May 2, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 17

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin routine proceedings I would like to welcome to the gallery

today a group of eleven "Exceptionally Able Learners" Level II and

III, from the Marystown Central High School in the District of Burin-Placentia

West, accompanied by teachers: Vivian Rose and Stephen King.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

congratulate six students from the Burin Peninsula who will be competing this

weekend in the provincial "Festival D'Art Oratoire", a speakoff

competition that promotes the use of French as a second language, as well as

offer students to apply the French skills they have learned in their study.

These six students were selected from different divisions to represent the

Peninsula at this provincial speak out. They include, from my district, Gillian

Bungay and Crystal Miller of Pearce High, as well as Gaetan Kenway and Kyla

Holloway of Marystown Central High.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention that two students, Jessica Clarke

and Claire Tesnire of St. Lawrence Academy, from the provincial district of

Grand Bank, are also attending the regional speak out.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish these students well in this provincial

competition and congratulate them for their excellence in the Burin Peninsula

regional competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of two men from my district,

Mr. Anson Pittman and Mr. Martin Pittman of Bird Cove, who passed suddenly away

on Thursday, April 25, 2002, while sealing in the Strait of Belle Isle on the BC

Venture .

Anson and his uncle, Martin, were fishermen who worked diligently to provide

the necessities of life for their families. Anson and Martin, along with Martin's

brothers, Tom, Primus and Desmond worked together as a team - a family unit - to

ensure survival in an area economically depressed. Whenever possible, they would

include other family members. Murray Caines and his brother-in-law David

Chambers accompanied them. The entire community of Bird Cove, as well as the

Ramea areas, have been affected. This is a tightly knit community and a tragedy

such as this affects everyone and their own families.

Mourning the loss of one family member is extremely painful, yet to mourn of

two is unbearable.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to thank the hon. members of this House, as

well as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who have offered their

condolences. I wish to thank them for their prayers and many kind offers of

support.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in again offering condolences

to the Pittman families and the entire community of Bird Cove and surrounding

areas on the passing of Anson and Martin.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a group of students

from Rigolet who participated in the Labrador Regional Theatre Festival April

19-21 in Cartwright. A record number of schools from various regions of Labrador

participated in this educational event.

Six students who comprise Les Rigolette Theatre Group from Northern Lights

Academy placed first in the event by performing a play called Overtones .

The six students were Stephanie Nochasak, Candice Elson, Crystal Michelin,

Desery Wolfrey, Edith Sheppard and Kelly-Anne Blake who managed the technical

aspects of the show.

Mr. Speaker, these students will now travel to Gander for a non-competitive

showcase of High School Theatre talent from across the Province May 9-11.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Les Rigolette

Theatre Group on their accomplishments. Also, Mr. Speaker, I, along with the

hon. Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education and the Member for

Gander invite all residents from Gander and surrounding areas to drop by next

week and view the festival being held in Gander.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to recognize the volunteer efforts of three generations of the

Randell family of Bonavista who were recognized on April 21 in St. John's with

the Family Volunteer Award.

Greta Randell, her sons, Shawn and Curtis, daughter Bonnie Abbot,

granddaughter Kayla, grandson Dion and daughter-in-law Rhonda are the

recipients.

The Family Volunteer Award was presented for the first time this year by the

Community Services Council of Newfoundland and Labrador and it recognized a

family that volunteers together, shares volunteer duties or is committed to

volunteer work both together and separately.

Collectively, the Randell family has been volunteering for sixty-nine years

with many organizations including: the Royal Canadian Legion, the Town of

Bonavista, the Volunteer Fire Department, the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, the

Golden Heights Manor Senior Citizen's Home and various church groups. Greta

Randall has been a volunteer for thirty-two years with the Royal Canadian Legion

Ladies Auxiliary and currently holds the position of president.

Mrs. Randell's son, Shawn, is Bonavista's youngest town councillor. He

has also served as a volunteer firefighter for ten years. His brother, Curtis,

has served eight years as a volunteer fireman, and for twelve years has looked

after the local gymnasium in the town. Rhonda, Curtis's wife, is a member of

several Anglican Church groups, including the choir, while his daughter, Kayla,

is also involved in the church and helping seniors at Golden Heights Manor.

Mrs. Randell's daughter, Bonnie Abbott, lives in Grand Falls where she

continues the family tradition as a leader in the Air Cadet movement. Her son,

Dion, has been an Air Cadet for five years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and is presently a junior firefighter.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Randell's have been nominated by the Mayor of

Bonavista and the Town of Bonavista, and I am sure that everybody in this

Assembly joins with me in saying a sincere thank you to the Randell family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to bring to the attention of the House that tomorrow is National

Aboriginal Diabetes Day. The Labrador Mtis Nation will be joining the

Aboriginal groups across Canada to raise awareness on this day.

A number of events are planned, including those directed at school children.

These events include completion of colouring and activity sheets culturally

relevant to Labrador and healthy living.

There is also a community walk planned which will include groups located

throughout Labrador West, Central Labrador, southeastern Labrador, and The

Labrador Straits. By participating in these walks the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador show their appreciation for their diverse culture and heritage.

This is another example of how the Labrador Mtis Nation is working with

surrounding nations in an effort to preserve their way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that everyone in this hon. House join me in extending full

support to all of those who will be participating in Aboriginal Diabetes Day,

and also to congratulate the Labrador Mtis Nation on the work that they are

doing in our Labrador communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the staff and

volunteers of All Hallows Elementary in North River for successfully hosting the

Annual Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Finals of the Great Canadian

Geography Challenge. The event was held on Saturday, April 6, at the school.

Allan Caldwell of McDonald Junior High in St. John's, captured top honours.

Denzil Patterson of Matthew Elementary School in Bonavista, took second place

and Christopher Layte of Amalgamated Academy in Bay Roberts finished in third

place.

The first place winner receives an all expense paid trip to Ottawa to compete

in the National Finals of the Great Canadian Geography Challenge being held from

May 18 to May 20. Twenty-four of the top students representing Canada's

provinces and territories will compete in The National Finals in the National

Museum of Nature being moderated by Alex Trebeck of the television quiz show,

Jeopardy.

The Challenge began earlier this year with classroom competition where school

winners earned the right to qualify for the provincial championship. The contest

is designed to generate an interest in geography among school-aged children and

to do so in a fun and interactive fashion. Mr. Carl Dyke, assistant

vice-president of HSBC Bank Canada and manager of the St. John's branch was on

hand to present awards to the students.

The top two finalists of this year's national final will be competing with

the Canadian team at the International Olympiad to be held in July of 2003.

The Challenge is organized nationally by the Canadian Council for Geographic

Education with the help of hundreds of local teachers and volunteers. National

Cooperate sponsors include the presenting sponsor: the Royal Canadian

Geographical Society and the HSBC Bank Canada, as well as official sponsors:

Bell Canada, Esso Kids Program and Canadian Geographic.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we offer congratulations to the school community of All

Hollows Elementary in North River for certainly hosting this event, and hosting

it successfully. We wish that Allan Caldwell of McDonald Junior High has all the

success in Ottawa later on this month.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to advise hon.

members that Ms Lori Cameron, the Executive Director of the Energy Council of

America and Ms Kelli Robinson, the Energy Council's meeting co-ordinator, are

visiting the Province from Dallas, Texas and are seated in the Speaker's

gallery this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: They are accompanied by Ms Beverly Wiseman of the

Department of Mines and Energy.

The Energy Council is a legislative organization of ten energy-producing

states ranging from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean. These member states

produce more than 80 per cent of the U.S. oil and gas output and include leading

coal, uranium, and renewable energy-producing states. The Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Province of Alberta and the nation of Venezuela

are the Energy Council's three international affiliates. United by a common

interest in energy resources, the elected legislators of the council participate

in the formation of energy policy at all levels.

Mr. Speaker, northeastern natural gas supplies and electric transmission

constraints are two major examples of energy infrastructure concerns being

raised throughout New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions. The energy concerns

of the northeast, one of the biggest consumer markets in the United States, are

of interest to anyone involved with domestic energy issues and particularly

Newfoundland and Labrador as we are poised to become a major energy supplier to

the this region.

Building upon their National Energy Strategy work in the United States and

the emerging role of Newfoundland and Labrador as an energy supplier, and

recognizing the energy concerns of the northeast, the Energy Council and the

Center of Legislative Energy and Environmental Research (CLEER), the research

arm of the Energy Council, will hold a collegial dialogue in St. John's this

summer. The Council and CLEER will host the Northeastern Energy Forum 2002 on

August 24-27, at the Fairmont Hotel.

To successfully plan for the forum, Ms Lori Cameron and Ms Kelli Robinson

will be attending meetings with the Department of Mines and Energy and with

various other stakeholders today.

Mr. Speaker, this conference will provide this Province with new exposure to

potential energy markets. We are hopeful that this will encourage new investment

in our energy sector and attract new exploration interest in our offshore areas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that hon. members give Ms Cameron and Ms Robinson a warm

Newfoundland and Labrador welcome to our fine Province and wish them two days of

successful meetings while they are here with us, preparatory to the conference

in August.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly on behalf of the Official Opposition, we, as well, join with the

minister in welcoming both Ms Cameron and Ms Robinson from Dallas, Texas, as

they engage in what we hope to be very meaningful important preparatory

discussions for this important event that is taking place in our capital city

later on this summer.

It is important to note, as the minister has indicated, that Newfoundland and

Labrador is one of only three other jurisdictions outside of the United States

of America who form part of the membership of this very important council.

The fact that this meeting is taking place in Newfoundland and Labrador is

most significant, I say to the minister and to all members, because it provides

an opportunity for this Province to showcase its very rich natural resources as

it continues to find other partners, other markets, whether it be other Canadian

provinces, other corporations, or indeed other American States, who want to join

with us in the development of these very important natural resources.

I say to the minister that I certainly look forward to the receipt of the

invitation that I am sure the minister will extend to his critic so that he,

too, may participate in this very important event -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - being held in St. John's later on this summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to join with other speakers in welcoming these

representatives here from Dallas, but I should warn them that our experience, in

this country at least, is that when we hold a conference in St. John's, your

attendance records go up much higher than you would expect in any other place.

We just experienced that with the Junos, so -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - when you are doing your planning, please take that into

account.

It is important that this Province be a part of this Energy Council,

particularly as we are a new producer of oil and, hopefully very soon, gas

resources. I hope it is an opportunity for us to learn what other jurisdictions

are doing, to find markets for our products, and to learn from the mistakes of

others. We can see the United States -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - with the Enron debacle and the deregulated energy and gas

markets in California, what can happen if you adopt the wrong policies.

It is a learning experience for us. We do have a lot to learn. We have a new

industry in this Province, and we want to do it right and for the maximum

benefit of the people here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last month, the Premier, through the Minister of Finance, presented the

estimates or the Budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and in it they went to

great lengths to explain to people that they were trying to achieve a balance.

In that, they said that government's only required borrowing this year would

be $93 million. That was last month. Now, this month, on top of this Budget

estimate, Mr. Speaker, we see a bill before the House where the Premier and his

government have asked this Legislature for a carte blanche cheque of $200

million. Take the $93 million Budget forecast deficit away from that, and they

are looking for $107 million more, and we don't know why.

My question for the Premier today is: Why is it that you want the approval of

this Legislature to provide you a cheque worth $107 million, without you

providing us what the items are you are going to spend it on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see that the real leader of the Official Opposition is so

anxious to debate this particular issue.

There is a bill before the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, dealing with that. It

will be fully debated in terms of the borrowings. I want to make this one

correction - and if there are more details you can get them from the Acting

Minister of Finance today in subsequent questions. The $93 million is not

talking about the borrowing for the Province. The $93 million in the Budget

declares to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that in this fiscal year,

from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003, we intend to spend, Mr. Speaker - it has

nothing to do with borrowing. There is lots of borrowing that goes on every day

to manage cash flows and so on. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of

borrowing that goes on by governments all over the country, all over North

America every day to manage cash flows.

What we said in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, is that when the year is over, at

year end, March 31, next year, we have told the people of the Province that we

plan to spend $93 million on their behalf, more than we will take in from all

sources. That is a completely different and separate debate, Mr. Speaker, from

what our borrowing requirements are on any one day, and we will gladly debate

the full contents of the bill that asks for borrowing of $200 million, because

we can debate that for hours during the regular debate of the Legislature. I

will gladly have the Acting Minister of Finance give more details if that is

what he wants to spend Question Period on today. It is a complete difference

between borrowing requirements and the Budget that says we are going to spend

$93 million -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - more than we will take in in the next twelve months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, that would be a great answer if it was totally true. That would

be an acceptable answer to the people of the Province and to the Opposition if

it was entirely correct, but that is not the case.

The bill clearly sets out that the $200 million that this government is

looking for and it says it is a carte blanche to cover "actual or estimated

deficiencies between provincial revenues and expenditures", and here is the

kicker, "or to provide for expenditures made or to be made."

The fact of the matter is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

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

The fact of the matter is that this government is looking for an additional

$107 million. I will ask the Premier this question: Is it for expenditures you

have not listed in your Budget? It can only be that. Is it for projects that you

are working on, that you have yet to announce, that you did not declare in this

Budget? What is it for, Premier? Because I can assure him of this: if he does

not tell us, we will be debating it for more than hours; we will be debating it

for weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, I am not sure if it is going to be a better answer

than yesterday; it will be the same answer with some more detail. If it is

possible to satisfy, in any way, the inquisitiveness, the curiosity of the

members, we, on this side of the House, are happy to oblige with information.

The fact of the matter is that the borrowing bill is a normal bill that comes

before this House regularly. The bill that is before the House now, that is

requesting authority to borrow $200 million, is for purposes of refinancing some

of our debt. It is for purposes of retiring some of our pension obligations. It

is for purposes of managing our cash flow better, and it is for purposes of

generally ensuring that we have the capacity, as a government, to run the

financial affairs of the Province in a fiscally prudent manner, to spend their

money when it is best spent, to borrow when it is cheapest to borrow, and to do

business in a most prudent manner.

The hon. members should know that in 1999, Mr. Speaker, when we had a

balanced budget in this House, we had a borrowing requirement for $250 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The borrowing bill that is before the House has nothing to

do directly with the $93 million. That is only a part of the issue, that is only

a part of the equation. The hon. member, I am sure, understands this. I am not

sure where he is trying to lead -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - but we will see as he progresses in his (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This government has never had a balanced budget. They have attempted to tell

people they have had it, but they have never had it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, either the minister is not in possession of all of the

facts or he is refusing to release the facts. Yesterday, he said in the House,

the money was for authorization to refinance existing securities coming due

during this fiscal year. That is obviously not the case, Mr. Speaker. The

resolution before the House states that the $200 million they are looking for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - is in addition to - in addition to - the sum or sums of

money required to retire, repay, renew or refund.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Will the minister release the truth and the facts today and

provide an itemized list to this House of what the government is intending to do

with the $107 million extra that they did not put in the Budget? What are they

going to do, and what are they going to use it for? Will you provide to the

people of the Province an itemized list of why we should give you an additional

$107 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. member's question: Of course, when we debate this bill in the

House, as we will do before we leave for this spring session, we will be glad to

provide all of the detailed information, as the Premier has indicated would be

appropriate, and it would be the appropriate time to do it.

I, frankly, Mr. Speaker, was expecting the hon. member today to rise in the

House and ask me a question, or ask the Premier a question, as to what our

comment would be, what our commentary is, on the very good news from RBC

Dominion when today they reported, or yesterday they announced, that we, this

year, will, for the third or fourth time in the last five years, be leading the

country in GDP growth at a rate of 5.4 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member would be

interested in aiding and abetting us in spreading some good news and some

positivity around the Chamber that we are sitting in, and around the Province,

and report on what is actually happening in the economy of the Province, and

that is: growth and prosperity and continued expansion of our economy as a

result of fiscally good management on behalf of this government, by this

government, for the last twelve or thirteen years, and I predict for another

twelve or thirteen years, well into the future, when you and I, too, are

probably well into retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Question Period is the appropriate place to debate and answer questions, I

say to the Minister of Finance. He suggested, Mr. Speaker, that maybe I should

ask different questions. If the questions that he would write are anything like

the answers that he will give, I will stick with my own faculties, I will say to

the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the $107 million that they are looking for is

not for capital construction. They have already provided for that in the Budget

under capital expenditures. It makes up the lion's share of the $93 million

deficit forecast for the year. So, I will ask the minister again: There must be

some reason or some reasons why you want to borrow the extra $107 million. Why

is it that you are so adverse to standing up in an accountable, transparent way

and telling the Official Opposition, and through us the people of the Province,

what it is that you are going to spend $107 million on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to allege any particular type

of physical or mental condition to the hon. member, but I am almost to a point

of suggesting that he is a bit slow. The fact of the matter is, I have told him

two or three times why we were borrowing or asking for provision to be able to

borrow $200 million this year. I know he has great respect for the bureaucrats

who work within the system, particularly the bureaucrats in the Department of

Finance, who are very capable, very competent people. So, for his greater level

of comfort and certainty, so he can sleep better tonight, let me read for him

the explanatory note that has been provided by the officials who are very, very

knowledgeable and very, very accurate in the information that they provide for

us. The note says this, Mr. Speaker - and I know they do not want to hear the

truth. I know they do not want to hear it, but they are going to hear it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: They are going to hear it because they need to hear it, and

we will repeat it again if we have to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The loan bill authorizes the borrowing of the amount

required to cover the budgetary deficit in addition to amounts which are applied

to the retirement of or refunding of the Province's debt, including retirement

of pension liabilities paid into the Sinking Funds.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Each loan lapses upon the passage of a new act.

Each year we have to come in with a bill, and that is the purpose for this

bill, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do understand why he neglected to read further because it talks about money

that is either going to be used or expenditures are made or to be made, which

means yet to be defined or yet to be declared.

Let me ask him this question. During the Budget submission, the government,

the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasure Board went a

long way to talk about the balance that they were trying to achieve. So let me

ask him this question: Is the $107 million extra that you did not declare in

this Budget going to be used for the real balance that you are concerned about,

which is where you are in the polls now and where you hope to be a year from

now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to have a debate with

respect to how the polls have been tracking over the last year, we would be

happy to have that debate. We would be happy to enter into that discussion. We

would be happy to share that dialogue with him. If he wants a projection as to

where we think the polls are going to be in a years time, we would even

prognosticate on that because we believe the information that we would share

with him would be good for us, but would certainly be disconcerting for him.

The hon. member knows that the bill before the House, seeking authority to

borrow $200 million, is for a combination of purposes that have a norm, that

happen year-over-year, and are for reasons as outlined by me verbally and as

presented by me in the note that has been provided by the officials. If the hon.

member has some real questions that he has not asked, I would offer him leave to

get up and try again to ask the question that he seems to be having great

difficulty bringing some creditability to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few questions today for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I understand that the Premier and the minister met this morning with the

federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Given the positive report coming out

of the meeting, can I assume that the minister got a commitment that all

allocations of northern shrimp will be made with adjacency being the first and

only guiding principle, putting the people in areas like Canada Bay on the

Northern Peninsula ahead of people in areas like Miramichi Bay in New Brunswick

in any future access decisions on northern shrimp?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not heard the news since the meeting we had with the minister this

morning. I don't know if it was a positive or a negative spin that was put on

it, but with regard to the allocation of shrimp off the Coast of Newfoundland

and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, it has always been the position of this government

that we are adjacent to that resource and it should be solely for the use of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &

White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there was no commitment, so I will ask the

minister this: Did he get a commitment that in the absence of immediate action

by European nations, Canada would extend custodial management to the NAFO

regulatory area, so that foreign fishermen fishing outside the 200-mile limit

will fish with the same regulatory and enforcement regime as Canadian fishermen

fishing inside of this are?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the media did a good job in reporting the topics that we discussed

with the federal minister this morning. Mr. Speaker, we discussed the IPAC

report that he made reference to with regard to shrimp. We also spoke about

foreign overfishing and the need to curb that, on the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks and the Flemish Cap. We put forward our position on that, and it was that

we should have custodial management of those fisheries, not just for the benefit

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but those who have a historical right to

fish those stocks as well. That has been the position of this government, always

has been and always will be, that we should extend jurisdiction and take

custodial management of the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits

& White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what the media reported. I do know the minister had a press

conference and he tried to put a positive spin on it.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker: Given the accolades that the Premier and the

minister heaped on Minister Thibault this morning, can I assume, again, that

they were successful in convincing the federal minister to allow the seal hunt

in this Province to continue this spring until such time as the markets have

been satisfied and the processors decide that the hunt should stop?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, again I haven't heard any media reports, but I

am not aware that I heaped any accolades on the federal minister this morning,

except that I complimented him for taking the stand that he did with regard to

the Faroese and the Estonians. When they are talking about what commitments we

got from Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, I guess when the federal leader of the Progressive

Conservative Party comes here this week, or next week, whenever he is scheduled

to come, that he will certainly give a commitment to send the gunboats out. When

he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, back in 1992, he certainly would not do

that, but I guess talk is cheap now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, now that the Hay consultants report - and

the minister has been refuted and the minister has disassociated himself with

some comments in the report with respect to the emergency department physicians,

and now that the Janeway emergency physicians are asking the HayGroup to retract

those offending sentences, will the minister disassociate the government from

those comments that he commissioned, that he paid for, or will he now join with

the emergency department physicians and ask for a retraction and apology from

the HayGroup? Will he join with them and ask that request?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member, some days ago in the Legislature, posed, from my

perspective, relatively the very same question. My response has not changed

since last week. It did not change this week in terms of my response to

questions in this House. The position has been, of this government, that we do

not agree with the comments that were contained in the Hay Report as they relate

to the emergency operations of the Janeway Hospital.

In response to that question here, I indicated that. We have indicated in

this House, because of the concerns expressed by the physicians themselves, if

it was an apology from this minister they wanted, I gladly gave it.

To what the hon. member is suggesting now, I have also stated publicly, and I

have stated it repeatedly: the authors of the report have indicated that they

stand by what is in the report. I listened to the comments on Open Line this

morning - I saw the transcript. I did not hear it because I was out attending to

other business on behalf of the people of this Province. In referencing the

comments that were made with regard to the dealing of the report, I gather from

the comments that were contained there by your leader, that if he were to become

Premier of this Province, any report that would be produced for his government

would certainly go through an editing process first before it would be released

to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: That is exactly what was said. Mr. Speaker, if that is what

the hon. member is advocating, this minister does not subscribe to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Health and

Community Services has disassociated this government with the statements in that

report about the emergency department physicians, I ask the minister: Are there

any other comments about any other group of people at the Health Care

Corporation, comments that are equally damaging, equally misleading, that the

minister now would like to stand and disassociate himself with any other

comments in the report? Are there other comments in that report that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - you now want to disassociate yourself with? Stand

publicly and do it, Mr. Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the line of questioning from our long and dear and abiding and

life-long friend from Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: I believe that the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of our Province, are very pleased that

a potentially very disruptive and very problematic circumstance this morning -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that my other life-long friend, the real Leader of the Opposition, might

let me speak and give the answer, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are very pleased today that a situation that would

have been potentially very disruptive and very difficult at the Janeway Children's

Hospital was averted and avoided. Unfortunately, what we have is this: what we

have is the Leader of the Opposition, who still wants to play politics on it, on

the radio this morning, on the public airwaves, with issues that the doctors say

they do not want said because it is damaging their reputation, going on the

airwaves to say: Let me repeat, Bill, for those who have not heard it, here are

the damaging remarks in the Hay Report. So, just in case somebody did not hear

it, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition wanted to bring it up again, when the doctors

are saying: Please apologize, please make those statements go away -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and the person trying to keep them in the media, in the

press, Mr. Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition and now our hon. friend from

Trinity North.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: we have done what we have done

this time and we are true to our word. We commissioned a report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly, please.

PREMIER GRIMES: We asked people to give their view. We gave it to

everybody in the Province so we could all work through the issues together. We

did not make the comment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Premier that we, too, were

delighted that walkout was averted this morning. In fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: In fact, Mr. Speaker, my question was very much to that

point. My question to the minister was: Does he want to stand in the House

today, does he want to take this opportunity and stand in the House and refute

any other damaging statements that are in there before that blows up in their

face?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Is there any other group out there that has been

insulted and damaged by that report? If so, take the opportunity and stand here

now and retract that as well!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Heath and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting to listen to the hon. member couch his questions here and

talk about and be all so concerned about what has happened to a particular group

of physicians, well-respected individuals in this Province, because of an

independent report that was produced.

It is rather interesting, Mr. Speaker. The day that I arrived on the job as

the newly sworn in Minister of Health, I was made aware of the concern with

regard to the Janeway. The first time I heard it. The deputy that day did a

briefing with the media in response to a media request, gave the relevant

information, explained the situation. It was covered in the media. I never saw

another thing. When the hon. member raised the question in the House, in fact,

the media that day chose not to follow up on the issue. If the hon. member will

listen? I listened to the hon. member. I ask him to accord me the same courtesy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in response to his questions in this House, there

was no follow-up from the media, no coverage at all on it. The next reference to

it was, in fact, by a physician himself, who had been out of the Province at the

time. I read the

article on the weekend, drawing attention to it. Again, it is

back in the media. So, do not accuse this minister-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: - or this government of being out there and fueling this. You,

Sir, are doing it by standing in the House and raising it today, and I ask you

to stop!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. This morning, Mr. Speaker, myself and my

colleague from Labrador West - in fact, our entire caucus - was at the airport -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - with MP, Lorne Nystrom, representatives from the airline

industry, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, and the alliance of travel

agencies, joining to support a national campaign to have the federal government

repeal the $24 round-trip air traveller security tax.

Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair tax. It is the highest in the world, three

times what the Americans are charging. It is discriminatory to airline

travellers, and it is particularly harmful to the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador where people have to travel by air and 65 per cent of our tourists get

here by air.

Will the Premier take a strong position on this issue, more than what was

done in late March, merely sending a letter from a couple of ministers to

Minister Collenette and Paul Martin? Will the Premier and this government take a

stronger position on this issue, support this campaign to repeal the tax, and

play an active role in trying to eliminate this unfair burden on the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I want to inform the hon. member that we have a committee of

Cabinet looking into air-access in this Province, in addition to other items,

but specifically looking into air-access. We have been on top of this problem

since September 11, realizing what has happened to the aviation industry in

Newfoundland since that particular time with the integration of Air Canada and

Canadian National. This committee is working feverishly, fervently and

diligently with as much interest and with as much compassion for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador as members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that the government is on top

of this issue and we will do whatever is in our power to ensure that that

excessive air security rate is either eliminated or substantially reduced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what problem the minister is on

top of. Certainly, all we have seen so far is hot air, which we know rises to

the top.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: All we got so far is a press release on (inaudible). What in

concrete terms has this minister, has this government done to try and force the

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, this committee has been very active since its

formation and we have been meeting with all of the major airlines. We have been

meeting with other officials who have influence in the airline business, and we

are going to be meeting with federal government officials who have influence. So

we are going to be lobbying, Mr. Speaker, and have lobbied to this point in time

with all of the major airlines, and when we get our facts together - unlike hon.

members opposite, we want to have our facts together, we want to have our

research in place before we go out and start prattling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to present a petition on behalf of the people in Rocky

Harbour, Norris Point, and Sally's Cove. I will read the prayer:

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 redevelopment is proposed for the existing Rocky Harbour Elementary

School; and

WHEREAS parents and residents are concerned that issues such as cafeteria

size and safety, adequate site plan development, separation of elementary and

high school students, adequate storage space, and outstanding repairs have not

been addressed;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to resolve these issues before commencing this project, as in duty bound your

petitioners ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, parents in Rocky Harbour, Norris Point and Sally's Cove are

very frustrated with what has been happening. They have seen Rocky Harbour

Elementary School proposed to be turned into a K-12. The parents there have

acted with the school board in a right and proper manner in the official

capacity, but they have become so frustrated that both Chairs have resigned from

the school councils because they felt they had no other choice than to do so.

On top of that, Mr. Speaker, they pulled their children out of school on

Friday, April 26, and felt they had to do such action. It was an extreme action,

they realize that, but they felt they had to do this action in order to draw the

attention to the very serious situation here. A school does not get built in a

community every other day and they feel that it is extremely important to get it

right. They just do not want to go out there and have this school just for the

sake of getting it done. They want to see the importance of what this school is

to their children, and those parents have been involved for a long time. It has

been five years or more that we have been talking about getting a new school

there. We did not know the school had to be closed in Norris Point, but when the

time comes that there is going to be money allocated for this school, all of a

sudden it will be very much of a rush issue. Those parents felt they were not

treated properly and they were not given an adequate opportunity to come in.

They felt that their concerns were not being listened to.

After pulling their kids out of school, and that extreme action, they decided

to have a meeting on Saturday and see where they would go from here. They felt

that one of the things which had not happened up to this point was to have all

involved parties at the table at the one time. They felt that if there was a

solution offered that it should be able to be scrutinized by everybody around

the table and say: yes, it is workable or no it is not. They proposed that but

yet the Department of Education has declined to come to such a meeting in Rocky

Harbour and they feel it is very unfortunate that this would happen.

So, out of this frustration the parents are left there now without knowing

where to go and what to do because they know unless they get an opportunity to

sit down and work their way through this issue that it will not be resolved,

that we will go through the runaround again. That is what they have had up to

this point. They feel there has been nothing but a runaround. I really believe

that the parents here deserve to have their concerns addressed before this

school gets built in Rocky Harbour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador;

hundreds of names, Mr. Speaker. Hundreds of names which I will submit. The

petition has a prayer and I certainly hope that the people of Labrador has a

prayer in getting the road completed.

The petition is to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador in Parliament assembled; and

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up with $347.6

million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act requires that money

in the fund be used for the maintenance of marine and ferry services to

Labrador, construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and other initiatives

related to transportation in Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Liberal Government announced in the 2002 Budget that $97 million

would be taken out of the Labrador Transportation Fund and added to the general

revenues of the Province to be used for purposes outside the Act;

We the undersigned petitioners believe that the raiding of the Labrador

Transportation Initiative Fund is a gross violation of the purposes of the Fund

and a breach of trust with the people of Labrador and hereby petition the House

of Assembly to direct the government to immediately put this $97 million back

into the Labrador Transportation Fund to be spent on transportation initiatives

in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke yesterday on this petition, I talked about how

neglected the people in Labrador feel when it comes to transportation. We have

heard, today, a question from my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi, about the airline tax that is imposed on people and the cost of

transportation, particularly to people who live in places like Labrador, whose

access is mainly by air. Road transportation, Mr. Speaker, is very important to

all people in the Province, but particularly to those who live in our northern

regions. The people of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, believe that government removing

this $97 million really jeopardizes the feasibility and the ability of this

government to complete Phase III as they intend to do.

Now, I would like to comment, Mr. Speaker, on the ministers's statement

yesterday, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, when he said that

this government is committed to completing Phase III of the Trans-Labrador

Highway. We are still committed, he said, we are willing to put it on paper. Mr.

Speaker, the $97 million in the Labrador Transportation Fund was on paper. So,

that does not mean anything to the people of this Province or to the people in

Labrador, in particular, on this issue, because the minister is already

prepared, and this government is prepared, to tear up and destroy the piece of

paper that is there today, the legislation that is in this Province that is

supposed to have protected the money in this fund. So, a new piece of paper, Mr.

Speaker, will be just as easy for this government to destroy as the previous

one.

So, we don't take any comfort -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - from that, Mr. Speaker, at all, don't take any comfort

whatsoever, and the people of Labrador are very upset with government's

decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Labrador are very upset with government's decision, and this

petition is calling on this House of Assembly to direct government to not take

money out of this fund, but to spend that money for the purpose for which it was

intended.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some thirty-two residents of

the District of Humber East. I presented this petition to the Table, and the

Table has indicated to me that everything is in the appropriate form and all the

appropriate words that are necessary are contained in the petition.

Mr. Speaker, to read the prayer of the petition very briefly:

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation has anticipated the demand for a

long-term health care facility in the region and that it did commission a study

and that that study was concluded and that it did recommend that a new facility

for long-term health care be constructed; and

WHEREAS that study has been delivered to the Department of Health; and

WHEREAS the regional MHA's have been made aware of the contents of that

report:

WHEREFORE the undersigned residents of Western Newfoundland, served by the

Western Health Care Corporation, request that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador immediately begin implementation of the plan to build the required

facilities as identified in the study.

Mr. Speaker, this particular petition is signed by some thirty-two residents,

primarily from the City of Corner Brook, the Town of Pasadena, Irish Town, and a

few other communities down the bay. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the

participants are generally from the region and they recognize that there is a

need in Western Newfoundland for a long-term chronic health care facility.

Mr. Speaker, having been a resident of that area for the last twenty years,

it is very clear to me that the existing facilities, at the J. I. O'Connell

Centre, which was the original hospital in Corner Brook and which was

subsequently converted to a senior citizens' facility or a Level III and IV,

is woefully inadequate. As well, Mr. Speaker, the Inter Faith Citizens Home

which was originally built for Level I and Level II residents has outlived its

usefulness and there are now, within that facility, a large number of

individuals and residents who are requiring extended and chronic care.

As well, at the Western Memorial Hospital itself, in the last several years

the fifth and the sixth floors have been converted from an acute care facility

to chronic care. We have on the fifth floor, a situation where we have a number

of resident who are in protective care because many of these patients are

suffering from a dementia of one form or another, and on the sixth floor we also

have residents who are requiring long-term health care.

The study that has been done, Mr. Speaker, very clearly points out to a need

to bring these facilities under one central roof; one central long-term facility

that will serve the needs of the Corner Brook Western Newfoundland area. It is

very important that we should point out that this is not simply a request for a

facility in Corner Brook alone. It is a facility to serve all of Western

Newfoundland to provide our seniors with a quality health care facility where

they can receive the type of care which they have so richly earned over these

last many years.

Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to join with these

thirty-two individuals and I do anticipate, over the next several -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MERCER: Just a moment to clue up, by leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: I expect over the next several days and weeks that we will

receive many such petitions before this hon. House of Assembly requesting the

same type of a facility from people in all parts of Western Newfoundland and,

Mr. Speaker, it would be my great honour and my great privilege, and those of

the other members of my caucus who represent Western Newfoundland, to rise in

our places and to make this request of government to accede to the construction

of this long-term health care facility for Western Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Order 4, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve itself into

Committee of the Whole to discuss and debate

An Act Respecting The Control And

Management Of Water Resources In The Province. (Bill 4)

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Bill 4,

An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In

The Province.

Shall clause 1 carry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, we have some concerns with the bill. We did go to Resource

Committee on the bill and there was progress made at the Resource Committee. A

number of the amendments that we put forward were accepted. A number of the

amendments that we put forward were withdrawn. There was significant progress

made at the Resource Committee, I will say. Having said that, we still have some

concerns with the bill. We will elaborate a little bit on some of those concerns

now.

Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns under

section 13(1), "The minister may

establish in the department a Registry of Water Rights and where that registry

is established (

a) the minister may, in writing, designate an employee of the

department to be the Registrar of Water Rights and the Registrar shall maintain

the Registry of Water Rights as required by the minister."

Mr. Chairman, we feel that the minister should be required to establish a

Registry of Water Rights and appoint a Registrar of Water Rights. At the very

minimum, Mr. Chairman, I think there should be a Registrar or Registry of Water

Rights in the Province. By doing so, the general public, members of the House,

corporations, businesses that have an interest in using or utilizing water, may

have access to the Registry of Water Rights to determine what rights they may

have in a particular body of water or what they may apply for or if that

particular body of water already have water rights designated. If that Registry

were available, Mr. Chairman, I feel that there would be much greater disclosure

to the general public.

I do not know if the minister wishes to stand and elaborate on this point a

little bit. I will give the minister the opportunity on 13(1) to give some

explanation as to where he or the department is on this particular section.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to take a second here to respond to the

Opposition critic for this portfolio. I want to thank the former Minister of

Environment for his good work in bringing forward this legislation. I want to

thank him for the effort that he put into the public consultations and also the

effort that the committee did in reviewing the different amendments put forward

by the Opposition. We welcome that homework that was done. We have agreed to a

number of the amendments.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, from my review of it with our officials, this is

one that we did not agree to. It basically says in the act itself that:

"The minister may establish in the department a Registry of Water Rights

and where that registry is established (

a) the minister may...." What the

member opposite is trying to get established is that the minister be required to

do so.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the way the legislation is written is strong

enough to deal with this issue, that this will occur, and that this is the way

it has been written in other pieces of legislation and throughout the

legislation here, this piece of legislation, that this wordage is used. We have

every intention of ensuring the registry is in place, and we believe at this

point that language should suffice.

My understanding is that the committee put forward recommendations and, at

the end of the day, we have agreed on certain recommendations, amendments that

we will allow to go through today and put forward. This one here, we believe the

wording is sufficient and we will leave it there.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the minister just stated that the government has every

intention of putting in place a Registry of Water Rights. I see absolutely no

reason why we should not delete the words, "the minister may", and

substitute with, "the minister shall".

If we are going to have a Registry of Water Rights, I feel that there is

legitimacy in guaranteeing that there is a Registry of Water Rights. There is

legitimacy in ensuring that we have a Registry of Water Rights. The minister

just stated that they are going to put in place a Registry of Water Rights and

that government has every intention of doing so. By leaving it as it is, there

is no guarantee that is going to happen. If we change the words, "the

minister may", to, "the minister shall", then we are guaranteed a

Registry of Water Rights; the people of the Province are guaranteed a Registry

of Water Rights. Every indication that I see from the department, from the

minister, is that the registry will be put in place. Having said that, I see no

harm in changing the words to, "the minister shall".

I give the minister another opportunity to respond to that and hopefully see

our point of view, because I feel there is no harm in doing that, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, the member is making a very proactive

argument. The previous discussions on this matter, the officials in my

department have indicated that this language should suffice. What I will do is,

I will check with the officials in the next few minutes. I will undertake to do

that, just to see what their further advice is on the matter so that we can move

to further items. I understand what the Opposition critic is trying to

accomplish.

Also, what the present bill does, with the registry, it allows for the

setting up of a Registry of Water Rights and it also indicates in

section (

b) that, "...an application made for them under this Act shall be registered

in the Registry of Water Rights...". So it really sets up the process.

I will check with our officials but, I mean, the process previous to this has

been discussed further, previously to the House, and I will undertake to check.

I will come back in a few minutes once I get further advice on the matter. I am

still open-minded because we have allowed a number of changes, but I will

undertake in the next few minutes to get a further response for you on this.

CHAIR: Before we proceed, the Chair would like some clarification. The

clause 1 was called. I note that we are now debating clause 13. What is the wish

of the House on how we wish to proceed on this particular bill?

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with clause 1. What I

was intending to do was to just point out some of the areas where we had some

concerns and then maybe we could go back and pass it clause-by-clause at that

point. If that is okay, otherwise we can go back as you please, Mr. Chairman. We

can pass clause 1.

CHAIR: The Chair is simply looking for clarification as to how the House

wishes to proceed. Do they wish to proceed clause-by-clause or to jump over the

bill as they wish and then come back at the end of the day and approve all the

clauses from 1 through?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chair, we would (inaudible) any procedure that facilitates

the process. Whatever hon. gentlemen want we will go along with it, as long as

it facilitates and helps the process.

CHAIR: So, we will do all of our debate under clause 1?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Understood.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: I thank the Government House Leader for that and Mr.

Chairman. We are not going to unduly tie up this bill. We have had three or four

months of debate on the bill. We have gone to Resource Committee on it and so

on. So, I think that this would probably expedite the discussions today and

debate, and hopefully, with a little more cooperation between us and the

minister, maybe we will get a couple of more amendments passed and that would

make everybody happy, and we will see the bill passed today.

Mr. Chairman, the next area of concern I would like to raise is

section 14

(4), "The minister may post public notices of the application for a

licence, plans referred to in subsection (3) and those other things that the

minister considers necessary or that are required by regulation." We feel

here that disclosure of information about licence requests should be mandatory.

What we are asking for here is to delete the words, "the minister may"

and again, substitute with the words, "the minister shall".

I will give the minister an opportunity here to respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Again, this part of the act indicates, "The minister may post public

notices of the application for a licence, plans referred to in subsection

(3) and those other things that the minister considers necessary or that are

required by regulation."

Given the fact that this is new legislation, and that we are also trying to

make this as transparent as possible, I believe we will give that matter some

consideration in the next few minutes. I will just recheck with the officials,

but I think we are open to that further change. That does nothing but strengthen

it a little more. I will reserve the right to check with my officials to make

sure that we are comfortable. So on that one, I think, we are able to move.

Again, I want to thank the minister who is here in the House now, the former

Minister of Environment, for a good job done on this act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I know the critic for the Opposition agrees with me when

I say that. I think that he has done a great service for the Province by leading

the public consultations, with his officials around. I looked at the results of

those discussions, and the documents, and again, a very positive process. I want

to thank the former Minister of Environment for the very good work he did on

this effort, and also the Opposition for their input into this.

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

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

I accept the minister's explanation, and hopefully they will get back to us

with word that they are going to accept our amendment here.

Mr. Chairman, the next theory that I would like to address is

section 16.(1).

I will read that. It says, "Notwithstanding

section 15, the minister may,

in accordance with the regulations, reserve unappropriated water from a body of

water in order to determine how the water may best be used and may authorize the

allocation of the whole or a part of that water among applicants for a licence

as he or she thinks is in the best public interest."

Mr. Chairman, the minister should not have sole discretionary power to

determine what is in the best public interest. What we are suggesting here is to

delete the words "as he or she thinks is in the public interest" and

substituting therefore the words "according to the public interest".

We feel again that this is one of the areas of the bill that gives

discretionary power to the minister. That discretionary power may not always be

used in the public interest, and therefore we are asking that this amendment

also be considered. I will ask the minister if he would like to expand on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, again, this matter was discussed in

committee and there was agreement on a number of amendments. This one we had

hesitation on. When you look at it, it is related to unappropriated water. Under

16.(1), "the minister may, in accordance with the regulations, reserve

unappropriated water from a body of water in order to determine how the water

may best be used and may authorize the allocation of the whole or a part of that

water among applicants for a licence as he or she thinks is in the public

interest."

Basically what is being suggested by the Opposition critic is rephrasing that

and putting in "according to the public interest". Again, the minister

will end up making that decision, according to the public interest.

I do not see a major problem with that change of wording, but again I am just

going to ask the officials who are outside to give us a final assessment of

that. I believe that one is one that does not change the context of the

amendment of this part of the act. We will look at that and accordingly respond

in a few minutes.

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

Again, I appreciate the minister's explanation and I feel that this

amendment will only strengthen the act and protect the general public. I

appreciate the minister's explanation and we await word from his officials as

to whether or not this is another area that they can look at acceptance.

The next area, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to speak on is

section 21.(2).

Under

section 21.(2) it says, "The minister may, on receiving a complaint

that a licence holder is receiving water from a supply to which another licence

holder has a priority of right under this Act, direct an inspector to

investigate the matter and submit a report to the minister on that investigation

as soon as is practicable."

We feel that the minister should be required to investigate allegations that

a licence holder is receiving water from a supply to which another licence

holder has a priority right. What we are suggesting here is that, by deleting

the words "the minister may" and substituting therefore the words

"the minister shall", what this does, Mr. Chairman, basically, again

it strengthens the bill. It strengthens the legislation and gives greater power

to the legislation as opposed to the minister. What this does is ensure that an

investigation will be carried out. If there are allegations made then we know

that there will be an investigation, as opposed to that investigation being

subject to the discretion of the minister or the officials in that department.

Mr. Chairman, what we are asking for here, essentially, is to strengthen the

bill to delete the words "the minister may" and substitute with the

words "the minister shall", strengthening the legislation and giving

better security, better protection to the environment.

I ask the minister to give explanation on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

Again, this amendment was discussed earlier by the committee, at earlier

proceedings, and was discussed at length. It had been decided up to that point

that there was not an overpowering reason to change that wording.

When you look at, again, the context of the subsection, Priority of Right,

"the minister may, on receiving a complaint that a licence holder is

receiving water from a supply to which another licence holder has a priority of

right under this Act, direct an inspector to investigate the matter and submit a

report to the minister on that investigation as soon as is practicable."

My understanding from the officials is that the reason "may" is

there is that it allows some judgements to be made depending on the complaint.

The complaint could be a frivolous complaint, so therefore it has allowance with

that wording. That is the advice provided. Actually, most of the legislation is

written this way to allow for some flexibility.

Again, seeing that it is dealing with a complaint that would come from a

licence holder related to water, that is a serious issue and is one that should

be dealt with appropriately and seriously, I will have them review that again to

see just the context under which it is there. I do not have an overriding

argument against not doing it. The advice from our officials, the writers of the

legislation, is that the "may" phraseology works better when it comes

to the regulations; but, I will come back before the next hour is out. I will

add that to the list of what we are looking at. Again, we have agreed to some

amendments previous to this and these were discussed earlier.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that - I have read the legislation in other

jurisdictions and they, too, use the words "the minister may" in many

cases as opposed to "the minister shall". We are hoping that the

department will have another look at this. It strengthens the legislation and it

ensures that, if there is an allegation made, that allegation will be followed

through. The only way we can find out if it is a frivolous allegation is to

investigate, and once that allegation is investigated, if it is guaranteed that

it will be investigated, we can take comfort in the fact that it will be

investigated. Once that allegation is investigated to determine that a licence

holder is not receiving water from the supply in which another licencee has the

rights to, then that would satisfy the allegations.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I will move on to the next amendment that we have

proposed and that is to 21.(3). The wording of the legislation is, "If,

following an investigation and report under subsection (2), it is established

that a licence holder is receiving water to which the licence holder is not

entitled the minister shall take the action that he or she considers necessary

to ensure reallocation of the water under the terms of the licence".

We believe here that the minister should be required to effectively restore

the integrity of the licence, not simply to make a good effort. What it is

saying here is that the minister will make a good effort. So, we are asking here

that this subsection, this amendment that we are proposing to the subsection, be

accepted.

I will give the minister a chance to respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

Is the member referencing again 21.(2)? Is that what he is referencing?

MR. T. OSBORNE:

Section 21.(3).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Section (3), sorry. Okay. Does he have a copy of that

amendment that he is proposing? If he could send it over. Go ahead.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: John, can you give the minister a copy of your amendment?

Mr. Chairman, while that is being delivered, I will just explain the

amendment we are proposing for the minister. We are asking that in 21.(3), that

the words, "take the action that he or she considers necessary" be

deleted. We feel that those words diminish the ability of this subsection. What

we believe is that the minister should be required to effectively restore the

integrity of a licence, not just to make a good effort. If those words remain

there, then basically the minister has the discretion to do what they consider

necessary or what they believe to be necessary as opposed to being required to

restore the integrity of a licence. So, I will ask the minister to respond to

that. Did the minister get a copy of that?

Section 21.(3).

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

Looking again at the context of the clause that is here on the Priority of

Rights and water rights, (3), "If, following an investigation and report

under subsection (2), it is established that a licence holder is receiving water

to which the licence holder is not entitled the minister shall take the action

that he or she considers necessary to ensure reallocation of the water under the

terms of the licence." Taking out "that he or she considers

necessary" does not substantially change that clause. Again, that was

discussed earlier also within the committee and had not been formally agreed to.

I will, again, just ask the officials for one final comment on it.

The context of that clause pretty well stays the same if you leave it in. It

just gives a view of what the minister would consider necessary, and that would

have to determined in any case. I think that one is somewhat questionable in

looking at making any further change to it, but again I will ask the officials

to give us final advice on that.

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

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

Again, I will restate our position that by deleting the words, "take the

action that he or she considers necessary", if those words were deleted,

essentially the clause would read: If following an investigation and report

under subsection (2), it is established that a licence holder is receiving water

to which the licence holder is not entitled the minister shall take the action

necessary to ensure reallocation of the water under the terms of the licence.

That would give much greater strength to the legislation and would ensure

that the integrity was reallocated or restored. So, I ask the minister to take

that into consideration again. I ask his officials to take that into

consideration, because what we are asking for is that it not be left

discretionary, that it be required upon the minister to effectively restore the

integrity of a licence.

The next

section I would like to draw the minister's attention to is

section 22.(3). That reads, "In the case of a dispute as to the quantity of

water used or diverted, or the capacity of works, the minister may order an

inspection of the works and that inspection may include flow measurements."

What we are recommending here is that the word "may" be deleted

wherever it occurs in the subsection and substituted with "shall".

Therefore, the subsection would read: In the case of a dispute as to the

quantity of water used or diverted, or the capacity of works, the minister shall

order an inspection of the works and that inspection shall include flow

measurements.

Again, it just strengthens the legislation and takes away a little bit of

that discretionary power that the minister has. I ask the minister to respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I have to ask the critic, I am starting to

wonder what we are talking about when we are talking about trying to get this

legislation approved in the House of Assembly. We are going through all the

amendments that were already discussed at the committee, and he is going through

almost every one of them again.

You have a report here that tells me that there was an agreement, basically,

to deal with a number of amendments that we had agreed upon. Now we are going

back over, I think it was five in a row now that had been already agreed to at

the committee stage.

I am just wondering, when I look at the fact that we are here at the House

after so many months of deliberation, that this legislation went to a committee,

that these amendments were thoroughly discussed, and we had agreed to four or

five which he has not raised yet. As a matter of fact, not one has been raised

as to what we had agreed upon. I am just wondering if the member can let me know

how many more he had coming, or are we going to go through the whole suggested

thirty-odd or forty-odd that he had.

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

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

My understanding of this process in the House is that it is Committee stage

and what was not agreed to by a Select Committee of the House, which was

basically six or seven members, could be debated and talked about in the House

with all forty-eight, so that any member in the House who was not presented at

that Select Committee stage could have the ability to hear some of the

amendments that were put forward, to debate some of the amendments that were put

forward, perhaps, and maybe a couple of the other amendments that we have here,

that were not accepted, could be accepted through this Committee stage of the

House of Assembly.

My understanding is, that is what Committee stage of the House was

established to do. So my intention, I guess, is to carry on with some of the

amendments just to raise them in the House, to bring light to all forty-eight

members of the House.

We are not going to unduly tie up this legislation. It is our hope that this

legislation will pass today. It is our intention that it will, but I would like

to read into the record of Hansard, so that the general public can have access

to some of the proposed amendments that we are making. Maybe some of those can

be accepted by government and maybe some of those can be accepted today, some of

those that were overlooked in the Select Committee. At least the general public,

through televison and through Hansard on-line, can have access to exactly what

this debate is all about.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chair, I indicated in the beginning that we would do

anything to facilitate the process, and we will. The purpose of committees is to

expedite the passage of bills in the House. If you are going to set up

committees and go through it all again, it doesn't do very much for the

committee. That is the process of the committee. But, if the hon. member wants

to read it into the record, we will not object.

What has been agreed to by the minister has been agreed to, and he

understands that. The government have agreed to what they are going to change,

but if the hon. member thinks that the public should know the recommendations

that he is making, we will sit back and just let him make all the

recommendations, as he is doing, if that is what he wants to do, and allow him

to do it expeditiously. The minister has agreed to what the changes will be, but

if that is what he wants to do, that is fine.

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

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

The next amendment, Mr. Chairman, was to

section 29, and part of that was

accepted in the Select Committee and part of it was not. I think that in the

Select Committee we have agreed to the way this one was handled, and we now give

power to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Cabinet, as opposed to the

minister, under

section 29.(1). We are happy with the way that was handled in

the Select Committee.

The next one for discussion is

section 30, subsection (1), Mr. Chairman. That

reads, "The Minister may, in cooperation with other departments of the

government of the province, undertake (

a) an inventory and mapping of wetlands,

flood plains, shorelines, coastal waters and other aquatic systems; (

b) the

classification of aquatic systems depending on their sensitivity and

productivity; and (

c) research on hydrology and the management of aquatic

systems and the assessment of the impact of development activities."

Our argument here, basically, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister should be

required to compile data on flood plains, shorelines and wetlands. So, what we

are asking for is that the word "may" be deleted and substituted,

therefore, with the word "shall". It would read: The minister shall,

in cooperation with other departments of government of the province, undertake

the following items.

I wonder if the minister would like an opportunity to respond to this, Mr.

Chairman?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, what I am going to do, I think, is I am

going to respond towards the end. I will listen to the hon. Opposition critic as

he outlines any other proposed changes that he has.

I just want to let the House know that, my understanding from the committee

was that it was agreed to let the spelling of the words be dictated by whatever

convention was used in the provincial legislation, and that is basically what we

have here. So, most of the proposed changes that he is talking about, the

committee agreed that whatever the normal language is in the legislation that is

normally put forward would be agreed upon.

So, if he want to, for the record, read it in again, I have no problem. I

will take notes as we go through and then will respond at the end.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: I say to the minister: What we agreed to in the Select

Committee was the spelling, whether it be British parliamentary spelling or

American spelling. We agreed to just let the spelling go as it was. However, we

were somewhat astonished, I guess, that the same word was spelled two different

ways in different parts of the legislation, which kind of led us to believe that

it was a cut and paste job, that they took sections of legislation from other

provinces, put them here and sections from other provinces and put them there,

because the same word was spelled two different ways. But, that is not what we

are talking about here. We have agreed, I say to the minister, to let that go

and whichever way the word was spelled let it be spelled. That is not what we

are talking about here. What we are talking about here is the actual language,

not the spelling. We are looking at deleting the word "may" and

substituting with the word "shall", which has nothing to do with the

spelling of the word.

Mr. Chairman, the next

section here that I would like to raise is

section

30(2), "The minister may control and determine the use of, or modifications

which shall apply to, wetlands, including the drainage, infilling and permanent

flooding of wetlands and the addition of wastewater or stormwater discharges to

or the physical, chemical or biological modification of wetlands where, in the

minister's opinion, there may be an impact upon the hydrology of that wetland

or its recreational, aesthetic or other natural functions and uses."

What we are asking for here is that an environmental impact is something that

is either objectively determinable or subject to debate and should not be

determined merely according to the minister's opinion. What we have asked for

is to delete the words and commas "in the minister's opinion". That

is in

section 30(2).

I will give the minister a chance to respond to this.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is there any further debate on Bill 4?

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, we just went through, I do not know how

many weeks of debate on this whole bill and now - this is called cooperation,

Mr. Chairman - we are going to go through all the amendments again one by one. I

just indicated, I am sitting here, I am going to listen to proposals. I am

making notes. I have officials on standby. I am going to consult with them

towards the end, once I know he is getting close towards the end.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is fine, so we can understand the process. That is

fine.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Am I to assume - the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, you cannot assume me, I say to the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we are looking at, probably, another hour or so on this bill.

Basically, what we are looking for is just some cooperation back and forth

between us and the minister; get the minister's opinion on some of the

amendments that we are putting forward.

Anyhow, the next

section that we are looking at here, Mr. Chairman, is

section 32, "The minister may enter into agreements with the government of

another province or territory of Canada and of Canada to investigate, develop

and regulate water resource management and the minister may carry out those

acts, transactions and things that are necessary to implement an agreement

entered into under this section."

This amendment ensures that all intergovernmental agreements on the

management of a resource within the provincial jurisdiction are subject to the

approval of Cabinet. What we are looking to do here is basically delete the

words, "the minister may enter into agreements", and substitute those

words with,"the minister may, subject to the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, enter into agreements". Essentially, what

we are trying to do here is ensure that if there is going to be an agreement

between this Province and another province of Canada, or another jurisdiction of

Canada, that it is not an agreement that is entered into only by the minister.

That the minister seeks guidance and agreement from the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council or Cabinet, prior to entering into an agreement with another province or

jurisdiction of Canada.

I wonder if the minister would wish to respond to this?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a very good suggestion. Again, we have considered

it in the committee. This is recommended by the officials as being the most

effective way to carry out this responsibility for the minister. We do

appreciate those suggestions by the Opposition critic.

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

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

The next amendment, Mr. Chairman, relates to flood risk areas,

section 33.

What we are looking at amending here, Mr. Chairman, "The minister may

designate flood risk areas and, where applicable, floodways by delineating them

on the flood risk maps in natural flood prone areas of the province."

Again here, Mr. Chairman, the minister should be required to designate flood

risk areas to regulate development in such areas to establish a flood forecast

centre to help flood prone communities and to establish construction guidelines

for such areas. What we are asking for here, Mr. Chairman, is to delete the

words, "the minister may", wherever they occur, by substituting

therefore the words, "the minister shall".

I am not going to ask the minister to respond to this because we have

essentially covered this under previous subsections and amendments, and it is

essentially the same thing. It is just a matter of wording in this particular

clause but basically, what we are asking for is that the minister be required to

designate flood risk areas as opposed to leaving it at the discretion of the

minister.

The next subsection, Mr. Chairman, is

section 36(2), "Where a person

undertakes or proceeds with the construction, extension or a change of the

sewage works referred to in subsection (1) without first obtaining the permit

referred to in that subsection, the minister may order an investigation of the

works and the location of the discharge of effluent and may order changes to be

made in the works or in the location of the discharge of effluent that the

minister considers necessary and the investigation and changes shall be made at

the expense of the person or municipal authority."

What we are looking for here, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister should be

required to investigate instances where sewage works are constructive or

modified without the permit required to do so under the section. Again, we are

looking at having the words, "the minister may order an investigation"

deleted, and replace it with the words, "the minister shall order an

investigation". So, again, it is a matter of language in this particular

section. We want to ensure that the minister is required to investigate

instances as opposed to leaving it at the minister's discretion.

I will not ask the minister to respond here because it is, again, a matter of

language. Actually, I think I will. I mean it is important, so I think I will

ask the minister to respond to this.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

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

Again, this clause deals with the approval of sewage works and, again, the

change being requested or asked for by the Opposition member talks about

changing it from "may", to, "shall". Again, the advice from

our officials and the Justice Department is that the word "may" allow

for the flexibility to deal with issues as they come up and that this wording is

the wording that has been used throughout the legislation and is used across

Canada in other provincial jurisdictions. It allows for the minister to have the

authority to act and, given the circumstances, ensuring that there is a reason

to act, then that is why that legislation is written in this way.

But, again, we appreciate the suggestion by the hon. member.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: The next amendment that we recommended, Mr. Chairman, was

agreed upon, in part, in committee. We had asked that the words, "in the

opinion of the minister" be deleted, and also delete the word

"may", and substitute it with the word "shall". Part of this

was accepted. The word "may" is going to be replaced with the word

"shall". The committee accepted this with that amendment. It was an

amendment that was accepted in part, and I think that was agreed upon by both

sides in the Select Committee.

The next section, Mr. Chairman, is

section 37(2), "Where a person

undertakes or proceeds with the establishment of waterworks or the extension of

or change in an existing waterworks, without first obtaining the permit referred

to in subsection (1), the minister may direct that an investigation of the

waterworks and the source of water supply be carried out and may direct those

changes to be made in the waterworks or in the source of water supply, that the

minister considers necessary, and the investigation and changes shall be made at

the expense of the person."

Very similar to the amendment that was just put forward. Again, the minister

should be required to investigate instances where waterworks are constructed or

modified without a permit. We were asking that the words "the minister may

direct" be deleted and "the minister shall direct" be inserted. I

think that was just covered by the minister so his response, I would anticipate,

would be the same on this as previous.

The next, Mr. Chairman, is

section 37.(4) which says, "Where, in the

opinion of the minister, it is in the public interest to do so, the minister may

refuse to grant a permit under this

section or may grant a permit on those terms

and conditions that the minister considers necessary."

Again, the public interest is something that is either objectively determined

or subject to debate and should not be determined merely according to the

minister's opinion. A permit should not be provided except when it is in the

public interest. What we have asked for here is to delete the words and commas

"in the opinion of the minister" and, by deleting the word

"may" wherever they occur and substituting it therefore with

"shall".

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, in committee, in 36.(4), a very similar

amendment, and in 36.(4) we accepted the changing of the word "may" to

"shall"; however, we were not prepared to accept the words "in

the opinion of the minister".

I ask here for the minister to respond. Basically, they are the same

amendment. It is the same language used in

section 36.(4) as in

section 37.(4),

and I am asking that at least we look at the word "may" and change the

word "may" to "shall". That was probably an oversight by the

Select Committee, because it is basically the same language in both sections,

the same amendment in both instances. We are hoping that maybe, with a little

bit of co-operation, that at least the word "may" here can be changed

to "shall".

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, the reasoned suggestion of the Opposition

critic there, given that he was present at the hearings at the committee

discussions, I think we can agree there that that one is pretty well similar to

the previous amendment we just discussed earlier, that we have agreed to with

clause 36.(4) and that we can agree to that one there for 37.(4). We can agree

with the substitution "may" to "shall". So, I think we can -

I will do one more final check on it, but we will look at that.

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

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

The next

section is 37.(5) and it reads: "Where, in the opinion of the

minister, an adverse effect has occurred or may occur to water, water is or may

be in an unwholesome condition or an existing waterworks requires alteration,

the minister may direct the person operating the waterworks to alter or make

additions to the waterworks and in the manner and within a time that the

minister considers necessary."

Here, Mr. Chairman, if water is adversely affected, the problem must be

remedied immediately. Where it is unclear whether the water is adversely

affected, the situation must be investigated and, where required, remedied

immediately. Where there is reason to believe a state of affairs threatens the

water, the problem must be investigated. Here, public information is essential.

What we have asked for is to amend, by deleting the words and punctuation of

subsection 37(5) and substituting therefor the following words, punctuation and

paragraph notations:

"(

a) Where an adverse effect has occurred to water, where water is in an

unwholesome condition or where an existing waterworks requires alteration, the

minister shall direct the person operating the waterworks to alter or make the

appropriate additions to the waterworks immediately and shall take whatever

other measures are required to ensure public health and safety.

(

b) Where it is reported or reasonable to believe that an adverse effect may

have occurred to water or that water may be in an unwholesome condition, the

minister shall commission an immediate investigation and, where the adverse

effect or an unwholesome condition is established, shall act in accordance with

paragraph (a).

(

c) Where a waterworks is expected to cause an adverse effect or an

unwholesome condition in water, the minister shall commission an immediate

investigation and shall require the appropriate alternation of a waterworks to

prevent the damage.

(

d) The minister shall immediately and fully inform the public of all

reports, investigations and actions taken or ordered to be taken under this

section as and when they occur".

I will give the minister a chance to respond there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, again this was discussed at length

previously with the committee. We do appreciate the suggestion brought forward

by the Opposition member, but we believe clause 5, as defined, will serve the

purpose quite well, as it does in other jurisdictions similar to, for the

purposes that it is meant to do. We do appreciate the suggestion by the member

opposite.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My colleague, the Member for St. John's South, is presenting, I think, some

very important amendments. I, too, sat on the committee when we dealt with this

at committee stage. In fact, I realize that at the time it was a different

minister from the minister who now has responsibility for the Department of

Environment.

My colleague has raised a few points. For example, going back to

section

36.(2) where it indicates and where there was some discussion talking about the

approval of sewage works. The point that was made by my colleague stated in part

that the minister should be required to investigate instances where the sewage

works are constructed or modified without the permit required under this

section, obviously changing the discretionary role of the minister to

(inaudible), in this particular case, making the decision of the minister

mandatory to respond to certain conditions. The same thing we see in

section

37.(5) with respect to the approval of waterworks.

The minister, in his response, repeatedly states that in other jurisdictions

the language is discretionary as opposed to mandatory; however, I do not know if

that explanation is good enough. I realize that we have gone through this at

committee stage, but I would be interested in finding out clearly from the

minister his rationale when he simply states that other jurisdictions have, in

fact, accepted the more discretionary role of the minister. I am not really

clear what the minister's rationale would be in simply accepting that because

it is done in other jurisdictions. I think the question that is being raised by

my colleague is - and it is a very legitimate question - if these amendments

place a demand and a function upon the minister in his role as minister, to be

more definite in decision-making and to make a decision that is mandatory upon

his officials to further investigate. That seems to me, when we are dealing with

the potential of water contamination, to be a much more reasonable and realistic

approach in terms of remedying a problem or a foreseeable problem.

I am interested in finding out from the minister exactly his rationale as to

why his role as minister should not be more of a compulsory and mandatory role

as opposed to merely discretionary when we are talking about such real problems

as potential water contamination issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, it is a good thing that we are just looking

at some - we are not re-discussing everything that happened at the committee

again. I say to the hon. member, the legislation is written this way by Justice

officials who outlined it this way, and they do this with a variety - we have

this throughout a number of pieces of legislation in the House of Assembly.

Where it says here, for example, in the opinion of the minister, it is not

just the opinion of the minister; it is the officials advising the ministers,

the officials who have to do up reports and give advice to the minister about

dealing with certain matters. If we are going to write in here - and this is

again the advice from the Department of Justice and our officials - the exact

direction that you will take automatically, no matter what the circumstances

are, then we will definitely have a Department of Environment that will be doing

a lot of things that may be, for some parts, not necessary.

That is the rationale behind ensuring that the actions can be taken and

should be taken and will be taken, but that it is written in this way by the

legislative writers and drafters. It is written this way to allow for the

decisions to be taken. That is the explanation of that. That is not new. That is

the way that the legislation is written and has been written. This has been

thoroughly discussed, and this is as good a legislation as there is across the

provinces of Canada. We are very pleased with it and we believe it gives full

authority for the minister and the officials of the minister to ensure that they

can deal with these issues which are serious matters.

MADAM CHAIR (Ms M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Madam Chairperson, the point raised by my colleague for St. John's East is

a valid point. In response, the minister said it is not just the opinion of the

minister, it is the opinion of the bureaucrats and the department officials; but

that is not always the case, as we see with the decision last week regarding

Windmill Bight Park.

It is my understanding from sources that I have within that department, and

from information obtained by CBC, that the advice of the officials in the

department, you are not to proceed with that park, but it was the minister's

decision to proceed with the park. That is why, precisely, we looked at

strengthening the legislation, because at times, Madam Chairperson, the

legislation, if it leaves too much discretion to the minister - and this new

legislation will even give greater discretion to the minister than previous

legislation. If that minister, whomever the minister should be, has a greater

discretion than what is in place at present, we will perhaps see even more

decisions such as we saw last week with Windmill Bight. That is not always good

for the Province, I say.

Madam Chairperson,

Section 39.(6) again is just a matter of language. The

probability of water quality impairment is something that is either objectively

determinable or subject to debate and should not be determined merely according

to the minister's opinion. We asked here that the words in commas "in the

minister's opinion" be deleted, so that it is not simply in the opinion

of the minister, that the legislation itself has much greater power than the

authority of the minister. Once you give absolute discretion or absolute

authority to the minister it diminishes the power of the legislation. It is only

a matter of language that we are talking about here, but I think it is very

important language. What we are seeing here, as a common thread throughout this

legislation, is that the minister has much greater power, almost absolute

discretion, and diminishes the ability of the legislation to control the

minister. The minister now controls the legislation.

This is essentially the concern that we have with the legislation, and this

is why we are putting forward the amendments that we are putting forward. This

is why we want the amendments read into the record, because we want the public

record to show that we have some concern with the discretionary power that the

minister has and will have.

The next section, Madam Chairperson, is

section 40, "Where it appears

likely that an undertaking, works, practice or activity may lead to an adverse

effect on water that is or may reasonably be expected to be used for drinking or

domestic purposes, the minister may, in writing, order the person responsible to

carry out water quality analysis and take the action that the minister considers

necessary to prevent that adverse effect."

If adverse effects are likely, then testing and effective remedial action

should be mandatory. We have seen, in this Province, more boil water orders than

any other province in all of Canada. We have seen a number of problems over the

last four or five years with water quality, drinking water quality, and

therefore we believe that remedial action should be mandatory, not just at the

discretion of the minister.

We are asking here to delete the words "the minister may" and

substitute, therefore, the words "the minister shall", and delete the

words "take the action that the minister considers necessary"

therefore ensuring the safety of drinking water and of water quality by ensuring

that effective remedial action be mandatory and not just at the discretion of

the minister.

I ask the minister to respond here.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, I have to say that we are always

pleased to stand and be recognized.

I will not respond to the Opposition critic's couple of other commentaries

today. I think we will do that at another time, but on this issue here, again,

it allows for the minister to act on a substantive matter that needs to be dealt

with. Again, that is the way it is written and that is what Justice advises and

that is what the officials advise, and that is exactly the way it is done in

other provinces; again, pretty well the same context. It is not the minister's

discretion. It comes down to the advice the minister gets, and the minister,

whoever he or she is, does not make decisions on his or her own, I can tell you

that. That advice comes from officials with options as to what they should do at

the end of the day. That is, again, in reaction to this suggestion here.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The next amendment is to

section 41.(3), the testing of water. This amendment

clarifies that it is the effect not merely the intent of the actions that is

important. The problems must be effectively remedied. What we are asking is to

delete the words "to take the action that he or she considers

necessary". Essentially, by doing that, Madam Chairperson, we would be

saying that the minister may, as a result of a report submitted under subsection

(2), direct an owner, operator or person responsible to take the action to

remedy an adverse effect revealed by that report, instead of just "that he

or she considers necessary".

Madam Chairperson, again, the answer that the minister just gave on the last

one, I would imagine, would be his response on this. We are not saying that we

are satisfied with that. I do not believe that it is always the decisions of the

department officials that are carried out by the minister. We saw an example of

that last week with Windmill Bight. We have seen examples of that before where

the minister's discretion was used to make a decision, not necessarily the

opinions and recommendations put forward by officials in the department. That is

precisely why we are recommending these amendments: to strengthen the

legislation.

Subsection 41.(4), water testing and remediation must be timely, effective

and publicly reported in a timely and thorough manner. What we are asking for

here is to delete the words and punctuation of subsection 41.(4) and

substituting, therefore, the following - and I will read the existing 41.(4),

"The minister may direct the time and manner in which a direction made

under this

section is to occur." What we are asking is that be replaced

with, "The minister shall ensure the timely and effective completion of all

actions directed under this

section and shall immediately and thoroughly inform

the public of the details and results of those actions".

I ask the minister for his response here. I will say, keeping in mind and I

will refer to my colleague from St. John's East, that in the Select Committee

that dealt with this, we dealt with the amendments that the department were

ready to pass immediately, we dealt with the amendments that we were prepared to

drop immediately, and many of the amendments were not even discussed on this

bill in the Select Committee. We did not even get into the discussion.

Therefore, I think it is necessary, and I think as a responsible stand as

members of this House of Assembly, we have an obligation to review thoroughly

these amendments because many of these amendments, in fact, most of the

amendments were not even discussed. On this particular bill we simply looked at

the amendments that government were prepared to accept, we dealt with those. The

amendments that we were prepared to drop, we dealt with those. Other than that,

there were no other amendments dealt with or discussed at that Select Committee.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, this issue is a serious issue. The

fact is that this issue, the testing of water, is very much an issue that is to

the forefront in the public across Canada and this Province. A number of changes

to policy have been made. What this legislation does is enable us to make

stronger regulations. In recent times, just recently, new regulations have been

put in place; new protocols have been put in place. As a matter of fact, water

test results are posted on our Web site. We understand the direction that the

hon. member wants to go there in his suggestion, but we believe here, that

again, this legislation is quite strong enough to ensure that the public

notifications, especially with the protocols by regulation that are now in

place, and what this legislation does is enabling legislation to allow us to do

that. It allows us to ensure we have regulations in place that can deal with

these issues on a day-to-day basis, making sure that the officials deal with

these issues on a day-to-day basis with the appropriate, proper, protocols

followed so that if there is an issue with a water supply, that the information

is received quickly and dealt with appropriately. We believe that the

legislation deals with that fully.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

There are a couple of other amendments that I am going to put forward here as

well.

Section 44.(2), what we are looking at here is, "Where the minister

considers it necessary for public safety, to prevent injury or damage to persons

or property or to comply with this Act the minister may direct the owner or

operator of a dam or other structure to (

a) arrange a safety inspection of that

dam or other structure in the time specified in the order or as may be

prescribed by regulation."

What we are asking for here is instead of "where the minister considers

it necessary" to "where it is necessary", and instead of the

minister "may", to say the minister "shall". Again, it is a

matter of language and I feel that this is an important

section of the

legislation. I will ask the minister to respond.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, again, this

section deals with the

safety of waterworks: Where the minister and officials consider it necessary for

public safety, to prevent injury or damage to persons or property or to comply

with this act, the minister may direct the owner or operator of a dam or other

structure to do a number of things here outlined.

What this legislation does, it enables the minister and officials to deal

with the issue through regulation. Regulations are established and more will be

established through this legislation that will ensure dealing with waterworks

issues. Again, the legislation is written this way as suggested by our drafters

and by Justice and by our officials for practical administration of the act. We

will see that occur once this legislation, which is the best water resources

legislation in Canada, is proclaimed.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

There are a number of other amendments there that are all very much the same:

The minister may, the minister shall, where the minister feels it is necessary.

Madam Chairperson, in 48.(7) "Where the minister is of the opinion that

a proposed undertaking should not proceed, the minister may decide that a permit

not be issued with respect to the proposed undertaking".

What we would like to see there - "the minister may decide that a permit

not be issued", should be "the minister shall not issue a

permit". That is under

section 48.(7). I will ask the minister to respond.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, again, that amendment we have agreed

in the committee stage to accept, so we will be agreeing to that amendment that

is put forward by the hon. member.

Section 48.(7), which will see again, "where the minister is of the

opinion that a proposed undertaking should not proceed the minister may decide

that a permit not be issued".

The officials believe there that the replacement of the word

"shall" can work and allow and not overly restrict what evaluation has

to be done when these issues arise. That one is practical. That can work. So

that amendment we have accepted in committee and will accept here today.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Section 52, "The minister may, without issuing a permit, approve the

she considers advisable where that diversion or alteration is required for the

length of time and under terms that the minister may prescribe by

regulation".

What we are asking for here is, instead of it being "the minister

may" and the discretion of the minister, we would like to see "subject

to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the minister may"

Therefore, what we are asking is that it be subject to Cabinet. "The

advisable...", we are asking that that be replaced with "under

appropriate terms as established by the minister in conjunction with the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council".

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chairperson, I hope you can have the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi hold back on his assault on me. I would appreciate it.

Exceptions to permit,

section 52 of the act, if we were to agree to that, the

problem would be, and the advice of the officials, is that you would really tie

up and delay decisions that are made on an ongoing basis when it comes to

diversions or alterations of a body of water. These are dealt with by our water

resource officials in our department who are very capable and are really done on

an ongoing basis, on a weekly basis, for construction activity. It is done for

household activities; people may have problems of flooding near their residences

and so on. These are the types of permits that are sought, and are all done with

the science people in water resources division, all planned out appropriately,

and it is felt that