November 18, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 34

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

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

During this week, Addiction Awareness Week, I am pleased to inform hon. members that

government has moved ahead on initiatives aimed at reducing or stopping people of all ages

from smoking tobacco. We are concerned for the health of those people who are currently

smoking, and for those who might decide to smoke in the future. The dangers are evident

when we look at the number of people being diagnosed with heart and lung illnesses.

On January 28, Premier Tobin and I announced the establishment of the Provincial

Tobacco Reduction Coalition, now called the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco. The

Alliance has been working on a tobacco strategy for the Province. I am pleased to report

that during this session of the House of Assembly, the strategy, targeted at all age

groups, will be unveiled.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of a consultation with various stakeholders, in May of this

year I introduced legislation to amend the Tobacco Control Act regarding licensing of

wholesale and retail vendors of tobacco products. With the new amendment, all tobacco

vendors are required to have a license to sell tobacco. The Tobacco Control Act prohibits

vendors from selling or giving tobacco to those under the age of nineteen.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell hon. members that the department is moving

ahead with another initiative focused specifically on youth tobacco strategies. This

morning, at Holy Cross Junior High School here in St. John's, I announced the

formation of a Teen Tobacco Team. I believe it is very important to discuss tobacco issues

directly with our young people if we are going to develop effective strategies for dealing

with smoking amongst our youth.

I will work with the Teen Tobacco Team on issues relating to tobacco use by all

teenagers around the Province. Mr. Speaker, we know that smoking kills more people than

traffic accidents, AIDS, suicides and murder combined. The next best way to prevent

smoking deaths is to keep people, especially our youth, from starting smoking. Our Teen

Tobacco Team will assist in the development of policies, programs and services as well as

public education initiatives, and they will ensure that the work to reduce youth smoking

will remain focused, realistic and effective. Ten youth between the ages of thirteen and

eighteen will be chosen from all six health care regions within our Province. I would like

to thank the many community organizations who are currently assisting us in choosing the

team members.

Members of the Teen Tobacco Team will be announced in the next few weeks. The goal for

the team is to work with me and my department officials to provide input and consultation

in developing Youth Tobacco Strategies for the Province. The work will be done in

consultation with the Alliance, and will fit in with the Provincial Tobacco Strategy.

Every year, smoking kills nearly 1,000 people in this Province alone. Our children are

smoking as early as eleven years of age. Over 50 per cent of Level III students say that

they smoke at least some cigarettes during the year. The statistics speak for themselves.

I look forward to working the Teen Tobacco Team to learn the best way to approach this

issue with our young people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly applaud the initiative to set up a Teen Tobacco Team here in the Province.

We supported the Tobacco Control Act when the legislation was introduced. I was a very

loud proponent of the initiative, and I have spoken many times.

In high school, as a teacher, I addressed, actually in my area, working to keep smoking

down in young people. The question I asked - we should have started even earlier with

young people because they are the people we have to influence. They are the people who are

probably subject to forming opinions at an early age, and it is difficult to break those

particular habits.

We certainly are delighted to see it finally under way, and we certainly hope it will

be a success. If there is a role that the Opposition in any way can play in helping to

promote discouraging people from taking up a very bad habit, a very addictive habit that

is injurious to their health, that has caused severe hardships in families and immense

cost to our health care system, we certainly applaud that, and I congratulate the minister

on getting it moving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement and commend

her on this initiative.

We need to involve our youth in any campaign that is targeted at cutting the use of

tobacco. To ban tobacco products alone will not be successful. We had a meeting here a

short time ago with a group of people from Ontario who work in the tobacco industry. There

have to be things put in place for them, even as workers, when tobacco eventually will not

be used in society, but to ban products is not enough. Education is the key, and I think

it is steps like this that will go a long way to reduce and hopefully eliminate smoking

among young people.

Hopefully young people will be able to convince us, as adults even, about the harmful

effects of smoking and the dangers that evolve from that.

I would like to thank the minister for this initiative.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: I think it will go a long way to helping the young people of this

Province to stop smoking, or not start in the beginning.

Thank you.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand before my colleagues to announce that

government is bringing in legislation effectively prohibiting bulk water removal from

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: The legislation will impose a permanent ban on bulk water removal from

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

project from proceeding in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has asked all provinces and territories to support

a permanent ban on bulk water removal. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed

to this request and we will now meet our commitment to the federal government with this

new legislation.

We are taking this step now because it appears that a national consensus is emerging in

opposition to bulk water removal. This consensus is widely supported in this Province, as

demonstrated in the recent public debate.

Government recognizes the need to consider an appropriate royalty regime for bottled

water, and the importance of consulting with all affected industries prior to introducing

such measures. To carry this out, a Ministerial Committee will be formed to review the

appropriateness of applying royalties to bottled water. In addition, the committee will be

tasked with considering the need for royalties for other water uses. This committee will

report back to government within 90 days.

Mr. Speaker, until such time as there has been a full review of this issue, government

will not be imposing royalties on affected industries. However, the Bill does contain

provisions which enable royalties to be established by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

through regulation.

Let me state here today, Mr. Speaker, the very firm position of this government with

respect to our freshwater resources. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will

continue to manage our water resources in a sustainable manner and will ensure that this

resource is developed to the maximum benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to note the extraordinary circumstance of half

of the members opposite giving a standing ovation to the Minister of Environment, the hon.

Oliver Langdon; but some of the credit, too, goes to the member opposite who has also

worked hard on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

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

This is welcomed legislation, I say to the minister opposite, Mr. Speaker. I say that

if consultation had taken place three years ago, this issue could have been resolved a

long time ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am glad to see that the minister has been brought up to date on

the serious implications of international trade. We are going to review this legislation.

We welcome the legislation and we hope that the legislation meets the requirements that

the people of this Province are demanding. This is a very important resource. We have to

demand that we get maximum benefit from this resource, maximum jobs, maximum royalties,

maximum spinoff.

Mr. Speaker, this is good news for the people of Grand Le Pierre, because if we can get

a bottling plant in Grand Le Pierre they will be much better served than they would be

through the bulk exportation of water.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly welcome the tabling of this legislation that we called for in September of

this year. I am pleased that the government has come on strongly on this issue. I look

forward to discussions about the appropriate royalty regime, and I would ask -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: We have only one province in this country with a royalty regime, Mr.

Speaker, and that is British Columbia. I look forward to some public discussion about the

nature of the royalty regime before one is put in place, as an example of how we should do

royalties -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - not only on water or on oil, but for minerals in this Province as

well.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to update Members of the House of Assembly on the status of

underground fuel storage tanks located throughout the Province.

On September 17, leaks were discovered at the underground fuel tank in St.

Bride's. A total of 5,600 litres of diesel fuel leaked from the tank at that time.

Since the spill in St. Bride's occurred, I have instructed workers in my

department to take daily measurements of the tanks and to submit the results to me every

Friday. I am pleased to announce that the reports submitted to me so far indicate that no

additional leaks have been found.

There are currently eighty-seven underground tanks in Newfoundland and Labrador, all

located on the island portion of the Province. The department has issued an order that

none of the gas tanks are to be refilled, and our intention is to minimize the number of

government-owned fuel sources and maximize use of commercial sources where available.

Where no commercial operator is available, we intend to replace underground tanks with

above ground tanks as soon as possible.

Already, there are standing offers put in place over the last couple of weeks for

approximately thirty-nine tanks, at twenty different depots, that have access to

commercial operators who will provide the service. It is estimated that the fuel and

gasoline presently located in these tanks will be depleted in one to six months. This

estimate may be reduced if there is an increase in fuel consumption, which usually occurs

when we increase operation of winter equipment.

For the remaining forty-eight underground tanks, the same steps will be taken to find

commercial operators to provide the service. If there are no commercial operators

available, we will install above ground tanks early in the new year.

The Department of Works, Services and Transportation is taking corrective action to

rectify the situation and to prevent other leaks from occurring.

My department's plans have been discussed with the Departments of Environment and

Labour and Government Services and Lands and they have been made aware of actions to

resolve this issue.

Within the next week, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation will notify

all other departments within government which use the tanks to make alternate

arrangements.

I look forward to updating members on our progress.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First of all, I just received the statement, so I am reading through it now, but I do

understand that there is all kinds of steps put in place now. That it is something serious

for this Province when we talk about oil spills and so on with the environment.

The real question has to be asked, what is in place now? What would we do if there was

a private gas operator and what would be the fine to those people? Are those things going

to hold the same for the department now? Are there going to be fines? Where is the

responsibility going to lie with what has happened in St. Bride's and so on?

Those are the questions that have to be asked. Who would be knocking on whose door

today if that was a private operator and we had a spill in somebody's own backyard?

There is negligence there. The question has to be asked to the department and we look

forward to some answers on those.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the minister to have to have personal weekly reports on the amount and number of

gallons of fuel in a tank in order to manage his department speaks to the total inadequacy

of procedures in his department to prevent this kind of spill from happening in the first

place. This ought not to be an excuse to close down tanks and go to private operators.

This ought to be reason to have proper procedures in place to look after the

government's responsibility to protect the environment and carry out its operations.

Not to abandon the field, but rather to replace inadequate procedures with proper ones to

look after the environment and to look after the minister's responsibility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members today

that this week is Crafts Week in Newfoundland and Labrador. This week is being celebrated

around the Province with a series of events, including craft fairs in Corner Brook and

here in St. John's.

The craft industry is an important part of our small-manufacturing sector. Craft

production employs more than 2,000 people and contributes $25 million a year to the

provincial economy. So I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the important

contribution that the small business people who produce crafts make to our economy,

particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I had the pleasure this morning of attending the opening of the Craft Council of

Newfoundland and Labrador's 26 th annual craft fair at St. John's

Memorial Stadium. I would hope that hon. members can find some time over the next few days

- this weekend, as a matter of fact - to attend the fair. To help them, my department has

purchased a number of tickets which we will be providing to them. I hope they take

advantage, get in the Christmas spirit and buy some beautiful Christmas gifts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, I will say that is two statements today and I do not

have a copy of that one either. Anyway, it is easy to respond to that because it is good

news. It is something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will check. Maybe it is at the office, but I left early.

I say to the minister, it is good news. It is something that we certainly do support.

It is a very important part of the industry, as we go around this entire Province. It is

very unique to Newfoundland and Labrador, the crafts that are produced in this Province.

We certainly do support it, and I commend the minister.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important to recognize as well the contribution that the craft industry

makes to our Province. A lot of the time they become overshadowed by the big, major

developments that are going on and they get overlooked in many instances. I think it is

important to recognize that in the small towns and communities across this Province the

contribution they make is quite significant, when you look around and see all the things

that are happening within the craft industry.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister if she was aware, or had been informed,

that the environment minister had in his possession a report showing that at least

forty-nine municipalities in this Province had water so toxic that it exceeded acceptable

Canada Health levels of chemicals that cause, I might add, cancer - it has been proven -

and birth defects.

These people, Minister, were essentially drinking poison and harming their health.

Surely there is something that you should be aware of, Minister, because you are

responsible for the health of these people in these municipalities.

I want to ask the minister: Minister, were you told of this report?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That question is totally irresponsible, and the member opposite knows it, because these

particular THM reports that were gathered for the communities have been sent back to them.

Every council in every one of those communities, 190 of them, have these reports that were

paid for by them, distributed to them.

To suggest that I, as minister, or the department, have been ordering these is

completely false. It is the same type of alarmist situation that was done, as I said

yesterday, in Westport. It is the same thing. You just get people riled over nothing at

all. That is the situation that you have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Minister of Health and Community Services, who is responsible for the

health of people in this Province, if she was aware of the report that was in the

possession of the Minister of Environment, that there were at least forty-nine

municipalities here in this Province that were drinking water that could have caused

cancer and numerous birth defects.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated in the House yesterday, and indicated to the press at that particular

time, we are now drafting a letter; the letter has already been drafted. I am getting the

names of all of the municipalities that have been tested, and the letter will be sent

directly to the particular municipality asking if I can release the information here.

The thing is that the communities already have it. The media asked me if I would do

that, and I took it upon myself to do it. I am contacting the municipalities, but the

municipality of Gander and every other community would have that information so it is old

news.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Labour. Based on the potential

health hazard of drinking this water - and it has been scientifically proven that it

causes cancer, in scientific studies - did you inform the Minister of Health that there

were potential health hazards in reports that you had access to in your department?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the person doesn't want to hear

or if he has tunnel vision, or he does not want to listen to anybody's question or

answer other than what he gives himself. He has a habit of doing that in the House; he

doesn't want to listen to anyone other than himself.

What I said yesterday, I will say again. These reports are in the hands of the

councils. The councils are elected by the people. They are reputable people, and I am sure

they have the ability to disseminate that information to the people they represent.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Health and Community Services: Isn't it a fact that had you

been informed of the health risks to people in those forty-nine communities in our

Province, your department could have advised the public in those communities what they

could have done to protect themselves, whether it is filtering, whether it is boil water

orders, whatever the case may be?

Minister, nobody told the people in those communities that were receiving it. I ask

you, the minister: Did these people in the communities know, either from you, as the

Minister of Health... I ask you again: Were you aware? If you were, did you take any steps

to inform people in the communities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, these particular results, as I said, have been given to

the municipalities. It has been done over a number of years. They are being tested every

three months - collected. Our people will help the communities disseminate and go through

the information. That is why we want to get the permission of the councils, so we can get

this particular material out.

What I want to say to the hon. member opposite as well is that this is not a

Newfoundland problem alone. This is a Canadian problem. This is also a North American

problem. There is a committee in place across the country, and a member from my department

sits on that particular committee now.

The impression that you are giving to the people is that they should not chlorinate.

The Department of Health will tell you, it is better to chlorinate than not to chlorinate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. This is a final supplementary

the Chair has already called, because other members have been standing.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader. I will give you one more supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.

I am asking the Minister of Environment, in light of the fact that he had reports in

his hands of potential health hazards, proven, scientifically documented - THMs; they

cause cancer, it has been proven scientifically - did you inform the Minister of Health of

this potential health hazard, yes or no? That is all I want to know.

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the member opposite that these

reports are in the hands of the municipalities. They have known the results a dozen times.

You are pressing the panic button - that is what you are doing - and trying to disseminate

that I have had material that I have not given out. The towns have the material, and they

get it four times a year.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I want to know if you knew about

the report in the possession of your colleague, the environment minister, showing there

are at least forty-nine municipalities in the Province of water so toxic that it exceeded

acceptable Health Canada levels of chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects.

The Premier says he was not told in Cabinet. I am asking you, Minister, were you told

as the minister responsible for financing municipal water projects?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would assume that when the hon. member was the Mayor of Logy Bay-Outer Cove-Middle

Cove, or whatever that particular community was, that they did the testing and had

results, too, if you have water in the municipality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LANGDON: Did you? I am sure the other member did as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing the Minister of Environment is not

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs because he would know the Town of Logy

Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove is not on a water supply system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Artesian wells, surface wells.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the municipalities in this Province operate under provincial

legislation. Yesterday, the environment minister tried to sidestep and wash his hands of

responsibility for water supplied contamination in forty-nine communities by saying it is

a municipal issue and he had to get permission from the towns to release the information.

That, Sir, is a cop out!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Isn't it your department that is ultimately responsible for the

Province's municipalities? Shouldn't you have made sure, Minister, that the

citizens of these municipalities fully understood the risk and fully understood what they

could do to protect themselves with respect to the water supplies in this Province?

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member opposite that I did not

say yesterday that I did not release the information. The media wanted the information,

not the municipalities. The information on the THMs that have been collected for the towns

have been given back to them, have been disseminated to them, and have been paid to them

by the town. Whether you want to believe it or don't want to, that is the information

that I gave.

I also want to say to you, you talk about the Mayor of Clarenville, Fred Best, who was

a community leader and worked with the federation, and Claude Elliott in Gander. You are

saying that those people and the people who have been elected in that particular town by

the residents, by the constituents, that you have no faith in them to disseminate

material, and if there is a problem they cannot relate it to their people? They already

have the information. That is why we are working with the Town of Gander to establish a

pilot project, and that is why we work with the Town of Clarenville to help them. That is

why we work with Botwood for beaver fever. That is why we work with Musgrave Harbour, to

do their water supply. We are being proactive all the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

What we are saying here today, or what I am saying, is that you and your department,

Sir, are using the municipalities in this Province to deflect your responsibility, the

same as you do with the school boards and the health boards in this Province.

I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs again, isn't it his

responsibility to see that the municipalities and the people in those municipalities,

because of provincial legislation, that it is you, Sir, who is responsible for informing

the people of this Province with respect to any health issues in those municipalities -

ultimately you?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very plain to anybody who is paying any

attention to what is happening, that we have members of the Opposition taking an issue

which has been a matter associated with the use of chlorine in water in Newfoundland and

Labrador and in nine other provinces of Canada. Because it is a matter that is raised in

association with the use of chlorine in water, the national government has established a

national committee - of which Newfoundland and Labrador is a member - to try and deal with

it.

These reports and this analysis has been done for years. The information that arises

out of it is given back to communities over the years. That is done in Newfoundland. That

is done elsewhere across Canada. I read a report in one of the papers this morning where

one council said that they lowered the amount of chlorine being used. It dramatically

reduced levels. In their case it provided a solution. Others are looking at other pilot

projects.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what the Opposition are doing here today, in a very irresponsible

fashion - the same kind of alarmist talk we heard yesterday from the Member for St.

John's East who has quite wisely decided to stay in his seat today - what they are

doing today is trying to suggest that somehow there is a huge public health issue, and I

guess they are suggesting that chlorine should not be used and that whatever risks are

associated with the lack of chlorine are preferable to whatever risk is associated with

the use of chlorine.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Opposition, after six months of thinking about it, is

you would think they would bring more pressing and real issues to the floor of the House

of Assembly.

MR. J. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Let me get this clear, in the Premier's words,

so we can all understand. What you are saying here is that the people will have to make up

their mind in the Province which poison is best. Is that what you are saying?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the real poison that is

flowing today is across the floor of the House of Assembly with irresponsible questions

designed to alarm people in an unrealistic fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: That is the poison we are seeing around here today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: The reality here, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Environment

and Labour hid a damning report from the media, from his own ministers -

MR. MANNING: Cover up!

MR. T. OSBORNE: - from the general public. The Premier himself has just said that

this is a public health issue. This information should have been given to the general

public so they could have made an informed decision.

I ask the minister: Why is it that you did not share this information at the Cabinet

table as the Premier yesterday had admitted to?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the level of questions from the Opposition reveal a

level of desperation and lack of preparation for a serious discussion in Question Period.

It really does.

The fact of the matter is this testing of water, in which chlorine is used, is routine.

This problem, although it is a serious problem, is not new to the Province. It has been

dealt with for some years and is being dealt with all across Canada, so much so that there

is a national committee in place.

The testing results are routinely given to town councils. That happens in Newfoundland,

it happen in other provinces of Canada, and there is no declaration by Health Canada or

any other national or provincial agency which would warrant a general call for everybody

in Newfoundland and Labrador to either stop using water or to cease using chlorine. In

fact yesterday I had in my hand, which I read in the House, from Health Canada's

website, a declaration that the risk of using chlorine is outweighed by the benefits of

using chlorine in the water system.

I say to the members opposite that this is pathetically transparent, this attempt to

cause alarm needlessly in many communities all across Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

The Health Canada officials said that this is the type of information they would not

hide from the public. A matter of routine should be informing the general public of this

type of activity. Not even the members of the House were aware of this.

I ask the minister again: Why did you withhold this information when the general public

could have made alternate arrangements for at least their drinking water in this Province?

Why did you withhold this information from the members of the House of Assembly and from

the general public on this very important health issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this dire message is brought to us by the same rocket

scientist on the other side of the House who went down to Westport and tried to convince

people that their entire ecosystem was poisoned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: There were tens of thousands of dollars spent to prove it was

nothing but another phony declaration. You should be ashamed of yourself because you are

doing it again today.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I ask the

minister today: Will you table a copy of the government's agreement with Friede

Goldman, the agreement that sets job targets the company is not likely to meet and

penalties the government seems reluctant to impose? Will you table a copy of that contract

today in the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the penalty contract does not need to be tabled. We have

been talking about this for years. One point two million person hours is the contract. It

is correct that maybe this year it will not be met. Last year was a record year. If there

is any other information you would like about the penalty contract, that is all there is

to know.

MR . SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also say to the minister that when Friede Goldman were here selling the people of

Marystown their proposal to take over the Shipyard and the Cow Head facilities, they told

the workers and the people of Marystown that Friede Goldman had enough work on their books

to keep the Shipyard and Cow Head going for the next ten years. I ask the minister today,

where is the work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Here we go again, I guess, with these hypothetical speculative questions.

May I give you some information?

Last year, we all know, was a record year. This year, in spite of what we are hearing,

there is a seventeen-year record. This year this company will have on its books its third

or fourth best year. We will not know exactly until the end of the year. In spite of a

worldwide slump in the shipbuilding industry, Marystown Shipyard has produced more work

than any shipyard, I dare to say in all of Canada, but I know in Atlantic Canada, compared

to the others.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: This has been a very good year. You have to realize that in spite of the

fact that there was the global slump there has also been a very big decrease in oil prices

until recently, but just over this past few weeks there has been quite a bit of work go

into that yard. The very first submarine went into that dock several weeks ago. Last week,

the Henry Goodrich arrived to be refitted. There have been thirty vessels this year

from the Coast Guard and others. This is an exemplary record for an industry that is in a

slump.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that I was in Marystown yesterday. I saw the anguish on the faces

of workers. I watched the signs from one gentlemen who was a thirty-two year worker at the

Marystown Shipyard who today is now classified as a casual worker. I say to the minister,

go down and tell the people what you just told us and the people of this Province here in

the House.

I say to you again, Freide Goldman must have sold the same bill of goods to this

government, otherwise why would you give them $100 million facility debt free for one

dollar? Isn't it time you told this company the time has come for them to account for

the promises they made to government and to the people of this Province? I now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: If we cannot get what they promised us, we would be better off closing

her down!

Minister, I now ask you today, isn't it time that you told them to deliver on

their promises to the government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: - or take back the Shipyard at Marystown and the fabrication facility

at Cow Head?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I find some of these comments absolutely incredible. Just

ten days ago, I was in Marystown and did a tour of the Shipyard.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS KELLY: I will be down there on Monday. We will be down there on Monday signing a

new contract. This company has been responsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, some of the work that has been done down there this past

year is a very long list of work, but, you know, the work that I do is proactive, it is

not negative like you have just been doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: We talk about expansion in this area. I have been to Aberdeen with Friede

Goldman looking for new work. I have worked with them on the first submarine contract they

ever had. I worked with them to make sure the Henry Goodrich came to this yard.

Besides all of that, this list is very long but would you like me to read it out?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MS KELLY: An oil rig, first off; fabrication of fourteen steel jackets for phase

two of Whiffin Head -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

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

At a recent council for exceptional children held at St. John's last weekend, Dr.

Patricia Canning, author of the 1996 review of special education report, told delegates

that your department has ignored almost all the recommendations of that report three years

ago regarding effective delivery of special services. Why, Minister, is this report simply

collecting dust?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we take our responsibility to children with special needs

very seriously as a government, just as we take responsibility for all of the children in

this Province.

I cannot confirm what Dr. Canning said but I can tell you that we certainly have acted

on the Patricia Canning report. In fact, my predecessor, the hon. Minister Grimes, was

responsible for ensuring that a great deal of that report was put into play.

Let me just give you an example of how responsible this government is when it comes to

special needs for our children in this Province. If you look at our expenditures in the

four Atlantic Provinces, Newfoundland spends more for our children with special needs than

either of the four Atlantic Provinces.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: To give you one example alone, if you look at our expenditure on children

with special needs and the special needs student herself or himself, Nova Scotia spends

$2,800, Newfoundland spends $4,200.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, $4,200 per special needs student in this Province. So for

Dr. Canning or anyone else to suggest that we do not take our responsibility seriously,

they are out to lunch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I take exception to the remarks from the

minister. Regardless of the amount of money that you are spending, you are not spending

enough. Again, I ask you: Why won't you spend enough money to make sure that the

services are certainly taken care of?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, that is an amazing quote from the member opposite, that

regardless of how much money we are spending we are not spending enough. Clearly, there is

no way that we can ever spend enough money in this area. I would love to find out where we

are going to get the additional resources, because if you look at our K-12 budget, right

now over 14 per cent of that budget is spent for our children with special needs. We take

our responsibility very seriously here. We realize how vulnerable these children are. This

is why we spend so much money on children with special needs. Will we ever be able to meet

all of the needs? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker, just as we will always have needs in some other

sector of society, but we work very hard with the resources that we have, always trying to

ensure we have additional resources to put into our education system, especially for our

students with special needs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Madam Minister, the special needs programs in our schools today are in crisis. The

teachers are certainly over-stressed, our students are under served, our parents are

desperate. Minister, you have a problem on your hands, no matter what you say about how

are you going to deal with it. I am asking you: What are you going to do now to address

this very serious concern in our schools even as I speak? Now!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we are spending $700 million on our education system in this

Province. That is no small change. That is a lot of money to be spending in a province

where we are seeing a severe decline in our student population. In fact, back in the 1970s

we had 162,000 students in our population. We now have, in school, 93,500 students. Ten

years out we will have less than 60,000 students. We have not seen any reduction in the

amount of money going into the education system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, when we look at a 30 per cent reduction in the number of

students in our population we have only seen a 10 per cent reduction in the number of

teachers that have come out of the system. That has been a deliberate move by this

government not to reduce the number of teachers comparable to the reduction in the number

of students in our student population.

We continue to put more money back into the system, we continue to reinvest. The member

opposite knows we put $125 million back in for new structures, for clean air, for whatever

was required in the system to ensure that our students have clean, safe learning

environments. We put back additional teaching units. We are putting more money back into

the system, irregardless of the decline in the student enrolment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS FOOTE: We are very responsible when it comes to educating the students in this

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have time for one question today, to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Again it is the time of year, of course, with the weather upon us and so

on, on the highways of Newfoundland and Labrador, that people make that transition from

summer driving into winter driving. Of course it is the responsibility of government to

make sure, to the best that we can, that our highways are safe, when we hear of fatalities

and so on around the Province.

My first question, and probably my only question for today: Does the minister feel

satisfied now, with his report back from depots, that they are already equipped and ready

for this winter maintenance season?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I say to the member, I am satisfied with the proceedings put in place by all the

depots in the Province. In fact, usually the winter maintenance does not come in and start

until December 1. We have all that moved up, ready some weeks ago. Also, the dispatching

services throughout the Province will be totally implemented by Monday. We put Western

Newfoundland in just Wednesday. We put Central Newfoundland in just yesterday or today,

and Eastern Newfoundland will all have the 1-900 dispatching service in by Monday, so

everything should be in place.

I will take this opportunity to say, in answer to the question - and it was a good

question - by the hon. member, that this time of the year we always have many accidents

taking place when there is a transition and so many fluctuations in the run of a day in

temperatures around the Province, and people should be very, very careful. We had, the

other day, an accident in Deer Lake. The plough went out about an hour-and-a-half or two

hours before. The pavement was wet, the salt was down, the sand was out, but - take it

easy. I have cautioned people in this transition to take it easy and slow down on the

roads around the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova, on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise on a point of order in relationship to a

breach of a couple of the rules in Question Period today, and I thought this was the

appropriate time to raise them.

I felt it an obligation to raise these points because it is an obligation of all

members to follow the rules of the House, and this particular rule to which I refer today

is Beauchesne , page 121, 409.(8). It says, "A question that has previously

been answered ought not to be asked again."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the reason that rule is there, as are so many other rules

regarding Question Period, and by Beauchesne , the guidebook that is followed right

throughout Canadian jurisdictions, is one to expedite Question Period so that as many

members as possible can have a chance to ask a question; and, secondly, to prevent

badgering, harassment and debate, neither of which are permitted in Question Period.

Mr. Speaker, the corollary to that is this: page 123, Beauchesne , 416,

subsections (1) and (2).

I don't know whether hon. members want to know the rules or whether they just want

to go on in ignorance. The corollary -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Maybe hon. members, if they listen, would learn something about the

rules.

Another reason, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Hon. members can badger all they like. This point of order is going to be

made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: This member has been around too long to be railroaded into sitting down.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good reason, what we are seeing today, why this House should be

televised - a good reason why this House ought to be televised - so they could see the

behavior, so the people of this Province could see how members do not want to know the

rules of this House and they want to turn it into a bear pit.

Mr. Speaker, the corollary to that particular rule that I read, that a question ought

not to be asked a second time, is this: 416.(1) "A Minister may decline to answer a

question without stating the reason for refusing, and insistence on an answer is out of

order, with no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of

privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such a refusal. A Member may put a question

but has no right to insist upon an answer."

I raise these issues, Mr. Speaker, so that Question Period can be run smoothly, the way

it is supposed to be run, in the interest of the people of this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for Terra Nova did make reference to the fact that a question that has

been previously answered ought not to be asked again. It did not say that a question that

has previously been asked ought not to be asked again. If you interpret it, it says

answered, not asked, I might add, and you can look at the corollary. I know the minister

doesn't have to answer a question. That is why I asked another minister: Did he tell

her?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked the minister, was she informed by the Minister of

Environment? She did not answer, so I asked the Minister of Environment, did he tell her?

He did not answer, so I still did not get an answer. Maybe it is a question I might ask

again.

I consider it a responsibility, on matters pertaining to health, to ask the Minister of

Health, and she refuses to answer. I asked a different question to the Minister of

Environment to see if he told her about those levels.

Mr. Speaker, the point he is making is certainly valid here in this regard but it is

not the wording, the

interpretation. Do you want me to apologize for asking the Minister

of Health, was she told her responsibilities under the department?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to -

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, I would be delighted to apologize, but it does not say a

question that was asked. It said a question that was answered, and that was not answered.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to the point of order raised by the Member for Terra Nova who, as

all members know, is probably one of the longest-serving members of the House, having

served in the Speaker's Chair as well.

His comments about Question Period, I think, are well taken. Question Period has come

to the point in this House where it is haphazard and I think it is also lawless, Mr.

Speaker. There has to be an opportunity - we have gotten to the point where people are

raising points of order during Question Period in order to get a few more digs in at the

other side, and this happens on both sides of the House. We have sixteen people here in

the Opposition. There are two many supplementaries being asked and we have to have, I

think, more -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to make his point quickly.

MR. HARRIS: I am speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Make your point quickly, please.

MR. HARRIS: Te point is, Mr. Speaker, is that there ought to be some rules

governing the operation of Question Period so as to allow people to have an opportunity to

ask questions, to participate, and to get questions answered.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will review the comments and the points raised by hon. members, will take it

under advisement and report back to the House.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the Report of Public Tender Act

Exemptions for March, 1999.

Petitions

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition today on the bulk export of water.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I see the Premier laughing. Mr. Speaker, this is no laughing

matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am going to present them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Day after day after day.

MR. MANNING: Just like a bad drip in your tap. That is the way we are going to do

it.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I perused the legislation quickly and there are a

couple of points on the petition that were not addressed in the legislation. So I think

the petition is still very pertinent in this House.

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

deliver maximum benefits through jobs, spinoff, secondary processing as well as royalties,

we demand that any water sold must be bottled and processed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as the prayer of the petition says, we must demand that we get our full

and fair share from this resource. That is true, and that is the whole intent of this

petition, to ensure that not only is the water bottled in this Province but that we ensure

we get a fair royalty on it. That is covered under the legislation, but what is not in the

legislation - we would like to see it perhaps go even further. We would like to ensure

that there is an opportunity there to manufacture the bottles, to put the labels on the

bottles and the packaging for the bottles as well. If we are going to talk about getting

our full and fair share from our resources, we should drive that point all the way home,

not half the way.

This is an important issue. It is an issue that has caught the attention of the people

of this Province, and most of the people in this Province agree with the fact that we have

to get maximum benefit from this resource, that we have to ensure that the maximum number

of jobs that can be attained from this resource are attained.

That is what this is about. That is the reason this debate has gotten so heated

throughout the past number of months. It has gotten heated because we have a large number

of people unemployed in this Province. We have a large number of people on social

benefits. We have a very high dependency on food banks and the like in this Province. We

have to ensure that we start to manage our resources in a manner that will give the

maximum benefit, the maximum spinoff, to the people of this Province. As one of the

wealthiest provinces resource-wise in Canada, we have done a dismal job to date of

ensuring that the people of this Province, the owners of the resources, derive the maximum

benefits. That is what we have to start doing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of the opportunity to speak to

this petition which the member has just presented. May I say it is a little bit unusual to

have a petition calling upon the House and the Legislature to ensure - and I am very happy

to see the words because they are words, I think, that I have used on more than one

occasion - that full and fair benefits accrue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

from the use of our own water, and that that be accomplished by ensuring a regime for

bottled water.

That is exactly what the government announced today we are going to do. We have put in

place a ban on the export of bulk water, and we have put in place a ministerial committee

which will consult with the industry over the next ninety days to put in place a royalty

regime. The member knows that.

The member also knows that in all of Canada only one province collects royalties on

bottled water. That is the Province of British Columba. In the Province of British

Columbia there are forty bottlers, as of last year, and those forty bottlers who are

exporting all over the world resulted in a grand total of twenty -

MR. T. OSBORNE: 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: Mr. Speaker, this legislation has not been passed in the House yet

nor does it define a royalty regime, but when it does I will be happy to have the Premier

lecture me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member attended a press conference outside the

House with myself and the Minister of Environment, he sat in the room, he heard all of

these explanations, he knows the legislation is now before the House, and unless he and

his party hold it up we are prepared to pass it right now. We are prepared to seek

unanimous consent to pass the legislation right now!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: We will put that question to the Opposition in just a moment because

it is an urgent matter that should not be delayed.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there are forty bottlers in the Province of British

Columbia. They export water all over the world in quite substantial volumes. The grand

total of the royalties in that province is $28,000, from forty bottlers. There are two

other provinces with a royalty regime. They do not collect it. No other province has a

royalty regime.

If the member opposite is trying to convey the impression that there is a lot of money

to be collected from these bottling companies, or that we are going to prescribe how they

manufacture their bottles, how they are going to be labeled, where the label is printed,

and that we are going to impose a massive royalty regime, what the member opposite is

proposing is closing down the bottling industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. What we want

to do, on this side, is build it up, create jobs in many places in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and especially in Grand le Pierre. The member opposite, if he is really serious,

will prevail upon his House Leader to take now my request, formally given, to suspend the

rules of the House, or the ordinary procedure of the House at this time, and to grant

unanimous consent to put the vote right now on this legislation banning bulk water

exports.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: The Premier has just put a request to the Opposition to put aside the

ordinary rules of the House, the ordinary procedure of the House, to deal with what the

hon. Member for St. John's South sees as an emergency, to get it done, to pass the

legislation now, to get the committee on the road. He has asked for leave to do that. I

wonder if the Opposition House Leader is going to do it right now.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We don't have any problems with endorsing resolutions banning the export of water,

but a bill has just been circulated in this House in the last few minutes. We were just

given the bill in the last few minutes. We will do what we can to expedite and move

legislation we have been calling for, but we are not going to do it today when we just got

the bill in our hand a few minutes ago.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: The truth of the matter is the hon. gentleman knows what the principle of

the bill is. It is second reading. Let's put it now. I think the NDP will indicate

that they will pass second reading on this bill today and get it done. Will the hon.

gentleman stand up and do the same thing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: In response to a request from the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, to the point of order that the hon. member has raised.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say to the Government House Leader, as I said, we are very

eager to expedite things but it would be irresponsible to pass a bill without reading a

bill which has just been passed out in the House this afternoon. It would be irresponsible

to do it. I did not read it. I would like to read the bills, as Opposition House Leader,

to look at it too, which I do. I haven't had sufficient time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that until we have a chance to read the

bill we are not prepared to debate it in the House. It has not even gone through reading

stage.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) read the bill (inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: To the point of order, and the request made by the Premier and formally

made by the Government House Leader. The principle of this legislation is obviously one

that we have called for for some time. We asked in September in a press statement to bring

in legislation to ban the bulk export of water. I certainly have no difficulty supporting

approval in principle of this bill in this House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I have read the legislation and it does effectively bring in a ban to

export bulk water. The principle I do not think is something we need to debate any

further. Obviously, on the detail of the bill, a detailed study, clause by clause,

Committee, we need time. If there are defects in the bill that need to be strengthened I

think that we are prepared to debate them at length, and give us time to next week go into

the clause by clause study. I do not see a problem giving this bill second reading today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on the petition put forward by -

PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, point of order. I want to prevail upon the Opposition

House Leader. He is an experienced parliamentarian who knows there is an opportunity,

through clause by clause, to examine the bill in great detail, offer up whatever

amendments are deemed appropriate by the Opposition, to send a clear and strong signal

from this government for the first week that we sit - today is Thursday - to now move to

the next stages of deliberation of this bill.

I would ask the member, who is quite experienced and knows that there is still room for

clause by clause, to move now. We have the agreement of the NDP, the agreement of the

government. Let us proceed. This is the expeditious thing to do and the right thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear. If you want to call the bill

tomorrow on second reading and deal with it, that is fine. The bill is not going to be

passed today or tomorrow, naturally. It is only a political request. We will approve in

principle basic things. We are not going to approve a bill without having read it. The

critic said he just perused the bill. He quickly went through it, he has not read it.

There may be things we might want that would guarantee better protections. We are not

prepared unilaterally to do something without having read it. It is irresponsible and we

are not going to do it. We will read the bill thoroughly and we are prepared to debate it

tomorrow when we have read it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. gentlemen what is being asked of him.

We are being asked to debate the principle of the bill which bans the export of bulk water

in this Province, which the NDP have agreed to, which we have heard from the Opposition

for four or five months that they want to do.

I say to the hon. gentlemen that if there is some little comma not in place or some

little word not in place, that is usually done in Committee. He knows that. We have also

heard his critic say this evening that he has no problem with the principle of the bill.

He might want to have it exported in square bottles as opposed to round, but he has no

real problem with the principle of the bill. Let's get this done. Let's end the

cry coming from the Opposition to ban bulk water. Let's get it done! It is time to

send a signal to the people of this Province that we are all as one when it comes to the

principle of exporting bulk water. Let's do it this afternoon.

MR. J. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, yes, it is on a point of order.

It is my understanding that to do this in this House of Assembly today we need

unanimous consent. Well, this man here is not going to give it, so it is over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The hon. gentlemen has now informed this House by withdrawing leave that he is not

prepared today to pass a bill in principle banning the export of bulk water.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I finally get to have the opportunity to say a few words on the petition put forward by

the Member for St. John's South. I guess the reason why we are not prepared to jump

when the government says jump is it comes down to trust. We have not had the opportunity

to look through this bill. Looking at the record of this government we would have to study

this in detail. The water debate that has happened in this Province over the past number

of months has been a very important debate for every Newfoundlander. It started off very

smoothly and then before we knew what happened the water debate in the Province had come

to a full boil. Everybody in the Province got a part of that and the debate came to a full

boil.

Then we had the Premier on one radio station steamed off while the Member for Bellevue

was on the other radio station and had fizzled out. So it is important. `Sir

Gisborne' himself fizzled out, the Member for Bellevue. The Premier got steamed off

on one radio station, the Member for Bellevue was fizzled out on the other, and therefore

the water debate came to a screeching halt. That is why we have petitions coming forward

here today.

Then in the House yesterday the Member for Bellevue took on a new honour. The Mayor of

Grand Le Pierre was here and the member stood up in this House and said he had a very

important meeting. He had to leave the House because he had a very important meeting to do

with starting a bottling plant down in that man's community. He left this House at

2:58 p.m. and came back here at 3:11 p.m. The `thirteen minute man,' I'm going

to call the Member for Bellevue now! An all important meeting he had with the Mayor of

Grand Le Pierre yesterday about a water bottling plant took thirteen minutes from the time

he left the House until he came back. He was thirteen minutes gone and he tells us about

the all important meeting! That is not even enough time to boil the water!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: It is not enough time to boil the water, and he is going to start a

bottling plant in thirteen minutes. That is why we have petitions coming to the House of

Assembly. That is why we have people contacting our offices with these petitions. Because

they want to make sure that this piece of legislation is not fizzled out like the Member

for Bellevue fizzled out. They want to make sure that this piece of legislation is

long-lasting. They want to make sure that this piece of legislation protects the last

major resource that we have in this Province. That is why the people of this Province are

asking us to take our time. That is why the people of this Province are asking us to make

sure that this legislation brings in the protection that we need on the last major

resource we have in this Province.

Now I know that the `thirteen minute man' is anxious to get on his feet. There you

go, he is on his feet. It took two seconds for the thirteen minute man to get on his feet.

I say, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bellevue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: No, we do not do that over here. That is a common practice over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

said: Where is Percy?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: The hon. Member for Waterford Valley, if he is talking about signs in

Marystown saying where is the Member for Bellevue, well, I walk the track in Mount Pearl

all the time and there is a sign saying: Harvey has gone.

I want to remind the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's that this hon.

member can accomplish more in thirteen minutes than he has accomplished in his four years

he has been in active politics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we in the government today - and I ask for unanimous consent

to do this - feel that today it is important enough to abide by what we want to do, to get

this concern out of the way. I'm going to call Order 6, second reading of a bill,

"An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The

Water Resources Of The Province." (Bill 31)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide for the Conservation,

Protection, Wise Use and Management of the Water Resources of the Province". (Bill

31)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak to Bill 31,

An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise

Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province. I do so with a great sense of

sadness, in a sense, because we have had in the House today an expression of the

understanding of the importance of setting aside partnership and partisanship and dealing

in a constructive way with this bill.

We had a submission just a few minutes ago from the government that we set aside the

normal rules of the House and deal with this bill today. When such a request was made, I

have to acknowledge that the Leader of the NDP on behalf of his party stood and

immediately agreed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agreed with the Government House Leader to allow Notice of Motion on first reading to

one day to forego the rules of the House to give unanimous consent so we can have first

readings done on bills so we can get bills circulated. Many of them were done yesterday,

and granted then we had an opportunity to go through those bills.

Today we did not receive this bill until sometime after Question Period.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he went through it quickly, he told -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Let me finish, please.

After Question Period we received a bill. We did not have an opportunity to read it. I

spoke to the Government House Leader who gave me a list of seven bills in the order they

are going to be done today. This was not on the list. We did not have the bill today when

the House started, and therefore it is unfair, I think, to try to expect us to move on

this when I agreed to forego the normal procedures on several bills in this House so we

could get them printed and circulated here so we could have a chance to read them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, is he raising a point of order?

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman -

MR. SPEAKER: Is he raising a point of order? Is the hon. member raising a point of

order?

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. gentleman on a number of

occasions has said yes, we will go to first and second reading, but to say that you did

not know about the bill? Your critic said in his seat, and said standing, that he was

familiar with the bill, that he knew the principle of the bill. He was at the press

conference today and he left. I say to the hon. gentleman that I asked him twenty minutes

ago if he would take it and do what his own member wanted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill 31,

An Act To Provide For The

Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province.

This is not, as the Leader of the NDP pointed out when he spoke, a very complex bill. It

is literally about a page. That is about it, one page. It is a one page bill because it is

not complicated and it has a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will not tolerate continuous interruption like this. When a member is

standing to speak, that member has a right to be heard in this House and members who are

interrupting should not do it. The Chair will not continue to tolerate this kind of thing

that has happened here the last few minutes.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this stage of the debate on

Bill 31,

an act to provide for a ban on the bulk removal of water from our Province,

because government regards this matter as sufficiently important to want to proceed

expeditiously with the bill. I choose to believe that all members of the House regard the

question as sufficiently important as to want to proceed expeditiously with the bill. I

take, as

an act of good faith, the words of the Opposition House Leader that the bill can

be dealt with during the course of this week. What we are dealing with today is one stage

of the bill.

As I said a moment ago, it is not a large or complex bill. It is literally one page. It

is one page. It is a few clauses. It is not meant to be large or complex because the

purpose of the bill is to ban the removal, in bulk form, of water from the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me go through the relevant sections. They can be gone through literally in two

minutes. Under

section 5 it states: "...water may be removed from the province where

(

a) the water is contained in containers of not more than 30 litres in volume."

Thirty litres is a little larger than the water containers or the water tanks that you can

find in most offices, water coolers.

Under

section 5 (

b) it states: "the water is being transported in a motor vehicle,

vessel or aircraft and is necessary for the operation of the motor vehicle, vessel or

aircraft or is intended for the use or consumption of persons in or on the motor vehicle,

vessel or aircraft." In other words, you can have some bulk water for Air Canada, or

for Marine Atlantic, or for a bus which is carrying passengers in and out of the -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understood the Government House Leader said the bill was circulated today. Myself and

the Member for Windsor-Springdale do not have copies of this particular piece of

legislation. If it was given out then somebody must have passed the two of us.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, we will have the Pages distribute the bill to

all members.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, there is an issue that I think we should raise at

this point, and that is in terms of how we are going to proceed on a daily basis for

effective governance within this Chamber.

The reason why we have a Government House Leader and an Opposition House Leader is, in

preparations for House proceedings, to deal so that their respective caucuses are advised

as to what the proceedings are for that particular day.

Yesterday it was read into the record in this House - it can be read in Hansard - that

we would be dealing with Bills 9, 30, 26, 27, 28 and 29. The respective critics are

prepared to speak to those particular pieces of legislation. When an arrangement and the

spirit of cooperation has been breached we do run the risk of entering into chaos in this

particular Legislature. In principle, the sprit of the legislation that is now being

debated will be supported. The hon. Premier does not have to worry about that. It will be

supported. However, the critic who obviously has spent a significant amount of time, would

like significant time again to prepare for meaningful debate, as would other colleagues on

both sides of the House.

If the Premier is serious about this legislation, he will take that into account and

allow significant preparation time. Albeit, it is brief legislation, I acknowledge the

fact, but there may well be points of significance and importance that members on both

sides of the House will want to raise.

There is an opportunity, I now say, for the House Leader to reconsider whether or not

we enter into this particular debate at this time, or will we now return and deal with the

proceedings that both House Leaders had in fact prepared for. We can enter into the

relevant debate on the legislation as entered into Hansard and as members on both sides of

the House have anticipated for the proceedings this afternoon.

There is an issue of precedent, I say, and if in fact the continuation of cooperation

is going to exist in this House it is important that the Government House Leader

reconsider what in fact he has done, to allow us to deal with the issues that have been

anticipated by both sides, and then tomorrow, or Monday, we can enter into the debate on

the bulk water export.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: To that point of order.

Indeed there has been cooperation in most circumstances from the hon. Member for

Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader.

His own critic, this afternoon behind him, said that he was ready to do the principle

of this bill and he was ready to debate it, I say to the Member for St. John's East.

He said: I'm ready to go. I said to the Opposition House Leader: Are you ready to

proceed? Then in attempt to filibuster they said no. That is what went on here.

PREMIER TOBIN: The member here said there is no way (inaudible)..

MR. TULK: While there has been cooperation - well, I hope there will continue to be

cooperation, let me say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: When one of his own members calls to debate the bill, then the government

is obviously obliged to call the bill if he wants it called and if we are ready, and we

were ready.

PREMIER TOBIN: The Leader of the NDP called for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order.

It is really not a point of order. What agreements are reached between hon. members and

House Leaders and what legislation is called the Chair is not in control oft. It is up to

the government to call whatever legislation or whatever bill it wishes to deal with. The

Chair has no jurisdiction over those agreements, if they exist.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Hansard of this exchange today is going

to be read, because the public of Newfoundland and Labrador need to make an assessment of

who is serious about dealing with the issue of a legislated ban on the export, the removal

of bulk water, and who sees it as nothing more than a political game to be played only

when they are ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we had the member opposite on a petition calling for

the bill. While speaking on the petition raised by the Opposition member, I stood and

said: Our party is ready to move the bill right now in response to the petition. The

Leader of the NDP stood and said: This is a straightforward bill. There will be an

opportunity for clause by clause study. The NDP is ready to move right now into debate on

this bill. In the spirit of cooperation and responding to the tone of the petition which

called for the bill to be dealt with as soon as possible, two of the three parties said:

Let us make progress.

One party and one party only, the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and

Labrador, said: No, we are not prepared to debate the bill. The gentleman opposite, Mr.

Byrne, stood and said: No way will I give consent.

Mr. Speaker, are we passing a bill to ban the export of water, or are we playing

politics on an important issue in the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Another point of order. This is with respect to having something

clarified by the Premier. He referred to a member on this side of the House by his name.

If there are two people on this side of the House with the same name. Use the district, I

would say to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not quite get the point of order that the hon. member had raised.

MR. J. BYRNE: The point of order is that members in the House of Assembly are

supposed to refer to the members by their district. The Premier just referred to a member

on this side of the House by his name, and there are two members on this side of the House

with the same name. I want him to refer to the member by the district. It is

straightforward, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order.

All hon. members are aware that in this Chamber members are referred to by their

districts, and we have dealt with this issue before. All members are aware of that, and

ought not to refer to members by their first names.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, of course the point of order raised by the hon. Member

for Cape St. Francis, and concurred in by the Speaker, is absolutely correct. I would not

want to inadvertently convey the impression that the Leader of the Opposition is here

today. He is off, no doubt, on other appropriate duties on behalf of his constituents or

his Party. Indeed, it is the Member for Cape St. Francis who, when there was otherwise

consent and goodwill to pursue this bill at this time, it was the Member for Cape St.

Francis who put his Party and his House Leader in a box by standing and saying: I

don't care what the Opposition House Leader says or what my colleagues might say - I

think I am quoting him - this member will never give consent.

That is why the House is in this procedural wrangle, because one member thought he was

in a position to deny unanimous consent and to refuse to allow the elected House of

Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador to deal with a matter of great urgency. We now have

the absolutely incredible spectacle of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland

and Labrador filibustering, or attempting to filibuster, passage of a bill designed to put

in place a ban on bulk water shipments out of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let the record show that the governing Party, the Liberal Party, and the New Democratic

Party, despite the vigorous, energetic objections -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, for the record, to make sure it is accurate, the Member

for Cape St. Francis - it was on the Order Paper and the Government House Leader had every

right to call second reading today. The Member for Cape St. Francis did not deny

proceeding of this bill; it was the Opposition House Leader who indicated he was not

prepared to move on the bill because I had not seen it. It was only circulated today.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was an agreement (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We had a prior agreement.

I want it on the record that it is not the Member for Cape St. Francis who is

responsible for it not proceeding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Perhaps, if there has been some misunderstanding, I am prepared to

sit. If the Opposition House Leader is now prepared to indicate that we can, in a

collaborative way, proceed with this bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I am asking the question. It is for clarity. If the Opposition House

Leader is now - the Leader of the Opposition is here; maybe I can address my comments to

the Leader of the Opposition.

Let me assume there has been some confusion on the question. Let me now ask - now that

there is an opportunity for a moment of reflection - whether or not we cannot agree, all

of us together, since we all agree on the purpose of the bill, to proceed to the next

stage of debate with the consent of all members. Let us at least demonstrate on this issue

that we can collaborate and work together to go to the next stage of debate and have the

Opposition - second reading - participate with us in a collaborative fashion and go

through the various procedures to bring about passage of this bill in a timely fashion.

I recognize that the Leader of the Opposition has just come into the House. What we are

asking for is to move speedily, through passage of this bill today, to bring about a ban

on bulk water export in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might address whether or not his Party is prepared

to cooperate, as is the NDP, to see this bill pass without undue delay.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The bill is now being debated; it is 3:35 p.m. We have another hour to debate the bill,

and in due course if we see that the comments - we will certainly permit the Premier to

have his comments without interruption on this bill. It is duly called in order. We will

have our comments on the bill, and if we have sufficient time to conclude and have the

people who want to be on the record as supporting this bill done by 4:30 p.m. today, which

it is scheduled to be, so be it. If somebody does not get their time in, who wants to

complete it tomorrow, who wants to be on the record because it is an important piece of

legislation, we will take it as it comes; but we will not give the guarantee at this time,

at 3:36 p.m., but it may or it may not happen.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, then let me say that the response of the Opposition

House Leader is fair and reasonable. I respect and appreciate the manner in which it has

been given and that is a reasonable basis, I think, on which we can proceed.

Mr. Speaker, what I am asking for today - and if the Opposition critic has an

opportunity, together with the Justice critic, to examine the bill - is that it be given

speedy passage; that we send a signal that Newfoundland and Labrador is moving

expeditiously to put in place a ban on the removal of water in bulk form from our

Province.

There is going to be a meeting at the end of the month which the Minister of the

Environment, on behalf of this Province, will attend between the national government and

all of the provincial governments, and at that meeting the national government will be

attempting to put in place, and to ascertain whether there is a will in Canada to put in

place, a ban on the bulk removal of water from Canadian provinces and indeed from this

country.

Mr. Speaker, I think we in Newfoundland and Labrador have an opportunity to send from

this Province an early message, an early signal, a clear and unambiguous signal of where

we stand with respect to this matter. What we provided for today is a bill that bans the

bulk removal of water from our Province except where it is reasonable, in cases like where

it is used for aircraft maintenance; where it is used by Marine Atlantic, that requires

some bulk shipment across the Gulf; where it is used by bus companies. Beyond that, bulk

water cannot leave the Province for commercial purposes whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, we have put in place - it is a straightforward bill - a system of fines.

The fine would be up to $50,000 in the case of an individual, and the fine would be up to

$1 million in the case of a corporation if this ban is in any way violated. In addition to

this, we have put in place in this bill, clause 7. I want to read clause 7.(1) and 7.

(2) Clause 7.(1) "A right or privilege to remove water from the province, other than

water referred to in

section 5, vested in, acquired by or accruing to a person, by

whatever means, before the coming into force of this Act is cancelled or abrogated."

Clause 7.(2) "An action or proceeding, including an action or proceeding for

compensation or damages, does not lie against the Crown, or a minister or employee of the

Crown, for or in respect of a cancellation or abrogation of a right or privilege under

subsection (1), or in respect of a statement made or an undertaking given, whether orally

or in writing, which a person may have acted on to his or her detriment."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have also provided in this bill that no liability or

request for compensation may be made against the Crown, either in actions arising in the

future by those seeking to move bulk water from the Province or, for that matter, actions

arising out of past actions as well.

What we have is a simple bill. It does three thing. It bans the bulk export of water;

it provides sufficient penalties directed against both individuals and corporations who

would seek to violate that ban; and, three, it provides protection for the Crown so that

no compensation may arise against the Crown, or liability against the Crown, for putting

in place this bulk water ban.

Those are the matters that have been debated in public. Those are the matters that

members of the Opposition have raised. Those are the questions that government promised to

respond to.

This is not a complex bill, it is not a complicated bill. It is clear, it is direct, it

is simple, it is unambiguous, and I submit it deserves to be given speedy passage in this

place. It ought not to be the matter of a long procedural wrangle. It ought not to be a

question that causes us to call into question the future cooperation and goodwill across

the floor of the House for the business of the House. We ought to see it as an opportunity

as a Province.

The issue is closed now. The Legislature is going to deal with it, but there is an

opportunity for us as a Province to send a very unambiguous signal, to send it to the

national government, to send it to the other provinces of Canada, and to send it to those

beyond this country - elsewhere - who may thing think there is any division in this

Province over the right of the people of this Province to make our own rules, in our own

best interest, for our own reasons, for our own best use of our own resources.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the bill does, and I would again invite members opposite - I

appreciate the indication of support from the Leader of the NDP, and once the Leader of

the Opposition has a moment or two more to reflect, I would appreciate consideration of a

speedy passage of this bill so that a clear and unambiguous message may be sent about

where Newfoundland and Labrador stands in this regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

There is no question that the piece of legislation that government has tabled today is

an important piece of legislation. It is one that our Party has called for. We even took

the time to set out what we would like to see in it, in terms of the principles within the

legislation dealing with the bulk exportation of water and the type of industry that it

is, the type of industry, more importantly, that it is becoming, and the possible impacts

financially, job-wise, and the potential impacts that is has not only across the nation,

certainly, but across the globe.

It is an industry, if handled properly, that our Province is on the ground floor of

globally. We are not behind the eight ball. We are not necessarily in a position by where

we are playing catch-up. We are in a position by where, if we do it right, we take the

opportunity and the time to do it right, which is what we have called for, that this could

be a significant contributor to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know there is always an opportunity for a partisan shot to and fro across the House.

That is part and parcel of the makeup of the Legislature, it is part and parcel of the

makeup of the type of system that we operate in, but obviously there are times when that

sort of partisanship needs to be put aside and that sort of partisanship on particular

pieces of legislation of such great importance that need to take place.

The Premier has asked for consideration on speedy passage of this bill, and every

consideration will be given to the speedy passage of this bill. I have been in this

Legislature close to seven years and there have been times when we have moved quickly on

pieces of legislation without due course, without the proper amount of debate happening,

and what has happened? The next session we have had to come back and clean it up. The

consideration, and the only consideration that all of us have to be concerned about with

this piece of legislation and all pieces of legislation - but in particular we are dealing

with this one today - is the consideration of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, what

is in their best interest. That is what is at stake when we debate legislation.

All members know intimately that the most important debates in this House take place

when we debate legislation. Unfortunately there is no opportunity for the public or the

media, in terms of covering those debates, because this legislation and other pieces of

legislation that this Legislature debates and ultimately passes, that is the law of the

Province. That is the legislation that the Lieutenant-Governor in council eventually

enacts. The legislation that they enact eventually affects the individual lives and

everyday lives of every person in the Province, but very little coverage is given to it.

When it comes to the appropriate amount of debate in this House, there are Standing

Orders that allow for debate to occur in a timely fashion, in a very professional fashion,

but ultimately the Standing Orders of this House are a tried-and-true test. They are in

place to ensure that the level of debate occurs but also that the process by which debate

occurs is not hurried, it is not fast, so that every consideration can be given to any

piece of legislation.

There have been pieces of legislation debated in this Assembly by where government and

the opposition's points of view have varied and have been at both ends of the

spectrum, have been at opposite ends of the poles. When we have come to those points in

time with pieces of legislation where that occurs, it takes longer for the debate to occur

because consensus has not achieved. When that occurs, it gives time and opportunity for

every person to be informed on what is taking place.

The converse has been true, that there have been times in this House when government

and the opposition have concurred on the spirit and intent of legislation. I am only

reminded of the fact of last year when we passed amendments to the mineral mining act.

That was passed speedily, but not at the expense of proper debate. That was passed in an

effort to ensure, on another significant resource issue, that this Legislature stood its

ground, but it did not happen in two-and-a-half hours. Even though there was consensus on

the spirit and intent of what was contained in that bill, even though both the members of

the Official Opposition and members of government were in tune and in concert with the

legislation, the clauses in the legislation, it did not happen in two hours, because that

would have been a travesty. If that had to happen, the appropriate amount of debate would

not have taken place.

I can say to members opposite and I can say it to the Premier, because I know he has to

dart out - and I do not mean to refer to the member in his absence, but I know he had to

go - be assured that we will pass this legislation if the principles contained in it, and

when we have the appropriate time to assess it - that does not necessarily mean it has to

be unduly dragged out for a long time, but we are going to do our job with it. Part of our

job is that when we get legislation we evaluate it properly, that our critic has time,

because there is nobody in this House who understands this issue better than the Member

for St. John's South - nobody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: In two-and-a-half years, the implications of free trade.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a true statement. How broad it may be is up to you to decide,

but it is a true statement. The implications under NAFTA were first raised in this House

by the Member for St. John's South. He understood clearly what this industry was.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is all nonsense.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is nonsense?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is an interesting statement, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show that the Minister for Mines

and Energy said the implications of NAFTA are all bull and we know it.

If that is the case, how is it that your federal cousins and your buddies in Ottawa

have asked for a national ban because of the implications on NAFTA, and they have asked

the provinces to participate in a national ban.

The reality is, the Minister of Mines and Energy will have his opportunity in this

debate like anybody else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is a living, breathing example of why we should not

move too fast with this debate; because my good friend, the Minister of Mines and Energy,

would not have his opportunity to put his two cents worth in. If we had to move swiftly

and pass it immediately, he would have been denied his opportunity. I am not going to be

accused of denying that member his opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation. That

I can tell you.

The reality is that when it comes to the impact of bulk water, the Member for St.

John's South clearly understands the implications of this nationally and

internationally. There is no question in my mind about that. For those who are in the

know, they understand that too.

This is an opportunity today to clearly focus in on this legislation, an emerging

industry, and what it means to the Province. Had we proceeded without this legislation, it

would have been the wrong thing to do. Every other resource in this Province, where it is

being exploited, is done under a legislative and regulatory framework. The Minister of

Mines and Energy, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and the former, former Minister

of Mines and Energy, know full well that in this House we debated a generic royalty regime

dealing with how royalties would be impacted from our offshore oil and gas industry -

there is no question about it - so that any company coming to the Province to participate

or exploit that resource came here, will come here, has come here, will come here in full

knowledge of what the rules of the game are, they understand what the rules of the field

are, and that will have to do so under that regulatory and legislative regime.

The same way in the fishery. We control the processing sector; the minister does in

terms of licensing, the federal government in terms of the quota system and harvesting.

Any company who wants to get involved in the fishery, to develop it, to make a profit, can

do so, but the Crown, that minister, is responsible for telling them how they will do it

and how it will be done in the best interest of the people of the Province.

The same way with the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, so that we have a vibrant

forestry industry - Abitibi and Kruger, who are involved in the industry, who are

developing the industry - the minister, on behalf of the people of the Province, the

minister of the Crown tells them: If you are going to do so, if you are going to continue

to exploit that industry, then here are the rules. Here are the rules by which you are

going to do it. Here is how much you must invest in siliviculture programs. Here is the

rate of return to the Province in terms of being a corporate citizen. The same must be

true for this industry, and until and unless we pass legislation putting into law how this

industry will be governed, how future developers and entrepreneurs who we want to come

here are going to be told how this industry is going to be developed and what this

Legislature, on behalf of the people of the Province, want on behalf of the people of the

Province, then we should not move forward.

It has been pointed out to me, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy - and he can

reflect upon it and talk about it when he gets up - when it comes to the national ban on

bulk exports, the Minister of Environment and Labour wrote the federal government, calling

upon the federal government to comprehensively address the trade and national policy

impacts of this project as part of its ongoing review.

So obviously that minister, on behalf of the Crown, who I can only assume represents

the will of Cabinet on this particular issue, wrote the national government asking for

issues of clarity on trade implications. What was the impact of this project on NAFTA? So

it is not clear. If it was clear, the Minister of Environment and Labour, on behalf of the

Crown and on behalf of the Cabinet, would not have written that. He would have been able

categorically to stand -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition has just made my

point completely.

In his speaking and addressing the Legislature, he made a comment which cannot be

allowed to stand on the record of this Legislature as fact. He stated that the Member for

St. John's South knows the international trade implications with respect to bulk

export of water. The fact of the matter is that the Free Trade Agreements are silent on

as to whether there are implications or not.

The Premier of the Province raised it in New England, with a meeting of the New England

Governors and the Premiers of the Atlantic Provinces, with the two ambassadors for Canada

and United States in attendance. Nobody has given an answer. Mr. Crosbie, who wrote and

was the Minister of the Free Trade Agreement for Canada at the time, says that it is

silent on the issue. It may be contested at some point in time but you cannot have the

record of this House suggest that any one member here, no matter which side and who he or

she is and may be, knows the full implications of Free Trade Agreements and bulk water,

because we are asking - and the Minister of Environment and Labour did ask - the

they have not spoken on the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is a disagreement between two hon. members.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

The Minister of Mines and Energy just proved my point. Just because he does not know

does not mean that the Member for St. John's South does not know. The reality is that

you said that there were no implications on free trade. That is what he said. There were

no implications on the bulk export of water in free trade, that is what you said. The

point is that the government were so concerned that they wrote the federal government to

ask for an assessment. The point of the matter is that it is unclear and that we have to

proceed with caution.

MR. GRIMES: You just said the Member for St. John's South knows everything

about it, and knows for a fact. Now you are saying it is unclear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I said you were unclear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) there again, muddying the water.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is that muddy on him right now, he doesn't even know where

the sunlight is. He doesn't even know which way is up and which way is down. That is

the way he is. There is a real edge to the Minister of Mines and Energy in the last year

or so. I don't know why. I can't figure it out. He is a different member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You did? Very good.

Mr. Speaker, the point of the matter is that when it comes to the implications on

NAFTA, that the Member for St. John's South has pointed our clearly on any number of

occasions in this House, outside of this House, in speaking engagements, that there are

serious concerns about the implications of exporting bulk water.

Government themselves obviously must have the same opinion because they have written

the federal government to ask for an assessment of those implications. If there were no

implications, I would say that we would be having a different debate in this Legislature

today, because it was clear that this project was on and that the plug was pulled on it

because of a federal request, because the federal government needed time to assess the

implications on NAFTA, and that is what we called for.

Mr. Speaker, this is going to be an interesting debate. It is going to be a debate

about how this industry should emerge on behalf of all of us in the Province. It is going

to be a debate on what will be in the best interest in the Province, and I can assure the

government and the Government House Leader that once we have - and we will - a full

assessment and an evaluation of the clause-by-clause pieces of this bill - because the

spirit and the intent is one thing. We have seen the spirit and the intent of the Atlantic

Accord compromised in the last four or five years. Any law worth its salt, once it is

passed, if it is not fought for vigilantly, the rights that were obtained in law are lost.

The clause-by-clause sections of this bill are the most important because the devil is

always in the details.

We will, in time, in the best way possible, in the fastest way possible, move to

implement the spirit and intent of this piece of legislation, but not without being given

the appropriate time to evaluate it, assess it, and where we think that it should be

enhanced, and where we think and where we can demonstrate that sections should be added,

or that amendments should be made that will strengthen and enhance the opportunity for the

people of this Province to benefit from this industry, then we will make those amendments

and those assessments known to this Legislature, but not on a simple request to be done

immediately because the government has asked. That is not something that we are going to

participate in. We will do it as fast as we can based upon the assessments and the

evaluations that we get.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the Member for St. John's South, it being Thursday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to read the questions for today's Late Show. The first question is: Mr.

Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Education, re my

questions on the use of the Canning Report. That is a question from the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health and

Community Services, re my question on knowledge of unacceptable levels of chemicals in the

drinking water of at least forty-nine communities. That is the Opposition House

Leader's question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to forego the Late Show to allow for

people who need to speak on this debate. At least that is some extra time, because we have

people here who would like to address this issue. Then you won't have to track down

(inaudible).

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to tie this up unduly. There are a

couple of issues here that I would like to get some clarification on from the environment

minister, if he would do that for us prior to going into third reading. I would like to

have these clarified prior to that.

This is a bill that we have been calling for, so I am very pleased to see that this

bill is brought before the House. We have been asking for this now for almost three years.

We have been asking for the ban of bulk water export from this Province for almost three

years, and it is something that has gained great public acceptance and great public

support.

We in this Party on this side of the House support the intent of what this bill is

intended to do, and that is to ban the bulk export of water from this Province. Let me be

very clear on that: we support the intent of this.

There are a couple of areas that I would like clarified, and I will be very

straightforward with the House of Assembly and with the Minister of Environment. We are

going to seek legal advice on this prior to giving our consent on it. We are going to

ensure that this is in the best interest of people of this Province. That is the reason we

were hesitant to move as quickly as the Premier wanted us to today. It is not because we

want to tie this up. We agree with the intent of this legislation. We agree with the

banning of bulk water export.

If we had to have an advance copy, or if we had to have a copy even this morning, we

would not be hesitant to move forward; but, as our leader pointed out, we have seen

legislation pushed through this House very quickly, such as the mining act, on which we

have had to come back, and we have regretted having it pushed through so quickly.

While everything looks great on the surface with this, we want to make sure that it is

good, that it is in the best interest of the people of this Province, and that we are

protecting our resource and our rights to our resource.

If I can catch the ear of the Minister of Environment for a moment because, as I have

said, there are a couple of areas here that I would like clarified prior to moving into

third reading. Under

section 5.(c), I say to the minister, "the water is used to

transport food or an industrial product out of the province...".

I would ask the Minister of Environment if he could explain to us exactly what that

clause means and where it would be used, and whether or not there are any restrictions on

what it means. I would give leave to the minister to do that now, if he would, so that we

could clarification on that

article within the bill.

MR. LANGDON: Do you want to make the other points and do it all the one time?

MR. T. OSBORNE: There is only one other point.

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

The other point that I would like to make on this is again under

section 5 -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) after you, I presume the Speaker will come to this side. It

will be the minister, if he is closing debate, or whenever he closes debate, and then he

can clarify any points you have.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Actually, if I could ask the minister, as opposed to having the

minister close debate, I would like to have the opportunity to have it come back in case I

need further clarification on what he says.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) committee stage.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I was saying that I would like to have that clarified before going

into Committee, clause-by-clause.

I will give the minister leave on that one item, if he would.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just a clarification on that one item, and then there is only one

other item I am going to ask you for clarification on. If we could get clarification on

that item, then I will proceed.

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

MR. LANGDON: If water is used to transport food, I guess, by ship - if your ship is

at the dock here and you are carrying food away in boats, then obviously you will be able

to do that for industrial purposes. If you have some manufactured stuff, for example, in

Marystown and you wanted to put water in the ship to take it to Voisey's Bay, or

wherever they are going to do that particular outfit, then you would be able to do that.

It is a form of bulk water, but it is used in ship or truck, whatever the case may be.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: I ask the minister: Is it limited to that? Is there any way we can

perhaps tighten up the wording there to make sure that it is limited to what you are

saying?

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

MR. LANGDON: I will take these questions and work with you in Committee to make

sure that it is done.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: The other item that I would ask the minister for some clarification

on is item (

d) under

section 5 as well. "The water is removed for a non-commercial

purpose approved by the minister, including for safety or humanitarian purposes." The

comment, "for safety or humanitarian purposes", I have no difficulty with that

whatsoever, but I would ask if the minister could clarify exactly what is mean by

"the water is removed for non-commercial purpose..." and why it would only

require the approval of the minister. With no prejudice to the current minister - it could

be any minister, it could be me after the next election - why would it be on the approval

of only the minister?

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"The water is removed for a non-commercial purpose approved by the minister,

including for safety or humanitarian purposes", is self-explanatory.

Let's suppose, for example, and God forbid that it would ever come to that - I

don't know, I am just using hypothetical cases - that somewhere in Africa or in South

America or Central America there was drought and people were actually dying because of

water, or whatever the case might be, then, from a humanitarian point of service where

there was no money involved, there was no contract, then probably we might be able to use

that water in these circumstances. I cannot even think of a situation, as the Premier

already said today. It is not for commercial usage; it is just for humanitarian purposes.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under item (d), if it were to read that the water is removed for

non-commercial purpose approved by the minister, intended for safety or humanitarian

purposes, I would have no problem with it, but it says including. That is very broad. It

opens it up to almost any non-commercial purpose. That could go almost as far as your mind

can imagine. That there, I think, is a cause for concern. Other than that, I say to the

minister, I have no real concern with any of the other clauses here.

I will say that, pending advice - we are going to seek legal advice on this - but right

now, on the surface, I have no problem with any other parts of the bill pending the advice

we get from legal council. I see no reason to hold it up, but I would like to hear back

from them before we proceed into Committee, voting and approving this.

I am certain that once we get into Committee and third reading I think we are going to

ask for some amendments to those clauses, just to ensure that they are tightened up, to

ensure that the people of this Province are protected and that this resource is protected.

These are very broad and very open-ended statements and can be applied to almost anything

for any reason and at any time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments on this for the time being and look

forward to third reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of this bill as well. Clearly it is a bill that the

people of the Province have cried out for and have said that they want passage of to

protect one of the resources that, as time goes by, will become clearly more important

than it was in years past.

Fresh, clean drinking water today is something that is a very precious commodity. Not

every country in the world has it and we have an abundance. I think that as we market that

water for export, we should be able to realize the most benefit for us as a Province that

is possible to realize.

I would like to say that even though we talked here today about the Free Trade

Agreement and t