were, and
advise the public of what precautions they should have taken?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: I guess I should use the expression, "He that hath ears to hear,
let him hear." Because there is no way, in a sense, that you can get your message
across to the Opposition, or even to the media for that matter.
I said here last week, that particular report they we are talking about was a working
document that had not gone to Cabinet ministers, that had not been finalized, and it was a
working document to use, in a sense, to inform the ministers on policies and so on that
would be implemented by government.
The thing in that particular report, and I want to make it absolutely clear again today
- and I don't think the Leader of the Opposition was there when I said it - in that
report there were thirty-five communities that were listed where there had been some
sparse documentation done, and that particular information was compiled in 1986 and 1990.
There we thirty-five communities that were listed in that report.
Today, in 1999, we have a report on 194 municipalities. Every municipality has the
report, that whatever testing was done in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999, they have it at their
disposal. So, it is not in a sense that I am hoarding it; they already have it out there.
To give you an idea -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I have here an
article that was written earlier this year
in The Packet , in Clarenville, that dealt with the same thing; where the council
there said they had been dealing with it, working in relation -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minster to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. LANGDON: - with the people from the Department of Environment and Labour. So,
for me to have held anything is not correct.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is abundantly clear to this Legislature, to the
media, to the people of this Province, is that this government has breached the
public's right to know. That is what is abundantly clear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: There is nothing in the Freedom of Information Act that says that
this minister or any other must consult with municipalities in particular about this
particular report.
I will ask the minister this question: Won't you stand today and make a commitment
to release that report. If you won't, could you explain why you won't?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I want to say again to the hon. Leader of the Opposition
that all the testing we have done on all the municipalities is at their disposal. They
have it. In fact, I want to go even further than that. During the weekend, at the
Federation of Municipalities Board meeting in Gander, the assistant deputy minister from
the department went and briefed the Federation of Municipalities on that and they agreed
as well with the officials. They have the information. We are not withholding information
on the drinking water. Every community in this Province has that information. The councils
have it -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. LANGDON: Okay, let me go one step further.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I can also say to the House that, as of Friday, I
personally sent a letter to every town in the Province - I addressed it - asking for every
town to release the information to the public on their provincial water supply. I asked
every town, 194 of them, so what more can I do?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is so confident that all the information
is out, why won't he release the report in the House? I ask him again and, I say to
the Member for Bellevue, I will continue to ask the question until the people of the
Province get the answers they deserve. I will ask him again: Will he stand in the House
and release that report through this Chamber to the people of the Province? If he will
not, could he explain why not?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition again: The
information that every town in this Province, 194 of them - they have at their disposal,
all the information on their drinking water. In that particular report, of the thirty-five
towns that were listed in that report, there was only one of the towns that exceeded the
level at that particular time, which was 350 micrograms per litre. That information is old
news. The councils out there, they have the up-to-date information. They have it at their
disposal, and I have asked them to release it to the public.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the minister wrote
councils - this letter here to one council, on November 19 - Friday past - 1999. The
reality is that people should have been informed in 1996.
Minister, I would like to ask you this question.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: You have indicated that the reason you did not release the report is
because it would breach the Freedom of Information Act. Nowhere - and I repeat, nowhere -
in the Freedom of Information Act does it disallow for this report to be released.
I will ask you again: Why is it that you will not release that report publically so
that every person in the Province can take their own precautions, so that every person in
this Province, who has a right to know what their government is up to, that in fact they
do get the information and they do know. Why will you not release the report, Minister?
You have not answered the question. I will ask it again: Why will you not release the
report? If you will not, why not?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the point made by the hon. Leader of the
Opposition. His understanding -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, this is the second example today of the hon. Leader of the
Opposition illustrating his ignorance of the law. If he reads the Freedom of Information
Act, he should direct himself to
Section 11 and read
Section 13 which sets forth a process
that a minister has to go through in order to release information. The minister started
that on Friday. He has indicated it will be released when he gets it back from the
municipalities.
I have to say as well that the Federation of Municipalities today issued a press
release indicting that it is encouraging the municipalities to agree to it. At the end of
the twenty days, the minister then has a period of time to consider and has indicated that
it will be released if and when the municipalities concur. If not, he can make the
decision anyway but they have the right, for twenty days, to make some representation back
to him.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a final supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is becoming somewhat of a joke. This is the minister, on Friday, who was asked
questions about liabilities and stood at his seat and let somebody answer for him. Thank
you for getting up finally, I say to the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is that my ignorance of the law - what is clear is that
in view of the fact that the law has been breached according to the Freedom of Information
Act, Minister, is that your government and this government failed to inform the public in
a timely fashion. That is what is clear.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Environment again, quietly, deliberately:
Why won't you release the report to this Chamber, and through this Chamber to the
people of the Province? If you cannot, and if you will not, will you explain why you will
not release the report? Answer the question, Minister.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I said on Friday, and I will say it again today, that the report they are talking about
is a working document within the department. It has not been presented to the Minister of
Health or to the Minister of Municipal Affairs at that particular time. It is a working
document, and the officials of the various departments use it to give information to
ministers whereby policies are made for government. That is why.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: This is a government that has trouble with accountability in
releasing information. Seeing that the Minister of Justice got up, I would like to ask him
a question that he made a commitment to last year. Minister, where is the Atkinson report?
Why won't you release it? You made a commitment that you would, and you still have
not. Where is it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is jumping all around. I read a
comment lately that the most persuasive argument that intelligent life existed elsewhere
in the universe was that it has not been in touch with us. The corollary to that obviously
is that the proof that there is unintelligent life in the universe is that it has gotten
in touch with the Leader of the Opposition and is starting to write questions for him. I
expect that any minute I will see his finger waving. It will light up, and we will hear
him somehow over the loud speakers here: EB, call home!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. DICKS: May I just say that the Atkinson report, I will tell the hon. member,
will be released in due course. It is with the Minister of Health, being considered by
Cabinet, and we will see it in due course.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The NEOS bid to take over
Fishery Products was launched in the midst of a court case in Ontario which determined
that a bid for ONEX was illegal because the Air Canada legislation only allowed a maximum
10 per cent shareholding.
How could the Barry group have any confidence in proceeding in that atmosphere in this
Province with a takeover a bid for FPI in expectation that this government would allow the
15 per cent to be removed? I want to know: What assurances did the Minister of Fisheries,
or this government, give to Mr. Barry and his associates that the government would in fact
lift the 15 per cent which was legislation in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: None, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, can the minister outline what, if any, discussions did he
or his government have with Mr. Barry or any of his associates in terms of this bid, and
this bid being brought forward, the campaign that has been taken place around this
Province, and what criteria the government might use to judge whether the NEOS bid is
acceptable to the government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A couple of days after the group informed the Premier and myself of their intentions to
make a proposal to take over FPI, both the Premier and myself went public after we spoke
to the group. We said the same thing in public as we said to the NEOS group: That we are
not concerned about the shareholders or the partners of either one of the companies. What
we are concerned about is what is in the best interest of the fishing industry of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular those people working in the communities where
the present FPI plants work.
We told them that very, very clearly. We did not encourage them to go out and do it. We
simply said what was in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We operate in a democracy, in a free enterprise system, where people have the right to
go out and make a presentation. We cannot stop the NEOS group or any other group from
coming forward with a proposal.
MR. TULK: Or FPI.
MR. EFFORD: Or FPI, or anybody else.
What we can do is hold that 15 per cent in legislation, as we have. We have not lifted
the 15 per cent, and we have not told anybody that we will lift it. We will only lift it
if we consider, as a government, that it is in the best interest of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the communities of Fortune, Marystown, Harbor Breton and
Burin have all met with the proponents here and have come to the conclusion that this deal
is not in the long-term interest of the people of those communities where there are FPI
plants; the same with the Town of Triton. Will the minister advise whether or not he is
prepared to listen to (break in tape) interest in the fishery of the future of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, my first election was in 1985, and I knocked on every
single door in my riding in 1985. Ever since then, I have communicated the same message to
everybody in this Province, whatever my responsibilities have been, and I will speak for
this government: We will listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, day in and day
out, week in and week out, month in and month out, year in and year out, and we will
continue to do that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are to the Minister of Health and
Communities Services.
The Minister of Environment told this House on Friday that the 1996 report containing
information on the presence of trihalomethanes in drinking water was developed by
officials in the Department of Environment, the Department of Municipal Affairs and the
Department of Health. So, Minister, your department knew about this report. In fact, your
department collaborated in writing it. Did you also collaborate in the coverups -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: - and you now trying to control the damage?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to withdraw that.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word coverup. I asked her did she
participate in it, keeping it from the public and not releasing it to the public.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to
this.
I think the level and caliber of the question speak volumes about the intent of what
the members opposite are really interested in. I think the underlying issue here is about
public safety in the drinking water as it relates to -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, as it relates to the drinking water. I think if the members opposite
were truly interested in allaying the fears and setting -
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, oh!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was recognized, not the Member
for Cape St. Francis.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Minister of Health to get on with her answer.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I think if the members opposite were truly interested in allaying the anxiety and
setting the record straight, they would have done what we have done and speak to the
sources at the federal Department of Health, namely Doctor Barry Thomas and Doctor Don
Wigle, whom my officials have spoken to as lately as this morning. Because I think the
report that was given this morning on CBC - I believe the reporter misunderstood the
information. Because my officials specifically spoke to those two individuals responsible
and they have assured us that both of the physicians who spoke to the issue on Friday were
absolutely correct in their information.
The ad we had in the paper the weekend, while much of it was taken from their own
website, is in fact accurate. I would say again -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would be only too happy to conclude, Mr. Speaker, in saying that
the fear-mongering has to stop and proper information has to be reported and supported by
people who are in positions to do so. I think if they are truly interested they would
speak to the federal Department of Health just like we have to verify the information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take her seat, please.
A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Friday, the minister alluded to officials of your department who did go on the
airwaves to argue that the risk from THMs was minuscule and it could be avoided altogether
by simply putting a jug of water in a fridge over night or aerating it in a blender.
This morning the senior environmental health scientist for Health Canada rejected what
your officials had to say about THMs. Why, minister, is the information given out by your
department so wrong and so out of date?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, I have to say again, and I have to encourage as well as to caution the member
opposite, to speak to the source. What was said this morning was not indicative of what
Doctor Barry Thomas nor Doctor Wigle said to my officials this morning. They both
supported the documentation and the information both in the paper and in the information
sent out to the municipalities. As well, they have supported what those two physicians
have said.
I would ask him again, that if he is truly interested speak to the physicians who are
actually saying it so that pieces of information are not extrapolated and fitted into a
report. Those two physicians, those two federal government spokespersons with the
Department of Health, have verified the aeration, have verified the refrigeration and in
fact, made reference to the piece that was on this morning about putting it in the fridge,
making reference to other organic materials.
I think it is very clear from the preliminary information that is available, through
the Department of Health at the federal government and through these officials, that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer quickly.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am only too happy to do so.
There is still quite a bit of information that is unknown and that is why they have put
an inter-disciplinary committee in place, a multi-disciplinary committee, to look at many
of the issues. I think the important point is that chlorinated drinking water is a safe
product to consume whether it is in regard to cancer, pregnancy or anything else -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: - and fear-mongering has to stop, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What greater fear then not to see a report for three years when you sat on it. I have a
verbatim transcript of what Dr. Barry Thomas said on radio this morning, I say to the
minister. He does indicate that while boiling might get rid of most, it can actually
increase the level of others -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is now on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: - and it is these others that may cause cancer.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. He does refute the boiling, he does refute the aerating in a
blender, as not very effective.
I want to ask the minister this. If the Department of Health is going to be left with a
shred of credibility after this fiasco, it must decide that it exists to protect the
health of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not to protect her Cabinet colleagues. I ask
her: Would she cut loose from that and would she now tell the people of the Province what
they deserve to hear and let them see that report, what they deserve to see, and make a
judgement then on what is best for them?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I take great offense to the comments that we are not giving all of the
information. I also have to say -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I still have the floor. Thank you.
I think it is important that if the member opposite is going to read from Dr. Barry
Thomas, he should have read the whole piece of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, no, that is not true!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) release the report and we can read it all for ourselves
(inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, my understanding when going to school is that you
always start at the beginning of the sentence, not in the middle, and that is where you
started when you started to read it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin at the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, may I begin at the beginning of the sentence which he
omitted? This is when he says that this is only "...one of hundreds of chlorine by
products and in fact the evidence we have at the moment is that it's highly unlikely
that chloroform is responsible for cancer." That was how it started.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to get to her answer quickly.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All I am saying is that if the member opposite is truly interested, try the Internet,
go to the website, look up the information yourself. Look at the questions and answers,
read the paper.
I would like to finish by saying that what he is really saying is how little confidence
he has in our medical officers, Mr. Speaker. Have a bit of faith.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Have a bit of confidence.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. MANNING: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the acting Minister of Tourism,
whoever that may be. It has to do with the special celebrations agency which is
responsible for hiring people for the Soiree `99 events and the Viking Millennium
Celebrations.
I would like to ask the acting minister to explain the process that these people were
hired to work on these events, please.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the process used for hiring people through this special
events agency is the exact same process that has been used in previous years and is used
by all government departments.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St.
Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I ask her once again to explain the process please.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I do not work in the human resources
department of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation or in the special events
agency. If you would have specific questions around the hiring process, please submit them
to us and we will make sure that you get a correct answer.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St.
Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I have specific questions. They concern thirteen people
who were hired through the special celebrations agency without any interviews, very few
interviews, without job competitions being posted, and no ads. Thirteen people, and all
friends of that side of the House of Assembly, and a total of $550,000 in salaries. I
would like to ask the minister to explain how this Liberal patronage is allowed to go on?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that some of these positions are like
positions all over government, that they would be either contractual positions or
positions that are maybe under thirteen weeks. There are many different forms of hiring
all throughout government. It depends on what the job is and what the criteria around it
is, what the Public Service Commission requires, etc. So I'm sorry, we will have to
have more details before we can give you the answer that you are requesting.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St.
Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have thirteen questions I would like to ask. They concern people who are receiving
salaries up to $60,000 that there were no competitions for. That is what I ask the
minister today. I would like to ask the minister, would you admit that none of the people
hired for these celebrations went through job competition, that all these people were
hired on the basis of names that were submitted to the Department of Tourism - again, no
competitions, no ads - and what we see here is nothing short of blatant political
patronage?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MANNING: Minister, I say to you, when I look at this list, you should know how
this process works also.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, without having the details, I can't imagine there has
ever been a time in the history of this government that we have hired people
inappropriately, without qualifications, for the jobs they are required to do. I am sorry,
we will have to have more details, but I have never seen a person hired in this government
who did not have the appropriate qualifications.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Acting Minister of Tourism.
With respect to the Millennium 2000 Celebrations on the waterfront this year, there is
going to be a major fireworks show. Can the minister tell the House if the fireworks
material and the show itself was tendered, seeing that the Province has put up somewhere
over $200,000 into this project?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will have to take the question under advisement. I am not aware of the circumstances
around the process of putting the fireworks in place.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I expect the minister will have to take this one under advisement also. Will the
minister confirm that this project is going to an outside firm, a mainland firm, and that
no local firms were asked for proposals? I would like to know if not, why not? Seeing that
there is a local firm in and around St. John's that was asked at the last minute to
the July 1 celebrations here for the Department of Tourism, if this firm was good enough
to do the July 1 celebrations on the fireworks, why aren't they good enough now?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question actually was not very clearly worded. I am not sure if the member was
saying if the contract has been awarded or are you basing this on rumor or innuendo. I
really do not know and we will have to take the question under advisement and get you the
answer within the next twenty-four hours. That is not a difficulty at all. It is very
simple to find that out.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: All I am asking the minister is: Will they confirm that local firms
were not asked to tender, and if not, why not? It is going to a mainland firm.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, for the third time, we will take the question under
advisement and we will find out the answer for you. Would you like to ask the question
again? Because the answer will be the same.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, I will refer to
a news release that you put forward on November 3 whereby you referred to the number of
licences that were issued for cod farming, cod grow-out licences, I say to the minister.
I would like to ask the minister how he issues such licenses. For example, do you
require people who apply for these licenses to give you performance assurances before you
issue the licenses to them? If there are any requirements, I would like to ask the
minister if he would provide us the information on how many enterprises did actually start
up in 1999 and if those licenses will be reissued again this year.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: In all instances, Mr. Speaker, whether it is for cod grow-out or
whether it is for private processing or secondary processing, we require a proposal to be
set forth to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
In the case of cod farming we would not ask for a major business proposal to go out and
spend a lot of money, but certainly to send in a form of a business proposal in a two- or
three-page letter. At the same time, we would want to know their ability to finance and if
they hold fishing licenses. So yes, we do ask for a proposal to be submitted, and once the
proposal is submitted it is judged by a committee within the department to see how many
licenses will be issued and who will receive those licenses.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South has time for one quick
question.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last year, minister, you issued thirty-eight grow-out licenses. Only seven were
utilized. If you require some assurances of performances before you issue a license, why
did only seven of those thirty-eight licenses carry on a cod farming operation last year?
Minister, why would you continue to provide the licenses to those same people this year
while restricting the number of licenses that you pass forward?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry is an unpredictable industry. When
somebody submits an application for a cod grow-out license the first thing we would ask
them is: Do you have a core license or a fishing license? Yes. Do you have a cod trap?
Yes. Will the cod come in? I do not know. If the cod does not swim in the trap, then
certainly they cannot grow them out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: That is a pretty simple answer to that, Mr. Speaker. Extenuating
circumstances would cause us - that if we issued twenty-five or thirty licenses and the
cod does not come in a particular bay or particular area, then you certainly cannot grow
cod that year.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. EFFORD: That would be one of the main reasons why we would not have such a
number of licenses -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have reports here that I want to release today. They are: the Workplace, Health,
Safety and Compensation Commission, 1998; the Workers' Compensation Review Division,
1998; and Labour Relations Board, 1998, annual reports.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following Private
Member's Resolution. I might add that it is on behalf of my colleague for St.
John's South who was detained.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: You will certainly want to vote for it when you see it, I say to the
Minister of Mines and Energy.
The resolution reads:
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador eliminated the Office of the Parliamentary
Commissioner (also known as the Ombudsman) a decade ago and became the first jurisdiction
with an Ombudsman to eliminate that office; and
WHEREAS the Office of the Ombudsman is established as a check and balance on government
to give individuals and groups the right to commission an investigation of an action,
decision, recommendation or omission of a government department, agency or official when
they feel they have been wronged; and
WHEREAS the Office of the Ombudsman has quasi-judicial powers which are not currently
at the disposal of individuals and groups in Newfoundland and Labrador who want such
matters investigated; and
WHEREAS the Office of the Ombudsman operated in the past, and could operate in the
future, at a relatively low cost and constitutes a sound investment in public
accountability; and
WHEREAS Members of the Opposition, members of the media and the general public who have
difficulty accessing information through the Freedom of Information Act could seek
recourse through the Office of the Ombudsman;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT this hon. House urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to reinstate the Office of the Ombudsman.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased to present a petition today. The prayer of the petition is as
follows:
We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly
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, once again we stand and present a petition on behalf of several residents
of Newfoundland and Labrador who have been part and parcel of this process now over the
past several months and have been very concerned about the fact that there was
contemplation earlier on that we would be exporting water from this Province, namely
Gisborne Lake, through a bulk process.
Since that, I am very pleased - and this side of the House, I must say, has been very
pleased - to have Bill 31 placed before the Legislature in the past few days and to begin
discussions on what hopefully will be the final nail in the coffin as it relates to bulk
water exports here in the Province. While we on this side on the House certainly have some
concerns with certain parts of the bill, we fully support the bill to make sure that there
is no water taken out of the Province by bulk.
It is an ongoing concern, certainly not only here in Newfoundland but indeed across the
country, as it relates to the shortage of water that is throughout the world today. For
all intents and purposes, what the experts have shown is that in the next ten to twenty
years there is going to be a major rush put on the last freshwater resources that are in
the world, and Canada has 20 per cent of those freshwater resources. It is very important
that we protect our water supply, not only for ourselves but indeed for generations to
come.
As Bill 31 points out - hopefully we will send a message not only to the people in the
Province but indeed the people throughout the country, that we are very serious about the
freshwater resource in this Province, that we are very serious about protecting it for the
future, that we are very serious in sending the message to any company, any individual,
any organization that may be interested in exporting bulk water, that Newfoundland water
is not for sale in bulk form.
Mr. Speaker, that is the concern that these people bring forward through this petition
today. That is the concern that people have been bringing forward through the media,
through telephone calls and letters to Members of the House of Assembly. Indeed, over the
past several months these people have been passing that concern on.
Hopefully, over the next few days we will get into the nuts and the bolts of Bill 31
and we will make a firm commitment here in the House of Assembly that there will be no
bulk water export out of this Province and, as I said earlier, that we will make sure that
our freshwater resources are here for generations to come.
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 relative to the bulk export
of water. We, on this side of the House, take this piece of legislation very seriously. We
have anticipated its arrival, although last Thursday when it was brought into the House,
the Premier tried to rush it through. He kind of said: Let's do it now. That sends a
signal to us that we had better be a little bit cautious. When the Premier comes in and
says: I want this, and I would like to have it passed this afternoon... - that tells us to
raise a flag, because it makes us kind of suspicious as to why you would want to do it so
fast.
Certainly, in the last seventy-two hours or so, with the consultations that we have
done on this side of the House with internationally-known experts, it has become quite
apparent that this piece of legislation may not be able to achieve the purposes that I am
sure the government intended.
We want to say to our caucus colleagues who have spoken during second reading, during
the principle of the bill, that we appreciate their participation. We had to hold up
second reading long enough to give us time to do the research. What happened here last
Thursday, if the members on this side of the House had let the second reading go ahead in
principle, we would not have had the same opportunity to do the research that we have now
completed.
Earlier today, the Leader of Progressive Conservative Party, together with the Member
St. John's South and internationally-known lawyer Barry Appleton, held a press
conference here in the building in which we outlined for our caucus the serious
reservations we have and the problems we have with several clauses of this particular
piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, that goes to show that the people of this Province should be aware that
this government - wanting to rush the thing through - may have not had the best interest
of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at heart. Because, with the research now done,
we are prepared, on this side of the House, as the leader of the party said at 12:30 p.m.
today, to facilitate its passage through the House. We believe there are certain serious
flaws and we will bring these forward at the appropriate time.
We certainly support the intent of Bill 31. We just want to make some amendments to it
that will enhance it, that will assure that what it intends to achieve will indeed be
achieved. Our amendments are deemed to be friendly amendments. They are amendments that
will do what needs to be done to protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Not to reiterate everything that the Leader of the Opposition said in the press
conference, or certainly not to try to remember everything that Barry Appleton said at
that press conference, but certainly I think there are message there that we want to
communicate to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When this bill completes its
second reading and gets into Committee stage, we will look forward to putting forward
these amendments. They are publicly known, and are known to the government, and I am sure
they are now being looked at by the legal officials. We will put them forward as friendly
amendments in order to strengthen Newfoundland and Labrador's position and not
certainly to do anything other than that, because we believe that the intent of Bill 31 is
indeed in the best interest of all Newfoundlanders and all Labradorians.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition to the House of Assembly. It reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session
convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;
WHEREAS the areas of the Province administered by the Provincial Health Care
Corporation do not have dialysis services available and the people in our area who require
regular dialysis services often must relocate permanently to St. John's and incur the
financial and emotional costs of being uprooted to get the health care they need in order
to live; and
WHEREAS it is our understanding that working dialysis units are being sent out of this
Province to other countries when the local need is great; and
WHEREAS it is a principle of Canada's medicare system that people should have
reasonable access to basic healthcare services without suffering discrimination on the
basis of where they live;
WHEREFORE you petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to approve
the stationing of a dialysis unit in the area serviced by the Peninsula Health Care
Corporation and also provide staff, training and resources to ensure the regular operation
of this dialysis unit; and
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, just last week I presented a 6,000 name petition. This one has come in
since that particular time. There are approximately 130 names on this particular petition,
and it comes from the Marystown area.
There are residents from Marystown, Burin, Little Bay, Rocky Harbour, Creston, all down
around the Burin Peninsula. Those people, as well, are asking the government to look at
stationing a dialysis unit or two, whatever the need requires, to look after patients
serviced by the Peninsula Health Care Corporation. They are not asking that we put
dialysis machines in Burin, Bonavista and Clarenville. They are just asking that this
service be made available somewhere in their district where they might be able to travel
to, access the services and travel home on a daily basis. There are people down in my
district, people from the town of Melrose, seniors who have had to board up their homes,
move into St. John's and rent an apartment in order to access dialysis treatment.
I brought forward a story, in the last petition I presented, where this gentleman has
been coming back and forth to St. John's on a regular basis now for four consecutive
years. He gets up Monday morning, takes his belongings, takes his clothes, takes his food,
puts it in the box of a pickup truck and comes to St. John's. He has to get his wife
to unload the truck and carry it up to his room in the hostel on a weekly basis, every
Monday morning. Every Friday evening he loads it all aboard the truck again and heads back
to his home in Open Hall in Bonavista Bay, a three-and-a-half hour run. He is not coming
to St. John's to go to work. He is not coming in for entertainment. He is coming to
St. John's on a weekly basis so that he might be able to continue to live. This
treatment at home is not an option for this gentleman. This treatment in Bonavista right
now is not an option. This treatment in Clarenville is not an option. He has to travel all
the way to St. John's, move into the hostel, and has to go to social services in
order to get money to buy his food.
This particular gentleman has had five or six bypasses done. He has had a colostomy
done. He has lost a kidney. One particular trip to the department of social services was a
plea to say: Instead of giving me meal vouchers where I have to go down in the cafeteria
and buy cafeteria food, maybe you might be able to give me the value of those meal
vouchers so I can go out and buy the food that I need in order to look after my diet so
that I can cook or prepare it myself? He is not allowed to do it. It is against government
policy to do it.
So it makes you wonder if we are sincere about trying to heal somebody or trying to
cater to somebody's health and wishes, or are we just trying to go along with a
policy that is put in place and have to abide by it for this simple reason: Because it is
government policy. This is a cry that has gone out not only from two people from my
district, I say to members opposite, not only from those people from Marystown -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - Burin, Rocky Harbour and Creston, but it is a plea from the whole
area, and I join with them and support them in their wishes to have this particular
treatment offered somewhere in the area serviced by the Peninsulas Health Care
Corporation.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to stand and support my colleague in this particular petition
because I too, in my part of the Province have experienced that, and know people
personally who put up with this every single day. I spoke about it about a year ago in
this House when the Premier was here. At that time we talked about at least, if we do not
get dialysis machines throughout the Province, in closer proximity for the people who have
to use them, how about looking at some kind of compensation for the people? For instance,
in my area somebody from Fleur de Lys has to drive over those types of road conditions to
Grand Falls, two-and-a-half hours away, just so they can access a dialysis machine. It is
not just the emotional stress on them, it is also the financial stress.
My colleague mentioned some of the examples in his area of the Province. It is
happening all over Newfoundland and Labrador. With the geography of this Province,
something has to be done to address this problem. It is a hardship on the family. The
particular gentleman that I referred to, in Fleur dy Lys, worked all of his life and now
he has to use this type of machine, and the stress that it has put on that family is
incredible. His wife and his children talk about it every day. I sat in the kitchen with
this man who was so stressed out, both financially and emotionally, because of what he has
to go through. It is a shame. It is a crime that they have to go through this these days.
That is why I think it is important for every member in this House of Assembly. I am
sure there are people in every district who have the same problems, when it comes to the
geography, in accessing those machines. It is bad enough that they have to travel over the
road conditions in the summertime, which are bad enough, but when you have to move that
into the wintertime it is very bad. One constituent of mine in La Scie finally could not
put up with it any more. So he would get a bit closer, he bought a cabin at Badger Lake so
he could stay at the cabin. He had to move out of his home, and the only way that he could
it that it was affordable is that he would live out of a cabin during the winter months so
it would not be so hard traveling over the road. I mean, how ridiculous is that when it
comes to that stage?
It is something that the Premier did not turn down flat that day. He nodded and said it
was something we should look at. Even in the interim, while we are waiting for more
dialysis machines to be placed around the Province somewhere in proximity, depending on
the geography of the situation on different peninsulas and so on, why don't we at
least look at some kind of help, financial compensation that can at least alleviate that
part of the stress that these people and families are feeling?
The people have been out of work. They have worked all their lives and now they find
themselves having to use this particular piece of apparatus. The emotional stress on the
family is there, yes, but also the financial stress. Even if we could relieve that to some
point, and maybe study it to find out in what ways we can help. I think it is something
that is worthwhile doing. I have heard the complaints many times over. Certainly I have
many in my district, because of the geography of the length of the Baie Verte Peninsula,
the road conditions and so on in the wintertime, and having to go to either Grand Falls or
Corner Brook . We are right in between those two larger centres. There is a lot of stress
on those people.
So if we could look at something in that neighbourhood of at least compensation for
them in the interim while we look at the whole bigger issue of placing more dialysis
machines - and the cost, and we know there is a cost associated with that, obviously - but
if there is something that we can do to help those families that would be great.
By the way, I also mention, I guess because of aging population or whatever the reason
is, that there are more and more every day. Every day I have found out about a new case in
my district in the last two weeks. More and more people have to go to this particular
dialysis unit to use it. That is another thing we have to keep in mind, the growing
numbers of them, and hopefully we can alleviate in someway the stress and the burden upon
these families. I certainly support my colleague in his petition, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague has joined us here in the House but she did want me to make just a few
comments because she was not here for the presentation of the petition. Certainly the
petition is one that deserves serious consideration and will be considered, and is being
considered, within the Department of Health and Community Services at this point in time.
The government is always challenged through the Department of Health to provide the
appropriate speciality needs because these are very specialized treatments, very expensive
as well, but we understand that the cost is not a factor for people who are threatened
with their lives and so on. There are other specialty ones, not as directly related as the
dialysis, but issues of mammography, bone density and so on where the department is trying
to find the appropriate distribution of locations throughout the Province so at least
access to the service can be as readily available as possible for the individuals. We
appreciate the sentiment raised in the petition.
Also, I think it we would be remiss as well if we didn't all at some point, even
though it is difficult sometimes for the Opposition to give credit for what has actually
happened, acknowledge a couple of things. There are more speciality services like these
that we have mentioned available in Newfoundland and Labrador today than ever in our
history. That is a fact.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: That is not a political statement. That is a fact, that there is more
dialysis available in Newfoundland and Labrador today, in 1999, than there was in 1998,
than there was in 1990, than there was in 1960 and so. So we are trying to make the
improvements, and we are trying to meet the challenge of the most appropriate geographic
distribution, so that it can be closest to the people who have the greatest needs.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that when a position is presented as it has been today, seriously
taking into consideration the needs and wishes of those who signed the petition, it is
incumbent upon all of us in the government to try and make sure that we do give it full
and due consideration. It would be nice every now and then if we could actually get some
acknowledgment for the fact that there have not been financial cuts in health care since
this group - for example, just in the years that we have been the administration since
1989, in years where there have been cutbacks in some actual departments, the budget - and
I think people should acknowledge this - for the Department of Health has gone from just
over $900 million to just about $1.2 billion.
So there have been incredible investments in the health care sector. There are a range
of services available today that are better than they have ever been and more extensive
than they have ever been. There are still some issues that we are dealing with, but, Mr.
Speaker, we will certainly give due consideration to the petitioners in this case.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Order of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide for the
Conservation, Protection, Wise Use and Management Of The Water Resources of the
Province". (Bill 31)
Let me say to the Opposition that we saw their press statement this morning. Obviously,
at the time I was hoping they would, if they were going to put forward amendments for
government's consideration - Without committing ourselves to anything, let me just
say to them that I guess the time to do that is in Committee. Today we are talking about
seconding reading, the principle of the bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I assume that Bill 31 has been called.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: I adjourned debate on it on Friday, so I am prepared today on our
side of the House to put up no further speakers on second reading of that, to sort of
expedite matters on the Bill and to certainly give approval in principle. There are two
particular clauses of that Bill, clause 5 and clause 7, in which we propose to make
amendments when we get to the Committee stage of the Bill.
With that having been said, we will not have any further comments at this time. We will
not have any unnecessary delaying of that. Whenever government is prepared to call that in
Committee and deal with it, we will be ready to move.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation before the House, Bill
31,
an act which will have the effect of banning the export of bulk water from the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I was prepared the other day to see second reading reached immediately, on Wednesday,
when the Bill was introduced - or, rather, the day the House opened and the Bill was
introduced - because we felt here that it was something, the principle of which was
something, that the Province's mind was made up on.
The Province's mind was made up on that as a result of a lot of public discussion
and open debate - at least open on one side. Open on the side of the public, the media,
the discussion that took place, the calls to open lines, comments, press conferences, and
various other matters that were very openly discussed.
On the other side, on the government's side, there was very little. The Minister
of Environment and Labour gave what he called the red light when he was given the green
light.
I know the minister is a new minister and he performs well. He performed well in the
House the other day, but when I heard about a press conference where he announced that he
was giving the red light to the McCurdy Group, when actually what he was doing was
approving it and sending it on to Ottawa, I figured that this minister has been studying
too long how to mislead the public by using phrases and words that don't say exactly
what they mean.
When the Premier finally announced on behalf of the government that the government was
prepared to respond to the public demand to ban the bulk export of water, I was delighted.
In fact, we called for the legislation on September 28 to say that it was not enough to
say that it was a problem. There needed to be legislation brought in that would give
effect to a ban, and we distributed at that time copies of the legislation in British
Columbia which effectively did that.
We have a piece of legislation before us which in principle I can support. When we get
to discussing the details, and discussing the clause-by-clause analysis - I understand
there was a press conference today and the Conservation Party has some amendments to the
legislation that they will be bringing forward, and that is all to the good - we certainly
look forward to seeing them and debating them.
I do want to say a few words, though. It is a bit curious. This legislation has been
opposed for a number of reasons in this Province. One of them, of course, is one that
affects all sorts of legislation and resource development. That is the fact that we would
be exporting something in bulk which should be subjected to further processing here, from
an economic point of view.
We saw advertisements placed on the World Wide Web by the McCurdy Group, Mr.
White's company, offering to sell tanker loads of water for distribution to bottling
plants around the world for pennies a litre. That was the quote from the Web site of the
McCurdy Group in a company called Canada Wet Incorporated. That was, in fact, the gist of
the proposal, that this was a bulk water export proposal that intended to provide a source
of drinking water for bottling plants around the world.
It seems to have been denied by the McCurdy Group up until then, and the government did
not give any indication one way or the other of what it was. The government never
indicated one way or the other what it thought the proposal was all about.
I see the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal saying he never saw a proposal for
it. Well, I saw documents two inches thick from the McCurdy Group outlining what the
nature of their operation was to be.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if I am one of the few people then I am surprised that the
Minister of Environment and Labour had not reviewed the documentation presented to the
minister on behalf of the McCurdy Group as part of the environmental assessment, because
that was what it was all about.
Contained in those documents was all sorts of information about the nature of the
project envisaged; how much water would be extracted; how big the size of the pipes would
be; what the volumes of water would be. All of that information was there, inches thick, I
say to the Government House Leader and members opposite.
That was the proposal. The proposal was to export bulk water. That ran afoul of any
notion that we have in this Province of economic development to take place here. If there
are bottling plants that are begging for product in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, or
somewhere like that, because the American brewing industry has consolidated its operation,
then I am sure they will be right ready and anxious to turn their facilities over to
Newfoundland water to be bottled and sold at a great price in the United States of America
or elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, that is one reason why this legislation, to me, is important and valuable,
because it does say that we will not commercialize water in bulk and export it out of our
Province because of our concern about basically being a source of profit for somebody else
at the expense of our environment and our resources. I was certainly pleased with that
legislation, and that was part of what they debated about, but another important part of
what they debated about was NAFTA.
What surprised me about the NAFTA side of the debate was that while my party and a
number of other organizations have been challenging the NAFTA agreement for many, many
years, going back to 1986 and 1987 when the Brian Mulroney Conservative government in
Ottawa brought in the Free Trade Agreement, with John Crosbie leading the charge on behalf
of the Tory government in Ottawa, we challenged that. I was part of a caucus in Ottawa
that challenged that legislation, that challenged the Free Trade Agreement. One of the
bases on which it was challenged. One of the bases on which it was challenged was the fact
that water was in danger of becoming a commodity and that Canada's fresh water would
be on the table, would be exposed to the trade legislation and would be exposed to at
least three provisions of the NAFTA agreement and the trade agreement that would place
danger on our water.
Trade legislation is notoriously complex. I am not claiming, at any point, to be an
international trade lawyer, and I am sure the Member for St. John's East, learned
scholar that he is, learned it in the law that he is, would not claim to be an
international trade law scholar. That is why they - I don't think they have
overlooked him. I think they recognize that this is a special area of expertise. They have
gotten a second opinion from this mainland lawyer, I think, because they wanted to be sure
that they had their bases covered.
I am not claiming to be an international trade lawyer, but I will point out what is
there in the common knowledge of the trade agreement: three areas where our water is
endangered by the NAFTA agreement.
The first provision of the NAFTA agreement that places water at risk once it is traded
is the national treatment element. This provides that no country can discriminate in
favour of its own private sector in the commercial use of its own water resources. Once
you grant a permit to a domestic company to export water, the corporations of other NAFTA
partners have the same right of establishment to the commercial use of that country's
waters as is domestic companies.
In other words, if the McCurdy Group were given the right to export Gisborne Lake water
to anywhere outside the country, then any company in the United States, Europe or
elsewhere, could not be denied the right to export water on the basis that it was not a
Newfoundland company. So that is an important provision - national treatment.
The second provision is what is called the investor or state provision, otherwise known
as
chapter eleven. That allows a corporation in a NAFTA country to actually sue the
government of another country - not their own government - so no other Canadian company
company could actually sue the Canadian government for cash compensation if the company
has refused its national treatment rights or if the country implemented legislation that
effectively expropriated the company's future product.
Whether that is a real threat or not we will find out, because a corporation in
fall of 1988. A Santa Barbara California company is suing the Canadian government because
they lost the contract to export water to California when British Columbia banned the
export of water in 1991. Those are two of the dangers under the NAFTA agreement that we
face.
The third is a provision called proportionality, which a government under the NAFTA
country cannot reduce or restrict the export of a resource through another NAFTA country
once the export flow has been established.
To boil in down into a phrase that I used during this debate, and others have used as
well, once the tap is turned on you cannot turn it off. Even if Newfoundland were to ban
the export of water after it had started the flow, it could be sued first of all by a
company outside of Canada who did not get national treatment. Secondly, they could ensure
or insist that Canada continue to provide that water from another source. You can be sure
that Canada would not be very happy about that and would expect Newfoundland to provide
that water or make us pay one way or the other about that.
Mr. Speaker, these are key provisions of the NAFTA agreement that have serious
consequences for water, for this Province's resources, for Canada's resources,
in a world in which water is becoming more and more important.
What surprised me was the degree to which the Progressive Conservative Party here in
Newfoundland has taken up this NAFTA cause, and I happen to agree with them. I think NAFTA
was wrong. I think it was wrong. I thought it was wrong in 1987 when I was in Ottawa
fighting against NAFTA, against the Tory policy to bring in NAFTA. I thought it was wrong
then. I thought it was wrong in the 1988 election when I ran against Tory candidates who
supported NAFTA. I ran against it. I thought it was wrong in 1993 when the Liberals were
against NAFTA and the Tories were also against NAFTA - were in favour of NAFTA - and what
happened? Mr. Chrtien got in and signed the NAFTA deal, with no changes, with no
amendments. So now we have a Liberal government defending NAFTA, signing the NAFTA
agreement. We have a Tory government which brought it in, in Ottawa. I don't know
what the federal Tory position is on NAFTA, but I know the provincial Tories here are now
all of a sudden against NAFTA. What I want to know is: Where were they in 1987, when their
AN HON. MEMBER: Who?
MR. HARRIS: These guys. Where were they in 1987, when their government in Ottawa
was bringing in this very agreement about which they are complaining? They were over
there. They were over on the other side of the House.
MR. TULK: Cozying right up to their cousins in Ottawa.
MR. HARRIS: Cozying right up to them, according to the Government House Leader. Now
I wasn't there. The Government House Leader may have been here in the House watching
them cozying up to their cousins in Ottawa, supporting whatever it was they did, and
supporting the NAFTA agreement, the Free Trade Agreement, and all the other things that
went with that; but now we have them deviating from the Conservative path and turning
against the government on the issue of water. Water was very important then and it is very
important now.
Bill Blakey, a very longstanding member of the federal NDP caucus in Ottawa, was a
the NAFTA and the Free Trade Agreement would mean to the protection of Canadian water.
Nelson Reese, Sevend Robinson and numerous others were very vocal throughout this
period talking about the consequences to our water supply of the NAFTA agreement and the
Free Trade Agreement that preceded it. We still - we are not out of the woods yet. In
fact, I don't think we will be out of the woods on this issue until the other NAFTA
countries, until the people of those countries start demanding that their government get
together with Canada, with Mexico, and exclude water from the NAFTA rules. I think it is
going to have to go as far as that before we have a real solution to this. We are seeing
some evidence of it now.
There are the governors and senators in the Great Lake States who are quite concerned
about what is happening - even in the United States - where a Canadian company has a
permit to bring Alaska glacier water down from Alaska into the United States for sale in
the United States and for sale outside of the United States. A Canadian company which was
refused a license from British Columbia is now doing that in Alaska. In the Great Lakes,
various governors, both Republican and Democratic, and a number of senators, have gotten
together and are petitioning the American Trade Department to look into this issue because
they are concerned about what the implications are for their country.
Those of us who have looked into this know how protectionist the American Congress can
be and can get. We see many, many times how the American Congress acts to protect its own
industries, its own resources, its own supplies, its own jobs in their own states. If the
American Congress gets hold of this issue and develops it as an important political issue
- which I think it is - then we may see, somewhere down the road, some change in this. In
the meantime, we cannot afford to take any steps which would allow us to be subject to the
kind of lawsuits that have been started by American companies already against Canada as a
result of permits having been granted.
I recognize that although no formal proposal has been presented, there really
isn't anything to turn down at this stage, the fact of the matter is that the people
of this Province were very, very concerned about this government's intention because
they had not said no, Mr. Speaker. They had not said no. Just as we have today, with Mr.
Barry and his partners going around this Province with what is essentially an illegal
proposal to buy more than 15 per cent of the shares of FPI. The government has not said
no, so what we have is a great deal of uncertainty and confusion in rural Newfoundland as
a result of this government's failure to state a clear position as to what its views
are of the future of the Newfoundland fishery. What level of concentration is going to be
permitted?
These are the kind of things that this government did not do over the issue of bulk
water and are not doing now over the issue of NEOS. They are not doing them now and they
did not do them then. They are failing to provide leadership except when it comes down to
the crunch, and when it is obvious to the government that public opinion is so far gone
against it that they had to finally make the concession.
It reminds me of Premier Wells. After a year-long debate about Hydro, finally the
premier of the day was forced to come to this House and tell the people of the Province
that they were not going to privatize Hydro. So we did not privatize Hydro. We are not
going to give away our water resources through a bulk water export. I hope we are not
going to give away the fishing industry to control of an outside firm which is going to
end up controlling in excess of 90 per cent of our fishery. These are very important
issues, and we do need government to play a better role than it has to date in outlining
the issues for the people of this Province.
I am delighted to see that the Conservatives have brought in somebody who is
knowledgeable in this field, and I would very interested in reading their materials and
background information. My learned friend from St. John's East assures me that once I
read the documentation I will be in full support of it. That remains to be seen. I
certainly will be quite willing to look at it. Any amendments that would improve this Bill
and make it stronger and more acceptable in terms of protecting the Province's water
from the consequences of the free trade deal would be very welcome indeed.
There is a
section here on compensation and royalties. I think I recognize that this
may not be a gold mine despite the value of bottled water per litre being more, almost
twice as expensive, as gasoline at the pumps. This may not be a gold mine for the Province
of Newfoundland. All the more reason why I was so surprised to hear Bill Matthews, a
former Member of this House and now a Member of Parliament - and perhaps some of his
cousins from inside the district could explain how it is that Bill Matthews was able to go
on the radio and talk about $5 million a week in royalties. Was it $5 million a week Bill
Matthews talked about?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: It was $5 million a week in royalties from Gisborne Lake. I do not know
where he got his figures, Mr. Speaker. It is a funny thing to hear somebody throwing
around figures like that, $5 million a week in royalties, when the only royalties in
Canada on bottled water amounted to $28,000 in the previous year. We may not have a gold
mine here. The royalty regime in British Columbia may not be one that we necessarily want
to emulate either, but nevertheless it is the only province in Canada right now that has
any royalties on bottled water.
When you go to a store and see that bottled water is sold for $1.25 for half-a-litre,
then obviously there is an inherent value in this product certainly in terms of its retail
value in marketing. If this Province can collect sixteen cents a gallon on gasoline at the
pumps when they are being sold to our own people, surely we can expect to get -
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. HARRIS: Sorry, sixteen cents a litre. I'm wrong about that. If the
Province can collect sixteen cents a litre when people are buying gasoline at the pumps
here in Newfoundland and Labrador, surely we can expect to get some return on a bottled
water enterprise where the end product is being sold for twice the amount of a litre of
gasoline.
The legislation that is before us is very important. I'm hoping, at some point, we
will hear the Progressive Conservatives explain to us how it is their party supported a
trade agreement and did not make adequate provision for the protection of our water.
I'm hoping to hear that.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. HARRIS: I said I'm hoping, at some point, to hear the Progressive
Conservatives explain how it is they supported the Free Trade Agreement that did not
protect our water and now they are trying to help us fix it after the fact.
AN HON. MEMBER: The feds, the feds.
MR. HARRIS: Blame it on the feds. You can blame it on the feds. I understand that
this group was sitting over there in 1987. This group up here was sitting over there in
1987 and supporting the trade deal in Ottawa.
AN HON. MEMBER : (Inaudible) passage of this bill (inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: Are you coming over?
MR. HARRIS: When I come over, I say to the Government House Leader, there will be a
lot more of our crowd coming with me. A majority.
Mr. Speaker, when I agreed last Wednesday to pass this bill I agreed to pass it because
the principle is one that I have believed in, fought for and needed to see it put into
place because it is the will of the people of this Province to have the bulk water ban.
The detail, amendments, I look forward to a debate on the amendments, I look forward to
seeing how the bill can be improved.
I myself have some great concerns about how the royalties are to be set up in this
bill. Clause 8 talks about royalty on water resources, and the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council making regulations prescribing the amount of a royalty. We can amend that as
necessary. The point is that the method for choosing a royalty regime here is wrong.
We have a need for greater transparency in the establishment of royalties in this
Province, not only for water, but also for nickel, for minerals, for oil, for all
commodities for which there ought to be a royalty in place where we get the economic grant
from products. We do not have one right now. I'm not happy giving the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council an opportunity to prescribe the amount of royalty without
having a proper procedure in place for adequate public discussion and input into a royalty
regime, whether it be for water or whether it be for anything else.
One of the great failures of this Province has been in the return that the Province
itself gets from the use of our own resources. That we have to change, and we may as well
start right here with this bill currently before the Legislature, and devise a process
that is open, that provides for input not only from members of this House but members of
the public. Not just industry players who obviously have a big stake in having low
royalties, but also from the people of this Province. Not just those represented on that
side of the House, but from those represented on all sides of the House. Perhaps we ought
to have a committee of this House review any proposed royalty scheme in order to ensure
that it meets appropriate tests of guaranteeing an adequate return to the people of this
Province for our resources. It is not enough for Cabinet to meet in secret and approve a
royalty regime that has not met the test of public accountability, public transparency and
acceptability.
In closing, let me say that I support the principle of this bill which is to ban the
export of bulk water from Newfoundland and Labrador. I support that principle, I fought
for that principle, and I'm pleased that the government has introduced the bill so
early in the session.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to take the opportunity to say a few words on Bill 31,
An Act To Provide
For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The
Province. Clearly, I do support the Bill. There can be very little doubt that anyone would
not support the wise use, conservation, and proper management of a water resource in this
Province. There is no question about where my support may be. I just want to say a few
words about the events that kind of led up to the introduction of Bill 31, or which some
people might have you believe led up to the introduction of Bill 31.
As everyone knows, there was a proposal placed upon the table, submitted under the
appropriate legislation, the Environmental Assessment Act, and a proposition was put
forward that there would be the export of bottled water from Gisborne Lake, from Grand Le
Pierre, and that there would also be bulk water as well. There is nothing new about that.
That was submitted. It was made known to everyone in the Province. Anyone who was on the
mailing list from the Department of Environment received notification, members opposite
received notification, we received notification. Nothing secret, nothing hidden, no cover
up as was suggested today on a couple of other issues. It was clear, nothing abnormal.
In the normal course of events, as would have been the situation with any other
environmental assessment, a decision would have been made, a committee would have been
struck with representatives of provincial and federal governments, departments and
agencies and any interested parties, and a decision would eventually have been made.
In this case a decision was made, and the decision was very simple and very clear. That
is, from an environmental perspective, there was nothing to say that the proposition for
the export of bulk water would do anything to hinder or interfere with the environment of
Newfoundland. There would be no decrease in the amount of water available to our citizens
for drinking. Unfortunately, that was not the image that was portrayed on the open lines,
not necessarily by members opposite but by members who were calling in and so on. There
were all kinds of allegations made about that time, but the fact was that at the end of
the day the assessment concluded that there was nothing environmentally wrong with making
a permit or recommending that this could proceed, and that there would be no damage to our
environment.
In that approval as in every other approval bar none issued by the Department of
Environment, bar none, in my twenty-eight years in the public service, and in all the
years that I have been involved with this particular legislation, it always contains a
caveat at the end: Subject, of course, to getting all the requisite approvals from the
departments, all the necessary permits, and so forth.
The process that was followed in the case of the Gisborne Lake issue was fairly normal.
It was up to government to decide at the end of the day, when the applications were made
for export, whether or not they would approve those based upon policy that was then in
place, or policy which would shortly be brought in.
There is nothing terribly obtrusive about that, nothing terribly sinister, no plots, no
coercions with other agencies, no golden handshakes. Also, at the end of the process, the
Province decided to make a reference to the federal government, which was in my view
prudent, because there is environmental legislation dealing with environmental issues. As
you may recall, and as everyone in this Province recalls, there were great fears raised
about NAFTA and the implications of this. As we know, the only one who has any control
over international trade is the federal government, so the reference to the federal
government was -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Member for St. John's South.
MR. MERCER: With the exception of that member.
So the reference to the federal government was entirely appropriate.
In the middle of this part of the process, all sorts of issues were starting to be
raised, primarily by the Member for St. John's South. I do give credit where credit
is due. The member did raise the issue. He did sensitize the public to the possibility
that there would be bulk water export from Gisborne Lake. My hat is off to him for having
done that. A number of good questions were raised: the impact upon jobs, whether or not we
export in bottles or in bulk, implications with respect to how the water might impact upon
the local economy at Grand le Pierre, and also the NAFTA implications. All those points,
Mr. Speaker, were good and I credit the Member for St. John's South for having raised
them.
All of these things, I think, contributed to debate, they were very productive. Now
I'm going to poll the Opposition. There is a big but or an however. Therein is where
I have the problem. Because every day this past summer you turn on the radio and you
listen to the open line or you read in the newspapers a story or a news report, you hear
all kinds of information which, I must say, was most unproductive, and frankly it was most
unbecoming of the Member for St. John's South. Frankly, some of the statements I did
hear during that period of time made me ashamed to be a Member of this hon. House, to be
associated in any way with those types of comments. I know that is not a point of personal
privilege but the way I feel, my privileges, as a member for this House, were violated by
these kinds of statements and by these innuendos.
We live in a political forum, we live in a political debate, and I have no real
problems engaging in political dialogue and discussion, but one of the problems I found
with the debate this summer was that in the rush to try and convince the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador that there was some sinister policy, some sinister plot afoot,
that there was collusion between members of this government and the private sector, the
first casualty in all of that, unfortunately, was the truth. For the rest of the summer
right up till perhaps the present day, what you hear on the news is statements of
innuendo, statements which have a modicum of truth in them but which the presenter who is
making the statement knows is not the whole truth, all designed to leave an impression
that this government was somehow, in some way, hijacking the water resources of this
Province to send them to the south, the United States, or wherever it might be.
All of this was done using statements like: The rumor or the story on the street, what
I am hearing on the street is. That is nothing more than saying: The rumor around town is.
If you want to be a spreader of rumors and half-truths, so be it, and unfortunately that
is the level to which some members opposite found it necessary to stoop this past summer.
There were also statements made - I heard them time in time out on the open line, and
there are all kinds of transcripts to show that what I am saying is correct - where
members would come on, saying: I have not proof of this, George, Bill or Bass - or whoever
the moderator was that evening - I have no proof of this, but... Then they would go on to
spout a line of information which was completely misinformation, and if I were permitted
to say that they were lies I would probably say that they were. All of this was, by and
large, designed to spread baseless, unfounded accusations that called into doubt the
integrity of various members of this House, some of them directly by name, and all of us
by implication.
I know the members opposite are looking for the day when they can cross the floor and
become members of the governing party, but I think there are ways to do that other than
getting into a public discussion and talking about innuendo, half-truth, and leaving
impressions with the public which people know to be wrong. As a member of this hon. House
I do feel personally offended and insulted by some of the discussion and debate of this
past summer. Frankly, while I lay a lot of the credit for sensitizing the public on this
issue to the Member for St. John's South, I also lay a fair amount of the blame for
the innuendo, the half-truths, at his feet.
Also during this discussion this past summer - and the Leader of the NDP alluded to it
briefly - there were statements made that if we were only to charge a royalty on this
water, this God-given resource that we have in this Province in abundance, if we were to
charge a fair royalty we would be awash in monies. Millions, I dare say even billions, of
dollars would accrue to the provincial treasury. I can't say ‘crock of'
because that is not parliamentary, but what unmitigated hogwash.
As we have heard in the last few days, the only province in Canada which levies an
export value or a royalty on bottled water is the Province of British Columbia. In the
Province of British Columbia there are some forty water bottling plants. Last year the
total revenues accruing to the treasury of the Province of British Columbia on all the
royalties for all the water exported out of British Columbia was a grand total of $27,000.
Not millions of dollars or anything else, but $27,000. That is the amount of the bonanza
that would accrue by the introduction of a royalty regime on bottled water.
I've also been informed, and I've taken the trouble to find out, that at the
present time in this Province there has been given approvals to private sector parties to
export something in the order of 107 million litres of water annually. That is already on
the books. If the exporters today were to sit down and do what they have been given the
permission and authority to do they could export 107 million litres of bottled water. If
there is such a worldwide demand for this type of product, if there is such a tremendous
demand upon the water resources of Newfoundland, and if we can, as everyone is saying,
provide this to the world market and be the saviour of the human race - or at least as we
know it - if this were the case we should be exporting at least 107 million litres of
bottled water today. The figures, which are the latest figures available, in 1998, the
same year that there was approval for 107 million litres of water to be exported, the
grand total that was exported by all of those who were permitted to export was 3,156,000
litres.
If there is this tremendous market out there, if everyone is clamoring to get our
water, if it is so inexpensive to bring it down to the south of the border, the only
question I must ask is: Why are we only exporting 3 million litres when in fact we have
given private entrepreneurs out there approval to export 107 million litres? Something
just does not add up in all of this. I suspect I'm not the only person in this hon.
House who is privy to this information. I'm sure the members opposite know. They must
have known what the royalty regimes were in B.C. They must have had some inkling of what
dollars could be accruing to the provincial treasury, and if they did not they should
have, because if they are not doing their research they are simply playing politics of the
most baseless kind.
Let us debunk the whole notion that there is a market out there that we can sell all
the water to that we can produce and bottle. It is not true. The facts prove and show
quite clearly that that is not, in fact, the situation in North America today.
Mr. Speaker, the one statement that the hon. Member for St. John's South started
on, right from the very first day he raised this issue in this House, dealt with the
implications for NAFTA, particularly the export of bulk water. That was a theme that was
built upon, it was expanded upon, and we were led to believe that as soon as the first
large container of water, whether that be 100 litres or a tanker load, went out of this
Province, we would have entrepreneurs from the United States, and I presume Mexico as well
because they are all partners in NAFTA, knocking on our doors, demanding that they also be
given equal access to our water supplies. The big issue then becomes the implications of
NAFTA.
Mr. Speaker, then a very peculiar thing started to happen. I say peculiar and I will
expand upon that very briefly. The party opposite is the party of free trade. They are, on
the provincial level, representatives of the federal party that forced the NAFTA agreement
through the federal Parliament.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MERCER: Well, they were all Tories.
AN HON. MEMBER: Two parties over there.
MR. MERCER: Well, the larger of the two parties.
Was this party aware of the implications of the NAFTA agreement, the one that they so
blindly followed when their leader in Ottawa at the time, Mr. Mulroney, was pushing this
through the federal Parliament? I cannot speak for the party, and I certainly cannot speak
for any of the members, but I do know one thing: one of the most vocal, most vociferous
opponents of the free trade agreement, the one that gave our federal representative in the
federal Cabinet, the hon. John Crosbie, the most fits, if you wish, was a lady by the name
of Maude Barlow. She attacked free trade on every turn. She attacked the minister on every
turn.
I find it, just in passing, ironic, that when this debate comes up to export bulk water
from Newfoundland, who does the provincial Tory Party, as represented by the Member for
St. John's South, align itself with? They align themselves with Maude Barlow, the
lady who was opposed to the Free Trade Agreement right from the get-go, who gave our
federal representative in the federal Cabinet at the time, as he would perhaps admit
himself, a lot of disquieting moments, shall we say. So, when the chips are down, what
does the party opposite do? They align themselves with Maude Barlow.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite trite to say that politics makes strange bedfellows, but I
think this relationship between the Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative
Party and Maude Barlow lends new meaning to this phrase ‘politics makes strange
bedfellows'. I would say it goes further. It goes to say that members opposite, or at
least some members opposite, there is no level to which they would not stoop to gain the
necessary political power and points to find a way to get across to become the governing
side.
In short, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that by aligning themselves with Maude Barlow,
they have said to the Newfoundland population: There is no level to which we will not
stoop, there is no bar under which we will not crawl, to be able to become part of the
governing side.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to summarize by saying that I do congratulate the Member for
St. John's South of initiating a debate on the one hand, but on the other hand I do
heartedly condemn him as a private Member in this House for many of the statements that
were made this past summer, the innuendos, the half truths, and the leaving of impressions
which he knew clearly to be false. I do have a lot of problems with that. It is not my
style of politics, but clearly it is the style of politics of some members opposite.
Having said that, I just want to make one concluding comment to say that I noted with
great interest, a couple of days ago when Bill 31 was introduced, that the Member for St.
John's South - both in the House and, frankly, outside, before the camera - said:
Well, yes it was a pretty good Bill. I didn't see any real problems with it. Maybe
there were a couple of points on which he would like to see some clarification. That was
it, a couple of points on which he wanted to see some clarification. That is on TV; anyone
can see that. Hopefully, one day when we get the cameras in this House, all Newfoundland
will be able to see those kinds of things.
That was on Friday of last week. On Sunday, in The Telegram , what does the
member say? Oh well, we have consulted with our lawyers -
AN HON. MEMBER: In Toronto.
MR. MERCER: - in Toronto - not even a Newfoundland lawyer; although, he did make
some reference that he had also talked to some of the local lawyers, but obviously there
were not up to the quality of the -
AN HON. MEMBER: That was John Ottenheimer.
MR. MERCER: Quite possibly.
Now, the Member for St. John's South has, in The Telegram of November
21,said that there are a couple of amendments he is going to put forward and we would do
well on this side to approve them. At least that is the quotation in The Telegram .
Mr. Speaker, I sit back with baited breath. I am sure that the amendments which are
being proposed are going to be earth-shattering. I am sure, when we get into Committee of
the Whole, we will be able to discuss those amendments and give them all the serious
consideration that they do deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Environment and Labour.
If the minister speaks now he will close debate.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to have the final word on second reading of the bill, "An Act
To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water
Resources Of The Province".
There is no doubt about it, that there has been a lot of interest generated in the
Province about bulk water; however, because of the legislation, they are not going to be
able to do that. It is my prayer and wish that there will be somebody with the initiative
that will do a bottling industry in Grand Le Pierre for that particular group. I am sure
that in time there will be some entrepreneur that will come forward and do that.
This new legislation does protect and conserve our fresh water resources and, as I
said, prohibits the removal of water in bulk from the Province. We also support a growing
bottling industry. As the Member for Humber East already said, there are a number of
bottlers already in the Province and we look forward to working with them and people who
want to develop even more industry.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I close debate and look forward to the amendments to be made in
Committee.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use
And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province" read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 31)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 4, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The
Securities Act". (Bill 9)
My glasses were off, Mr. Speaker. I need a new pair too.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act". (Bill
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Two very simple amendments to the Securities Act: One would ensure that we are making
legally binding the rules that we have instructed the Director of Securities to issue.
This amendment is required on the basis of a court case in Ontario, where we found that
the rule that is provided by the Director of Securities is not a legally binding decision
that could be made.
The second amendment is just to ensure that we can permit electronic filing of
documents under the Securities Act, straightforward into the 1990s type of thing, that is
all we need to do. Those are two very simple amendments and I am pleased to present the
second reading on this amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the hon. minister, there are many things that are simple about that side of
the House that I cannot refer to today, including sometimes the minister.
It is great to see the minister on his feet and get an opportunity to say a few words.
I am glad that he brought in Bill 9. I was a bit worried that the minister didn't
talk, but now I know he does so that is great news.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to stand and make a few comments on Bill 9. When
we talk anything about security, I say to the minister, it is always an important issue.
We are moving into the new millennium, and the fact that we are going to organize the
files electronically is certainly good