April 4, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, tonight marks the end of an era for an

entertainment facility that has played a vital role for people in the Province.

Memorial Stadium, in St. John's, dedicated to the brave soldiers who

sacrificed their lives at war, has been in operation since 1954 and in that

forty-seven years has hosted a number of events, including hockey games at

professional and junior levels, roller skating, trade shows, concerts from some

of the biggest names in music, including Bob Dylan, Tina Turner, Van Morrison

and The Guess Who, along with many other events.

Tonight, the St. John's Maple Leafs will play their final regular season

home game at Memorial Stadium against the Saint John Flames. Aptly titled,

"A Night to Remember", there will be a full tribute to the "Lady

by the Lake" with a video production and other special events.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial Stadium has served the City of St. John's and the

Province as a top- notch entertainment facility and there are many sad to see it

go. However, we all look forward to continue top-notch entertainment at the new

Mile One Stadium this spring.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this hon. House

today to congratulate four youths on the Burin Peninsula who are doing their

part to help child poverty. Ashley Kenway, Lindsay Moulton, Allison Brewer and

Jenny Power recently attended a national youth conference on the issue of child

poverty. Called "Sharing Resources 2000" this conference brought 200

youth from all over Canada to Kemptville, Ontario, to look at the issue of child

poverty and its effects on our society.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate these four youth for their interest in helping

children who live in poverty, and I hope these youth continue to be involved

with our community groups and organizations on this ever important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statement by Ministers.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: This is member's statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. minister asking for leave?

MS J.M. AYLWARD: As a private member.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I received a number of

calls from board members of the St. John's Boy and Girls Club, informing me

that their Executive Director, Mr. Cy Mills, had passed away overnight, the

victim of a heart attack. The untimely death of Mr. Mills will be felt by the

St. John's Boys and Girls Club for many years to come. He worked tirelessly

over the past ten years to maintain the vitality of the club.

During his tenure as Executive Director, Cy had to respond to the constant

challenge of providing quality programs for the children of Mundy Pond and

Buckmasters Circle, both of which are in my district, while he was trying to

maintain fund-raising programs and recruit volunteers to keep the club

operating. The annual Christmas Raffle will not be the same without his presence

this year. His drive and determination to explore every opportunity to advance

the cause of the St. John's Boys and Girls Club was evident in the many

activities and meetings which I attended with him. He was very committed to

seeing the children involved in the St. John's Boys and Girls Club, that they

could take advantage of the programs which were in tune with their needs and

could contribute to their future development.

I know that the children, the staff, and the board, as well as the

volunteers, will always remember Cy's gentle smile, his sense of humor, and

his conciliatory approach to dealing with problems. He was a great advocate for

children, and he was particularly supportive of the value that non-profit

organizations contribute to our society.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Members of the House of Assembly, I would like

to offer my condolences to his wife, Cynthia, and his children at this very

difficult time. We all share our sorrow with him and the family, as well as with

members of his extended family, many of whom are also active in our community.

Cy will certainly be missed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, to comment on the statement by the

member.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I knew Mr. Mills personally, as did many members of this Legislature, and I

certainly want to join, on behalf of the Opposition here, in sending condolences

to Cynthia and his family on a very tragic and a very premature passing. He was

well regarded in the community. He was a devoted person to the community, and

especially to young people in our Province. It is a sad loss to have this tragic

event occur.

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

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister and the Opposition House Leader, in

commenting on the passing of Cy Mills. He did make a significant contribution to

the young people of St. John's in particular, by his leadership in the St.

John's Boys and Girls Club to the whole Boys and Girls Club movement in the

Province and throughout the country.

I will say, as a note as well, that he was a worthy opponent in an election a

couple of elections ago, against me, in the District of St. John's East. I

want to join with you in asking that the Speaker send condolences to the family

of Mr. Mills, particularly his wife and children who will sadly miss him.

Statements by Ministers

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the hon. Julie Bettney, Minister of Health and Community

Services, I am pleased to comment on the announcement today that a federal

health care commission has been appointed, to be headed by former Saskatchewan

Premier Roy Romanow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Minister Bettney spoke yesterday with the federal health

minister, Allan Rock, about the commission and its mandate. The commission is

expected to explore the principles and values which underlie the health care

system in Canada, and propose new approaches for long-term sustainability of

health care in our country. The commission has been asked to submit its report

by November 2002.

Mr. Speaker, the establishment of this commission is a welcome development,

but we need to ensure there is a voice for the provincial governments in the

work of the commission. The health system has come under pressure in recent

years due to the aging of the population, new types of expensive drugs, new

medical technology, capital infrastructure needs, rising public expectations and

many other factors. The pressure on medicare has led many provinces to

experiment with alternative forms of health care delivery, some of which have

tested the principles under which medicare exists in Canada.

In the face of these pressures, a fresh examination of what is funded under

medicare is needed, and we welcome the commission's establishment. We are also

pleased that Mr. Romanow has been chosen to head the commission. He has served

Canada well as Premier of Saskatchewan, the Province which bears the mantle of

being the birthplace of medicare. Mr. Romanow is intimately familiar with the

provincial views on the respective roles of federal and provincial governments

in the health care sector, and he has an excellent reputation as a fiscally

responsible Premier.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador believes that provincial

governments must be consulted closely and involved in the work of the

commission. We must replace the intergovernmental conflict and rhetoric of the

past with a real intergovernmental partnership, one that recognizes that

provincial governments have the constitutional responsibility for the delivery

of a comprehensive range of health services. The agenda for health reform in

Canada can only be set with full provincial cooperation.

Finally, this commission complements the regional health forums which

Minister Bettney will be pursuing later this year. These forums will be aimed at

developing the goals and principles of the health care system of the future for

our Province. The outcomes of the forums will provide excellent input for Mr.

Romanow to understand the unique requirements of Newfoundland and Labrador

within Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the acting minister for a copy of her statement a few

minutes before the House sat. I appreciate it.

This is sometime that we have called for, a federal-provincial commitment to

strength medicare in the country. The issue is not what is to be covered. The

real issue is how health care is to be funded in the future. Equal per capita

funding will not provide equal care for all Canadians. Canadians regard medicare

as a right of citizenship. The level of health care should be based on needs of

Canadians, not on where they live or their ability to pay.

Federal health care cuts have been devastating to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador over the past few years. We have the former minister

saying, last fall, that it was a good time to be the Minister of Finance when

they talked about putting some money back into the health care with respect to

the transfer payments, but that will not put us to where we were five years ago,

for five years down the road. So we hope the Province will have more of an input

into this than they have in the past.

This government sat idly by when the formula was changed from a needs basis

to a per capita basis, which is having a direct negative impact on the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Hopefully, with respect to this commission -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: - the ministers will have a bit more of an input into this

commission.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must remind hon. members of a statement made by a former Minister of Health

in this House, Chris Decker, stating that the changes in financing by the

federal government of medicare spells the end of medicare as we know it.

That was a pretty frightening statement, but we have seen over the last eight

years serious changes and strains on the system and the five principles of

administration.

Under the leadership of former Premier Romanow, we fully expect there to be

an opportunity to develop strong consensus to make our medicare system

responsive-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

- responsive to the current needs in the country, particularly for home care

and pharmacare.

PREMIER GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER GRIMES: Just to a point of order. The hon. member, in responding

to the statement, indicated that the provincial government stood idly by while

the formula for health care funding was changed from one system to a per capita

system. Mr. Speaker, let the record show that this Province objected to the

change but were overruled by the Conservative governments of Ontario and

Alberta, in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the President of Treasury

Board. In reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition on Monday

afternoon, the minister seemed to confuse the wage offer made to unionized

government employees. For weeks the minister was saying that the employees were

being offered a three-year contract at 3 per cent each year. Over the weekend it

was a 5-4-4 proposal. In Question Period on Monday, she said: "However you

look at it, is 6 per cent wage offer this year; no other way to describe

it." In fact, in a CBC interview this morning the Premier made a similar

statement. Why did the minister, and this morning the Premier, choose to combine

the wage offer that is in the final phase, the 2-2-2-1 contract, with the new

offer of 5-4-4 over the next three years?

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

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

The member will also know that every single time I speak to the wage offer I

talk about the current wage offer of 5 per cent in this calendar year. However

you want to do it, whether it is from my addition or yours, if you are looking

at a step or a wage increase of 1 per cent that has been put in place since

February, two months ago, plus the 5 per cent - there is no fooling. Anybody

that can add 5 plus 1 knows -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - that in this year there will be a 6 per cent higher

increase on the salary than there was last year, and you can check back, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

You can check back in every statement that I have made. I will say

admittedly, Mr. Speaker, the 1 per cent is on from the past collective

agreement. There is five from the current offer. I do not care which side of the

House you are on, five plus one equals six!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: The Premier's statement and the minister's statement

have caused some great confusion and consternation to the unionized membership

and also to the general public. These spin doctoring statements have to be

designed, I say to the minister, to cause some riff between the public and the

membership of NAPE.

How can the minister and the Premier say they are trying to find common

ground to settle the current labour dispute when the minister's words in the

House, and the Premier's words this morning in the press on the 6 per cent

issue in the current year, have served only, I say to the minister and the

Premier, to worsen the tensions between the government and these unionized

employees?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, because there is a matter of a very serious public disruption going

on in the Province today, public service disruption, and the issue of the 6 per

cent has been raised, as the hon. member rightfully points out. Maybe he would

like to also acknowledge that for the leader of the Province's largest public

sector union, Mr. Hanlon - everybody knows his name - that every single time in

the year leading up to this strike, he has referred to the fact that they have

had very small increases in ten years. He has always conveniently mentioned -

and check the record, Mr. Speaker - that they got a 6 per cent raise over ten

years. When in fact, if you count the one for this year, it was seven.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: So when it is convenient - and this is way it is

important to debate this issue because nobody can have it both ways. You cannot

have the leader of the union deny and refuse to acknowledge the 1 per cent in

this year when it is to his convenience in his own union hall meetings and then

suggest that there is something wrong with somebody else using it, because you

have to count it some time. It was either 7 per cent for ten years instead of

six, or it is six this year instead of five. You cannot make seven and five -

which is twelve - into eleven; no matter how you twist it. It is in fact a 6 per

cent increase this year!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we could have said as well: add

the other 5 per cent to the seven, and you have 12 per cent; which is 1 per cent

per year for every year of the past 12 years!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: The Premier, in a radio interview this morning, did not

discount a compromise. The minister has indicated that discussions can only

occur on rearrangements within a total package of 13 per cent over three years.

Did the Premier's statement this morning indicate a more reasoned approach in

contrast to the hard line banterings of his minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue and one that

we have taken very seriously. We want to be very responsible, as well as

respectful in doing - it is easy to shout over from the other side of the House

but in all fairness, when we have the situation that we have - and members

opposite have stood up on that side of the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, members opposite from the other side of the

House have pointed out our deficit and our debt. We are trying to be reasonable

and respectful between the 20,000 people on strike and the 530,000 taxpayers who

will have to pay for this.

Mr. Speaker, it does not matter who is here in three years' time, we have

to be fiscally responsible and respectful. We believe, and we stand by the fact

that moving from a 9 per cent increase to a 13 per cent increase, doubling our

deficit as a commitment to the respect that we have for the work of our public

sector employees, is respectful and reasonable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: One final question, Mr. Speaker.

Essential highway services are still on the minds of many Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, particularly as it relates to snow clearing on the Burin, Avalon,

and Bonavista Peninsulas, as well as the opening of the Trans-Canada Highway.

Given the extra personnel that NAPE members have voluntarily now placed in

service, can the Premier or the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

inform the House as to when these roads will be reopened?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we really appreciate the fact that the union

did, late yesterday evening, come forward with some more essential workers.

MR. H. HODDER: Without pay.

MR. BARRETT: That is not true.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is their choice, Harvey.

MR. BARRETT: The essential workers do not get paid, but the union gets

paid for their services. In terms of a cost to the government, it is still a

cost. The workers themselves just get strike pay. The workers themselves are not

being paid but the hourly wage and the money that they earn goes into a trust

fund for the union. So the union actually gets paid the money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: They can get paid if they want to. The union can - Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The status of the highways? I was giving you the status of

the highways, but the hon. member was so carried away with the fact that these

employees were not getting paid. If you want the real question to be answered -

as a matter of fact, if you want me to, I can the table the status of the

highways. I have a full report on when they will be open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Finance. Last September the federal

government announced $500 million of that $1 billion fund for medical equipment

and Health Canada was reported, just last week, as saying only six provinces

applied for access to the funding. Of course, Newfoundland is not one of them.

Yesterday the minister refused to answer my question on if this was true. I can

only draw the conclusion that Health Canada was accurately reported.

I want to ask the minister, with horrendous waiting lists for CAT Scans, MRIs,

and for other diagnostic equipment, why didn't this government move

expeditiously last September when you know that this is a critical issue in the

delivery of health care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know it is difficult for the member

opposite to accept, but we have put more money into the capital equipment budget

of this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - over the last four years than we have - not to mention

increasing our operating budgets from $1 billion to $1.4 billion. The federal

government allocated $17.4 million to the Province for capital equipment. Mr.

Speaker, this is nothing more than political mischief on behalf of the member

opposite. Political mischief, that is all it is!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows, because he read

the Budget Speech, that this year we put the full $17.4 million into capital

equipment, plus another $15 million into capital equipment. In fact, it is the

largest single allocation for capital equipment. Just like with our sinking

funds and our hydro revenues, we have pushed forward the money for the CHST

because we had some one-time money which we used this year; total $17.4 million.

The boards have it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have already gone forward to

purchase cardiac catheterizations, laboratory equipment, echocardiogram

equipment, and I have the whole list here of what has been spent. He knows the

difference, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I am committing political mischief, the minister, on behalf of the people,

is committing political larceny in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw it. I said if -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Will she tell us if our Province is

going to get their share of that $500 million from last September, or is it too

late now to get our share of the first $500 million?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

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

Not only are we going to get our $17.4 million, but it is held in trust and

accruing interest for us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Health Canada reported that we did not seek that. Minister, you shifted what

you called, in your words in the Budget, a pool of flexible revenues from last

year to this current fiscal year to the tune of $196.8 million to make this year's

Budget look better while, at the same time, you have deprived sick people in

dire need of medical services since last September, the opportunity to get -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: She does not want to hear it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I am saying that the minister deprived people the access to

medical services since last year. I want to ask the minister: What is your

reason for not accessing this last September? Is it better to add cosmetics to

your Budget this year, or assist people who cannot get access to medical

services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I still say he misses terribly being health

critic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get on with her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I want to say again, because I think it is important for

the people of the Province to hear this, this is nothing more than political

mischief.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The member opposite does not want to hear this, but I

would like to have an opportunity to say it. The $17.4 million allocated from

the federal government was put in the Budget to buy equipment, and we put it

forward. We made no bones about it. We read it right in the Budget Speech. There

is nothing here that has not been clearly articulated in the Budget Speech. Not

only did we push forward this $17.4 million, but we did hydro funds and sinking

funds because, unlike the members opposite, we have to make sure that we have

the money to sustain our programs and services next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The full $17.4 million was in the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have one question, and my question is for the Premier. I have in my

possession, documentation filed in Washington with the Securities and Exchange

Commission pursuant to

section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act. It appears to

be documentation, I say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the preliminary or first

stages being sought by Friede Goldman Halter Inc. in bankruptcy protection.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, included in the documentation there is

reference to the Marystown's facilities, and I will just reference it briefly:

In connection with our acquisition of two shipyards in Newfoundland, Canada,

from the Province of Newfoundland, we agreed to maintain minimum employment

levels at each shipyard and are subject to financial penalties if we fail to do

so. We were not in compliance with this man-hour requirement in 1999-2000. If a

waiver of these financial penalties or other suitable accommodation cannot be

agreed upon, we may be required -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this payment, if required, would have a

significant impact on our cash flow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In view of this information which we have in our

possession, I would like to ask the hon. Premier, number one: Is he aware of

this filing, pursuant to the

section with respect to the possible commencing

exercises and bankruptcy protection? If he is, what immediate steps have been

taken to protect the facility in Marystown, to protect the interests of the

people of the Marystown region, and, thirdly, to protect the interests of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as a whole?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The most pertinent question, I think, clearly is the one that other members

who were not recognized are asking across the floor. The fact of the matter is

that the provincial government has not pursued the penalty clause with Friede

Goldman. With the support of the union at the Marystown shipyard, with the

support of the communities in the area - because all of our efforts are designed

to try and find some work that can go into the yard so that we can employ the

people in the Marystown area and on the Burin Peninsula.

We are aware, and have been aware for some time, that the company itself is

experiencing some considerable financial difficulty and they are filing for the

necessary protections in the United States where the mother company, the parent

company, is incorporated. Our concern always is to hope that they get through

their financial circumstance and that they secure the work for Marystown. That

is what we spend all of our time trying to do, to help them secure work for

Marystown so that the people can go back to work.

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 and it relates to the ongoing public sector

strike. My information is that there have been up to seven offers made by NAPE

within the last twenty-four hours, and I am told that none of them have been

responded to by the government. I want to ask the Premier: Is he serious about

trying to find a solution to this strike, or does he want to see the public

sector of this Province on strike for the long term and not the short term, as

he has put it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see that maybe the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has been

hired as a negotiator in the Legislature on behalf of NAPE and CUPE.

We agreed yesterday, in a very important meeting, that we would not try to do

this negotiation in the public because it is too sensitive. It is fine and it is

quite understandable that Mr. Hanlon would like to suggest things in the public

to try to cast the government, as the employer in this case, in a bad light.

There have been proposals put forward by representatives of the unions.

Yesterday, one of the things that we did have to deal with, after the fact, was

that we had met - myself and the President of Treasury Board - with two

representatives from NAPE. Obviously, there was either a miscommunication within

the union ranks or an oversight on our behalf. Maybe we should have been more

sensitive. We should have invited some CUPE representatives to the same meeting,

because I was called by CUPE representatives afterwards, saying: Since both of

us are out here on strike, if you are going to try to settle it, you should

settle it with both of us in the room.

I understood that Mr. Hanlon was speaking with full knowledge of the CUPE

people, but if we meet again it will be with representatives of both unions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hanlon can say what he like. We have responded, and I am

glad you asked the question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - because I do not like the notion that we are going to

stand here and suggest that we have not responded. We have not responded the way

that Mr. Hanlon has said, because he has said one thing every time. He said,

unless and until the government gives him an offer of 5-5-5, no matter what the

government says, he will never take it to his members unless it is 5-5-5.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We have offered several different remedies which we will

not discuss in the public but we will gladly discuss again with Mr. Hanlon and

with the CUPE representatives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Premier is good at insulting people. He managed to insult half of

the Province yesterday. I wonder if I could ask him to stop insulting Mr. Hanlon

in public as a way to try and resolve the dispute.

Will he present some constructive proposals to bring an end to this strike?

The public of this Province knows that the parties are so close that they should

not have to endure a lengthy public strike. Why doesn't the Premier show some

leadership here and put an end to this strike by making a constructive and

reasonable offer to resolve it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member is sincere, which I take it he is, and would like to help

us get a resolution, and if he wants to find a way to be helpful, why does he

not, and would he not, take it upon himself to go back to Mr. Hanlon and ask

him, because we have committed - and this could be very helpful - we have

committed not to discuss it in public. If it is going to be portrayed that we,

committing not to discuss it in public, are going to be described as not

responding, maybe the hon. member can be a very useful go-between and go back

and ask Mr. Hanlon what it is that was offered yesterday by the government as a

way to resolve this matter, and see whether or not there is some way or some

plan that would see that offer, which is extremely reasonable, put to the

members; because the members cannot get a way to even hear tell of it because

Mr. Hanlon refuses to mention it to them.

Maybe if you knew what it was - because I am not at liberty to tell you,

because I do not think you are a negotiator for NAPE and CUPE, but if you are

then go ahead and ask him; and if he tells you, you go to the public and tell

them whether it is reasonable or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of

Education. Minister, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association have

instructed members of their bargaining unit not to do the work of student

assistants who are on strike. What plan has the minister put in place to ensure

that students who need one-on-one supervision are not placed at risk?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the employer, the school boards of the Province,

have worked very closely with the schools and with the principals, the

administration of the schools, to ensure that there are plans in place to take

care of the most vulnerable of our students, that is our children with special

needs.

It is regrettable that the executive of the NLTA has decided not to help out

in this instance. We have to realize here that not only do children with special

needs have the support of a student assistant, but in a lot of cases they also

have a special education teacher. They have a categorical teacher and their

regular classroom teacher. What we have asked and what the boards have asked the

teachers to do, is to make sure that the most vulnerable of our students are

able to continue on with their education as are the other children in the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, the Province already has the largest strike ever

ongoing right now. Again you say you had no

part in the planning, but I say your

threat to fire teachers who do not cover the work of student assistants

threatens to add another 6,000 people to the 19,000 already on strike. What is

your purpose, Minister, in forcing a confrontation with teachers? Could you not

have worked out a solution without resorting to threats and intimidation? Did

you try?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is out to

lunch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, not that he needs a lunch, I know, but - sorry.

The issue here is trying to ensure that again our children with special needs

have every opportunity to continue with their education. There were no threats

made by the government. There have been no threats made by the Department of

Education. There have been no threats made by the Minister of Education. In

fact, I applaud the School Boards Association for the initiative they have

taken. Let's get something straight here. In any event, any day of the year,

you could have a student assistant who would not be able to turn up for work.

Every school in the Province, working with the principals, have been asked to

have a plan in place in the event that a student assistant cannot turn up for

whatever reason, whether the student assistant is sick or whether there happens

to be a strike. They have taken a most responsible position in trying to ensure,

working with the teaching staff, that there is someone there to cover off in the

event that a student assistant is not able to be in the class on a particular

day.

Mr. Speaker, we have 700 student assistants in this Province. The cost to the

government is $9 million. We have been very responsible in what we have done

here. Contrary to what has been said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS FOOTE: - in terms of students with special needs who need support, we

have worked very hard to ensure that they get that support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: By your words, minister, and by the actions of this

government you are clearly saying that student assistants are essential workers.

I ask you, minister: Did you not try to reach an essential services agreement

with NAPE and CUPE? Didn't you even try? They are essential workers, and I

agree wholeheartedly!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have to realize the role of student assistants

in the classroom. It is not only the student assistant who is there to take care

of our children with special needs but as well, special education teachers,

categorical teachers and their regular classroom teacher. There are any host of

supports there, Mr. Speaker.

What we are looking at with student assistants is a one-on-one. If the

student assistant cannot be available someone has to provide that care. In this

case, if you look at the people who are available to provide the care we would

expect the NLTA to cooperate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

Since 1997, the 4Rs 3Pn cod fishery, through an agreement between the various

fleet sectors, have seen all allocations in this area fished by the less than

65-foot fixed gear fleet. This agreement meant that the small boat fishermen in

this area, on the West and Southwest Coasts and the Labrador Straits, could

maintain some semblance of viability. This suspending fleet sector shares, when

total allowable catches are at low levels, is a good strategy and goes a long

way toward preserving the small boat fishery in rural communities around our

coasts.

My question is to the minister: Are you aware that as we speak, or in the

last couple of months, that the Genny and Doug, an eighty-five footer from Nova

Scotia, has landed in excess of 500,000 pounds of fish from this area; and that

last night the Line Fisher, a boat about the same size, left Port aux Basques

and plans to take 400,000 pounds of fish out of this area? What are you planning

to do about that, to give the small boat fishermen some indication that you are

trying to stand up for them in this area?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will let the member know that we are concerned about the small boat

fishermen in this Province. In fact, 80 per cent of the fishermen in this

Province fish from small boats and we certainly care about these fishermen.

As for the fish in the Gulf, Mr. Speaker, DFO changed the regulations in

mid-season, or last summer, when the Quebec boats were allowed into that Gulf

fishery. We will address it with the federal minister.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has ended.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if she would

withdraw her comments, her insulting comments, to myself across this floor in

talking about me out to lunch was bad enough but telling me that I should skip a

lunch.

Mr. Speaker, at the present time I am skipping lunches in preparation for a

change in my life that may take place in a year or maybe sooner. I again ask the

minister to withdraw those disparaging remarks about my size.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member opposite. I

obviously thought he wanted to be part of the program in terms of skip a lunch.

I do apologize.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Petroleum Products." (Bill 4)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some questions

that arose yesterday with respect to the Consolidated Fund, and questions from

my colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on the Debt Retirement and why it never

actually occurred in the CFS section. Because it is Debt Retirement it does not

show up as a budgetary transaction.

Also, the question was asked about the assets of the teacher's pension

plan, as well as the Public Service Pension Plan; it is $2.1 billion. With

respect to the unfunded liability; for both the teacher's pension plan and the

Public Service Pension Plan, the unfunded liability is $3 billion, and that is a

good reason why we do not want to grow it anymore. For the other pension plans

it is slightly more than that. We only include the contribution.

I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, if you go to the back of the

Budget Speech you will see, on page i, the contribution for both; the special

contribution that government is making of $116 million, $40 million of which is

for the Public Service Pension Plan annually, and $76 million is for the teacher's

pension plan. Giving a total contribution of $116 million annually a year.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to move the following Private Member's

Resolution.

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador's fresh water is among its most precious

and valuable resources; and

WHEREAS exporting Newfoundland and Labrador's fresh water resources in bulk

could have serious deleterious consequences for the Province and the country

under the North American Free Trade Agreement; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have consistently made clear they

expect to receive maximum benefits from their natural resources in terms of not

only royalties and other revenues but also value-added processing, jobs and

other spinoffs; and

WHEREAS there has been considerable public debate in Newfoundland and

Labrador on bulk water export, and the public have spoken loudly and clearly in

that debate of their determination to protect our Province's fresh water

resources; and

WHEREAS this Honourable House in 1999 debated and, on December 14, 1999,

unanimously passed into law

An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection,

Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province to ban the bulk

export of fresh water from Newfoundland and Labrador;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House honour the commitment

that was made when

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

And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province was passed in this House

by maintaining the ban on the bulk export of fresh water from Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it was an issue of long public debate. The public have spoken

very loudly and very clearly, I say to the House. The issue was debated in the

House and on, no less than ten times, the Premier of that time, Brian Tobin,

stood on his feet to ask that we pass that legislation in an expeditious manner.

He asked that we pass that legislation very quickly. The Premier today, Premier

Grimes, stood in the House on at least six occasions and condemned this side of

the House for not making an expeditious passing of that legislation.

The Government House Leader at that time, the Member for Bonavista North,

stood in his place and demanded that we expeditiously pass that legislation. The

Member for Humber East stood in his place and talked about the legislation, and

that fact that it should be passed, and they all cited - they were very careful

about the wording. They were very careful not to bring into that debate the

implications under NAFTA, with the exception of our current Premier, citing that

the reason we had to ban the export of bulk water was to protect our

environment.

The current Premier made several statements, I say to the Speaker, about the

fact that there was no mention of implications under NAFTA. In fact, the Premier

said - and I will just make reference to what he said in Hansard: There has

never, ever been a discussion at meetings of federal, provincial ministers or

water or fresh water, in any form, under the Free Trade Agreement. The

Now the current Premier stood in his place and said that he agreed with

banning bulk water export but he agreed with it for environmental reasons. He

agreed with banning bulk water export because it was the right thing to do, and

he stood in his place and told us that we should ban bulk water export because

it was the right thing to do; and he mocked us because we wanted to have a

thorough debate of the legislation. While we agreed in principle with the

legislation that was tabled, we wanted to debate that legislation

clause-by-clause to ensure that it was the best legislation that this Province

could ask for.

I will contend that there were references by the federal government about the

NAFTA implications. In fact, I read a statement during the debate, and I will

quote that: I have a release put out by the Department of Foreign Affairs and

International Trade for Canada, and they say that the strategy of banning bulk

export of water reaffirms the government's long-standing position on opposing

bulk water removal.

I went on to say at that particular time: that it is also consistent with the

statement by three NAFTA countries in 1993 that unless water in any form is

entered into commerce and becomes a trade or product of commerce, that it is

covered by the provisions of any trade agreement including NAFTA.

They made clear in 1993 that water would be protected, that it was actually

absent from the Free Trade Agreement, that water was not mentioned under the

Free Trade Agreement as a tradeable commodity or an item of trade, but it was

also clear under the NAFTA agreement that unless water was traded it was not

going to be entered into the NAFTA agreement; if it was traded, it would.

I will quote from the United States trade representative who helped in the

negotiations of the NAFTA agreement on behalf of the United States, who stated,

and I quote: When water is traded as a good, all provisions of the agreement of

NAFTA governing trade in good supply.

Now, that is the position of the American government. That is the position of

the United States trade representative who helped to negotiate the North

American Free Trade Agreement.

I will also say that the federal government has recently said and made public

statements, made public comments, about the implications of NAFTA. David

Anderson, the Environment Minister federally, said, and I quote: We believe it

is very important to protect water at the source, not at the border. In

quotations again: If Canada starts treating water as a commodity or an item of

trade, it will ultimately be treated as an item of trade under NAFTA.

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. member is talking about NAFTA, and that there are

some problems with the NAFTA agreement. I was just wondering if he had consulted

with the person who wrote the legislation, the person who was the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology at the time, Mr. Crosbie. I think he is saying

something differently than the hon. Member for St. John's South.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

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

It is not a point of order. The Member for Bellevue will have ample time to

stand on his feet and debate this issue. However, I will say that there is one

fundamental difference between myself and the minister at the time, the hon.

John Crosbie, and that is that he admitted last year to not having read the

agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Tom, did you read it?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, in fact, I did.

Mr. Speaker, I will also say that the federal Environment Minister, David

Anderson, said, if one province allows bulk exports of water - and this is a

member of your federal cousins, I say to the Member for Bellevue, and the

Premier - it will be difficult for the federal government to prevent foreign

companies from gaining access to the rest of the country's water supplies.

Very clear, I say to the Premier. Very clear, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

Mr. Speaker, even it there were absolutely no trade implications - none - we

should utilize the resources of the Province to the maximum benefit of the

people of this Province. That means doing exactly what the former Premier said,

Premier Tobin, and to ensure that the jobs stay in this Province, to ensure that

we get maximum spin-off benefits. So, even if there were no implications under

NAFTA, even if there were no trade implications, we should ensure that we get

maximum benefits, full benefits, from our resources.

That is the position of this side of the House. That is the position that

this side of the House takes, that whether or not there were any implications -

and I concur that there are - that we have to get maximum benefit from our

resources. That does not mean giving it away in bulk.

During the debate, I say that the current Premier, Premier Grimes, asked for

unanimous support in banning the bulk export of water. I will quote from the

current Premier: Now that I have the opportunity to clarify the issue once and

for all, it is a pretty straightforward bill that bans the export of bulk water

from Newfoundland and Labrador for all the right reasons, and I am assuming that

it is going to get unanimous support of this House.

That is what he asked for, and that is what he asked this side of the House

to do. That is dated November 18, 1999. That is not the former Premier, that is

the current Premier, asking that unanimous support be given to the bill.

MR. SULLIVAN: Was that after the last election?

MR. T. OSBORNE: That was after the last election, yes, absolutely.

We also have the minister, who used to be the Minister of Environment, the

Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and he said, and I will quote: The

legislation will impose a permanent ban on the bulk export of water from this

Province and effectively stops the Gisborne Lake and any other bulk water

removal project from proceeding in this Province.

The Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune said on a number of occasions here

that he wanted this legislation passed, and he wanted it passed to prevent the

bulk export of water from the Province. Minister Tulk wanted this legislation

passed, and stood on his feet several times to ask that the legislation be

passed in this House. Mr. Speaker, I concur that yourself, you stood on your

feet and asked that this legislation be passed, and not one member on that side

of the House stood up and voted against it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not one.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Not one. They all agreed that we had to pass that

legislation to ban bulk removal of water from this Province. They all agreed

with that. Every member who stood on their feet said that it was for

environmental reasons because the federal government never clearly stated that

there would be NAFTA implications. We now know that the American government have

very clearly stated it. The representative, I say to the legal beagle, from the

American government who represented the United States when this legislation, the

Free Trade Agreement, was negotiated, he said very clearly that only when water

is traded as a good or commodity do the provisions of NAFTA apply to water as a

good or commodity.

We have David Anderson, a Liberal federal member in the House of Commons, who

says the exact same thing. We have the people who negotiated it saying the exact

same thing. Anybody who has read the agreement will agree that there could be

and most likely will be implications under the NAFTA agreement.

I say to the Speaker, and I say to the House, that in the event of a dispute

we have to rely on three people to settle that dispute, three people only, when

it goes to the International State Tribunal Panel. One will be chosen from

Canada, one will be chosen from United States, and one will be chosen by the two

people who are chosen, one from each country. We then have to rely on those

three people to make a decision on our water. Those three people on that panel

will then decide whether or not water will be treated as a good or commodity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, I say to the

Member for Port de Grave, I say to the Premier, that I have stated - and the

only reason you do not know is because you are not listening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: To put it in very simple terms, to ensure that you may

understand, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, when water -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to comment very briefly. Mr. Speaker, we have stated publicly

that we intend to have a full public debate on this issue in Newfoundland and

Labrador, with all of the information available, inside and outside the

Legislature.

We have indicated quite clearly that unless and until we came back to this

Legislature and proposed an amendment to the current act, that of course the

current act stands; because it is the law of the land. We do understand that the

private member's motion today says that the House honor the bill that was

passed, and we fully intend to do that, Mr. Speaker.

If, after full public debate, and after getting all of the information - all

of the information - and allowing people like John Crosbie, whether he read the

agreement or not, to have a public say in Newfoundland and Labrador - and I am

sure you will kiss and make up over the weekend. It is a big weekend. You would

not want to be bad friends with Mr. Crosbie this weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: When all of the information is available in the public,

we will bring the information to the Legislature and we will gladly have the

full debate then. We certainly intend to honor everything in the legislation

unless and until it is changed, Mr. Speaker.

My suggestion is that we vote for this right now, without further debate, and

we will get back to the debate in the fall when there is full information

available to everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly good that the Premier has indicated his caucus will be

expected, under pain of caucus discipline, to support the resolution, just as

they would be expected, under pain of caucus discipline, to support the

amendment when the Premier decides to bring one in.

I do think it useful, despite the Premier's comments, to put some remarks

on the record in terms of the importance of the legislation that we passed here

in this House. It is also important to look at where this whole free trade

notion has gone in this country, and not only in this country but in the most

powerful nations of the world.

It is very interesting to hear the Member for St. John's South, the

re-born, anti-free traders. It is worth reminding people that in 1984 the then

Prime Minister Mulroney got himself elected as an anti-free trader within a

matter of months, if not years.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1988.

MR. HARRIS: 1984 was the first election, 1988 was the second one.

Within a matter of months, Mr. Mulroney was converted to the notion of free

trade by the President of the Business Council on National Issues, Mr. Thomas D'Aquino.

It was his government, including Mr. Crosbie, which pushed through the Free

Trade Agreement in the House of Commons despite the objections of the New

Democratic Party, much of which, I hasten to add, had to do with a notion of

protecting Canada's water resources, in addition to many other complaints

about the Free Trade Agreement.

Following the putting into place of the Free Trade Agreement by Mr. Mulroney

and his Tory government, the Liberal Party of Canada ran against the

implementation of NAFTA in the 1993 federal election. They ran against it, they

were opposed to it, they were not going to sign the NAFTA agreement and yet,

once again, within months of being elected they trotted down to Washington and

signed the NAFTA agreement. These agreements are put forth as free trade

agreements. If they were free trade agreements, they wouldn't have to be five

inches thick.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation talked about Mr. Crosbie

as having written the legislation. Well, Mr. Speaker, not only did he not write

it but, as has been pointed out, he didn't even read it. Yet, he was the chief

speaking out in favour of the Free Trade Agreement.

If it was really about free trade, it would be a lot different than it really

is. In fact, these kinds of agreements, the NAFTA agreement in particular, and

what apparently is being proposed, because no one really knows, under the free

trade of the Americas area, is what amounts to a constitution for corporations,

an international constitution for corporations, giving them greater power than

national states such as Canada and, of course, far, far greater power than

provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador.

If these agreements were agreements that had, as part of them, protection for

social and economic rights, for national policies on health care, for protection

of natural resources such as water and the environment, they might be a

difference species; but these agreements are driven by the needs, the desires

and the greed of the trans-national corporations to have profit centres anywhere

in the world without restriction by nation states in terms of their own policy.

We will just look no further than one example, and I know there are many. The

Member for St. John's South has done a great deal of work in researching this

issue. There is a recent case that has to do with Canada's policy of

preventing the export of PCBs. Why would a country want to prevent the export of

PCBs? Well, part of the national policy of this country was to make sure that we

looked after our own pollutants. PCBs are toxic, environmental chemicals that

have done tremendous harm, or potential harm, to the environment. Canada, to

ensure that these problems were going to be looked after in their own country,

said that the PCBs were not going to be exported; that we were going to ensure

that they were destroyed and looked after. We were going to look after our own

pollution and our own toxic chemicals and our own problems.

What happened? A company in the United States took it upon itself to launch

an action under the Free Trade Agreement to challenge the fact that they had

lost an opportunity to make profits, because they could not import the PCBs into

their plant in the United States and use whatever method they had to destroy

them and make a profit on them. They chose to take an application through an

You might think -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible). What do PCBs have to do with water?

MR. HARRIS: No wonder the government is in the state that it is. The

Minister of Works, Services, and Transportation wants to know what PCBs have to

do with water. We are talking about international trade and the ability of a

make money on getting destructive action against PCBs because Canada had a

policy not to export PCBs.

To speak to the minister, who does not appear to understand, I will talk to

him in what the former, former, former leader, Mr. Neary, used to call baby

talk. Give me the answer in baby talk, he used to say, when he could not get a

good answer from the government. Perhaps I will have to talk to the minister in

baby talk about what PCBs have to do with water.

They both have to do with export policies of the people of Canada and the

trade policies.

I recognize that the minister may not be as interested as some other members

are on that issue, but the whole issue here is whether or not we turn, in this

Province, bulk water into a good which is then treated under the NAFTA agreement

as subject to actions by United States companies to sue the people of Canada and

called national treatment.

That is the simple answer. The reality is that every province of Canada,

including this one, has recognized that this is a problem under the Free Trade

under the Free Trade Agreement. The minister wants me to explain it to him.

While I am doing my best, I do not know if I will be successful. Perhaps he will

have to wait to hear more debate about this throughout the Province.

A resolution was brought to the House on Commons on February 9,1999, by Bill

Blakie of the New Democratic Party, which was unanimously supported and talked

about the protection of Canada's waters. That resulted the same day in a

Canadian water from the Free Trade Agreement. Part of that involved the National

Accord, to which this Province is a party. It has been recognized by the

recognized by this House of Assembly and this government in getting on board the

National Accord. It has been recognized across the country.

The Premier is suggesting, for whatever reasons - mischief or diversion or

payback time or whatever - that we should reopen this debate and create

instability in the Canadian efforts to protect the water of this country.

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to this, obviously. The waters of Gisborne

Lake and the proposal to ship the purity of that water is beyond question. There

is a real opportunity for this Province to develop the bottled water industry.

We are no more keen on the export of bulk water than we are keen on the export

of unprocessed ore. The minister might remember the debate in this House about

the pellet plant in Labrador West. The minister might remember that, a very

important debate about the export of unprocessed iron ore to be pelletized in

Sept-Iles.

There is no difference, Mr. Speaker, in terms of protecting our resources and

our wealth between water, iron ore, oil, or any other commodity such as fish or

nickel. We no more want to go back to exporting cod blocks to the United States

for processing than we do want to see the bulk export of our water rather than

the development of a bottled water industry.

This is a very, very important debate. It is a very important motion. The

debate is designed not to cause more confusion, as the Premier seems to want to

do. The debate is designed - and I think the hon. Member for St. John's South,

despite the major changes in his party's former support for free trade, and

now his crusade against free trade, I see an opportunity to support this -

MR. T. OSBORNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I would like to correct an inadequacy made by the Leader

of the NDP, because there are many good provisions under free trade. In fact,

water is protected under free trade until we trade it. That is the point I am

making. I just wanted to clarify that for you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was argued and suggested by the New Democratic Party in Parliament that

there should be a specific exemption for water, but his government in Ottawa

refused to negotiate an exemption for water. The member is correct: despite the

fact there was no specific exemption there, it is not triggered until bulk water

itself becomes traded and then it becomes what it is called a good under the

act. Technically speaking, the member is correct, although his government in

Ottawa refused to negotiate a specific exemption for bulk water. In fact, the

deal with the boundary waters in the Great Lakes. This doesn't, unfortunately,

have any effect on what is going on here, and there is a need for stronger

federal government action in this regard.

We in this Province, while we must continue to argue, and we should argue

with one voice for a better deal with Canada, a better deal on equalization

payments, a better deal on our Terms of Union with Canada, more control over our

fisheries and offshore resources, and more recompense for those resources, while

we should do that, we should not threaten the security of the country and the

security of our own resources by interfering with this very important accord

that has been reached between the provinces and territories of Canada and the

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I certainly want to rise today to have a few words on this particular motion

put forward by my colleague. I remember it very well. I was trying to find out

the exact number of hours or days that we actually debated it, but something

struck me funny as I saw the Premier stand to talk about this today. If I am not

mistaken - maybe it is not on the record in Hansard, but I remember this current

Premier and the former Premier pointing across the House to us as this came

forward and when it was just basically general discussion in the public about

this bulk: Listen, guys, we do not need to quarrel about this. We do not need to

take up lots of time in the House. Let's expedite the process. Why don't we

all stand up now and agree to it?

Who was the group in this Province who said: No, let's slow down a little

bit. We want to have a debate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Which Premier?

MR. SHELLEY: The former Premier, the Premier, the Premier, the former

Premier, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to keep up with it, but I do remember.

Like I say, Hansard may not record all of that but I do know that I remember

you pointed at us and said: What are you doing wasting all this time on debate

on this? We all agree that water is becoming a very valuable resource. We all

remember what the cost of water is around here.

Anybody who travels knows it. I know it, Mr. Speaker, when a bottle of water

in Asia and those place can be sold for $4, $5, or $6 a bottle; more expensive

than wine in some places, and beer. That is how valuable water is getting to be.

MR. J. BYRNE: When we first brought this up, they ridiculed it.

MR. SHELLEY: When we brought this up and said we would have a thorough

debate on it, we wanted to have a thorough debate, that is why the ones who

brought up the actual amendments in this House were on this side of the House,

to make sure it was tighter than it actually was in the beginning.

Mr. Speaker, I will make a couple of points on this today. We were the ones

who made sure it was tighter, and that the legislation that we look at today -

the actual act was passed on December 14, 1999. We were the ones who said: Slow

down. We were the ones who said: Let's have a thorough debate.

Mr. Speaker, the question that I would like to ask today, as I hear the

Premier when he stands up to say a few words and say: We are all going to

support this anyway. We wonder what it is really about, because he made two

comments: We want a full public debate - we did not have one? Who wanted to

close it off earlier? Then he says: We want to get all the information.

It begs two questions: How competent were the ministers who sat around the

table with then Premier Tobin? Did everybody not do their homework? Was their

homework not done, that we have to come back to this a year-and-a-half later? It

also begs the question: How much consultation by this Premier, not with the

public but with his Cabinet colleagues, with his caucus colleagues, before he

made this infamous statement on an NTV interview one night. How many caucus

members across this hall today can tell you that they were consulted and that

the new Premier, under new leadership, under new direction, that we were going

to make this vast statement? Or did he tell anybody? Did he tell any caucus

members in the House? Who would stand up today in their place and say that the

new Premier, the new leader of our Province, the new leader of our party,

consulted me to tell me there was going to be a dramatic shift in the change on

policy on bulk water? He did not consult anybody. I am willing to bet that he

did not consult a Cabinet minister - maybe a couple of inside Cabinet ministers

- but he certainly did not consult many people.

Mr. Speaker, it begs two questions today: Was the debate not thorough enough

the last time? Are the Cabinet ministers of this current Premier, as he was a

Cabinet minister at the time, admitting today - the same people who sat in the

same Cabinet with the former Premier - are they all standing today to admit that

they did not do a thorough job? As a Cabinet minister responsible for this

Province, that when they tried to rush this through and we, the Opposition,

happened to slow it down. Are they admitting today, including the current

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that they sat in caucus meetings

and Cabinet meetings and they did not debate it, they did not talk about it?

I remember it was all huggy-kissy that day. I remember it well. They pointed

across: This is something we can all agree upon. This is something we can stand

together with, link arms and say: We are proud to be Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

This House of Assembly, which is rare, stood up on a major policy decision,

minister after minister, member after member and applauded The day, the final

day, the great dramatization by the Premier, as usual, former Premier Tobin,

when he stood that day and brought in this piece of legislation, and we had the

act passed, he complimented us. He said: What a group, what cooperation, what a

historic day for Newfoundland and Labrador, that this House of Assembly, with

every single elected member, can stand in this Province and say: What a job of

cooperation. We stood on a solid issue.

Now the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation whispers across today,

because he dare not stand and say it publicly on the Hansard. The current

Minister of Transportation would not stand today and say what he said a few

minutes ago, in whispering, that he is not going to support that today, because

I have news for you: Your boss just told you, you are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: He just told you, before he left this House today, that we

would be standing today and unanimously supporting this legislation.

I will wrap it up with this, Mr. Speaker. This is just a personal theory. I

believe this was just another ball for the Premier to juggle, because he had so

many up in the air: Voisey's Bay, FPI. I mean, he was going into the lion's

den; and, lo and behold, one night on an NTV interview, the Premier throws up

another ball to juggle.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I want to clarify what the hon. member had to say. He might

have misinterpreted something that I did say across the House. The debate that

we have on today is supporting a bill that was passed a year or so ago in the

House. The Premier indicated that today we have no other choice but to support

this bill, because it is the law of the land.

I want to go on the public record and go on Hansard that I am in favour of

the Gisborne Lake proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: The Gisborne Lake proposal is to take out bulk water,

bottled water, and also a plant to make the bottles. It a $30 million investment

in my district. I support it 100 per cent, and I challenge the Member for St.

John's South to go to Grand Le Pierre any time and have a public debate on

this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am certainly glad that is - I hope the Premier has the microphone on in his

office, because I will certainly make sure he gets the Hansard.

The Premier, the Minister of Transportation's boss, just stood and said:

No, we are not changing this law today. We are going to support this today, but

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) no other choice.

MR. SHELLEY: - we have no other choice but to support it right now,

because we do not have all of the information.

I am going to ask the minister to make sure that you get all the information.

You must have all of the information because you have already made up your mind.

I am also going to ask the Premier to ask the minister if he needs the public

debate, because you do not need the public debate; you have already made up your

mind. So the public does not matter to him, and he wants to have his debate in

the Town of Grand Le Pierre. Is that right, Minister?

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. member is willing to take

part in a public debate

on this issue? I just issued a challenge to the Member for St. John's South to

there, and have a public debate so that we can address the issues. Publicly, I

will, at any time, take him to those communities and we can have an impartial

chair to chair the meeting and we will have a public debate in those

communities. I will even ask the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's to

chair the meeting.

MR. MANNING: No problem.

MR. BARRETT: No problem, because I figured he would be impartial.

MR. MANNING: I am impartial.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has stated unequivocally that he supports the export of bulk

water, when the Premier led us to believe, and he said publicly, that he wants a

full and open discussion before making a decision on what they are going to do.

A minister of the Cabinet has made a fundamental statement and drawn a specific

conclusion on a very important policy issue in this Province here that is

contrary to what the Premier has indicated - a full and open discussion, not the

verdict before the jury sits!

MR. SPEAKER: As I ruled, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to conclude my remarks in this debate today by simply saying that

we supported this unanimously when it came into the House of Assembly. Remember

the words of the Premier of the day. Let me state here today what Premier Tobin

said: The very firm position of this government with respect to our freshwater

resources.

That is what the Premier of the day stood and said, how firm it was. How

could it be so firm less than a year-and-a-half ago? All we can say is that this

debate was on before and it will go on again. I hope the minister who has

already made up his mind - you do not need to go to any Cabinet meetings. The

minister does not need to got for public debate anywhere, because he has already

made up his mind. Why would he go somewhere? According to the Premier, it is

going to be an open discussion for the people to have some informative

information put out.

We will find out in the days to come if the minister, and all the rest of the

ministers, and all the rest of the caucus, if this is in fact the way it is

going to go. I have my doubts that it is going anywhere. It is just another ball

for the Premier to juggle. If it comes to that point where we do have public

debate in this Province, I am going to hopefully note that the minister is at

all of them, not just in Grand Le Pierre but anywhere in this Province. We will

soon find out if this was just another ball to juggle or if the Premier has any

real intentions of going anywhere with this particular change.

Thank you.

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

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

I sat here today and listened to the Premier making a statement that he was

going to support this resolution here today. I heard the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation stand in his place today and say that he disagrees

wholeheartedly with the policy of this administration, with the policy of the

Premier, and the law of this Province. In other words, in my view, the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation has no other choice but to resign as

minister.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I want to make it very, very clear with the hon. the Member

for Cape St. Francis -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you diggin' em Dillon?

MR. BARRETT: Are you diggin' em deep?

I want to make it real clear to the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis. I

indicated that the law of land right now is that this piece of legislation,

which was passed in the House, is the law of the land. And, as a member of the

government, I support that piece of legislation as it now stands, but I said

when we start the Province-wide debate on the bulk shipment of water that I

would support the Gisborne Lake proposal. I have not changed my mind. When I

spoke on the bill I said the same thing as I am saying now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye'

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation;

Mr. Efford; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the hon.

the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Joyce; the hon. the Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General; the hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education;

the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of

Labour; the hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. the

Minister of Environment; Mr. Walsh; Ms Hodder; Ms Jones; Mr. Andersen; Mr.

Sweeney; Mr. Ross Wiseman; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan;

Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Harvey Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald;

Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. Manning; Mr. Tom Osborne; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Hunter; Mr.

French; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker there are 39 ayes'; no nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion passed.

This being Wednesday, this House does now stand adjourned until tomorrow,

Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.